[evilhomer]

Does anyone have any idea when service pack 3 for windows 2000 is going to come out, i've been waiting for it to format and im getting impatient.

[Svision]

i'd like to know the same thing...it was due out in January/February originally...but it's almost MAY now....

i guess M$ decided to ditch win2k and just get on with XP

[Denver_80203]

MS is making heavy progess on security which will be bundled into SP3... It's coming.. I can't say when. There are pages that list it's contents.. someone here with post it. anyway back in Feb. Bill sent out a directive to halt application developement and focus on bug fixing for what's already out there. I expect that is the slow down on SP3.. should be a very complete package... there's 400 or more fixes listed now.

[Freddo]

It will be released this month(may). And it has over 800(!) fixes since SP2.

[JReiginsei]

I'm waiting for SP3 too. I remember reading a few weeks ago that SP1 for WinXP will allow you to remove IE and WMP. I wonder if SP3 for Win2k will do the same.

[Davros]

That's just gossip and speculation coming out of the MS court case going on. We will have to wait until that is over to see what happens to Windows.

[Sampson]

Whenever it comes out, it would be a good idea for those who love tweaks to inventory the ones they have made and set them to their original default before installing SP3. The original Microsoft Word contained the text "only the shadow knows" in their hidden file so that Word could not be pirated. Sometimes omnipotence, even if only implied, should be treated like a sleeping dragon. Best to keep things close to where SP2 left off.

[lager_brains]

Quote:

It will be released this month(may). And it has over 800(!) fixes since SP2.

Freddo,

How do you know it'll be out this month (May) ??

[Freddo]

The release have been pushed up.
It's June now. Hopefully early june.

[Palos]

And yes, it will include the same custom system config as in XP SP1. As far as I understand, the option will enable you to "deactivate" certain M$ stuff, like Outlook, IE, Mediaplayer. What I don't understand is why isn't there an option to DEINSTALL them???? Who cares about deactivation in the first place....

Personally I would leave IE as the default browser, I have nothing against it. This whole Legal litigation, States against M$, will only show us how SAD the competition's products are.

[packman]

Yes, I too have been anxious to obtain SP3 ASAP. I'm hoping that it contains a long-awaited fix for the hard disk cache writeback problem, which my machine suffers from. This can cause random corruption of the hard disk every time you shut down. I'd hazard a guess that at least 80% of Win2K Pro users have this problem but don't realise it. Micro$soft's had a pre-SP3 hotfix for it for quite some time but haven't released it publicly (you can buy it from them).

There's also a quite serious bug with Task Manager and I hope that that also has been addressed in SP3.

Originally, SP3's release date was supposed to be April 2002, then it was rumoured as May, now June. Two things are delaying it - first, beta testing, which I gather is still on-going, and second, the fact that Micro$oft are obviously quite happy to make money from the hotfixes they sell to us users in the meantime.

[Palos]

I had that "unmountable boot device" BSOD in WinXP too, packman. There is a patch already out somewhere...

[Bursar]

Quote:

Micro$oft are obviously quite happy to make money from the hotfixes they sell to us users in the meantime.

Selling patches? That's a new one. Got a link to the knowledgebase article so I can have a look?

[Brian Frank]

Yeah, I haven't heard of that one. ;(

[packman]

First, Palos, the cache writeback problem is not the "unmountable boot device" that you think it is. I think you're possibly hinting at a totally different bug.

For information on the cache writeback problem, take a look at the following two Microsoft articles:

http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=KB;EN-US;q281672&FR=1.

http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=KB;EN-US;q290757&FR=1.

The problem is caused by two faulty system drivers - classpnp.sys and disk.sys.

Micro$oft has published some revisions to these two files (compare the dates of your own versions of these files and you'll find them miles out of date, even after having applied SP2. However, Micro$oft has NOT acxtually provided the fix(es) for it. It is said that, if you're a large corporate customer with a tech support contract, you can get the pre-SP3 hotfix for this problem just for the asking but, if you're a single user, the only way you can get it is by buying it from Micro$oft (anywhere from $50 - $200). In effect, this is their charge for tech support on this problem. Obviously, users like myself are not prepared to pay this extra tariff on top of purchasing Win2K itself.

Most hard drives these days have an option for cache writeback. To find this, open My Computer, rt-click on your root drive and then dig several levels thro the Hardware tab to Properties and there you'll find the setting. In theory, you could skirt the problem by disabling the setting. However, the fault is such that it automatically re-enables the next time you boot.

Errors and warnings can be seen in Event Viewer (Programs/Admin Tools). They tend to tail off with usage of Win2K, so if you've been using Win2K for a while, you might have missed all the earlier errors and warnings (look at Properties of any listed warnings).

[thewizard75]

I am an individual (no fancy contract or anything from Microsoft) who purchased Windows 2000 off the shelf for my old machine some time ago. I sent an email to MS tech support asking for the updates mentioned in those articles... and they emailed them to me at no charge.

Perhaps phone support is different, but email worked.

[packman]

Wizard, let me tell you (and others) this:

When I first researched the cache problem about seven months ago and realised I'd have to specifically request a fix for it from Micro$oft, I looked for methods to contact Micro$oft UK (since that's from where I hail and where I bought my copy of Win2K). It soon became apparent that the only support that MS would give over the phone would be chargeable. Curiously, the free support for a limited period that used to exist with MS products was no longer offered, right from the start. I therefore tried e-mailing MS Support here in the UK, explaining in detail the problem and requesting the hotfix. I waited three weeks, got no reply whatever, so tried again, shortening the explanation. Waited another two weeks - no reply whatever. I then searched for another of MS's e-mail support addresses and ended up sending my message to an American MS site. Now, after a delay of about a week, they did have the decency to respond but stated that they couldn't help, as I'd bought my Win2K in the UK. Fair enough, but I explained the problem of contacting MS UK and they said "Okay, we'll pass on your enquiry and consider it". So, I left it with them. They obviously know the cache problem well but there it ended - no further response from MS whatever, despite me sending them numerous reminders. Thus, I gave up.

In discussing this situation with another technical forum on the Internet, I got in touch with a Canadian IT technician whose administrator admitted that MS are quite willing to release the hotfix to corporate organisations (for the asking and possibly because otherwise the organisation might make a legal case out of it). However, for single users and small businesses, the fix would be available only through the chargeable route. That IT contact of mine and all his Win2K contacts were, in fact, in the same predicament as myself. This appears to explain why MS refused to respond to my e-mails.

Wizard, if you yourself have managed to get the fix from MS easily and for free, then you must consider yourself extremely lucky. It seems very odd that MS acknowledges that this cache problem exists and yet they will not set up a public download for its fix. They do it for every single security issue but they won't do it for this quite serious operational problem.

The message I'm getting from my Canadian contact, whose administrator deals directly with MS, is that MS regard this charging for this hotfix as quite lucrative. Conceivably, this is a misjudgement of the situation, in which case someone please show me the correct route to the hotfix!

[thewizard75]

Not to get into a big discussion, but if you go here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/support/contact/default.asp

you will note that you get two free technical support cases via email or via phone.

I have literally requested dozens of hotfixes (for 2000 Pro, XP Pro) using this method:

1. Log on to online support. State that to fix the problem I need the fix described in knowledge base article QXXXXXX. Please email it to __________ .

2. No more than two days later, I receive an email from a Microsoft technical support specialist containing the file. They also ask if it fixes my problem.

3. I install the hotfix, and note that it fixes my problem. Then I email them saying yes, it did fix my problem.

4. I get a reply from the support guy that because all they did was provide me with a file, it doesn't count against my two case limit.


As I said, I've done this more than twenty times, and it's the same pattern. Now, every single one of my friends and aquantances (10+) who have done similar things have gotten exactly the same result.

But all of this was in the US... maybe internationally is different, I don't know...

Edit: Corrected spelling typo. I really don't have any idea why microsoft withholds many fixes (except security ones and a few others). Also, the fact that you have been having much problems wiht MS tech support is troubling... perhaps submit a complaint to the UK equivalent of the Better Business Bureau (so at least they know it?).

[packman]

Wizard,

I've tried the link you quoted and I recognise it as the very one I used at the last count. MS simply never responded, and I kept sending them reminders but those reminders were just ignored.

It could be that you Americans get preferential treatment. Equally, MS might not give any support at all for upgrade versions of Win2K, as that's what I bought. However, if that were so it would appear to be very discriminatory. Was yours an upgrade version or a full version?

I can't really see what I can do beyond what I've already attempted. I've tried all the normal routes.

I must say that, from my long experience with MS products, the person-to-person support in the UK - be it phone or e-mail - has been virtually non-existent and users like myself usually have to rely on material published online or on info gathered from tech forums to get by.

I know of no UK organisation that could force MS UK to provide me with the info I need. As a US consumer, you seem to be much better off than us Brits (which doesn't surprise me). This all seems especially galling, as in the UK we pay through the nose for software.

If you really ARE talking about the very same cache problem as I've been discussing and you were provided with the fix, was it indeed a 'hotfix'? What sort of filesize was it? Presumably, it wasn't all that large, if MS e-mailed it to you, rather than directing you to a download site?

[Do bear in mind that the US and UK versions of Win2K Pro are likely to differ in some respects. However, I would imagine this fix to be directed at what is a common area of the operating system].

[clutch]

For those interested in another feature to be included in SP3 besides automatic updating:

http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=701&a=27532,00.asp