A new beta SP1 build, 1023, was made available to Microsoft beta testers. Changes include:– IDE ATA and ATAPI Disks Use PIO Mode After Multiple Time-Out or CRC Errors Occur.
– Computer Stops Responding When Running BPStress.exe, Error in UsbhFdoCleanup Process
– “Error on a Request to Write Data to Media” Error Message When You Use Ntbackup.exe
– Routing Entry Is Not Deleted from the Routing Table After Network Adapter Is Disconnected from the Network
– When You Disconnect and Reconnect Your Primary Network Adapter, the Secondary Adapter No Longer Works
– Windows Server 2003 Stops Responding During the Windows Update Process
– STOP 0xA Error Occurs When a Program Accesses a File on a Single Instance Store Managed Volume
– Computer Stops Responding with “Stop 0x000000D1 Driver_IRQL_Not_Less_Or_Equal” Error Message
– “STOP 0x000000D1” Error Message When You Try to Run Ntbackup.exe
– System Information Reports Incorrect Number of Processors When You Run an IBM eServer x440 in a 16-Way Configuration
– Cannot Connect to a Windows-Based Server That Is Running NAT If the Client Source Port Is 1723
– Multiple Removal Messages Appear When You Hot Remove SCSI Adapter in Windows Server 2003
– Download – MS03-020: June, 2003, Cumulative Patch for Internet Explorer
– Cannot Drag Objects in the Active Directory Users and Computers Snap-in
– Computer Does Not Shut Down and You Receive a “System Could Not Find the Environment Option That Was Entered” Error Message When You – Schedule a Shutdown Task by Using the AT Command
– Problems Occur When a Program Tries to Access a USB 2.0 DVD Drive or CD-RW Drive
Computer Stops Responding with “DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL” Stop Error If CD-ROM Drive or Tape Device Is Connected to SCSI Controller
Windows Server 2003 SP1 Beta Build 1023 Available to Beta Testers
A new beta SP1 build, 1023, was made available to Microsoft beta testers. Changes include:– IDE ATA and ATAPI Disks Use PIO Mode After Multiple Time-Out or CRC Errors Occur.
while still waiting for SP2 for XP we get a SP1 for win2k3? bwahahah.. didnt take long.. i remmeber XP ‘getting rid of service packs’ heh.. or was it 2000 that claimed that…
>we get a SP1 for win2k3? bwahahah.. didnt take long
this is the beta. It is expected to be released at the end of the year, not now.
RE: df (IP: —.in-addr.btopenworld.com)
Microsoft never said ANYTHING like that at ANY time. What they did say is that they were going to have service packs coming out on a regular basis and that from Win2000 SP4 and Win2003, that they were going to make sure all the bugs are fixed rather than trying to rush it to meet a certain deadline.
Also, the service pack HAS to be released so that the new processor, AMD Opteron is fully supported.
Can someone please kill of posts like df (IP: —.in-addr.btopenworld.com).
When this news site can within two weeks post Microsoft’s new policy for service packs, can post glorious articles about Microsoft testing, etc., and then also post an announcement of a new service pack in BETA, surely indicates that the lights are on, but no one is home.
First of all, “beta” has a defined meaning in software development. It typically means “core features complete”. For companies that don’t have a “gamma” release, it should be close to shipping quality.
From SQA, but most definitions are similar:
Beta is the test period during which the product should be of “FCS quality” (it is complete and usable in a production environment). The purpose of the Beta ship and test period is to test the company’s ability to deliver and support the product (and not to test the product itself). Beta also serves as a chance to get a final “vote of confidence” from a few customers to help validate our own belief that the product is now ready for volume shipment to all customers.
Second, Microsoft has communicated their new service pack policy regarding features vs. fixing bugs. Is it real or is it just an announcement like I said it was?
I don’t know why OSNews seems to want to have all positive feedback for particular topics. It really makes the place feel like it is “corporate news” with none of the dynamism that comes from diverse opinions on each topic. Moderating down any dissent from corporate press releases doesn’t make for an interesting website.
> I don’t know why OSNews seems to want to have all positive feedback for particular topics.
Your previous comment was just a flame michael, it had nothing to do with positive or negative feedback. You can be negative to MS or any other vendor and still keep some integrity instead of flaming right and left without providing any real information, e.g. “Microsoft ships features. They don’t really test to see if the features work all that well.”. How stupid and untrue is that? From where I stand, very.
If you ship a software product, the piece of it that provide functionality to the user of that product are typically called “features”.
If said “features” have tons of “bugs” — i.e. they do not work as they are supposed to work — then one can conlude that not enough testing was done to see if said “features” worked in the first place. This is not a mindless attack; it is simple deductive logic.
If an entire service pack which typically comprises many bugs fixes is already in “beta”, then by definition, there were many “features” that had “bugs” at ship and only now are the bug fixes ready to go. The bug fixes didn’t come out of nowhere, after all. And “beta” means that the bug fixes have been tested internally and are ready for customers.
You know Microsoft has a long history of not fixing bugs, sometimes not ever, sometimes not for a long time. I could go and post thousands of articles documenting Microsoft’s poor attitude on bugs and security next time, in typical Microsoft prove-it-from-the-beginning-of-time style, but I know you wouldn’t like that either.
If at the heart of the matter, my criticism was so far off the wall it was patently untrue, people would just laugh at the crazy man.
However, with Microsoft and their poor performance on security and bugs, it is a very real issue. Why don’t you ask Symantec or any of the other anti-virus companies about it? They seem to be very happy creating capable solutions to help the customer deal with Microsoft’s lack of security and rampant bugs.
Microsoft’s poor quality results in billions of dollars of extra expenditure by their customers. That is reality. Don’t blame me for bringing it up.
I wish I could laugh at you, Michael, I really do. I come to OS News to read information about various operating systems and aspects of their construction and function. I expect a reasoned, well-informed debate regarding the posted news articles. But, what I get under EVERY SINGLE Windows/Microsoft article are your insane rantings about Microsoft’s products and business practices. You restrict yourself to two points of view:
1. That MS products are so terribly built and so terribly flawed as to be useless.
2. That MS is an extension of the Orwellian thought police, and as such are nothing but an extension of purest evil.
OK, we get it. Can we move on, please?
And, lest you accuse me of being a Microsoft apologist, I’m typing this on my iBook. I use both, being a practical sort.
I test a lot of Microsoft’s major software, including Windows and Office. There is a LOT of work put into testing the software and, generally, if a feature does not work correctly they won’t ship it, flat out. Have you even read about the amount of rigerous testing that goes on internally at Microsoft?
Making a claim like that is both stupid and arrogant.
There are many (read all) companies who end up never fixing a certain bugs in their software… heck, somtimes said ‘bug’s are intended… just because you consider it a bug doesn’t mean it is one.
Points taken. And so:
(1) I will make an effort in my resistance to the company that holds monopolies on personal computer operating systems, office suites, and browsers, to be less ranting and instead point out the business ramifications of supporting a monopoly.
(2) I will endeavor to point out the chilling effect that the Microsoft monopoly has had on the software industry. I will list all the companies that I know about where Microsoft has stolen their technology.
(3) I will focus on the bugs and security holes in Microsoft products, being careful not be portray the products as “useless”.
(4) When Microsoft products are indeeded “flawed”, I will point out the billions of dollars in productivity that are wasted because of Microsoft’s poor designs, poor usability testing, poor QA, and poor record of listening to their customers.
And you will see I am right about Microsoft and the “thought police”.
What do you want a new SP for XP ?
Well, as for being untested, thats ridiculous. Ive been Beta testing the new version of MS Office for almost a year. That sounds like good testing to me.
And when I report bugs, I usually recieve an email from a live person within a day or two, trying to solve the problem. Ive had people work with me for weeks trying to solve bugs, and the staff really does seem to be trying to solve all the problems.
No, its not perfect, but they do try.
While we all know that Microsofts business and technical practices are extremely competitive to the extent that they can be detrimental sometimes, we need to acknowledge them as a major contender in the information technology industry. Heck, the industry will be boring without them.
P.S. I’m not a big fan of Microsoft products and or services, but I do appreciate their input in the industry.
Let’s wait until Office 2003 ships. And then let’s see how many bugs, flaws, and security holes it contains.
Just to stimulate objective thinking… where do you think Office crash protection is from? It’s a “feature” designed to help deal with a number of “unfixable” crash bugs in Office. Now Office crashes less than it used to. But it still does crash (or Windows crashes) and people lose information. And by “Windows” I mean “all in use versions of Windows”. XP is used by a minority of Windows customers. When people lose information, they lose productivity, creating substantive negative economic consequences.
Microsoft has “process”. They talk to people. They employ hordes of staff. They all do something, even if it is talk about bugs and spend weeks trying to track down a bug.
The final arbiter of testing is “delivered quality to the market”. The product is usable and stable. Features work.
Microsoft has to put Office into a year of “beta” testing because Microsoft has a low quality codebase. And because Microsoft produces a product that is far too complex for the needs of the majority of their customers.
Part of the result of having a “low quality” codebase is being unable to ship “Simple Office” and “Complex Office”.
Many customers would love a rock-solid never-crashes “Simple Office” instead of dealing with “Complex Office”.
Of course, Microsoft makes giant profits by selling you — and making you pay for — features you do not use, many of which you don’t know even exist.
So let’s wait until ship and see how well a calendar year of testing will work for Office 2003.
More and more bashing. If you dont like Office, dont buy it. Unlike Windows, where you are almost forced to buy it if getting a retail computer, 95% of computers today dont ship with Office.
It is completly your choice to buy it,and there are plenty of “simpler” alternatives. Use them and stop complaining.
If Eugenia posts an article about OpenOffice or any other program, I wouldn’t take it upon myself to bash that for no reason or relation to that article.
And WindowsXP is fine for stability. Is it the best out there? IMO, no. But its not like the 9x series. XP has never crashed on me and I dont know what your problem with Service Packs are.
You just seem needlessly angry.
PS. And Microsoft puts a year of beta testing in because thats called DEVELOPMENT. The latest Linux kernel has been in the “testing” phase for how long? Does that mean its a bad code base? I suppose you’ll say Gentoo is bad as well, for having long betas.
good point.. contrasutra, if you don’t like it, don’t use it
Michael, for some reason does it make you feel bigger bashing microsoft?
sorry, last line wasn’t meant as a smartelic remark, and not to start a fight..
To be reasonable, I must specifically tell people when I voice my opinions that I not only dislike windows greatly I also hate microsoft’s business practices. These are definately two seperate things entirely. I cant go off on windows by citing anti-microsoft crap.
That being said I have a windows server 2003 evaluation cd on the floor somewhere I’ve been meaning to play with at some point just to see what the fuss is all about. I’m fascinated with software. Hey, if nothing else I have valid license to use the fonts under GNU/Linux.
I cant snap about releasing beta service packs. Extended betas are good, but I really dont get the idea of a beta service pack myself.
But then again I have zero faith in microsoft’s ability to concentrate on the code and get things working properly and securely. It paints a nice detailed picture when a large number of windows users will actually hesitate to patch their systems because they’re worried about what new ways microsoft is going to force them to take it up the butt so to speak. This is a colorful exageration on my part but still a reality that many if not most users dont even have that level of trust for the company they buy from. This fear has little to do with windows and everything to do with trust in microsoft. As many here will note, windows doesnt crash and burn as often as it used to and most of the major newsworthy exploits involved holes patched for months ago. It’s just too bad that many users have so little faith that they refuse to patch, or the sysadmins arent ‘good enough’ to patch for bugs often (and get jammed up the rear with random things such as new licensing issues or really bad bugs like that service pack ms released a while ago that accidentally disabled internet connectivity for a few hundred users before they pulled it).
once bitten, twice shy?
To be fair, linux isnt the big open source example of security either (or osx, with it’s darwin base) but it isnt in any way comparible to windows. Also to be fair, I am unwilling to install openbsd just for security because I am not willing to give up features I enjoy using such as ALSA and being able to use the native posix threading library with kernel 2.5’s O(1) scheduler. I like my toys, I use gentoo.
I assume many windows people also refuse to give up certain features they use for added security. It’s a whole different market.
Opinions are like a**holes. Everyone has one and they all stink. *drumhit* This has been mine and I certainly wont force it on you, even if I dont understand you freaky windows people.
I will state right now that I am a Linux enthusiast. I will also state that I do a lot of support for Windows products (OS’s, suites, whatever). I have to admit there is improvement in their offerings – plain and simple. On the other hand, I find the design of Server 2003 to be slightly daft…
I was recently do some specs for a Server 2003 rollout when, not too surprisingly, I found that Exchange 2000 is not supported at all. This is just f#$%ed! Apparently, the changes to AD are so great that these 2 are incompatible. Nice!
IMHO, this is an enormous expense for businesses that don’t take the time to spec out things and take compatability for granted. In the meantime, 2000 server will just have to kepp rolling along…
Just my $0.02.
We always used to refer to the definition of “beta” as the first final release of any Microsoft product, take 2003, for example. Now that they are finally releasing a service pack it is slowly getting closer to production quality.
Have you ever worked in an all Microsoft shop? The industry is boring WITH them. UNIX is far more interesting for me to work on than Windows. At least when I work on UNIX I learn how the computers and network really work. With every new version of windows I get to relearn how Microsoft wants me to think of a computer and a network. Keep it simple stupid. Yes, you are stupid.
As many of the BeOS cultists out there I get annoyed by insults of my deity. Certainly you have an (unofficial) extended PE version installed or hardware that’s not really supported that’s causing your problems, because I do fine and have but once in ~4 years had a crash…amen
Not like linux or the opensource movement ever have bugs. Guess it’s still in beta. Maybe 2.6 will make it better
M$.. Are you 15 ?
>As many of the BeOS cultists out there I get annoyed by
>insults of my deity. Certainly you have an (unofficial)
>extended PE version installed or hardware that’s not really
>supported that’s causing your problems, because I do fine and
>have but once in ~4 years had a crash…amen
Do you use networking and multimedia with BeOS?
I have to admit i use the Max version with dockbert and Dano
extensions, My Nvidia is not working correctly, hd preformance is (intel ich4) bad (3mb p/s) and video is slow and crappy
(videolan). Besides that i really like BeOS and have already subsriced to Zeta but my point was that everybody has its favors and M.Eugenia tries to manipulate the forum by moderating things, i dislike that…freedom of speech is very important whatever anyone thinks..
close but not score…
All Dells come with office, so thats already 30% that do ship with office.
Michael, ever heard of Microsoft Works? It’s your “Simple Office”.
You are still bashing Microsoft with NO facts at all.
Nice to see Microsoft on the ball with releasing bug fixes for Windows 2003 Server! So, like, if SP1 comes out this year, then we can look forward to Windows 2003 Server SP2 next year, along with rolling out Windows 2003 Server in place of Windows 2000 Server. And Exchange Server 2003. And Office 2003. IT budget? What IT budget? Oh fork it, let’s just install BSD with SAMBA for $0.00
No, when using Unix you learn how Unix works, not how networks and computers really work.
This is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever seen.
>No, when using Unix you learn how Unix works, not how
>networks and computers really work.
I think that what he ment was more like that
for configuring an Unix server one needs more knowlegde
so one learns more about networking and the fundements
of it then by pushing some buttons wich tell you
it worked..or did not.
I have an idea!!! Lets compare the number of bugs, holes, etc. that each OS has had on the same time line. You know what I mean…1 year after unix/linux came out, 1 year after MacOS came out, 1 year after NT/2000 technology based OS came out; and comparisons as such. I believe that it is rediculas to say that MS as so terrible when the other OS’ had just as many problems at the same stage in their life. Please, someone argue this!!!