Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows XP Service Pack 3 Not Due Until 2007

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the thats-ok-no-new-viruses-are-scheduled-in-07 dept.

Security 334

vitaly.friedman writes "Microsoft has published the due date for Windows XP SP3 (Service Pack 3) on its Windows Lifecycle Web site. The preliminary due date (the latter half of 2007) for the next collection of fixes and patches for Microsoft's desktop operating system is as more than a year later than many company watchers were expecting."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Interesting commentary on this... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513704)

Whitedust posted an interesting commentary on this [whitedust.net] this other day. I agree with them.

Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513706)

...forget service pack 3, I just wanna' know when the full version of vista gets released. No wonder they changed the name from windows "longtime"...

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513802)

Vista Cruiser [stationwagon.com]

Please stop Digging from Digg (0, Troll)

AssCork (769414) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513708)

Burn that shithole to the ground

But.. (5, Funny)

JonJ (907502) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513710)

I thought Windows Vista was due this year?

Re:But.. (1)

Obsidian Dagger (846679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513734)

Service Pack 3 is generally after the next version is out historicly unless I am mistaken and usually the final service pack.

Re:But.. (2, Insightful)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513796)

Service Pack 3 is generally after the next version is out historicly unless I am mistaken and usually the final service pack.

I think the original poster was joking that Vista is not much more than a small upgrade from XP. That seems true; but XP wasn't much of an upgrade from 2000, and '98 wasn't much of an upgrade from '95 either.

Re:But.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513828)

"Usually the final service pack"? I have no idea where you're getting this information from.

2k had 4 SPs, and NT4 had 6. On the other hand, 98 only had one, and I can't find any info on other versions.

Re:But.. (1)

Obsidian Dagger (846679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513951)

Only my failing memory...

Linux (2, Insightful)

RobBebop (947356) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513856)

I can see that a software company wants to concentrate on getting a product that is going to make them money (Vista) out the door on time, and that nothing for a service pack that is critical is going to be held back.

My question: If this enrages people - why not switch over to Linux where the SOTA is always available in a no-cost distribution?

Re:Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513946)

I'm pretty sure that most people would get scared over something "that breaks their computer." Of course, only the ubern00bs will think that, and everybody else will have a productive day using Ubuntu.

Re:Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513976)

I agree.
For the common chatting, surfing, and e-mail type person Ubuntu/Kubuntu is a great distro. The gamers [which is also a fairly large market] will be apprehensive about using something that isn't "officially" supported by companies such as Blizzard.

Re:Linux (3, Funny)

oddfox (685475) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514069)

Oh how badly we need a Linux port of WoW. I honestly don't have Windows for any other reason anymore.

huh (5, Funny)

c0dedude (587568) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513711)

"2007" is a funny term for "whenever we get around to it"....

Re:huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513799)

ahhh actually this isn't very funny at all.

Where I work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513889)

(not MS)
We tell the customer the new version/features/whatever will be ready way in the future. Then they're delighted when we come in ahead of schedule.

Re:huh (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514067)

Stand on your head -- it reads " LOOT "

When they have made enough money on Vista, they'll maybe do one last service pack on XP.

By the way, the next marketing slogan is predictable:

        "Microsoft VISTA -- Look_Out!!"

cuz vista is coming out. (1)

dgrati (877339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513714)

it would be stupid to release an update to the existing xp when the new vista is coming out. they sell on the idea of 'newness' and 'newness' would fade out with updating existing xp to an sp3.

Re:cuz vista is coming out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513739)

Yeah.

Microsoft will want to make everyone buy the 7 flavors of Vista, not support XP for another few years.

Re:cuz vista is coming out. (2, Insightful)

darthservo (942083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513756)

Tell that to the people who are still using Windows 2000. The fact that Microsoft kept supporting it after XP's release meant that at least they were still providing support for it (SP3 & SP4).

They're doing the same thing for people who don't want to upgrade to the next version just yet, or can't because of other circumstances.

why is that silly? (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513978)

They put out service packs for 2000 after XP came out..

Or NT after 2000 came out.

While the product is still under 'support', you can expect fixes to come out. Support doesnt end on day 1 of the release of a new version, in the real world.

Re:why is that silly? (2, Insightful)

dgrati (877339) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514035)

nobody is saying that there ain't gonna be any support. ms wont release sp3 for xp becuz it can cloud vista's arrival. pure marketing. they actually threw sp3 a year away from vista's release. is it because there's no need for an sp3 for 1.7 years? or is because sp3 coming out near vista release would cloud the roll out for the new product? u decide. it's all about marketing and "perception management".

Re:cuz vista is coming out. (1)

varmittang (849469) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514041)

The people that are going to be getting Vista are only people that are getting new hardware. Otherwise, there is no need to upgrade, dispite this service pack, there is just no need. MS knows this, so they will keep adding updates, and maybe do stuff that just keeps people on Windows and not moving to something else when they do trade in their old hardware. I also though that Vista was suppose to ship after this service pack? Or did they change this.

Cue the "Vista is SP3" jokes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513721)

I, on the other hand, am beginning to think that really is going to be the case.

XP SP-3 in 2007 (4, Insightful)

thriemus (514728) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513730)

I read that and I wasnt one bit suprised in the least.

Somethings wrong...

Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 (2, Informative)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513809)

> Somethings wrong...

I'm keeping up to date with the patches - why wait a year? Service Packs don't add anything I can't live without. It won't make the stuff I've got work better, and it won't contain anything you'll have to have for future software to work. Also, it won't be available to anyone with a dialup modem (unless they've got a provider that doesn't cut them off every 2 hours like the ones I've used do).

Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 (1)

aslate (675607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513913)

Also, it won't be available to anyone with a dialup modem (unless they've got a provider that doesn't cut them off every 2 hours like the ones I've used do).

I work at PC World in the UK, there are stacks of free SP2 CDs that are right by the PC Clinic where people bring in their PCs for help and by the checkouts too. They're not that hard to come by.

Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513919)

- I wish i was a major corparation so i could be above the law.

OT, but that reminded me of the best SatireWire ever. [satirewire.com] ;->

last one left turn out the lights... (5, Funny)

DeveloperAdvantage (923539) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513732)

I think by then half of their team will be working at google!

Of course (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513746)

You can't release another XP service pack until Vista is out!

Re:Of course (1)

nbert (785663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514027)

Exactly what I was thinking. They'll bring out Vista and then they'll make a package with all the patches which came out since SP2 + some features that are new in Vista (not the shiny stuff, just things needed for compatibility). This doesn't surprise me at all, but on the other hand there's not really a need for a sp meanwhile, because the patches just do the same job (and they can be bootstraped just like a sp).
I never understood some of my co-workers installing beta versions of SP2 before it came out (at home). Consequently I'm not really looking forward to the next SP with excitement, because I don't believe that it will bring any true advantage over the current situation.

What does this mean for Vista? (3, Interesting)

rob_squared (821479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513754)

Microsoft doesn't love releasing service packs for any OS that isn't the latest one.

NT4 service packs ended about the time Win2K came out.

I'm guessing this means Vista will be pushed even further back then Microsoft have been letting on.

Service pack purchase... (1)

karlto (883425) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514010)

... is covered by your existing license. A new version of Windows requires a new purchase.

horrible analysis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513764)

more than a year later than many company watchers were expecting. I'm sorry. I'm not a leet professional full time company watcher with mounds of statistics to analyze, but if anybody really believed SP3 was coming out in the first half of 2006, they might as well be throwing darts at conclusions and giving monkeys typewriters to produce the reports.

Re:horrible analysis (5, Funny)

elinden (155827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513813)

...they might as well be throwing darts at conclusions...

no no -- they used a mat. with conclusions printed on it. and then they jumped onto the mat...

Re:horrible analysis (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513859)

I'm not a leet professional full time company watcher with mounds of statistics to analyze...

The day the adjective "leet" can be applied to a professional company watcher is the day I'll leave the plane... no, actually you're right: it doesn't make much difference.

10.5 before SP3? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513768)

The rumored release date for OS X 10.5 (Leopard) is early 2007.

Re:10.5 before SP3? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513863)

Who cares about that toy OS? We're talking about a real OS here.

W.. T.. F.. (5, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513774)

This story reminds me of a co-worker I used to have, who used to spout off completely worthless information. One day he decided to inform everyone that the history of the letter W was not in the dictionary, much to his dismay. Nobody was ever quite sure why he cared, let alone why he felt it necessary to verbalize his observations. I suspect he submitted this story as well.

Re:W.. T.. F.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513988)

Look, I know you guys didn't like me, but my treatises on the rest of the alphabet (well, the consonants, anyway) were quite informed! I can't believe you took my dictionary away...

Re:W.. T.. F.. (1)

dr_labrat (15478) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514024)

orthless to you orking in the IT department for the Oxford English Dictionary, no doubt...

Re:W.. T.. F.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514057)

> inform everyone that the history of the letter W was
> not in the dictionary, much to his dismay.

Oh for crying out loud. Everybody knows that's in Sesame Street, not the dictionary.

The guy sounds like a grouch.

Not that big of a deal. (5, Insightful)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513775)

This shouldn't surprise anyone. MS wants Vista to be out before any major patch to XP. Its in their best interest as it compels more people to upgrade to Vista. XP will be treated like a red-headed step child so Vista will look more appealing. So long as they issue security patches I'll be happy. It's what I've come to expect.

http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

Re:Not that big of a deal. (2, Insightful)

bogie (31020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513833)

Exactly. If XP SP3 came out with IE 7 and a few other security addons the need to upgrade to Vista would be a big fat zero.

Please tell me? (1)

merikari (205531) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513781)

Is this a bad or a good thing?

That's nice but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513787)

When does the patch that makes windows not suck come out??? Been waiting for that one for a loooong time now!! Seems it's several decades behind schedule at this point...

get a hand rolled SP3... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513791)

there are places on the net where you can get a hand rolled pre-SP3 that is built by a 3rd party person.

"date"? (5, Funny)

deep44 (891922) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513794)

So their release "date" is 2H 2007? Since when is a 6-month window considered a "date"?

A precedent like that really makes you wonder about the release "dates" they still can't commit to.

Re:"date"? (3, Funny)

maztuhblastah (745586) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513842)

Since when is a 6-month window considered a "date"?

I'm guessing you're not female.

Re:"date"? (1)

DirePickle (796986) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513873)

C'mon, this is Microsoft. Did you miss the whole XBOX360 "Launch window" thing? It lasts for four months!

Well, it makes sense (1)

heatdeath (217147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513800)

There have been, what, only...40 critical updates since SP2? That's a reasonable number of things to download over a modem before my operating system is usable.

=P

Re:Well, it makes sense (1)

fyrie (604735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514061)

Sigh... It sounds like it will be on par with my latest experience installing Fedora Core 4. I did a slightly tweaked dev workstation install. After doing a yum -y update I was presented with over 300 package updates weighing in at 809 megs!

What about Vista SP1? (1)

helmutvs (912204) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513801)

The real question is which will come out first Vista Service Pack 1 or XP SP3?

Seriously... No one here thinks Vista will be operating properly, or securely, straight out of the box. Right?

if they built it right to begin with... (0, Troll)

EllynGeek (824747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513804)

They wouldn't have to release these multi-hundreds-of-megabyte horrors. No other operating system does such a thing- Not SunOS, Solaris, the BSDs, Linux, OS X, OS/2- you get nice little security patches and bugfixes on a continual basis. Oh, and they work right, and don't break things. It's not a big job until you upgrade to the next release. sheesh. And how did this conglomeration of incompetence come to dominate?

Re:if they built it right to begin with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513866)

Silly, they dominate by being OEMed on the name brand systems.

Re:if they built it right to begin with... (1)

EllynGeek (824747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513904)

It was a rhetorical question. :)

Re:if they built it right to begin with... (1)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513943)

Uhhh... Solaris does this hi2u. BSD's do as well, although most don't bundle it they roll out the patches individually. OSX doesn't release service packs, they just tick off the revision number and charge you 200$ for it. Get real... Basically you're saying you're upset that MS rolls up their patches for you instead of making you go out and grab each one yourself, or flat out charge you for those *fixes*? THE HORROR.

Re:if they built it right to begin with... (1)

DashEvil (645963) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513980)

FreeBSD's 4.x, 5.x, and 6.x releases beyond the inital release are effectively service packs. It's the same concept.

Re:if they built it right to begin with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514047)

service packs....you mean new VERSIONS

logic lesson #1: if 95, 98, ME and XP are different version, so are FreeBSD 4.x, 5.x, 6.x

uhhhhh... (4, Informative)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514017)

Not SunOS, Solaris, the BSDs, Linux, OS X, OS/2- you get nice little security patches and bugfixes on a continual basis

How often do you get security patches and bug fixes for OS/2?

Linus Says... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513814)

Cry me a fucking river. Do you feel that you are entitled to annual service packs? There are lots of hotfixes available so you can roll your own or switch to a real operating system.

Vista is supposed to be out in Q3 2006.

SP3 on multiple DVD's Then? (3, Funny)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513818)

Given the number of fixes released annually I assume MS have to wait till 2007 for gigabit boradband speeds to make it a viable download.... or send a SAE for the 7 DVD SP3 set.

Re:SP3 on multiple DVD's Then? (1)

biocute (936687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513879)

Or till 2007 when HD-DVD is widely adopted in every home.

You could see this coming... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513827)

...after the press release from the Duke Nukem: Forever team, where they announced they would be going gold when XP SP3 was released.

2007? (5, Funny)

AeroIllini (726211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513829)

This just in: Microsoft Windows XP SP3 is now renamed Microsoft Windows Vista, and will ship sometime in early 2009. Possible new features include an updated icon, a completely new marketing campaign, one driver for an HP scanner written in a drunken coding blitz at 3am, and a new desktop wallpaper prominently featuring the Microsoft Logo.

Re:2007? (2)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513995)

one driver for an HP scanner written in a drunken coding blitz at 3am

Queue another rhapsody in blue:

A problem has been detected and Windows has been shut down to prevent damage to your computer...
Technical information:

STOP: 0x00000009 (0x8061D594,0x00000002,0x00000000,0x805BFD2B) ALCOHOL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL

Re:2007? (4, Funny)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514015)

Possible new features include an updated icon, a completely new marketing campaign, one driver for an HP scanner written in a drunken coding blitz at 3am, and a new desktop wallpaper prominently featuring the Microsoft Logo.

That would be Windows ME

Re:2007? (1)

blah1235813 (947361) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514031)

LOL and right for the general feeling each time a new OS surfaces. nicely done.

Wrong, it's already out. (4, Funny)

Eric_Cartman_South_P (594330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513839)

Service Pack to fix windows is already out. It's actually up to version 4. It's called OS X 10.4.4

I tried that (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513947)

The new desktop theme was nice, but the service pack broke all my games.

Interesting... (5, Insightful)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513845)

Has anyone else noticed Microsofts gradual decrease in providing updates?
For example, NT 4 had 6 service packs and number 7 was not released. But supposedly was pretty much complete, number 7 added a bunch of features that were supposedly in Windows 2000.. and with the release of Windows 2000 just around the corner.. why would they want to make 2000 less appealing?

Also, notice that 2000 has just 4 service packs..

And it's looking more like XP will be getting just 3 by the end of life period, now... either Microsoft have absolutely amazing QA which means they're fixing all the bugs in their OS's by the last service pack or they want to force people onto their newest OS with the promises of bug fixes etc.

This is disheartening, they're trying to force people into a perpetual upgrade cycle and are being very successful at it too. I guess we can only hope that stuff like Linux and OpenOffice start making some inroads to at least reduce the price of Windows to help reduce the pressure on people who are locked into MS solutions.

Re:Interesting... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513912)

Service packs are [typically] nothing more than an update rollup. Like a fruit rollup, only not as tasty, and much larger. It's no different from installing a bunch of updates at once. XPSP2 is the exception.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Mistah Blue (519779) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513915)

Compared to MacOS X... Panther had 9 updates (since I believe 10.3.9 was/is the current/final version). Tiger is up to 10.4.4 now.

they're trying to force people into a perpetual up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513922)

Huh? Where've you been for the last thirty years?

Re:Interesting... (1)

CthulhuDreamer (844223) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514037)

"And it's looking more like XP will be getting just 3 by the end of life period, now..."

If Microsoft drops support for XP Home at the end of 2006, will SP3 be for XP Pro only? For a lot of users, XP could effectively be finished right now, with just two packs. If MS pushes SP3 to 2007, then they can wash their hands entirely of XP Home. This will prevent home users from taking advantage of any new features in SP3 and drive them to Vista.

Re:Interesting... (5, Insightful)

kawika (87069) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514052)

Corporate America told Microsoft that they didn't like service packs because they required a lot of IT effort to roll out across the organization. As it stands, any true security patch needs to be installed ASAP, so anything in a service pack is probably something most IT departments would prefer to avoid unless it scratches their itch.

Microsoft has been listening to big companies; they created "patch Tuesday" as a way to reduce the pain for corporate IT departments. Think about it, why wouldn't MS release the patch ASAP for consumers? In fact, that would be better for MS debugging because it would be easier for MS to tell if a particular patch caused problems. As it is, they're all clumped together each month.

If nobody in particular is clamoring for an update, Microsoft will oblige them by not issuing one.

Re:Interesting... (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514060)

Maybe service packs arent as critical now since security updates/hotfixes are distributed automatically? IMHO this is a good thing.....

Too late by then! (0, Redundant)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513851)

By the time this service pack is released, Linux will be far more user friendly so more people can install it without hassles. With any luck ReactOS [reactos.org] will have reached a stable state.

I really think that with every delay, Microsoft is digging its own grave deeper and deeper.

XP SP3 and Vista Don't Matter (1)

darthservo (942083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513852)

When is SP1 for Vienna [microsoft-watch.com] going to come out?

Promises should be kept (1)

Artem Tashkinov (764309) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513854)

I hope MS will keep its promises this time. SP2 was originally due in late 2003 [winsupersite.com] and we only got it on August 2004. And I would like Windows XP SP3 to be issued this year 'cause I'm sick and tired of all those bells and whistles which are being prepared for Vista which in its turn will require at least 512GB of RAM and ~8GB just for installation.

I don't know which is worse . . . (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513860)

Being a beta-tester for the boys at Redmond (let's face it - every OS product I've ever seen from them requires extensive patching from the moment it's released for sale), or

Suffering with an insecure OS because:

1) M$ doesn't believe the exploit is that serious

2) M$ hasn't fixed the exploit yet, or

Spending my time waiting for a downloaded patch to break stuff, or

Oh, wait . . .

I run SuSE x86_64 and Solaris SPARC - No wonder I don't care about Windoze XP SP3. I feel much better now. Never mind.

(And before the flaming starts - NO, my system isn't secure because it's UNIX/LINUX based. It's just far easier to secure because it's UNIX/LINUX based).

*Begun, the flame war has.*

typical /. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513864)

I submitted this on tuesday. with exactly these links. way to go, taco!

Re:typical /. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14513926)

fuck you. You aren't entitled to anything.

Hmph (1)

Mustafu (867201) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513877)

Well, another non-surprising move from Microsoft. That's it, I'm totally fed up! I'm going to [Results filtered by Google Safesearch]

Looks like a trend... (2, Interesting)

LiTa03 (879539) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513896)

NT3.51 had 5 service packs. NT4 had 6.5. w2k had 4. XP might only have 2.

Next one after that? Won't have any service packs at all!

I'd still be using my NT4 if it weren't for the lack of USB. It was supposed to come in SP7... but didn't because 2k was released. 2k had USB support and people moved en-masse. Can't remember what XP promissed over 2k, though. Better games? Icons for children? Can't have been improved stability, right?

Well, since you ask... (1)

solios (53048) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514054)

TONKA TOY INTERFACE.

I was going to say "NT + DirectX" but then I remembered that that was lumped into 2k as well. Might explain why it's the only windows OS we run at work. :P

is vista be pushed back too? (1)

Joe123456 (846782) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513933)

vista may be runing late too

Re:is vista be pushed back too? (1)

Warlock7 (531656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514012)

Actually, they pushed the Vista release date forward to the end of this year...

Start downloading now 56Kbers (3, Funny)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513960)

It will take 18 months to download...

Important Consideration (2, Funny)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513972)

Well, it *is* hard to improve on perfection!

/sarcasm

Annoying, but there is good news. (2, Informative)

mendaliv (898932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513983)

In my job, I have to fix dorm residents' personal computers for pretty much any software problem. You name it: viruses, worms, spyware, basic help, installing virus protection, and convincing people to install service pack 2.

Getting people to install SP2 was and still is a pain in the ass. They don't trust it becuase their mother's cousin's son-in-law, who saw something on TV about it, says that it can cause problems.

But just as we'll probably be just about finished getting the students to upgrade, here comes SP3.

The good news? I get to work a lot more hours when it comes time to get people to install it.

Since Vista is due out in the latter part of 2006, (2)

Warlock7 (531656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513985)

is this Redmond doing some of their creative trickery to try and get people to adopt Vista early?

Seems like most of the XP SP3 fixes will already be in Vista when it comes out. So, why wait for the upgrade when you can simply replace your whole OS for a newer one?

Why do people put up with that shit? (-1, Flamebait)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513987)

What a coincidence: just a few minutes ago, I found that my parents' Windoze machine was once again pwned by malware. XP SP2, fully patched, anti-virus, anti-spyware, yadda yadda... how come I've *never* had any malware problems with my iMac?

doesn't matter (0, Flamebait)

GoatPigSheep (525460) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513990)

Most of the big problems in SP1 and earlier were fixed in sp2. Anything else can be tackled with minor patches at this point. Big upgrades like the new glass interface and such I wouldn't expect to be released before vista, most of the biggest changes belong with a new OS.

Remeber, unlike Apple, Microsoft doesn't charge for point release upgrades to their OS, but they still need to make some money somehow.

Re:doesn't matter (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14514062)

No, instead, they release their point releases under clever new names like 95, 98, NT, 2000, me, xp, Vista...

They leave the version numbers off all together so they avoid morons such as yourself claiming that they charge for point releases.

Each "point release" to OS X has contained over 100 new features.
You can't say that about any of the software Microshit releases.

What a fucking idiot you are.

Microsoft's behavior is extremely abusive. (0)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 8 years ago | (#14513992)

To me, Microsoft's behavior is extremely offensive and abusive. We find we need to re-load Windows XP often because of its vulnerabilities and instability.

Microsoft sells CDs to OEM customers with the service packs applied. To date, the latest CD is Windows XP SP2. That means that there are over 30 megabytes of critical updates that must be downloaded from Windows Update every time we re-load Windows XP. We need CDs with all service packs applied every 6 months, so that we don't have to wait so long.

Microsoft's business strategy may possibly be explained as "maximizing shareholder value". Many people who begin to have trouble simply buy another computer, and Microsoft makes more money, since Microsoft makes the customer buy the OS again.

Oh they say 2007... (1)

starvo (33598) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514000)

...But in reality, I'd say late 2006. Odds are that right after Vista is released, some show-stopper of a bug will be found, and suprise suprise, it will also have an Impact on XP. Something like that could hasten the release of the third service pack for XP. Either that, or some significant technolog change, that requires a large update to be pushed out promptly.

HD-DVD Should be out by then... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14514034)

By the time WinXP SP3 rolls out, Microsoft should be able burn the file to HD-DVD. (Which I presume will be needed since the SP3 installer will probably be huge if you patching a virgin install of the original WinXP disc.) The only problem is do you need SP3 installed first before you can access SP3 on a HD-DVD? Hmmm...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?