Windows Server 2003 SP2 Goes Thump in the Night
|
For anyone else that missed it, yesterday Microsoft released Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2, although news is just getting around this afternoon. |
Does that make it a yawner announcement? Probably not, but the timing—right after daylight-saving time—is problematic, which may be why the service pack's release went largely unnoticed. Not that Microsoft trumpeted SP2 availability. Do we detect a sheepish release?
For IT organizations struggling to fix out-of-date calendars and patch additional Windows PCs, the server update is untimely—and for some, probably unwanted. Who really would want to immediately start qualifying and deploying yet another behemoth Microsoft update, following weeks of patching Exchange Servers, Outlook clients or various versions of Windows?
The stealth release could bring pain of its own, depending on how IT organizations have configured their systems to receive updates. There is a tool kit for blocking the service pack, but what good is it if there is no notification that the update is coming?
On her SBS Diva blog, Susan Bradley, a Small Business Server MVP, scolded Microsoft for releasing Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 without notice.
"Microsoft? You gave us admins a heads up before XP SP2 was Microsoft updated out to our boxes ..why can't you give us a heads up on this? The MSRC blog says 'no patches'...and, yes, I understand that they don't consider a service pack a 'security patch,' but anything that you vaguely hint to on that advance notice day should be discussed fully on your blog. Right now even the Microsoft Update blog isn't blogging that SP2 is out. Microsoft...you tell us that's coming out before you shoot it out on Microsoft update will you?"
It's a big update, if Microsoft's list of updates is any indication. And there are some interesting tools, such as the hotfix tool for testing which "hotfixes that will potentially regress after you install" SP2, according to the Microsoft support page. Yikes!
Microsoft shouldn't want to give IT organizations a reason to flip off update services, but this stealth service pack release could be good reason to do just that.
Important downloads:
- Tool kit to temporarily block delivery of Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2
- Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 32-bit support tools
- System preparation tool for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 deployment
- Hotfix scan tool for Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2 deployment
- Windows Server 2003 Server Pack 2 32-bit
- Windows Server 2003 Server Pack 2 64-bit
- Windows Server 2003 Server Pack 2 Itanium
We purposely put the actual service pack links last in the list, under the assumption that many IT organizations would want more preparation to deploy the update.
Microsoft Watch readers, please tell us what you think about Microsoft's method. What do you think of timing or notification? You can comment to this post or drop a line to our Tips Mailbox. People that are clearly identified would be most likely quoted in a follow-up post. Please, let's generate some lively discussion.
Comments (20)
"SP2 is an optional update from the Windows Update site. After three months on Windows Update site, SP2 will also be offered via Automatic Updates. Even there, SP2 will not install automatically until the End User License Agreement has been accepted."
Posted by Roger | March 13, 2007 9:17 PM
As a small shop with only one IT person, I find this, sorry to say the norm. Do I like it? Not in the least. I haven't gotten all the bugs worked out of the DST event yet. Now I have to check all of my 11 servers to ensure that they are not on auto update. And as a small shop, I can't afford to test anything, don't have the test lab or equipment. I rely heavily on this and other sites to keep me informed as to when something is safe to install.
Add to this my growing number of private clients and boy did I not need this!
Posted by Rich Schierer | March 14, 2007 12:07 PM
I'mm glad Microsoft released SP2. With the DST patches in, we have a known state that should be working, right? So do do your testing and so forth, then apply the new service pack.
Posted by Craig Roberts | March 14, 2007 12:24 PM
Too bad that Microsoft didn't give us more warning on this. We're a small shop, but having to patch nearly 30 servers is no picnic. I'm still in DST verification mode in addition to a host of other major network projects. With an IT Dept of 2 people, this SP will devour resources at a time I can ill afford.
Posted by Christine Winsor | March 14, 2007 12:36 PM
I have no problem with Microsoft releasing a Service Pack. I have a problem with the lack of notice. I have seen a few things lately that hinted it was coming, but for a Service Pack, I would expect a bit more heads up.
As a Premier customer, I get an e-mail a week before and a day before patches are released. This month the e-mails mention that "No new Microsoft Security Bulletins will be released on March 13, 2007" and that "Microsoft will release four NON-SECURITY High-Priority Updates on Microsoft Update (MU) and Windows Server Update Services (WSUS)."
I didn't see any mention of SP2 in there.
Posted by Michael | March 14, 2007 12:43 PM
I'm in the same boat as Rich. We're a small shop, too. We as a firm would rather focus our very limited IT budget on improving our technological function rather than patching and securing what we already have. It does not serve us.
Where I disagree is that we shouldn't accept this as the norm. We as an IT community need to work to find ways to hold Microsoft responsible and liable for the loss in productivity they have caused on anyone running their products. I don't believe we have to accept their license agreement jargon at face value. They have failed to maintain a standard of competency that anyone would expect from any company. Were it not for their size, complex products, and lack of formidable competition - a large scale legal and market retaliation would have already happened.
Posted by Greg Moore | March 14, 2007 12:48 PM
And it's nice to see that Microsoft doesn't support it's own 'latest and greatest' OS. Vista is not on the list of supported OS's for installation. Either that, or they don't think any administrators would touch Vista. Once again, another case for having to run XP as a virtual machine within Vista.
Sad, actually :(
Posted by Chris Sz | March 14, 2007 2:39 PM
I thinks I smell a rat in Greg Moore's comments, not to mention Chris Sz.
If the "limited IT budget" in Moore's organization is "focused on improving technological function," why does a free service pack that does not need to ever be installed threaten the effort? Presumably the service pack would in and of itself "improve technological function" if it was necessary to install it.
I have a Windows 2003 Server w/o SP 1. I'm not proud of it, but the owner won't agree to a patching schedule, so ... And yet it's still running. Imagine that. And I haven't had police at the door telling me that I MUST upgrade to R2 either.
Posted by Patrick C. | March 14, 2007 4:38 PM
Read the release notes! There's a line in there that says if you installed IE7 after installing SP1 you must uninstall IE7 before you install SP2. How crazy is that?!?! Also, it doesn't say what happend if you don't do that.
Hopefully they'll release an updated SP2 that fixes this like they did with SQL2005 SP2.
Posted by Rico | March 14, 2007 6:13 PM
Read the release notes! There's a line in there that says if you installed IE7 after installing SP1 you must uninstall IE7 before you install SP2. How crazy is that?!?! Also, it doesn't say what happend if you don't do that.
Hopefully they'll release an updated SP2 that fixes this like they did with SQL2005 SP2.
Posted by Rico | March 14, 2007 6:14 PM
Read the release notes before installing! One of the lines states that if you've installed IE7 on a server after having installed SP1 you must uninstall IE7 before putting SP2 on there! What it doesn't say though is what happens if you don't do that.
Posted by Rico | March 14, 2007 6:28 PM
Oooops, my browser went into a bit of a refresh loop and looks like I've posted the same thing a few times :-).
Ironically, it's IE7.
Posted by Rico | March 14, 2007 6:31 PM
Hi Rico (cubed) -- I was wondering about the IE7 uninstall bit from the release notes myself. I just installed sp2 on a x64 Win2K3 SP1 system that'd been updated to IE7. The service pack installed without complaint. I don't see any ugly repercussions so far...
Posted by Jason Brooks | March 14, 2007 6:42 PM
Hi Jason, me again :-).
I've asked Microsoft what the repercussions are, if any, of not uninstalling IE7 first. I'll post their response when I get it.
Posted by Rico | March 14, 2007 7:00 PM
From IE blog:
"IE7 users can upgrade directly to Windows Server 2003 SP2 without uninstalling IE7 first. There has been some confusion around this point. We are in the process of updating the release notes to clarify this issue."
Posted by Roger | March 15, 2007 11:30 PM
Oops...I didn't read the release notes, either!
I installed SP2 on my home test Server 2003 before reading the notes. My DHCP server seems to have stopped giving out IP leases, though it is showing that it is working fine.
Any thoughts on this one?
Posted by Tom Kemp | March 16, 2007 10:34 PM
Hi,
OK the release notes should have been updated by now. Basically there is no problem with installing SP2 on a server that already has IE7 installed.
The issue seems to come from upgrading a server that had IE7 on there with a slipstreamed SP2 installation CD (say to recover a server). This will put IE6 back on to the server and, apparently, all you'd have to do is reinstall IE7.
Posted by Rico | March 18, 2007 5:17 PM
What a bunch of whiny biotches..!
Posted by WhinyBiotches | April 3, 2007 7:12 PM
Hey Rico, don't blame the browser because you can't figure out how to post.
You words means nothing now, go back to pushing the print button over and over.
I don;'t se what the fuss is about, I would be embarrased to employ half of you here, you do NOT have to install R2 and it isn't automatic. IN fact if ANY of you have automatic install turned on, you are not worthy of an IT moniker in the first place.
Posted by Eric | April 27, 2007 8:12 AM
Hey Eric,
Who died and make you Kind of giving out IT monikers? You could try to be a bigger dick, but I doubt you'd get far.
Posted by David | June 12, 2007 10:05 PM