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 SP3 Postponed Until 2008

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the wait-or-upgrade dept.

259

Rockgod quotes an article saying "With Microsoft now saying that its next major service pack for Windows XP will not ship until 2008, some Windows users are wondering whether the software upgrade will ever be released." and then later "Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, agrees that Microsoft may very well decide to drop XP Service Pack 3. "It absolutely could happen. Microsoft is under no obligation to produce any service packs, ever," he explains. "They feel that because these fixes are available through the auto-update that there's less need to create a service pack."

cancel ×

259 comments

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

They're right, you know (1, Insightful)

Skevin (16048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593292)

> Microsoft is under no obligation to produce any service packs, ever

In fact, I would love for them to completely stop. It would encourage more people to reverse engineer the kernel, or better yet, switch. (Notice that last word is lower case.)

Solomon Chang

Re:They're right, you know (2, Funny)

Meatloaf Surprise (1017210) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593526)

Yes, I'm sure Joe Sixpack is going to switch to Apple/Linux because SP3 for XP wasn't released...

Re:They're right, you know (3, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593662)

Yes, I'm sure Joe Sixpack is going to switch to Apple/Linux because SP3 for XP wasn't released...

Unlikely, but the previous poster did not mention who he thought might be motivated. Johnny Systems Engineer might be more motivated to migrate his enterprise to Linux if SP3 is never released and he must choose between upgrading all machines and replacing many of them outright, or finally funding that Linux migration the junior sysadmin has been trying to sell him on.

Re:They're right, you know (2, Interesting)

Meatloaf Surprise (1017210) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594012)

That's true, but only to a certain extent. Will the training/problems that arise with training the user base of a company to use Linux be better or worse for a company than simply upgrading their machines to vista?

Re:They're right, you know (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594148)

That's true, but only to a certain extent. Will the training/problems that arise...

That is a different question entirely. The parent post did not claim that a lack of SP3 would mean everyone will switch to Linux. He said it would provide additional motivation for people (all or some?) to switch. It does provide motivation, although how much and what effect that will have in any given enterprise is still a matter of debate.

Re:They're right, you know (2, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593708)

Maybe not but many people might when Microsoft decides in 2k8 that it not only isn't releasing an SP but it's EOL'ing XP. It's perception, people. Right now a lot of folks are thinking, "Okay, so now I'll be adding a shitload of patches after I install with no foreseeable time when they will be rolled together and make my life easier."
The fact is, Microsoft is making dumb decisions. Threatening to cripple Vista and now this. Personally, I hope they do everything they have said they will do.
Maybe people will wake up and switch to SOMEthing else.

Re:They're right, you know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16593848)

"2k8"
How long are we going to keep doing that? Please, let's just end that nonsense now. 2008 - ok? Spread the word.

Re:They're right, you know (1)

Meatloaf Surprise (1017210) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593898)

Eh, the same predictions were made when xp came out and when microsoft ended support for win98. Sadly, I doubt this new wave of microsoft shenanigans will impact the amount of Linux users at all

Re:They're right, you know (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594110)

Except that XP is scheduled for EOL (or license availablity) in 2008, 12 months after Vista availablity. The SP3 will most likely be a security rollup of all the fixes up to that point if the case for any reinstalls happen after that time.

Re:They're right, you know (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593856)

Actually, even Joe Sixpack is pretty tired of crashing spyware ridden computers. And the very moment they see another option, they are sure to at least look at it. And with Vista's new hardware requirements likely not matching their current hardware, there's yet another possibility he will look at his options before buying a new computer. Apple has become rather affordable as of late and their reputation for being easy will do a lot in the way of bolstering confidence. And if he actually talks to someone and finds that a mac can also run Windows, he'll be sold.

That's a lot of IFs, and I don't expect a huge number of people to fall within those cracks, but I think the numbers will increase and become rather noticable.

Available from autoupdate? (1, Informative)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593326)

I thought that the SPs were large(ish) changes that were not just a bundle of all the old patches. Forinstance, when ever I do a reinstall of 2K I need to first patch up to SP4, and then start the auto update stuff....

Oh well, I still don't use XP, and I am still confuzzled by MS.

Re:Available from autoupdate? (3, Informative)

viking099 (70446) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593524)

Service packs are largely comprised of all the service updates and software patches that MS releases between major service packs. They're basically a "catchup" package that allows people to ensure that their software is completely up to date up to a certain time. They occasionally bundle in extra stuff, but IIRC they didn't do that all too often before XP SP2.

Since people's machines are nominally downloading and applying these updates automatically, there's less of a need to release a "catchup" package, since most people are supposedly already caught up.

Re:Available from autoupdate? (0)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593536)

More significantly you can apply all the patches in SPn before you attach your PC to the internet. I did a recent new build of Win2K PC and, even after SP4 it was on the internet and not patched to the latest levels for half an hour or so while downloading the patches.

I once read that an unpatched PC will be attacked with 20 mins of connecting to the internet - I don't know if this is true but I want it to be as patched as posible before I connect it.

Re:Available from autoupdate? (5, Informative)

theRiallatar (584902) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593880)

I wasn't going to reply, but I kept seeing more and more of the same posts as I was reading through. Try a test. Connect a simple out-of-the-box router to a DSL/Cable connection with default settings. Connect an unpatched Windows XP SP0 machine to the router and make sure it has web access. Don't use that computer. See how long it takes to get rooted/malware. Answer? It NEVER will. Because the router blocks all unsolicited incoming traffic, unless you've monkeyed with the config to change this. The only way a computer can get rooted/malwared through a default-settings router is by stupid user tricks, or by another already infected machine on the NATed network.... which would have got infected by stupid user tricks.

Re:Available from autoupdate? (2)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594038)

I stand corrected. Thanks, I'll rest easier during the next rebuild.

It goes to show that one shouldn't listen to the Anti Malware manufacturers scare stories!

Re:Available from autoupdate? (1)

nairnr (314138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594146)

This is true, however not everyone has themselved connected behind a router. Your average Joe Sixpack who just bought a fancy computer that isn't connecting via a wireless card will plug it right in to the cable/DSL modem. Should people be behind one, of course.

I was trying to recover a machine for someone who didn't have a router installed between them and their modem, and within a couple of minutes of it being on, it was infected. My solution, take it out, put it behind my firewall and do a clean install + patch.

Re:Available from autoupdate? (3, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594216)

Unless you are building that box in a lab which is ALREADY infected.

When I was in college we had our own removal hard drives and it wasn't that uncommon for the students to bring them home, get infected with EVERYTHING and then bring it to the lab.

Sometimes being secure out of the box, even for the box, is important.

Tom

Re:Available from autoupdate? (1)

Nedrick_Flanders (801603) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593876)

In the past I have analyzed SP content and found only about 16% of the patches were related to security. The others were performance, bug fix, and feature release.

Could they at least... (3, Insightful)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593338)

Provide an update rollout? Really, have you seen the massive amount of updates required to apply against SP2 on a fresh install?

Re:Could they at least... (3, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593472)

Slipstream SP2 into your installation CD.

I don't understand how, but installing SP2 over a fresh SP0 install of XP causes the boot process to slow down to nothing compared to SP0's boot time, but if you slipstream SP2 onto an install CD and install from there, the boot process is now just as fast as SP0's. WTF? I still don't get how such an improvement is possible, but I'm swearing by slipstreaming now...

Plus it's convenient, since you have most of the updates already (By most I mean you'll only find 70 some items on Windows Update instead of 200).

Re:Could they at least... (2, Interesting)

quantum bit (225091) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593600)

Yes, but the problem is that even with a slipstreamed SP2 (which is all I use anymore), there's still 60-70 updates that it has to download and install. That's a number which will only get bigger over the next year.

That's why we want SP3, so that it can be slipstreamed in and vastly reduce that number.

Re:Could they at least... (4, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594248)

you CAN slipstream all updates into windows. I suggest you get up to speed where the rest of us have been for over a years now...

nlite [nliteos.com] integrates ALL patches, fixes, hotfixes, etc... into a windwos install CD. hell I can even automate the de-xpify process so I dont have to do it on every machine.

Service packs and traditional slipstreaming is very old hat as microsoft does not care anymore.

Re:Could they at least... (1)

another_fanboy (987962) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593646)

I've noticed the same thing with a fresh install of XP and a fresh install of SP2. Nothing else had been added yet.

Re:Could they at least... (1)

raitchison (734047) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593916)

I don't understand how, but installing SP2 over a fresh SP0 install of XP causes the boot process to slow down to nothing compared to SP0's boot time, but if you slipstream SP2 onto an install CD and install from there, the boot process is now just as fast as SP0's. WTF? I still don't get how such an improvement is possible, but I'm swearing by slipstreaming now...

I think that when you install a SP on an already loaded system it introduces a lot of compatibility code to keep from breaking any applications you already have installed, but with a slipstream install it doesn't.

It's the same reason a clean O/S install is a lot more stable & faster than a version upgrade (i.e. Windows 2000 > Windows XP) that compatibility code is a bad thing.

Re:Could they at least... (3, Informative)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594166)

I did that when SP2 was released. What I'm talking about is the large amount of patches needed to apply against SP2 after doing a fresh install. There is a large amount of updates needed, here's a list:

Windows XP SP2 - Critical Updates
KB873339: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB885835: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB885836: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB886185: Critical Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB887742: Critical Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB888302: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB890046: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB890859: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB891781: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB893756: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB896358: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB896422: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB896423: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB896424: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB896428: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB899587: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB899589: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB899591: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB900725: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB901017: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB901190: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB901214: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB905414: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB905749: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB908519: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB908531: Security Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB911280: Security Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB911562: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB911564: Security Update for Plug-in do Windows Media Player (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB911567: Cumulative Security Update for Outlook Express for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB911927: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB912919: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB913580: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB914388: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB914389: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB917422: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB917537: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB917953: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB918439: Security Update for Internet Explorer for Windows XP SP2 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB918899: Cumulative Update for Internet Explorer for Windows XP SP2 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB919007: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB920214: Security Update for Outlook Express for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB920670: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB920683: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB920685: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB921398: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB921883: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB922582: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB922616: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB922819: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB923191: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB923414: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB924496: Security Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB925486: Security Update for Windows XP SP2 (...extra text for lameness filter...)

Windows XP SP2 - Recommended updates
KB319740: Update for Windows XP (v5) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB831240: Update for HighMAT support in the Windows XP CD Writing Wizard (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB884020: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB884883: Update for Windows XP (v8) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB885222: Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB886677: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB886716: Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB888656: Update to enable DirectX Video Acceleration of Windows Media Video content in WMP 10 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB889527: Update for Windows XP (v3) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB889673: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB891122: Update for DRM-enabled Media Players (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB893357: Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB894395: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB895181: Fix for MPEG4 videos in Windows Media Player 10 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB895316: FIX: Updates to the Windows Media Device Manager (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB896097: FIX: Indexing large files created with the WMF 9.5 SDK takes a long time
KB896344: Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB896626: Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB897338: Update for Windows XP SP2 (v3) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB897663: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB898458: Security Update for the Step-by-Step Interactive Training Application (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB898461: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB898900: Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB900399: FIX: For Windows Media Player (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB900485: Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB902344: Update for WMDRM-enabled Media Players (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB903234: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB904412: Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB904942: Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB905592: FIX: For applications using the Windows Media DirectShow QASF filter
KB906569: Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB907865: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB908521: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB909095: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB909520: Microsoft Base Smart Card Cryptographic Service Provider Package
KB910437: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB910998: FIX: Applications cannot play WMDRM-protected content (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB912461: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB912817: Windows XP COM+ Hotfix Rollup Package 13 (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB913538: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB916595: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB916846: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB917821: FIX: For WMA9 voice codec memory leak (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB918005: Update for Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB918093: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB918766: Update for Outlook Express 6.0 on Microsoft Windows XP (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB919071: FIX: For VMR9 in Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB920872: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB921108: FIX for WMF files (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB921134: FIX: For Windows Media Player 10 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB922042: FIX: For Windows Media Player 10 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB922814: Fix for Windows Media Player 10 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
KB924941: Update for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)

Components .NET Framework 1.1 (+SP1) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
- KB886903: Security Update for .NET Framework 1.1 SP1 (...extra text for lameness filter...) .NET Framework 2.0 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
- KB922481: Security Update for .NET Framework 2.0 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
- KB922770: Security Update for .NET Framework 2.0 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
Microsoft Journal Viewer 1.5.2316.0 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
Microsoft Management Console 3.0 (KB907265) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
Microsoft XML Parser (MSXML): (...extra text for lameness filter...)
- KB887606: Security Update for MSXML 2.6 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
- MSXML 3.0 SP7 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
- KB924191: Security Update for MSXML 3.0 SP7 on Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
- MSXML 4.0 SP2 including KB925672 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
- MSXML 6.0 including KB925673 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
Network Diagnostic Tool (KB914440 v10) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
User Profile Hive Cleanup 1.6d (...extra text for lameness filter...)
Windows Installer 3.1 (v2) (...extra text for lameness filter...)
Windows Media Player 10 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
Windows Media Connect 2.0 (...extra text for lameness filter...)
Windows Script 5.6 for Windows XP (...extra text for lameness filter...)
- KB917344: Windows Script 5.6 Security Update for Windows XP SP1 and SP2
Windows Update v6 (...extra text for lameness filter...)

(taken from Autopatcher 10/2006 [neowin.net] )

It would be very nice if they would do like they did post SP4 on W2K and release an update that contains all updates up to that point. If you do an automated install with Unattended, the windows update part takes well over an hour. If they could just do one update package a year --preferably slipstreamable -- it would be a big improvement.

I did a reinstall last night (2, Informative)

Alphager (957739) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593532)

It were 2 updates in the first run (new windows installer and new update-system), then 67 critical patches in the second run, then 6 critical patches in the third run.

Oblig. (1)

someguyfromdenmark (910971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593340)

It'll be released when Duke Nukem Forever comes out.

Re:Oblig. (1)

another_fanboy (987962) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593748)

Perhaps DNF is SP3. The characters, rather than being the traditional Duke Nukem pigs, will be security vulnerabilities and viruses. Also, whenever a powerup is found, a new patch will be installed. Let's just hope it isn't a cliffhanger...

Why should we want a new SP anyway? (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593344)

I don't think they will put Aero or other big dev they put on Vista in a free upgrade, so what would be left for a SP except the new DRM?

Re:Why should we want a new SP anyway? (1)

quibbs0 (803278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593534)

I agree. Microsoft Windows: DRM Edition. You just wait and see.

Re:Why should we want a new SP anyway? (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593682)

I just read my own post and saw how stupid it was. DRM is a critical update.

Maybe.. (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593348)

Maybe they are planning a whole slew of security fixes in 07 and want to make sure to include them in serve pack 3.

Or maybe they just don't care....

Sounds sensible (3, Insightful)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593354)

The whole SP thing is a throwback to the bad old days of 28.8k modems and CDs by post. Now we can add the fixes as they come along so why bother with a monolithic chunk of code that must be a testing nightmare for MS as well as corporate end users?
The only thing I can see that will be missed is that SPs often slipped in a new feature or two but no doubt someone somewhere thought it would be good business to stop that and insist people plonk down the $ for Vista. As per usual with suits, that's short term thinking. If you're being obliged to do a full OS upgrade you may as well consider other options like Linux.

Re:Sounds sensible (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593518)

You use a service pack because you don't want to sit on the end of a modem for 4 hours whilst these updates drip in one at a time with separate reboots in-between and leaving yourself open and available to infection from being on the wild internet.

Re:Sounds sensible (2, Informative)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593552)

Honestly, a service pack is a pretty good opportunity to perform a more significant refactoring of a system then you'd want to on a weekly/monthy patch. Basically, if you have a security flaw (for example) a patch would plug the hole trying to limit the risk associated with this flaw whereas a service pack would actually try to fix the problem. The reason you'd want to do it in two stages is to increase the ammount of testing that is done on the larger fix.

Re:Sounds sensible (5, Informative)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593556)

The whole SP thing is a throwback to the bad old days of 28.8k modems and CDs by post. Now we can add the fixes as they come along so why bother with a monolithic chunk of code that must be a testing nightmare for MS as well as corporate end users?

Because you can read the SP from a CD and have the fixes installed before you connect the computer to the internet at all.
In the past, there have been some security holes that could be exploited as soon as your PC is on the net, making it a race between the malware and the patches which gets to your PC first. Loading the SP from a CD removes this problem.

Re:Sounds sensible (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593594)

Yup, I'll give you that one, shoots down my argument nicely.

Re:Sounds sensible (1)

quantum bit (225091) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593820)

Or better yet slipstream the SP into your install CD and only use that. Nothing to have to remember to apply. An "XP with SP2" CD is a much more secure way to install than an original XP CD and applying SP2 post install.

Why bother? I'll tell you why. (2, Informative)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593602)

Because downloading a single service pack is somewhat quicker for a new machine than it checking for every single update required and the longer an unpatched new machine is on the net the quicker it can get rooted. Plus with lots of little patches what you really end up with is myriad versions of the OS since not everyone will have every patch , leading to god knows how many minor (or not) glitches and issues with other software. A single service pack can be considered a fairly major OS upgrade which you either have or you don't have , your PC is either compliant or it isn't.

Re:Sounds sensible - for Microsoft (1)

raitchison (734047) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593640)

As others have pointed out, there are a massive number of fixes required for XP SP2 making it a PITA for any new deployment.

Now larger ships can slipstream these fixes into their installation source thus reducing the pain but adding the pain to build a new slipstreamed image every so often.

Of course Microsoft (and many users) will say that any new deployments should be on Vista but many many organizations don't want to run a mixed environment and many more will wait a while to see how stable Vista is (i.e. wait for Vista SP1).

The real motivation here is that Microsoft makes money from selling a Vista upgrade or when people buy a new PC with Vista, whiel they make zero money when someone uses SP3 to keep their XP going for a little while longer.

Re:Sounds sensible (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593758)

The whole SP thing is a throwback to the bad old days of 28.8k modems and CDs by post. Now we can add the fixes as they come along so why bother with a monolithic chunk of code that must be a testing nightmare for MS as well as corporate end users?

Because some people are still running modems?

Or because you can't install XP clean and get it patched up unless you're either behind a firewall, or are willing to be pwned before you finish the install? As I recall, the latest statistic is less than 3 minutes on average for a new install of XP to be buggered when initially installed and connected to the network.

Cheers

Re:Sounds sensible (1)

oc255 (218044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594084)

Perhaps when it's connected to "the network" outside of a firewall. I've seen this on SP1 and on SP2 (firewall off). .exe files just start showing up in the repl directory and all this weird stuff happens. It's pretty crazy. Happened in less than 3 minutes. I honestly don't know how they know. They scan all the time? What are the chances? Is everyone scanning? It's really frightening, all that scanning traffic.

Re:Sounds sensible (1)

Ruprecht the Monkeyb (680597) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593796)

Because for those of us who end up building a lot of boxes, it's a damn sight quicker than having to go through the auto-update process, which generally requires several reboots and restarts as the server works its way through the list of fixes. Especially when the client has a slow internet pipe. A service pack, or at least a roll-up, would make that a lot easier. And yes, I know there are ways to make your own roll-up, but I'd rather have one that Microsoft has it least nominally tested rather than something I did myself. I don't mind for my personal PCs, but when it's a customer, I'd just as soon be able to tell them its Microsoft's fault that the service pack broke something.

But but but (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593358)

> "They feel that because these fixes are available through the auto-update that there's less need to create a service pack."

What about the people who make their own install media with the service packs already integrated?

Re:But but but (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16593486)

What about the people who make their own install media with the service packs already integrated?
You mean pirates? Arrrr...

Re:But but but (1)

PsyHawk (1018580) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593816)

Sorry mate but pirates are not the only ones to slipstream updates into installation media. Sounds like you've been following too much hype. Get with the program ;)

See Microsoft's own KBA:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/814847 [microsoft.com]

I work with companies who do it quite often. When imaging isn't used, it beats having to install the OS and wait through all the screens and clicks, AND THEN install the service pack.

To the original poster: If you look around, you will find out how you can slipstream most updates into an installation package. Look into "nLite"

Also read up on
http://www.petri.co.il/forums/archive/index.php?t- 5079.html [petri.co.il]

WinXP SP3 .... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16593364)

... is spelled V I S T A

Re:WinXP SP3 .... (1, Offtopic)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593932)

"... is spelled V I S T A" ... even though SP3 will come out after Vista's released, just like 2K's SP4 came after XP etc.

Not informative, sorry.

Is there a need for a Service Pack? (4, Funny)

writermike (57327) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593368)

Seriously, are there problems? I've not run into any in a long, long time.

Oh, no. I shouldn't have said that.

Personally I think they will kill it (5, Interesting)

raitchison (734047) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593370)

They killed Windows NT 4.0 SP7 in the ßeta process
They killed Windows 2000 SP5 in the pre-ßeta stage

Given this track record of killing off Service Packs shortly before they are released, as some (including me) might suspect in an effort to drive adoption of their newer software (which makes them money unlike a service pack) I'll be extremely surprised if Windows XP SP3 is ever released.

IMO, what they are saying now is just lip service/stalling and they have already made the decision.

Re:Personally I think they will kill it (1)

Schattenherz (1018560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593428)

Yeah, same thought here. I hate MS for doing that.

Re:Personally I think they will kill it (4, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593628)

Emphasis mine:
They killed Windows NT 4.0 SP7 in the ßeta process They killed Windows 2000 SP5 in the pre-ßeta stage

What is a Betaeta process/stage?

Or do you bank at an ATM machine?

I happen to agree with you, though, that SP3 is dead in the water -- unless Vista bombs and there is a lot of Linux switchover. Announcing a delay allows MS to change their mind later, if necessary, so that they can release SP3 if it becomes a good decision to do so.

Re:Personally I think they will kill it (1)

raitchison (734047) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593780)

What is a Betaeta process/stage?

Or do you bank at an ATM machine?

Indeed and my computer has a NIC card :-)

The sad thing is I was aware of the redundancy when I wrote it, it's just what I'm used to writing, a bad habit I started many moons ago.

Re:Personally I think they will kill it (4, Funny)

Anthracks (532185) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594168)

Clearly, he works for the Department of Redundancy Department.

Re:Personally I think they will kill it (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16593936)

Why bother - autopatcher.com has everything you need a lot quicker than MS ever will, and doesn't use/install WGA unless you ask it to.

Re:Personally I think they will kill it (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593684)

Are you aware that the character 'ß' is pronounced 'beta'? So in essence, what you have written is 'BETAeta' -- kind of like writing 3hree or 4our.

Re:Personally I think they will kill it (1)

quantum bit (225091) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593850)

4our

I like it. I like it a lot.

Re:Personally I think they will kill it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16594230)

They killed Windows NT 4.0 SP7 in the ßeta process

what on earth is a "sseta process"?

Re:Personally I think they will kill it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16594386)

You're a pretentious ass.

Why would they even bother is right (2, Insightful)

jedimastermopar (1015773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593380)

Why bother at all? The next breathe M$ makes is that Vista is going to be out very soon since RC2 is out and is the final release before vista goes gold?

ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16593394)

Didn't I just see SP3 in the previoes slashdot article?

Companies requiring high security (4, Insightful)

owlstead (636356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593396)

"They feel that because these fixes are available through the auto-update that there's less need to create a service pack."

Yes, much more fun for all those admins at high secure locations (without internet access). It is almost impossible to install a new Windows machine using XP, since you will have to do a lot of updating after the installation itself. Even if you have a dedicated server this is a real pain, since you will have to wait for all the tiny updates to complete. It's hard enough to get Internet Explorer or DirectX installed as it is.

And those with only a modem will really enjoy this. Previously you just bought a CD-ROM with the service pack. Not anymore it seems.

Re:Companies requiring high security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16593698)

What's this modem thing people keep talking about?

Re:Companies requiring high security (2, Informative)

MrLogic17 (233498) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593946)

Dude, ever hear of integrating hotfixes? Just like slipstreaming Service Packs, only smaller. When I deploy an XP machine, it doesn't need ANY updates. It's hours faster, and takes a large burden off your internet pipe.

It's written for 2k, but works for XP too...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/ser vicepacks/sp3/hfdeploy.htm [microsoft.com]

Re:Companies requiring high security (1)

archen (447353) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594374)

Not only that but service packs were at least a lowest common denominator where you could tell where a machine stood as far as how up to date it was. If you see a machine running Win2k Sp1, then you know how outdated it is and the sorts of problems this machine may run into. When you eliminate service packs you not only make it a pain to do batch updates via CDROM, you make it sort of arbitrary what state a machine may be in. Maybe it has some patches, maybe others won't apply. If you can't connect to windows update or a WSUS server then how in the hell do you even know?

Service Pack vs. Hotfixes (1)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593400)

I wonder if there is any good reason any more to do monolithic service pack releases. I mean, if you instead just release a series of small patches as each bug or feature is squashed/added, in the end you achieve the same effect in an incrimental fashion, and your users get better overall functionality sooner rather than later. What would be the benefit of throwing a whole bunch of stuff out there all at once instead?

Re:Service Pack vs. Hotfixes (2, Informative)

quantum bit (225091) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593742)

The main reason is because service packs can do what they call "slipstreaming". You apply the service pack against the original install CD, create an image from that, and burn yourself a new CD. When you install from your new CD you already have everything that was part of the service pack, so you have a lot less that needs to be downloaded after the install is complete. Since the files on the CD were updated, it doesn't take any longer to install the OS than normal (versus waiting 15 minutes for an SP to apply even when it's local). Great for admins who frequently build machines.

Don't tell me to just use ghost or dd or some other disk imaging solution. I've found that a fresh install is a lot cleaner (no filesystem resizing / conversion, no SID issues, no cruft in your image from when you logged in to set stuff up). Combined with a script to tweak some default settings and group policy to automatically install the appropriate software, it's just as automated as an image and doesn't take much longer. Waiting for 70 security updates to install (even from a local WSUS mirror) is probably the longest part of the whole process.

Re:Service Pack vs. Hotfixes (1)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593826)

Hadn't thought of that - and now that you mention it, I have done some slipstreaming before to make a nice XP disk for myself. However, couldn't you also slipstream in the individual smaller patches? I seem to recall that being an option in one of the slipstreaming programs I used. I could be mistaken though. Ah well, good point in any case.

Re:Service Pack vs. Hotfixes (1)

quantum bit (225091) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593948)

I don't think you can do it with the "offical" slipstreaming process. I've seen guides to doing that before, but basically they involve copying all of the setup files for the individual patches onto the CD and using a custom install script to apply the patches near the end of the install. Seems really inefficient plus you have to use an answer file which means your setup process is no longer interactive in a few places (notably disk partitioning IIRC).

It might also be possible to manually replace individual files on the CD with patched versions, but I'm leery of doing that in case there's also some registry changes or other issues that would get missed.

Well technically you can slipstream hotfixes too (1)

raitchison (734047) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594066)

Almost all hotfixes released in the past few years have also been slipstreamable.

We use this for our XP and Windows 2003 media.

For XP you start with a clean (virgin) XP SP2 media, install it, then run Microsoft Update to determine what fixes Microsoft thinks that system needs. You manually download all those fixes and do a slipsream setup to integrate into your installation media.

The process is the same with Windows 2003 only we start with Windows 2003 R2 media.

The problem is that you pretty much have to start over from scratch every time you do it, because some hotfixes replace older hotfixes you are really best off repeating the process from the beginning.

We re-build our Windows 2003 media about every 6 months, it's been closer to a year since we did our XP build (we're overdue).

It's obvious (5, Insightful)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593410)

Microsoft will not produce SP3 because of very simple reason: they want Vista to replace XP. It's cash, a lot of it.
Everybody knows that Win XP has more holes than swiss cheese. And it started to get Joe User. So they will upgrade just because of being scared of 'all those viruses, you know...'. So they'll be effectively forced to buy new system. And Miscosoft will be able to withdraw support for XP faster - which is good for them - they don't earn any cash from supporting it and it costs a lot.
I think they'll not make the same mistake like with Win2000 that is still quite alive and kicking because of good compatibility with XP and SP3 they released for it.
We can expect that Vista will quite fast become quite 'not exactly' compatible with XP. And without SP3 situation will get only worse. That's called strategy. On a big scale.

Re:It's obvious (2)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593636)

"they don't earn any cash from supporting it"

No , but they earn a lot of goodwill and god knows they need it right now.

Re:It's obvious (1)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593668)

Exactly my thoughts. Why bother patching XP, when they can simply force people to "upgrade" to Vista instead.

Re:It's obvious (1)

williambbertram (958094) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594268)

"...they don't earn any cash from supporting it..."

Can someone please give me the free support phone number for Microsoft? Oh wait, all of my questions are answered on Knowledge Base, Technet, and newsgroups .

But they just said vista was coming out in january (2, Funny)

gentimjs (930934) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593424)

I thought I heard that Vista was coming out in january? Whew, close call! Here I was thinking that I needed to make a vista strategy for the company, but after hearing this and knowing Vista wont be out till 2008, thats a big load off my back.

Win2K SP5 all over again (4, Insightful)

winchester (265873) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593480)

Sounds like what happened with Windows 2000. Service pack 5 never materialised, but a security roll-up package was released to somewhat satisfy major customers. My guess is that the same thing will happen with Windows XP. A security roll-up package will be released at some point because the number of post-SP2 patches is approaching insane amounts. But other than that, Microsoft will be far, far too busy pushing Longhorn Server out of the door.

Moo (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593492)

Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft

No more Service Packs, OK? Please? Which a (Michael) Cherry on top?

Truthfully, i don't care much for Microsoft Service Packs. Microsoft Cakes, however, that may be a different case entirely.

Deja vu? (1, Redundant)

nillawafer (1018564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593508)

I seem to remember them postponing Windows NT Service Pack 7 "for a later date" at one time. Then, it was Service Pack 5 for Windows 2000. Both of those never saw the light of day. Sounds like they're putting off SP3 for XP until it sinks into the abyss.

Joke for the Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16593612)

WELL THEN, I guess I will have to RUSH OUT and buy Windows Vista!!!

Why can't MS just have a "Order XP update CD" link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16593650)

Seriously. And no hella profit, price it just enough to cover expenditures.

"Download the current ISO by clicking the download link below or order the Windows XP (Home/Pro dropdown) update disc which includes all security updates up to and including (this Tuesday's date). [Note - use of this disc will automatically update your system to SP2.]"

They're Microsoft, surely they can produce an always current ISO? Why don't they? Why? WHY? Why do they hate us so?

Obligation?? How about pleasing your customers! (2, Informative)

FridayBob (619244) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593666)

But then again, without any real competition, why should they care? Once again, it's clear that Microsoft's primary obligation is to its stockholders -- you can be sure that they're doing the very best they can to maximize their profits.

You crack me up. (2, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594222)

you can be sure that they're doing the very best they can to maximize their profits.

Hardly.

If Microsoft wanted to maximise their profits they would have jumped at the chance to split the company up so the Windows team wouldn't be able to piss in everyone else's milk, and all the other products they've had to drop or cripple because they couldn't be turned into life-support for Windows or Office could be created and sold. Microsoft is desperate for a way to get people to Buy More Windows, everything they've done since XP shipped has been tinged with "oh my god, what are we going to do now"... and Vista is more of the same.

Three or five "Baby Bills" would end up making more money for the shareholders than one big Microsoft.

Long Live Windows XP! (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593730)

I guess it's official then, end of the line for Windows XP except for patches until end of life. By 2008, Jane Consumer will have bought a new PC with Vista on it, or won't even care if some post-PC device is providing the desired functionality at lower cost and greater ease of use. I personally don't want to tangle with anymore XP service packs anyway. So if SP3 is canceled, it really won't matter anymore.

Windows genuine advantage (3, Insightful)

javilon (99157) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593772)

This has to do with WGA. With a service pack, you can just burn a cd, install Windows XP without the network plugged and then upgrade the installation to the latest SP without having to connect to the network.

M$ doesn't want you to be able to do that. They want you to use the network updater so they can test the validity of your license.

Whether you are in a highly secure setting without internet access or behind a modem in a 3rd world country, they don't care. They want to check your license.

Re:Windows genuine advantage (5, Insightful)

tgd (2822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594258)

Except of course all those updates are available and can be installed without Windows Update.

Nice conspiracy theory, though.

Sad but true (1)

mrmagicmiked (1016984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593844)

They aren't under any obligation to provide us with SP's. It's all a marketing ploy to get us to buy Vista (those who actually buy their software nowadays) and other MS products. It's a vicious cycle, and we'll all probably have chips in our foreheads soon.

Marketability? Fit for the purpose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16594028)

And you may say that this is made mmot by the EULA, but that clause is not binding in many jurisdictions and probably not in *any* juristiction.

What is a Service Pack? (1)

tubs (143128) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593904)

I suppose it all depends what a service pack is there to do - even going back to nt3, service packs have also included "increased" functionality.

If MS are not going to introduce any new functionality, it could be argued that they don't need a service pack as all the patches are available - either as downloads or as "live" updates.

Corporate customers probably have a build process that already includes these updates - SUS/Bigfix or whatever so it wouldn't effect them. System builders will integrate the fixes in their image, so it wouldn't affect them. The only people affected will be those that like to rebuild thier computers often - like most of the world, and the solution will be - upgrade to Vista!

But I thought... (0, Redundant)

dwiget (947248) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593930)

That Vista was Windows XP SP3... guess it is delayed again. :P

Need XP SP3? Just let these guys do it. (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593972)

www.autopatcher.com [autopatcher.com]

Linux (1)

rayzap (700032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16593996)

MS is doing all they can to move people from their crap to Linux. 1. Vista may be installed on one machine and only one change. PC builders like myself change mobos a lot and I will never use Vista if it means having to buy a new copy every second PC upgrade. 2. XP will be orphaned, you wait and see. MS will push people to Vista. 3. Media compatibility is becoming an issue. Windows Media already dropped support for the Mac and have turned it over to Flip4Mac which sucks and MS will never support Linux with theor media player. Flash 9 stands to become the holy grail of complete cross platform compatibility. MS is making some huge strategic mistakes and Linux stands to win.

Re:Linux (1)

SpecialAgentXXX (623692) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594322)

No, Linux does not stand to win on the desktop market. No matter what criticism there is of windows, it is still the easiest to use with the most support (i.e. web sites, user base, etc.). Click on auto-update and, voila, your PC is updated. Install nearly any kind of software and, voila, it works.

With Linux, you need to do an "RPM" and then check dependencies, etc. That is way, way, way too much for the average user. Think of your car. Most people only know how to stick the key in the ignition and turn it over. Even stick-shift is being phased out. Imagine treating your car like Linux where you have to open the hood or trunk and do something (even minor). And the average desktop PC is used for multimedia with the latest SoundBlaster hardware. There are no comparable drivers & software for Linux as there is for Windows.

The only desktop competition for Windows is the Mac. Unfortunately, you have to buy Apple hardware and the cards for the PC are not compatible with the Mac. If the Mac OS was as versatile as the Windows OS (ie. run on "standard" x86 hardware and be compatible with all PC cards), then that would be a big challenge to Windows.

Before switching to WinXP from Win2K, I seriously gave Linux a try. I didn't like the concept of having to register my OS with Microsoft. But after seeing how much less I could with Linux (multimedia, SoundBlaster card) and how much more time it took to maintain Linux (i.e. kernel depencies when installing MySQL, Apache, MythTV, etc., etc.) compared to just clicking on "Install.exe" for Windows, I gave up and bought WinXP.

Where Linux excelled is in the server area because it's cheap (almost free) and is basic - which is why a server-PC would not be satisfactory for a multimedia-PC user.

Delayed XP SP3? (0)

LoveGoblin (972821) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594024)

Aw, man! Vista's never gonna come out!

Updates vs Service Packs (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594076)

At least with a service pack, you can download it and install it on non-connected computers.

I guess they dont want customers that arent 'on-line', where they can maintain control.

Darwinism and Service Packs (1, Troll)

silkstorm (1018576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594120)

Thinking as a legal residential user of Windows XP : Service packs aren't needed. With obligatory increases in bandwidth from the large providers to remain competitive with each other, I'm thinking specifically to changes in methods of distribution. Why were there 7 Service Packs Released for NT4? Why were there 4 for W2K? 2 For XP? With more users finding it easier to allow their computer to download updates automatically from the net, reaching a state of updated equilibrium doesn't require service packs. Service packs for Windows are outdated, and cause confusion. The average user doesn't always realize that after the service pack is installed, they still have to use windows update anyways to obtain security hotfixes, signed driver updates, etc... So Microsoft, let's just say that windows update should be the only way to go from here on (if your not already using yum or apt-get).

For those who are worried about their darknets ... (4, Informative)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594174)

Granted, installing WinXP followed by the latest SP's from CD-ROM is a secure way to install a machine with some measure of confidence that it won't be hacked immediately upon exposure to the internet, but . . .

Most people who are responsible for such systems are presumably intelligent enough to slipstream [vorck.com] the latest Service Pack AND all current security patches onto a WinXP installation CD which can then be used to install a machine - in fact, this would be the recommended procedure, as it results not only in the machine having the latest SP from the start but also all the miscellaneous security updates which have been published since the last SP.

Remember, a fresh install of Windows XP + Service Pack 2 is still vulnerable to known exploits. Being able to incorporate all the security updates which are available at the time the machine is brought online results in a signifigantly more secure situation (although Microsoft's well-documented history of ignoring certain inconvenient security holes until they get their collective nose rubbed in them would still make me nervous, personally).

Of course, this only works for i386 versions of Windows - from what I can gather, it's not possible to slipstream the x86_64 version. If I've got that wrong, somebody please correct me (and provide a link to instructions).

windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16594266)

Microsoft's products will always be required and used by business and individuals . Get over it. Linux and alternatives are ok, but MS still does and will always reign supreme.

Summary of Posts with Additional Commentary (1)

rising_hope (900951) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594384)

From the article, and insight from other users, it can be stated simply: SP3 is not coming. It's a red herring to buy time for a roll up package and an EOL announcement on XP some time in 2008 or 2009. In the mean time, you can integrate *most* of the windows updates into your installations already. Sure, it's a royal PIA, and a total waste of time, but it works. For those of you in uber-secure environments, might I suggest Windows SUS? It works well enough, and is free for the patch portion. Better, you can tightly control what patches get pushed to the masses in case there's a conflict with some existing software. (Like one of the patches recently blew up some computers at our office with a particular version of ZenWorks that we were using.) As for commentary on Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA), it's probably true. Microsoft doesn't care what your excuse is, they want to validate everything. Thus, it's an entire LAYER of the next OS, and not just a simple patch on top that can be hacked in 30 seconds. Ultimately, in an effort to enforce tighter control on who's pirating software, they're about to alienate a whole mass of corporate consumers hell bent on keeping a tight ship. Look for Microsoft to cave on this issue sometime within the next 2 years (they eventually caved on Product Activation for corporate consumers shortly before release), or if they haven't, within 3 years after Microsoft announces EOL on support for XP SP2, watch corporate consumers with highly secure locked down environments (like credit card vendors, federal government organizations, and possibly hospitals) to start looking at viable Windows alternatives. Unfortunately, with the number of competitors shrinking, options are becoming fewer. Many companies will probably want to avoid proprietary hardware, eliminating options from Apple (unless they start allowing third party hardware -- doubtful), or Sun (unless they seriously commit to supporting x86 -- doubtful), leaving flavors of Linux or BSD as the next most likely candidates.

Microsoft keeps screwing up (3, Informative)

kerashi (917149) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594398)

I live in a rural area where most of the people are on dialup. I like to provide my friends and family with the security patches so they need so they don't have to spend weeks downloading them through dialup. A service pack would make this job a LOT easier, but as it is I have to rely on AutoPatcher [neowin.net] to handle this.

Microsoft doesn't seem to want to make it easy. If you want to get your patches from Microsoft, you have to either use Windows Update on every single machine, or sift through hundreds of pages to individually download the updates you need. It shouldn't be that hard.

I have four computers running Windows. I want to download updates ONCE for all of them, without wasting bandwidth and without all the hassle that Microsoft wants to put you through to do that. AutoPatcher does this (and hats off to those guys for doing so) so why can't Microsoft get their act together and start putting out something similar?

Uh huh! (1)

EvilMoose (176457) | more than 7 years ago | (#16594400)

So when SP3 finally comes out I guess MS is gonna start phasing it out. Oh wait, they've already started phasing it out with the DX10 being Vista only and games like Halo2 being Vista-only.
I still use Win2k and I growl everytime I try to install something because it says, "WE R SORRY, YOU CANNOT USE THIS BECAUSE IT'S XP ONLY."

The same goes for all of those crappy XP-only mp3 players. I can't wait until more Vista-only things come out!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>