The extension of daylight-saving time by a month in the United States is causing enormous grief for some IT administrators running Microsoft software, as many of the software programs running on their users' systems need to be individually patched to reflect the change. This year, daylight-saving time starts today - three weeks earlier than usual - and ends a week later than usual on Nov. 4.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-12
Member since:2005-07-08
Thanks for the clarifications guys. A flat fee is way more reasonable, but I'm sure small businesses would have liked to do something better with that $4,000. Perhaps buying a new server with the latest in Microsoft's glorious line of server software?
I mean, this patch is a glorified registry hack. It's easy to see why Microsoft could feel entitled to charge $4,000 for supporting an OS that was EOL-ed just a few months before this DST change hit the books, but shouldn't they feel a obligation to their customers to resolve such a widespread and ultimately trivial issue?
I won't be surprised to hear in a couple days that some wise guy was distributing an unofficial DST update tool that does all sorts of other nastiness. The administrator's fault for using it? Yes. Microsoft's fault for holding out in the name of the lifecycle policy? I think so.
I say we all send our bills to the US congress...this stupid bill has a ton of folks up in arms, and the cost it's inflicting within IT and elsewhere more than outweighs any "perceived" benefit that it offers.
I think this is the key point here. How much energy do they really expect this DST change to save? It sure cost businesses some measurable sums in IT expenses. I'd so much rather have the "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act," since at least nothing is forced upon us, and our money goes towards making a promising technology more feasible and affordable.
As long at the Sun continues to regulate the temperature within reasonable limits, I'm happy. I sit in an office with no windows for most of the day anyway, and I'm sure this is pretty common amongst the IT workers affected by this law. Now, if Congress would make a law that keeps the banks open for an additional hour, I'd be interested.
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2005-07-06
...especially if they are running an 8 year old OS.
Dude. A lot of companies are running their back end critical systems on mainframes with code in it that is twenty five, thirty or nearly forty years old. I hate to break this to you, but for Microsoft to continue to be relevant, companies are actually going to expect them to support Windows and other software for that length of time. The only reason why they feel that they can get away with it is because the PC industry os so young. It isn't the mid nineties any more.
Microsoft just don't grok that.
Member since:2005-07-02
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-08
I think the $4,000.00 price tag for the fix is being overhyped. I used the following page and patched our Windows 2000 Servers for free:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914387
The other products (such as Exchange) if you are not running the latest versions will require parting with some cash:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb267339.aspx
Member since:2006-05-22
Member since:
2005-07-06
It's not per server, it's a flat fee just to get the patch. What you do with the patch is up to you after that. For most IT departments, that's a negligible cost, aka "the cost of doing business" especially if they are running an 8 year old OS.
I say we all send our bills to the US congress...this stupid bill has a ton of folks up in arms, and the cost it's inflicting within IT and elsewhere more than outweighs any "perceived" benefit that it offers.