Microsoft currently has two overlapping and potentially conflicting patches available for Outlook 2007. Trying to work out which one to use is made more difficult by a less than open response by Microsoft
As we’ve already noted, Microsoft currently has two overlapping and potentially conflicting patches available for Outlook 2007. Trying to work out which one to use is made more difficult by a less than open response by Microsoft – and if Microsoft won’t be candid with customers how can we make an informed choice?
Note: Microsoft has revised the two troublesome KB articles many times over just a few months – though the situation still isn’t entirely clear despite those revisions. See below for an update to the original article.
Back in June Microsoft, very quietly, released an update for Outlook 2007 that supposedly covered some feature changes in Outlook – some iCalendar additions plus notably unstated changes in the IMAP connection. This patch is known by its Knowledge Base article number: KB 950219 .
After the original publication, Microsoft has admitted that the patch had more changes than originally stated – the KB article now has a list of hotfixes that were bundled into the patch.
Even later Microsoft revealed that “This update also contains Outlook 2007 user interface (UI) changes that are not available in the update from Microsoft Knowledge Base article 952142. These UI changes relate to the way the Reply (RE:) and Forward (Fw:) UI elements are added to e-mail messages on Norwegian language clients.“
However the changes to IMAP connectivity remains as ambiguous as ever. The KB article still only says “This update also improves the compatibility between Outlook 2007 and some IMAP e-mail servers “. We asked Microsoft for more details but a Microsoft spokesperson did not answer the question.
It’s also a mystery why the details of this patch are being dribbled out over time in a series of edits to the original article (at last look, that single KB article had undergone 4 major re-writes in two months). Why doesn’t Microsoft fully disclose what’s in a patch from the start?
In early July a bug patch was issued and pushed out to Office 2007 users via Microsoft Update. This patch ( KB 952142 ) fixes a problem when creating a new profile as well as bundling together various earlier hotfixes for specific problems.
The interesting thing is that the newer patch (KB 950219) will NOT install if you have the older update (KB 952142). That’s very unusual, normally patches accumulate with newer ones building on older ones. Here we have two Outlook patches – you can choose one. But since the details on the IMAP related changes in KB 950219 aren’t documented it’s hard to work out if you should apply that patch or the bug fix one.
(To further muddy the waters the newer patch has a much lower KB number indicating that the KB article was created, though not published, some time ago).
While it’s impossible to be sure (due to Microsoft’s deliberate lack of candor ) it seems that KB952142 has bug fixes but no new or changed features – but does it have all the bug fixes? KB 950219 has the iCalendar, unspecified IMAP changes and may include other fixes – the italics ‘may’ is ours based on Microsoft’s statements.
We asked Microsoft about the differences between the two patches and their answer wasn’t helpful – it said in part “the IMAP/iCal update may include other fixes/updates/QFEs that were included in the builds between the new security update and this build ” (our emphasis). The word ‘may’ is important and presumably chosen with care since it mean that there may be other non-documented differences between the patches.
Asked about other differences between the two patches, Microsoft will only say that “The difference is the build of Outlook involved. KB952142 will update Outlook to build 6307.5000, and KB950219 will update outlook to build 6309.5000“. That isn’t any help to customers – it’s a bit like saying the difference between two books is the cover, ignoring any possible differences in the text inside.
Even worse, the build numbers quoted by the Microsoft spokesman don’t match the details given online. The build numbers for KB 952142 vary but range from 6300.5000 for Outlook.exe up to 6315.5000 for various DLL’s – no sign of the ” 6307.5000 ” number. Similarly the build numbers given for the other patch option don’t match the company’s own online documentation.
—————-
Update: in August 2008 the position is a little clearer. From the two KB articles (revised several times by Microsoft) it now seems that:
In KB952142 – “The 950219 update contains this update [952142 ed.] , in addition to other changes.” – by ‘other changes’ we think they mean the new profile bug fix but the wording can be taken to imply there’s other, undocumented, changes.
That would seem to suggest that you should apply the KB950219 patch in preference to KB952142 but since the exact changes in the 950219 patch still aren’t fully disclosed its still hard to make an informed judgement.
————–
Why does this matter?
All this might seem like nit-picking and to some extent we’re prepared to concede that, especially for individual users.
For administrators managing large deployments of Office, its quite another matter. Each patch or update can have severe consequences, costing much lost time, productivity and money. Admins need a clear and unambiguous update path – not an obscurely documented set of overlapping options.
Updating any piece of software is a complex process – but that doesn’t mean the end result has to be so messed up that even the software makers can’t give straight answers.
