Slashdot Mirror


Windows XP Service Pack 3 Not Due Until 2007

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."

334 comments

  1. Interesting commentary on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Whitedust posted an interesting commentary on this this other day. I agree with them.

    1. Re:Interesting commentary on this... by badriram · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft always did say that SP will not have new features. Then SP2 sort of changed that only for that instance. Just about all updates on most SP can be downloaded individually and installed. So MS is not really taking anything away from you.

      A SP release to them just adds more QA and testing, that i think they want to avoid and release vista. I keep seeing people posting how they think MS is doing this so they can sell Vista. I do not think that is the reason, as most people buy windows through OEM with new computers, and a late SP is not going to change that. Corporations are not going to just switch to vista in a few months because of SP3 being late either, because by the time they test and release SP3, SP1 for vista would be out....

      The only people that might upgrade are well Windows fans/devs/sys admins, and well they will upgrade irregardless of SP3 timeline

    2. Re:Interesting commentary on this... by Fayth · · Score: 0

      Hmm....new os with much newer functionality or minor changes to a 4 year old OS...Think I will take the newer one.

      But seriously, look at the fact that M$ releases security fixes, a service pack isn't a huge priority nor should it be. Anyone in I.T. waiting to update until a Service Pack is released needs a head examination. So this commentarty is rather moot.

    3. Re:Interesting commentary on this... by rsborg · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Microsoft always did say that SP will not have new features.

      Well leaving aside the XPSP2 you mentioned, what about NT4SP4 (ie, integration of browser with OS)? If this is really Microsoft's statement regarding SP's, then they've went against their word more than once.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    4. Re:Interesting commentary on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Where in that commentary did it suggest you wait for a Service Pack to update? It just said that XPSP2 was a massive security upgrade - more so than SP1 patches - and that XPSP3 may well me the same.



      Did you even read it? ;)

    5. Re:Interesting commentary on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      irregardless

      regardless.

    6. Re:Interesting commentary on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Torrent please!

    7. Re:Interesting commentary on this... by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      Corporations are not going to just switch to vista in a few months because of SP3 being late either

      Heck, I work for a rather large corporation, and we are still using SP1. There's lots of security around it and they're on their toes, so network attacks of various kinds are unheard of. There's a lot of stuff we need to use that we already know is working fine without SP2, and I seriously doubt that we will see Vista on our desktops until somehow there is simply no other option for the company.

    8. Re:Interesting commentary on this... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Well leaving aside the XPSP2 you mentioned, what about NT4SP4 (ie, integration of browser with OS)?

      SP4 didn't really add any new features (maybe some under-the-hood stuff). The browser/web server integration came on a seperate package called Option Pack.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    9. Re:Interesting commentary on this... by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      NT4 SP3 added AGP support and by SP4 there was that optional command to increase the encryption level in the registry for password hashes. I forget what it was called. Thats a feature. I did have to install the option pack to get IIS 4 installed on NT server. It seems like IE had to be installed to use later service packs. I seem to remember having to install IE 3 or 4 to get SP6a to work. If it were included as part of the service pack, I would not need to install IE to get it to install.

    10. Re:Interesting commentary on this... by chigun · · Score: 1

      Same here. We are JUST starting to roll out XPSP2 and me and the other nerds were talking about how we don't see the company using Vista for a LONG time. Maybe us sysadmins will, but since corporate has been doing network scans on us, I doubt that too. I don't even think I'll run vista at home (right away) as I am fairly happy with XP Pro right now.

      --
      swanker than you
    11. Re:Interesting commentary on this... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      I worked with many NT4 servers that never had IE4+ installed, so I doubt your story.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
  2. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...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"...

    1. Re:Hmmm... by Thud457 · · Score: 1
      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I thought "vista" stood for everything windows was
      famous for: Virus Infections, Spyware, Trojans and
      Ad-ware.

    3. Re:Hmmm... by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 1

      Im writing this down.

  3. But.. by JonJ · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought Windows Vista was due this year?

    --
    -- Linux user #369862
    1. Re:But.. by Obsidian+Dagger · · Score: 0

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

      --
      "It is not my intent to offend, but if offense is taken, the fault lies with the audience." attributed to Patrick Henry
    2. Re:But.. by Eightyford · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

    4. Re:But.. by Obsidian+Dagger · · Score: 0

      Only my failing memory...

      --
      "It is not my intent to offend, but if offense is taken, the fault lies with the audience." attributed to Patrick Henry
    5. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha. Fair enough.

    6. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows XP SP3 has a name: Vista.

    7. Re:But.. by panaceaa · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I thought Windows Vista was due this year?

      Correct, Vista is planned for the end of 2006. From there, Microsoft has already planned Vista SP1 for mid-2007, followed by XP SP3 in late 2007. Basically there's 4-8 months between releases, so developers have a span of time to dedicate themselves to each project.

    8. Re:But.. by jacksonj04 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, 2000 was a massive leap from NT4. We won't mention ME.

      XP being built on the old NT base and ditching 9X was the best thing to happen to Windows in a long time.

      So, 2000 is to NT4 as Vista is to XP? We can only hope.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    9. Re:But.. by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By the beard of Odin, planned Service Packs sounds more like planned bug fixes.

      They've already blown their Vista deadline (at least once) so Why TF don't they keep it in testing for another 4 months instead of releasing buggy software?

      Or why not a final Beta release to let the fanboys go at it and find the bugs?

      Maybe with their 'new' patching system, patches won't need to be measured in MBs, in which case, Service Packs won't be hundreds of megs. I could live with that, but jumping on Vista worse than being an early Xbox360 adopter... with Vista you know something is going to go wrong

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    10. Re:But.. by drsmithy · · Score: 2
      I think the original poster was joking that Vista is not much more than a small upgrade from XP.

      Vista is about as much a "small upgrade from XP" as OS X was a "small upgrade from NeXT".

    11. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Technically, Windows is an 'operating system,' which means that it supplies your computer with the basic commands that it needs to suddenly, with no warning whatsoever, stop operating." - Dave Barry

      In light of this, what do we really need another XP SP, let alone Vista, for?

    12. Re:But.. by Eightyford · · Score: 1

      Vista is about as much a "small upgrade from XP" as OS X was a "small upgrade from NeXT".

      I hope your right. It looks good on paper, but it seems like they aren't including a lot of the new stuff in the first release.

    13. Re:But.. by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Win95 had one, but it was also sold as Windows 95 OSR1, version 4.00.950 A. Kinda like how MS markets the copies of XP that have SP2 slipstreamed into them as the SP2 version.

      NT 3.51 had five.

      It could be argued that NT 4 had a service pack 7 - but the features in it were either split into individual downloads, or put into SP6a, which was also THE bugfix for SP6's major deal-breaking bugs.

    14. Re:But.. by baadger · · Score: 1

      Heh, I have an original release of Windows 95 on 14 floppies, pre-SP1. I'm almost tempted to fire it up sometime to see how it really varies from my current 2000 installation after i've installed everything I can throw at it.

  4. huh by c0dedude · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    1. Re:huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahhh actually this isn't very funny at all.

    2. Re:huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      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!!"

    3. Re:huh by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      "When its Done" 3DRealms

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    4. Re:huh by Belseth · · Score: 1
      "2007" is a funny term for "whenever we get around to it"...

      Is it too early to anounce Windows 2010, which will come out in 2012 but won't perform properly until the 2015 patch but Windows 2020 should be really amazing.

    5. Re:huh by CumInHerTaco · · Score: 0

      XP SP3 -- "When it's done."

      --
      The only way to end war is for everyone to get a piece!
    6. Re:huh by lengau · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well isn't VISTA just an acronym?

      You know -

      Viruses
      Intruders
      Spyware
      Trojans and
      Adware

      The most popular applications for Windows (AKA "Killer Apps")

      --
      I really wanted to change my sig to something witty, but all I could come up with is this.
  5. cuz vista is coming out. by dgrati · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:cuz vista is coming out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.

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

    2. Re:cuz vista is coming out. by darthservo · · Score: 1, Insightful
      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.

      --

      Prove it.

    3. Re:cuz vista is coming out. by varmittang · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      12345
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    4. Re:cuz vista is coming out. by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2, Insightful
      they sell on the idea of 'newness' and 'newness' would fade out with updating existing xp to an sp3.


      Service packs aren't SUPPOSED to introduce new functionality, they're meant to roll up bug fixes so you don't have to install 50 patches after installing your software product. MS should be releasing a service pack every quarter or at most every half IMHO.

    5. Re:cuz vista is coming out. by Fayth · · Score: 0

      Yup...I totally agree, a Service Pack in the world of M$ shouldn't be the priority.

    6. Re:cuz vista is coming out. by dgrati · · Score: 1

      perception is the key. how many users realize what u say? marketing!!!

    7. Re:cuz vista is coming out. by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. Service packs include more updates than just the hotfixes released since the last service pack, and they get a lot more QA testing. Microsoft has released Security Rollup Patches which are closer to what you're describing.

  6. Cue the "Vista is SP3" jokes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:Cue the "Vista is SP3" jokes. by starnix · · Score: 1

      I disagree. For it to be a service pack for XP means it would be free. There will be nothing free about Vista.

  7. XP SP-3 in 2007 by thriemus · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    Somethings wrong...

    --
    - Sig
    1. Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 by Threni · · Score: 2, Informative

      > 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).

    2. Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 by aslate · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      - I wish i was a major corparation so i could be above the law.

      OT, but that reminded me of the best SatireWire ever. ;->

    4. Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 by MojoStan · · Score: 1
      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).

      Customers have the option of ordering a "free" CD (plus shipping and handling) from Microsoft. Here's the link for WinXP SP2:

      Order Windows XP Service Pack 2 on CD
      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    5. Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 by Threni · · Score: 1

      I paid for my copy of Windows XP, and I registered - sending off my name and address and everything. Perhaps Microsoft could show it cares about it's customers security (and that of the internet) be spending the £1 or less it'd cost to post me the service packs as and when they become available?

    6. Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 by Zonnald · · Score: 1

      Think of the trees!
      The packaging to send out a disc to every registered customer would have to be significant. I would also think that having the employees required to pull of such logistics would also be a bit of an issue.

    7. Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 by maynard · · Score: 1

      Uhhh, I'm no MS apologist, but I'd like to point out that they have been somewhat reasonable about providing security fixes. If you compare those fixes to the Apple updates, a full blown SP release could be considered a new OS upgrade in MacOS X. And MS isn't charging you for that.

      Now I still won't run Windows until MS fixes inherent security holes from email and web embedded scripting. I don't like viruses, trojans, and other exploits. But -- from what I saw -- the WMF bug was fixed pretty fast. It wasn't a bug (other than in conspiracy theory land) that existed by design, but an unexpected error no different from what any other OS might experience. I own a Mac. I support Linux at work. I have no idea what Vista will be like, and I doubt I'll buy it. And I still think MS has a shitty history. But sometimes reality intrudes on the MS pile-on. JMO...

    8. Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 by jrockway · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they could just outsource it to AOL.

      --
      My other car is first.
    9. Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 by macjim · · Score: 1

      Well, you sound rather like an MS apologist: IIRC all the OS X upgrades have included shiny new toys as well as tending to make your mac run quicker

  8. last one left turn out the lights... by DeveloperAdvantage · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    FREE - Java, J2EE and Ajax Audiobooks for Software Developers - www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
    1. Re:last one left turn out the lights... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And half their customers will be using Linux!

    2. Re:last one left turn out the lights... by networkBoy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      (not missing the humor but...)
      If google is smart they won't do that.
      Ever hear of graft Vs. Host disease?
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:last one left turn out the lights... by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

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

      And by then Google will be an underground lair from Microsoft burying it.

    4. Re:last one left turn out the lights... by Sudar · · Score: 1

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

      But my prediction is 75%. What do you say?

    5. Re:last one left turn out the lights... by .darkaiyen. · · Score: 1

      Do you really believe that half the team at Microsoft would be able to get jobs at Google? If they're that good, why is their software such crap?

    6. Re:last one left turn out the lights... by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Alright can someone explain the flamebait there?
      I genuinely don't get it...

      -1 bad joke . . . fine
      -1 troll . . . fine
      -1 overrated . . . fine (don't like it, but fine)
      -1 flamebait . . . ya know, I just don't see it.

      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    7. Re:last one left turn out the lights... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Because they don't get to finish it before it gets released.

  9. Of course by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

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

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Of course by nbert · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Of course by smbarbour · · Score: 1

      As a realist, I have to ask... Does it really matter? As long as they provide the security updates in a timely matter, do we really care that it won't all be packaged up and named Service Pack 3?

  10. What does this mean for Vista? by rob_squared · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I don't get it.
    1. Re:What does this mean for Vista? by MojoStan · · Score: 4, Informative
      Microsoft doesn't love releasing service packs for any OS that isn't the latest one.

      They might not "love" it, but they released two service packs for Windows 2000 after Windows XP Professional was released:

      Win2K SP4 was released 20 months after WinXP Pro was released.

      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    2. Re:What does this mean for Vista? by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I had trouble finding those dates. I knew at the very least that one of 2K's packs came out after XP was releasted.

      --
      I don't get it.
    3. Re:What does this mean for Vista? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0

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

      Erm, wasn't 2k SP4 released well after XP came out?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    4. Re:What does this mean for Vista? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

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

      I'm not so sure about that. If we assume XP-SP3 is about allowing XP to due some of the things Vista can to further Microsoft's agendas, they're going to want to give Vista a chance to be seen/sold. 6-9 months is about the right timeframe, so Vista might actually ship by Q1'07.

      What features actually make it into the shipping version of Vista is another question.

      And it's probably further proof that there's not going to be too much compelling about Vista over XPSP3.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  11. horrible analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:horrible analysis by elinden · · Score: 5, Funny
      ...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...
    2. Re:horrible analysis by ettlz · · Score: 1
      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.

    3. Re:horrible analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    4. Re:horrible analysis by bagawk · · Score: 1

      Eumm Eumm Excuse me, I believe you have my stapler?

    5. Re:horrible analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love guys like you who try to piggyback on others' jokes. Keep up the good work.

  12. 10.5 before SP3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:10.5 before SP3? by dadragon · · Score: 1

      Most people here don't know what z/OS is, and all others are toy operating systems.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    2. Re:10.5 before SP3? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I ahve my doubts. Nice try at elitism tho'

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:10.5 before SP3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wager a case of long necks that Apple will release a stable build of 10.5 before Microsoft releases a stable build of Vista.

      Cracker

  13. W.. T.. F.. by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:W.. T.. F.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

    2. Re:W.. T.. F.. by dr_labrat · · Score: 1

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

      --
      The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
    3. Re:W.. T.. F.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 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.

    4. Re:W.. T.. F.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vocalize not verbalize

    5. Re:W.. T.. F.. by JanneM · · Score: 1

      He can rest easier now - Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    6. Re:W.. T.. F.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on the other hand if you work for Merriam-Webster it might be a bigger deal

    7. Re:W.. T.. F.. by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Dick? Dick Cheney, is that you?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    8. Re:W.. T.. F.. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Don't pretend you're not Paul. How's the new job going?

    9. Re:W.. T.. F.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 100 years someone when someone will ask that question the answer will be: "The letter W was invented by the 43rd president of the United States.

    10. Re:W.. T.. F.. by heanol · · Score: 1
  14. Not that big of a deal. by gasmonso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:Not that big of a deal. by bogie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    2. Re:Not that big of a deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it necessary to put your stupid religious freaks link on every single post you make? get a life

    3. Re:Not that big of a deal. by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      The link in your sig gives me a "Internal Server Error". Also, if you aim is to persuade I humbly suggest that you not resort to simple-minded name calling. Calling the President "Shrub" is neither original nor conducive to your apparent goal.

      -Peter

    4. Re:Not that big of a deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remove the spaces that slashcode generates in the URL.

    5. Re:Not that big of a deal. by 955301 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'll be upgrading all right. To a new Intel based Apple machine. I have been waiting for Apple to settle down on a processor to jump ship once and for all from that god-forsaken pos operating system that has been haunting my life for the past decade.

      I look forward to the day when it's common knowledge that Microsoft's attempt to march people along a shoddy operating system path along with other questionable business practices has marginalized them in the industry.

      Good Riddance. I dare them to play games with the support for XP - I'm looking for my last excuse.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  15. Please tell me? by merikari · · Score: 1

    Is this a bad or a good thing?

    --
    My other SIG is a Sauer.
    1. Re:Please tell me? by bmgoau · · Score: 1

      For consumers, any patch is a good thing, the sooner the better. However considered Microsoft is a business, and wishs to focus on Vista development and sales, this is the best thing for them.

  16. That's nice but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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...

  17. get a hand rolled SP3... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  18. "date"? by deep44 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:"date"? by maztuhblastah · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      I'm guessing you're not female.

    2. Re:"date"? by DirePickle · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:"date"? by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So their release "date" is 2H 2007? Since when is a 6-month window considered a "date"?

      It's extremely common in the software industry to target a half or quarter rather than giving a firm calendar date. I wouldn't fault Microsoft for this since everyone else does it as well. The main problem Microsoft has is this window constantly slips farther and farther back.

    4. Re:"date"? by wwwillem · · Score: 1

      I'm sure a 9 month window would be considered a date!! :-)

      --
      Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
    5. Re:"date"? by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Hey, this is Slashdot. Most people here would be happy to get at least one guaranteed date in 2007.

  19. Well, it makes sense by heatdeath · · Score: 1

    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

    --
    I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
    1. Re:Well, it makes sense by fyrie · · Score: 1

      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!

    2. Re:Well, it makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OOh, don't mention that! You'll get all the ricers -- er, I mean Gentoo fanboyz in here spewing about how 'they only have the newest compilers'.

    3. Re:Well, it makes sense by mink · · Score: 1

      The true masochists install gentoo on Alpha chips. Nothing like installing on a platform with virtually no accurate documentation or that completely leaves tons of information out. It forgets to mention an earlier choice may cause you to restart the whole process when you are almost done, or tell you to keep track of some information because it's needed for later on but forget to include that later part in the docs.

      I finally got it running and it was emerging gnome last I saw it (all this to run gnucash).

      Next I will move on and emerge rims, ground_effect, exhaust and spoiler. ;-)

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  20. What about Vista SP1? by helmutvs · · Score: 0

    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?

    --
    There are no uninteresting things. There are only uninterested people.
    1. Re:What about Vista SP1? by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      All things considered, you probably won't want to migrate a large enterprise to Vista until sometime in 2008 or 2009. Seriously.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  21. if they built it right to begin with... by EllynGeek · · Score: 0, Troll

    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?

    --

    we will end no whine before its time

    1. Re:if they built it right to begin with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:if they built it right to begin with... by EllynGeek · · Score: 1

      It was a rhetorical question. :)

      --

      we will end no whine before its time

    3. Re:if they built it right to begin with... by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:if they built it right to begin with... by DashEvil · · Score: 1

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

      --
      -If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
    5. Re:if they built it right to begin with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

    6. Re:if they built it right to begin with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      OSX doesn't release service packs, they just tick off the revision number and charge you 200$ for it.

      Not quite...

      1) Apple only charges $130 for the newest version of MacOS X.

      2) A MacOS X 10.x -> 10.x+1 release isn't the same as a Windows Service Pack. It's the same as, say, Windows NT 5.0 (win2k) -> 5.1 (winxp), which, incidentally, Microsoft charged $200 for. The MacOS X equvalent to a Service Pack would be a 10.4.x -> 10.4.x+1 release, of which there are about 8-10 in the product's life cycle. Each one is between 10 and 50 MB. And the product life cycle is approximately 18 months (pre-10.2 was a shorter cycle due to a less mature system). The updates tend to include things like post-OSX-release updates to GNU tools and other FOSS stuff outside of Apple's control.

    7. Re:if they built it right to begin with... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      And how did this conglomeration of incompetence come to dominate?
      About the time a dentist wrote a disk operating system, had it stolen from him from poeple who didn't know how to do it themselves, who then had to buy his company to stop legal action due to stealing the software.

      It's never been about getting it right - that's expensive - it's been about getting it usable and cheap so they can sell a lot more copies than those that spend extra effort getting it right.

    8. Re:if they built it right to begin with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Windows 95 = Windows 4.0
      Windows 98 = Windows 4.1
      Windows ME = Windows 4.2
      Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1

      You missed Windows 2000 (= Windows NT 5.0).

    9. Re:if they built it right to begin with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously didn't bother to research your question or you would have known that nearly the entire OS was rebuilt for SP2 to take advantage of the new "security" features that came with the Visual Studio 2005 version of the compiler.

      Ignoring the obvious retort that downloading patches to source code would yield a much smaller download, I'd still prefer a bigger download that installs in 10 minutes, rather than one that leaves a machine unusuable for at least a couple of hours because it's busy recompiling the entire OS from source.

    10. Re:if they built it right to begin with... by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      "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."

      I downloaded the 10.4.4 update to OS X the other night, and it was 120 megabytes. It was the combo update all the way from 10.4.0, but still, what a whopper. I'm afraid pretty much everyone has to do monster updates these days.

      Sigh.

    11. Re:if they built it right to begin with... by DashEvil · · Score: 1

      What I meant is that FreeBSD 4.0 is a new version, FreeBSD 4.1 is effectively a FreeBSD 4.0 service pack.

      Same with FreeBSD 6.1, when it comes out.

      It's the same concept, symantics aside.

      --
      -If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
  22. Linus Says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    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.

  23. SP3 on multiple DVD's Then? by Ajehals · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:SP3 on multiple DVD's Then? by biocute · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:SP3 on multiple DVD's Then? by smbarbour · · Score: 1

      While that is funny, the service pack will only be as big as the files it needs to replace (and I'm sure a large number of the hotfixes replace the same files), so it really won't be that big.

    3. Re:SP3 on multiple DVD's Then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god nobody modded that as "funny" like I'm sure you wanted them to. Because let's be honest here, it really wasn't funny. Seriously. Stop trying to be funny. I mean it.

    4. Re:SP3 on multiple DVD's Then? by Ajehals · · Score: 1

      smbarbour, A good and valid point, I tend to find that updates to code that I write is smaller than the initial code (as I get better at writing it I suppose). But this is Microsoft we are talking about, you are assuming that the "fixes" will be replacements of existing files, going on experience (XPSP2) the fix may well be a rewrite again. Its true to say that a large number of the fixes usually released by MS are patches in the sense that they replace files found to contribute to or constitute a vulnerability, however aren't the service packs supposed to be when they put all those fixes together in an elegant fashion? (well as elegant as is possible...). Seriously I would expect SP3 to weigh in at 500Mb+ given that it will be cumulative, i.e you should be able to apply it to a vanilla XP install, and that SP1 was @133Mb and SP2 272Mb. I admit that isn't in DVD territory just yet, though it will depend on what "features" are added (I'm thinking DRM and prettiness). Less seriously here are some predictions: 1. It will break most AV applications immediately 2. At least one MS application will not be compatible when the fix is released 3. SP3a will be available to fix whatever SP3 breaks within two months of the original 4. Something will move (i.e. the network config applet or the accessibility settings) 5. It will be hailed as an all singing all dancing update yet there will be a vulnerability that neither SP3 (or SP3a) address that has been present since Win95 identified shortly after the release... 6. I will have to rewrite anything that hooks into kerberos.... (that's just a potential personal nightmare...) n.b. I suppose we shouldn't bash MS too much, at least they are releasing patches and service packs. Personally I'll stick to Debian.

    5. Re:SP3 on multiple DVD's Then? by smbarbour · · Score: 1

      I think I can respond to all of you predictions with just one word... naturally. :)

  24. You could see this coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  25. 2007? by AeroIllini · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    1. Re:2007? by ettlz · · Score: 2
      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
    2. Re:2007? by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:2007? by blah1235813 · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:2007? by nbert · · Score: 1

      First of all it might be a good idea to display the blue screens again by default. Should be possible to sell it as a new feature .
      Afterall you never think of turning this behavior off *before* you have a non booting system and the current solution is like playing a .wav saying "It's not Steve, the hardware did it" in an infinite loop.

    5. Re:2007? by sharkey · · Score: 1

      And the launch theme-song will be Terrance & Phillips' smash hit, "Shut Ya Fuckin' Face, Unkka Fuckka".

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    6. Re:2007? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah..right...As if all drivers are available for Linux...It still sucks even to install any Linux distribution.

  26. Wrong, it's already out. by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:Wrong, it's already out. by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Too bad that update requires an expensive proprietary hardware dongle.

      --
      GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    2. Re:Wrong, it's already out. by Celsius+233 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stupid Microsoft. I ordered the CD, and it doesn't install.

      --
      Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice, Denham's Dandy Dental Dentrifice, Denham's Dentrifice Dentrifice Dentrifice.
    3. Re:Wrong, it's already out. by jaywarrietto · · Score: 0

      After I used said dongle I've decided it was worth the cost of the upgrade. Now I still have my original XP SP2 machine for games.

    4. Re:Wrong, it's already out. by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 0, Troll

      Those crazy "Monitors", USB Mice, USB Keyboards, Intel Chips, NVidia graphics cards... never even heard of such things before!

  27. Interesting... by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Interesting... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Interesting... by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Interesting... by CthulhuDreamer · · Score: 1

      "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.

    4. Re:Interesting... by kawika · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Interesting... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    6. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but let's point out the difference between the usefulness of these Service Packs.

      There was more than one NT4 Service Pack with a reputation for breaking more than it fixed. Fast forward to XP Service Pack 2.. In spite of some very serious changes, this Service Pack has been very well accepted by admins.

      Yeah, XP SP2 wasn't perfect, there were problems with certain programs, etc. I would say that it was still head and shoulders better than the NT Service Packs that turned so many NT servers and workstations into glorified paperweights.

    7. Re:Interesting... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      OS X incremental updates are smaller in scope than service packs, usually minor bugfixes and speedups released every few months. Security Updates are occasional. Contrast to Microsoft which actually has a "Patch Tuesday" and releases dozens of non-stop patches all year long.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    8. Re:Interesting... by rfunches · · Score: 1

      Is MS releasing more hotfixes and small non-SP patches than they did in the past? If it's a substantial change from before, that *might* explain why.

      Of course, this assumes that Microsoft is rational.

    9. Re:Interesting... by misleb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair to Windows (ha!), I have found that the useful life of a Linux installation is a lot shorter than Windows. I would never consider installing a Linux distribution from 2000, but Win2k isn't all that bad (as Windows goes) even 6 years later.

      Of course, distributions such as Debian make up for this in being very easy (and cheap!) to upgrade to the latest version, but still. I've run into situations where I really want to upgrade a Debian system but fear breaking something. Eventually I just bite the bullet and do it. Things usually work out pretty well, but if it were Windows, I would be able to upgrade individual programs without worrying about support from the underlying OS because most programs work on all Windows platforms going back to NT 4.0.

      Just something to keep in mind next time you lament the Windows upgrade cycle...

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    10. Re:Interesting... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      NT4SP3 added some major changes into the NDIS driver stack and NDIS driver model. Namely, deserialized NDIS drivers. This allowed some major performance enhancements in network drivers.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    11. Re:Interesting... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "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."

      On the third hand, Windows 2000 (unlike Windows NT) comes with IE and Windows Update, allowing people to patch incrementally instead of having to subscribe to the CD-ROM of the Month club. That, and the patching process of NT 5.x is much easier than its predecessors, not requiring you to, for example, reinstall operating system components after installing a Service Pack, making it easier to install incremental patches rather than having to wait for patches to reach a critical mass to justify publishing and installing an NT 3/4 Service Pack.

      And really, the differences between NT4SP6 and the first release of 2K were pretty drastic (it went from suckage to non-suckage, after all). SP6 lets NT4 read NTFS5 partitions and other such forward-looking tweaks, but there's only so much goodness you can cram into NT4 before it becomes easier to start with a new kernel version and driver standards (especially since 2K introduced Device Manager goodness).

      One final note: NT 3.51 only had 5 Service Packs, IIRC. The step from 3.51 to 4.0, now that was a pointless upgrade; a beta of the Windows 9x interface for 3.51 was already in the wild.

    12. Re:Interesting... by krunk4ever · · Score: 2, Informative

      To be fair, why don't you also tell how many SP Win95, Win98, and WinME had?

      Not too sure why you're post was rated insightful...

    13. Re:Interesting... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "If Microsoft drops support for XP Home at the end of 2006, will SP3 be for XP Pro only?"

      The people who most buy XP Pro rather than XP Home (read "IT departments") are the ones least likely to upgrade first. Home users had started to buy and instally Me before large customers decided to migrate from NT 4 WS to 2K Pro. And unlike the upcoming client upgrade to Vista, the move from NT 4 WS to 2K Pro was actually worthwhile, moreso even than the client upgrade from 2K Pro to XP Pro.

    14. Re:Interesting... by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1
      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.

      What about the users that have XP Home? Or the insane speed an unprotected XP SP0 or even SP1 system getting infected from a broadband connection in minutes?

      I've valued the Service Packs because they can be integrated (slipstreamed) into the Windows install CD. Companies can avoid installing SP3 if they want to wait just as they can still avoid SP2.

    15. Re:Interesting... by aka1nas · · Score: 1

      MS already announed that XP Home support will be extended to 2008

    16. Re:Interesting... by Ajehals · · Score: 1

      No reason you cant upgrade single apps under debian using apt, I do it all the time and generally dont have any issues, plus at least if i do run an update on debian I know that I can always roll back. -- Whilst Im at it I also know that if I need to upgrade anything else (I use KDE and there are some moderate dependency issues surrounding KDE upgrades) I can always upgrade (or downgrade) everything else. I love apt.

    17. Re:Interesting... by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      MS *says* they will support XP for two years after the next version of Windows, (ie: Vista)

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    18. Re:Interesting... by MojoStan · · Score: 1
      To be fair, why don't you also tell how many SP Win95, Win98, and WinME had?

      Because those "home" operating systems based on the 9x kernel did not have "Service Packs." Until WinXP Home, only the "professional" versions based on the NT kernel have had Service Packs. WinXP Home gets Service Packs because it ditched the 9x kernel and now shares the same NT kernel as WinXP Pro.

      Not too sure why you're post was rated insightful...

      I think it's because most Windows-using Slashdot readers like the idea of getting free fixes and enhancements for 5+ years after the OS's release. The reduction in Service Packs might mean MS is reducing the amount of support for their legacy operating systems.

      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    19. Re:Interesting... by cartoon · · Score: 1

      To be fair to Windows (ha!), I have found that the useful life of a Linux installation is a lot shorter than Windows. I would never consider installing a Linux distribution from 2000, but Win2k isn't all that bad (as Windows goes) even 6 years later.

      Yes, naturally. There haven't been many obvious development for Win2K/XP since then. Some new eye candy, a bit of plumbing have changed (but nothing most users would notice)... So functionality of a W2K-SP4 and XP-SP2, from an end user that is only using Office, Outlook and IE is the same, is more or less the same.

      If you look at Linux, it was way behind Windows in many areas in 2000. Install Red Hat anno 2000 and Red Hat/Fedora anno 2005, and the difference will be obvious. Not only in the operating system or desktop environment, but also in bundled apps. It's a world of difference.

      As Linux matures on the desktop over the next 5-10 years, I would expect Linux to have longer cycles. As the architecture and platform itself matures, and as update/upgrade technology improves.

      --
      //Cartoon
  28. Too late by then! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 0, Redundant

    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 will have reached a stable state.

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

  29. XP SP3 and Vista Don't Matter by darthservo · · Score: 0

    When is SP1 for Vienna going to come out?

    --

    Prove it.

  30. Linux by RobBebop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    1. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:Linux by oddfox · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    4. Re:Linux by psxman · · Score: 1

      From what I can tell, it runs under Wine.

    5. Re:Linux by oddfox · · Score: 1

      I'm using Gentoo 64-bit, first off, but I am not convinced that that's why my game is nearly unplayable in Wine. I can't target anything with my mouse, and my character's textures are largely absent (some of them show). Not to mention the ground looks extremely funny. If you're interested I can try to get a screengrab but it's simply unplayable in my Linux, and I havn't had better luck with 32-bit setups, either. Not since patch 1.8, but other people seem to be more fortunate than I.

      I'll try compiling Wine with bare-bones flags, maybe that will help, but I'm already looking at a WineX subscription when I get more funds that I don't have to save.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    6. Re:Linux by lengau · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are you running it in DirectX or OpenGL mode? It's goldlisted, so maybe you should file a bug report about it. Because if everyone starts buying it but it doesn't work properly, they'll be sorely disappointed with WINE.

      --
      I really wanted to change my sig to something witty, but all I could come up with is this.
    7. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't happend to have an ATI video card do you?

    8. Re:Linux by oddfox · · Score: 1

      No, I sold my Radeon 9800 Pro a long time ago and picked up a GeForce 6600GT, precisely because Linux drivers from ATI sucked much more than NVidia's. Not to say NVidia's the bomb, either.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    9. Re:Linux by oddfox · · Score: 1

      I'll check this out in a little while here when I boot my Gentoo, since I'm not really waiting for my eMule queue to finish anymore. Thanks for the idea!

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
  31. I don't know which is worse . . . by mmell · · Score: 1
    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.*

    1. Re:I don't know which is worse . . . by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "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."
      then why bother even looking or posting? is your penis so small you have to make your self feel good by posting in a thread just to say you don't care about the thread?

      Man, get a life. Or some self confidence. Or just get out more often.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I don't know which is worse . . . by Sathias · · Score: 1

      I find keeping our Windows machines secure and up-to-date quite easy, due to setting up a Windows Software Update Services server. It took a few hours to set up and configure so any windows machine I plug into the domain will automatically pick up the correct settings to download updates from my update server rather than from the Microsoft update server. The server then looks at each of the machines and they report back which updates they need and do not have. Each week I look at the list of new updates and download just the ones that machines on my network need. As far as the users see, it works just like Windows Update does for a single PC on the internet, except we download the updates only once. I hardly think it is difficult for anyone with reasonable computer skills.

      --
      Blessed are the 1337, for they shall pwn the earth.
  32. Hmph by Mustafu · · Score: 0

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

  33. Where I work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (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.

  34. Looks like a trend... by LiTa03 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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?

    1. Re:Looks like a trend... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      As far as I am concerned, lots of service packs are a sign of weakness. Perfect software (i know, just a nice goal) wouldn't need any!

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    2. Re:Looks like a trend... by icydog · · Score: 1

      This is because MS has been making more secure software. Vista will be bulletproof and completely hacker-proof, even more so than the ultra-secure XP. *runs*

    3. Re:Looks like a trend... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      " 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!"


      5 ... 6.5 ... 4 ... ~2 ... ?

      How do you get 0 as the next number in the sequence?

      No matter how hard I try, I keep getting sqrt(pi).

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Looks like a trend... by MyHair · · Score: 1

      Can't remember what XP promissed over 2k, though. Better games? Icons for children? Can't have been improved stability, right?

      Win2k wasn't marketed to home users; they mostly stuck with Win98 or tried WinME. Those of us who had Win2k saw WinXP as a candy coated Win2k, but for non business users it was a great jump in stability. (As time goes on I find more I like about WinXP over Win2k, but none of the differences are earth shaking.)

    5. Re:Looks like a trend... by yeremein · · Score: 1
      Can't remember what XP promissed over 2k, though.

      I can think of a few things:
      • Subpixel font rendering for LCDs (aka ClearType)
      • Fast user switching (this is how my wife and I manage to coexist with one PC)
      • Can pull out USB drives without "stopping" them first

    6. Re:Looks like a trend... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      He was confused, when he said "Won't have any service packs at all!" He really meant "They'll start to take away features!"

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Looks like a trend... by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that the setup programs for the various versions of windows have all made the same tired boasts about improved speed and reliability, and greater compatability, etc etc. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I like XP better than 2k for a few reasons though, mainly due to the people I have to help with their systems. Everybody with XP already has msconfig, already has at least a basic firewall, and has System Restore which can work really well, if they've left it enabled.

    8. Re:Looks like a trend... by cnettel · · Score: 1

      SYSENTER/SYSEXIT to speed up silly benchmarks doing unbuffered intensive character I/O (or other things basically consisting of kernel roundtrips) 300 % faster!

  35. they're trying to force people into a perpetual up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  36. is vista be pushed back too? by Joe123456 · · Score: 0

    vista may be runing late too

    1. Re:is vista be pushed back too? by Warlock7 · · Score: 1

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

  37. I tried that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  38. Start downloading now 56Kbers by Skiron · · Score: 3, Funny

    It will take 18 months to download...

    1. Re:Start downloading now 56Kbers by fyrie · · Score: 1

      They'll still be better off than those yahoos doing gentoo over 56k. OUCH!

  39. Important Consideration by Linker3000 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    /sarcasm

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
  40. why is that silly? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:why is that silly? by dgrati · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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".

    2. Re:why is that silly? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Linux 2.0.40 was released a few days after the release of Linux 2.6.2.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  41. Annoying, but there is good news. by mendaliv · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Annoying, but there is good news. by jaylee7877 · · Score: 1

      I just don't bother asking. I figure they came to me to have their computer worked on and SP2 is a major 'fix' so why bother them with the worry? When SP2 first came out, it did kill a few student laptops (BSOD on reboot) which was a pain, but all it took was a clean install which I've got automated thanks to Unattended.

    2. Re:Annoying, but there is good news. by mendaliv · · Score: 1

      Nor do I, it's just when they ask "what's that?" and see the "Service Pack 2" up on the title bar that they get worried.

      It's just really sad. Recently I read a transcript of somebody's online tech support chat, where the rep told the user things like "You must not also install Windows XP Service Pack updates", "Service Pack 2 should not be downloaded unless it came preinstalled", and "Yes. You should uninstall the Windows XP Service Pack 2 right [now]".

      Somehow, I wonder if Microsoft is actually trying to *prevent* a repeat of the bad press from SP2 by waiting to release SP3. The number of computers it really affected was low, but those computers looked pretty well messed up.

  42. Since Vista is due out in the latter part of 2006, by Warlock7 · · Score: 2

    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?

  43. doesn't matter by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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.

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    1. Re:doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

  44. Microsoft's behavior is extremely abusive. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:Microsoft's behavior is extremely abusive. by Big_Al_B · · Score: 2

      To me, Microsoft's behavior is extremely offensive and abusive.

      Because they take your money at gunpoint?

      If you don't like their product or how they maintain it, buy a platform that satisfies your needs better. In any case, take responsibility for the consequences of your own choices.

      "But I'm not the decision-maker..." You decided to work where you work, though right?

    2. Re:Microsoft's behavior is extremely abusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell aren't you making slipstreamed install disks?!?!?!?

      Do you take NO responsibility for properly doing your job?!?!?

      I mean shit, does Microsoft have to hold your hand while you pee too?

    3. Re:Microsoft's behavior is extremely abusive. by praxis · · Score: 4, Informative

      "We find we need to re-load Windows XP often because of its vulnerabilities and instability."

      I am not sure to whom your "we" refers. I know I am not in that set as the last time I had to reinstall Windows XP because of its vulnerabilities and instability was...well, never. Reboot, why yes I have had to do that countless times when a patch was pushed out. Hopefully that kind of architecture will be out the door with Vista. Until then I can live with reboots due to certain patches. This box has been running the XP SP2 install since, well, I installed SP2. I use it heavily every day to develop code, test, install and reinstall applications, and do my daily software development work. It could be that my company has a competent IT department, but I am sure a lot of it has to do with me not running as Administrator and not installing suspicious software or browsing suspicious websites when I am. My point being that with proper care and feeding an XP system does not need to be reinstalled often.

    4. Re:Microsoft's behavior is extremely abusive. by conteXXt · · Score: 1

      I fully afree with you.

      I have had XP home on my laptop for 3 years now with no reboots. In fact it hadly has to be booted at all.

      Now that I think of it, I have only booted it thrice.

      1 to initialize the oem install.
      2. to test that after i resized it's partition down to 4GB
      3. to run a windows only bios update.

      absolutely bullet proof as it has been gathering dust ever since.

      just kidding around, i did boot it up a couple of times to install service packs and AV updates in the event I accidentally boot it in a harsh environment (read:anywhere there are other windows boxes)

      --
      The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
    5. Re:Microsoft's behavior is extremely abusive. by Deviant · · Score: 1

      There are a few issues here. First of all, reinstalling Windows to solve every problem used to be viewed as the sign of a weak IT guy where I work and in the industry. The idea was every problem has a cause and a solution and putting yourself and the user through the inconvienience of having to backup all their data and reinstall windows and their software for what could be an easy solution from the knowledge base etc was a waste. That has changed here in the last couple of years.

      Now, with the advent of a heavier network and server infrastructure we have all user data and documents stored on a network share and every profile is a roaming profile - nothing important at all is stored on the local workstations anymore. We also created, and keep updated, a network-hosted Norton Ghost image for each workstation type. The process of restoring the system to a 100% pristine condition from that Ghost image takes 10-15 minutes and a trained monkey could do it - and trained monkeys cost far less and free up time for the real admins to not have to deal with it anymore.

      So, we have come to a world where it really is faster and easier to start with reinstalling/reimaging the workstation. It is the first step in troubleshooting as it is so quick. After that if the problem persists there is a diagnostic set that is run to check if it is a hardware problem because the reimage rules out a software issue for the most part because of the QA and testing before the Ghost image is certified/deployed.

      If you feel more comfortable reinstalling your system every six months then do it but set up a system where it is really a quick process and non-issue. This sort of practice in dealing with the desktops seems to be the way the industry is trending these days...

  45. Oh they say 2007... by starvo · · Score: 1

    ...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.

    --
    http://thepoliticalgeek.com/blog/ Politics for Geeks.
  46. Service pack purchase... by karlto · · Score: 1

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

  47. uhhhhh... by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Informative
    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?

    1. Re:uhhhhh... by musicon · · Score: 1

      Well, it appears to me (very quick search) that the last support assistance was posted on Jan 11, 2006, and the last fix pack (like a service pack) was released on August 3, 2005. I don't have a service account since I don't use OS/2 anymore, but it appears that there were a number of driver updates made on Jan 13, 2006 as well.

      IBM (and OS/2) may have their fair share of problems, but long-term product support isn't one of them.

  48. HD-DVD Should be out by then... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    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...

    1. Re:HD-DVD Should be out by then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By 2007, HD-DVD will be long dead and buried.



      LONG LIVE BLU-RAY!!!

  49. Well, since you ask... by solios · · Score: 1

    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

    1. Re:Well, since you ask... by sconeu · · Score: 2, Funny

      It has an interface like a truck?

      Or did you mean "TINKER TOY INTERFACE"?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:Well, since you ask... by solios · · Score: 1

      Dude, tinker toys rule.

      If anything it's a fucking Duplo interface.

  50. I can find service pack 3 just fine.. by wfberg · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can find service pack 3 just fine.. It's at this site called autopatcher. Also there's this tool to make slipstreamed and unintended installs, here. Also, windowsupates works just fine in firefox.

    Fine tools from the folks NOT at microsoft..

    --
    SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    1. Re:I can find service pack 3 just fine.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never could figure out why you would use a third party tool to apply MSFT patches to an MSFT machine when the MSFT patcher works fine...

    2. Re:I can find service pack 3 just fine.. by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      and unintended installs

      Aha! Windows is a virus!!

  51. Re:Why do people put up with that shit? by ninja_assault_kitten · · Score: 1

    Because it doesn't make financial sense to invest R&D into OSX Malware... Yet.

  52. Security of Microsoft's existing users sidelined by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Quote from the Whitedust article linked above: "... should the security of Microsoft's existing users be sidelined ...?"

    That's always been Microsoft's policy, in my opinion. Microsoft makes more money when Windows is not secure because many people buy new computers when they begin having problems.

    The interests of billionaires are almost never the interests of society in general. Billionaires begin to believe that they are superior.

  53. Re:Since Vista is due out in the latter part of 20 by hurfy · · Score: 1

    And the only way to get people to upgrade will be to convince them they won't have to download 76 updates with Vista. Should even be true for a few days.....

  54. marketing++ by smash · · Score: 2, Interesting
    So, you want a (semi) secure version of Windows before 2007 do you?

    Ahh, well you'll be wanting Windows Vista then.

    Smells like just another crappy marketing exercise to me.... good thing my next computer is going to run Mac OS / Linux (currently dual-boot Windows 2000 / Linux on my current one for games, and yes I am a transgaming subscriber ;)).

    smash.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  55. "Maybe this time" by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you notice that Microsoft gives its old OS a new name, and people say, "Maybe this time Microsoft will treat me right and release a good product." Microsoft has found a weakness in the average person, the way virus writers find weaknesses in Microsoft software, in my opinion.

    Software companies with virtual monopolies don't want to release a good product because then no one will upgrade to a new version, even if it has a new name.

    1. Re:"Maybe this time" by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0

      "Software companies with virtual monopolies don't want to release a good product because then no one will upgrade to a new version, even if it has a new name."

      Then why did Microsoft bother to release Win2K after Win98 as opposed to just going straight to ME?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  56. Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm putting my money on another push back on vista. Microsofts past with updates(ending the updates on a new OS release) would suggest that vista is coming later then they say it is.

  57. Re:Why do people put up with that shit? by praxis · · Score: 1

    Because you do not run as Administrator (or root or other equivalent) on your box?

  58. Just for Cringely... by Colz+Grigor · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I suspect that Microsoft did this just to prove Cringely wrong on at least one point during the first month of the year.

    But the Cringely clock is still ticking...

    ::Colz Grigor // Not a Cringely fan...

  59. In related news, DOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    service pack #1 is now available.

  60. /. editors fail us again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "is as more than a year later than many company watchers were expecting."

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised after the manifesto Taco released yesterday. I read an article this morning about how college graduates are ill-prepared to complete basic real-world tasks (like calculating tips in their heads), and about the poor literacy rate of adults in general. How sad...

  61. Are service packs even relevant still? by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

    I don't really see the relevance in explicit service packs anymore. They already put all the fixes and most if not all of the additional programs on Microsoft Update... I'm surprised they haven't stopped releasing service packs altogether. So what are service packs for? People with no Internet connection?

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    1. Re:Are service packs even relevant still? by xkenny13 · · Score: 1

      I don't really see the relevance in explicit service packs anymore.

      You don't? When working with other people's computers (tech support, defining bugs, etc.), it is important to know that they have their system up-to-date. With all the Microsoft patches flying back and forth, it is often much easier to say "Are you on SP4?", not "Do you have these 146 patches installed on top of Windows 2000?"

      If anything, I think they should release more Service Packs...

    2. Re:Are service packs even relevant still? by fleaboy · · Score: 1

      "So what are service packs for? People with no Internet connection?" Yes, for those who have a SECURE Windows environment!

      --
      Life is a gift. And my Karma couldn't possibly be 'Positive'
  62. This reminds me.... by The+Shrewd+Dude · · Score: 1

    This story reminds me of a guy that used to post at Slashdot, who used to spout off completely worthless information. One day he decided on inform everyone about a guy that used to be a co-worker of his who one day... oh wait.

    Never mind.

    1. Re:This reminds me.... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Ah, the repetitive joke, it never gets old.

      Ah, the repetitive joke, it never gets old.

  63. Re:Why do people put up with that shit? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

    Something like that, but not exactelly.

    On OSX, it is safe to have administrator privileges: to do anything that could mess with the system, I still have to type my password.

    On Windows, however, an administrator is pretty much a root user - total power, nothing to prevent a major fuckup. Many apps do not run if you are a limited user. And there's no intermediate between too limited and too powerful.

  64. of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not surprised - after all, they're probably tied up writing VISTA service pack 1!!!
    LOL!

  65. Re:Why do people put up with that shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Windows machine has SP1, with only selective upgrades. How come I've *never* had any malware problems with my Windows machine?

    I'm not saying XP is superior to OSX or Linux, but it's in no way as inferior as many people here seem to think.

  66. You wouldn't ask that question... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1

    if you had not recently installed a copy of XP...

    Having an XP sp2 disk saves about 2 hours per install vs. having a plain old XP disk.

    1. Re:You wouldn't ask that question... by Trejkaz · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have recently installed a copy of XP... I can't say that the SP2 install on top of that took 2 hours... perhaps 20 minutes at most.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    2. Re:You wouldn't ask that question... by Steveftoth · · Score: 1

      True, but if you're always reinstalling the OS, then you should really look at doing a slipstream where you can put whatever drivers/patches you want on the slipstream cd so that you don't have to go through the windows update cycle.

    3. Re:You wouldn't ask that question... by Viriatus · · Score: 0

      it depends of the computer speed you are installing

  67. At this point, I just want OSX or LINUX. No Thanks by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I really have had it with windows. I dont want Vista. XP is growing tired and old. The constant harrasment from spyware virii etc has become anoying...

    I really just want OSX that runs on all PCs not just Mac PCs... or Linux.

    Linux would be fine if it were user friendly, had itunes, quicktime, and photoshop... and other programs but... Linux is growing strong in the 3d animation field. It's gettign support from the major players in the 3d industry and has been for sometime.

    I want to see the end of windows at this point. The microsoft mentality has become tiresome. I've been a pc user for a while now... from the dos/desqview days :) til today. Windows is no longer fun. Half the features in the ui are meaningless and the uI is poorly designed in general. The instability, the insecurity... ENOUGH

    VISTA is not the answer to these problems... Its a continuation of these problems.

    Microsoft supports spammers/spyware and virii writers. I want to run linux so badly but the apps just arent completely there yet for me, and the usability of linux is still too difficult.

    dont think for a second i wouldnt jump to linux. If only they had the developer support.

    Dam it guys, get it together... now is the RIGHT time to change the world.

  68. Suspect by Teun · · Score: 2, Funny
    and unintended installs,

    I assume that's like a worm/virus/rootkit etc?

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  69. Re:Why do people put up with that shit? by dadragon · · Score: 1

    On OSX, it is safe to have administrator privileges: to do anything that could mess with the system, I still have to type my password.

    True true. On a Windows machine being in the Administrators group is just like being Administrator itself. With Mac OS X, just like most UNIX systems with which I am familiar, an administrator is just a member of their equivalent of the wheel group.

    --
    God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
  70. Re:At this point, I just want OSX or LINUX. No Tha by fleaboy · · Score: 1

    Why don't you actually 'do something' about Linux not being ready for you? Re-partitiion your drive and start using something user friendly like Mepis, Linspire, or Xandros. " I want to run linux so badly but the apps just arent completely there yet for me, and the usability of linux is still too difficult." Sounds like a perfect example of 'lack of initiative and commitment.' Quityerbitchin' and DO SOMETHING about it. I got into computers in 1999 (High-school dropout with GED) and found the 'Windows experience' to be unacceptable. I'm a carpenter, you're a developer? What excuse can you offer for your sloth?

    --
    Life is a gift. And my Karma couldn't possibly be 'Positive'
  71. As the Windows fans says... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As the Windows fans says "it only makes sense for Microsoft from a business perspective to give more reasons to purchase Vista, since it'll then be out earlier". And it does. But not from a security perspective, which happens to be what matters to the XP users.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:As the Windows fans says... by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      Of course if SP3 breaks enough things maybe that will force people to buy "Vista"?

      Just a possibility, or is that probability?

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  72. Anyone else suspicious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now maybe I'm cynical, maybe I've just followed MS since BG was copying homework but from here, that service pack looks more like cement shoes than a bulletproof vest.

    My humble prediction is that SP3 will remove or damage key features from XP.

  73. Re:Since Vista is due out in the latter part of 20 by jaywarrietto · · Score: 0

    the one I have now doesn't cost me anything to upgrade. I'll pay for 10.5 (leopard, I think) when it comes out but not vista. I'll get it for free through school anyways unless I graduate college first. I'm class of '09 so it's not too out of the question. As long as the games I want to play are still XP compatible I'll keep it around, or if the older games I want to play aren't Vista compatible.

  74. Just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something makes me think that Windows XP SP3 will be Vista...

    Heh, my captcha here is "coward"

  75. To Patch or not to Patch by msbsod · · Score: 1

    It took our computer center a month to evaluate SP1. For SP2 it took them almost three months to figure out what might possibly go wrong if they deploy on all local Windows XP PCs. They face complains from hundreds of users if things go south. SP3 is going to be a nightmare for them. But, all those Windows bugs also keep them employed.

  76. heh... XP SP3 in late 2007 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which means 4 releases of Ubuntu away!

  77. Re:At this point, I just want OSX or LINUX. No Tha by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately i cant just run linux. I need apps that are currently windows only.

    Also at this point in my life... Its about doing the work, and having less time to tinker with the new. If linux had the apps i needed (it has some, but not all) I would be all for tinkering in linux again.

    I ran redhat for a while on one of my pcs. I found it anoying, overly frustrating... yet worth the effort. It was for the most part enjoyable but when you hit a wall, you really hit a wall. I cant afford to do that when it comes to my work (3d animation)

    I could afford to do it when i was just using that linux box for email and surfing... but i found myself running wine and hating the media players in linux...

    The dependency hell was no fun and extremely difficult to deal with coming from a windows setup.exe mentality. RPM was no fun. I understand that apg-get helps with all of this... but i'm still not convinced that anything in linux is as easy as a windows install package or as easy as windows in general.

  78. So what they are saying... by kunakida · · Score: 1

    is that this is the sort of support experience I can expect when I buy one of their products.

    So what, pray tell, does their marketing team think would induce me to buy Windoze Vista or to recommend it to anybody else, if this is the sort of support I am going to get for it?

    -----
    "Yea, I know I was there when she landed..Wait, Father, she said something I didn't understand well I didn't understand any of it but what does 'Ecto gammet' mean?"

  79. Why is microsoft so scared of version numbers? by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 1

    Instead of having Windows * with SP*, why can't they just use a normal version number scheming? It's not that complicated.... If Mac people can handle it, so can Windows people. How about a good ol ..? Seems logical to me. It makes a lot more sense then Windows XP with Service Pack 2 and KB3490gk, 4494055,....n-1 updates installed.....

    --
    In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
    1. Re:Why is microsoft so scared of version numbers? by Nakarti · · Score: 1

      You mean like Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows *cough*98*cough* Millenium Edition?
      It's not Microsoft itself scared of new versions, its that their customers hate the way they do new versions(you have to buy it and reinstall, and lose support for the old if not) and that they won't change that method.

      Home PCs are also reaching a point of no return, whence an upgrade will not lead to a noticeable improvement for 90% of the people upgrading, barring spyware, adware, etc and the people who fail to learn that it's as simple as reinstalling and avoiding online casinos, etc. The same crap will slow the new computers down just as much.
      Reference of slow computers with fast hardware: www.dell.com

  80. Whatever by xenocide2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shit, by 2007 I'll be stealing Vista instead of XP anyways.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

  81. Re:Why do people put up with that shit? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
    On OSX, it is safe to have administrator privileges: to do anything that could mess with the system, I still have to type my password.

    OS X "admin" != Windows "Administrator".

    The closest equivalent to an OS X "admin" in Windows would be someone in the "Power Users" group.

  82. In other news by l33tlamer · · Score: 1

    the next leap year is not due until 2008

    --
    If I can do it, its probably not worth doing... probably
  83. Preemptive patch? by mislam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So they pre emptively deciding on a release date of a patch/pack in anticipation of finding much bugs in the current system which have not been discovered yet? Or, do they already have the bug list and they will just get to it by 2007?

  84. spoken like someone whoes never tried it by crabpeople · · Score: 1

    oh it runs under wine sure. of course if you want fancy things like " 3d graphics " and " audio support " then you might not be as happy with it.

    ( please spare me from the 'wtfbbq it works for me stfu n00b rtfm' as it doesnt "just work" and if i have to go manually enter mode lines ever again i will kill myself ) Not to mention i seem to remember something about paying for the version of wine that actually runs it nice (cross over?). I could be wrong about that and im not sure, but that might be why i gave up on it.

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    1. Re:spoken like someone whoes never tried it by thegoogler · · Score: 1
      cedega was the version it worked like it should under, supposedly

      http://www.transgaming.com/ is there site

  85. halfway there by toby · · Score: 1
    - I wish i was a major corparation so i could be above the law.

    You're already above the dictionary.

    Moderators: Before you mod this Offtopic, consider this - wouldn't it be nice if Slashdot had an "Offtopic" thread, like Groklaw does, so that people like me who have to get some irrelevant remark of their chests, can do so in a clean, well-lit place, without having their karma repossessed? Just an (offtopic:) thought.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:halfway there by thriemus · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing out the typo in that specially unique sophomoric way you seem to have. ;)

      --
      - Sig
  86. Re:At this point, I just want OSX or LINUX. No Tha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you haven't tried ubuntu recently, especially with the Atomatix script that puts in all the cool MM stuff. I'm a developer, and had much the same experience with Redhat in various versions. 4 hours of searching to find a several character edit in one file someplace in /etc didn't turn me on that much. But it's really here now, and ready. If you do 3d animation, didn't you know that the major studios doing CGI all run linux?

  87. Windows 2000 was Microsoft's more serious OS. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Because Windows 2000 was Microsoft's more serious operating system. Without that, businesses would have been extremely unhappy.

    Windows 98 and ME would often self-destruct, in my experience, because the registry would become irreparably corrupted. Windows 98 was an "I'm looking forward to a new OS" operating system.

  88. No big deal.... by darkonc · · Score: 1

    I mean, it's not like Microsoft really has that many security issues -- I mean, their last big blow up was way back last year. (and don't get your nose out of joint about how long this year is... It's about the same length as any other year :-).

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  89. Good idea. by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

    If anything, I think they should release more Service Packs...

    Not a bad idea. How about one service pack for every individual patch? That way we're both happy.

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  90. Old rule-of-thumb about odd service pack numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Microsoft won't be providing a service pack for a then-6 year old operating system once they have something new out.

    Even Las Vegas bookmakers aren't gonna issue odds on something with a KNOWN OUTCOME like that ...

  91. Codename: Vista by Flashpot · · Score: 1
    --
    That which does not kill her only prolongs my agony.
  92. We already knew by Bizzeh · · Score: 0

    microsoft anounced that SP3 for xp would not be released untill after the release of Vista. so i dont see why we are supprised

  93. Re:Cry me a river by KeyMacker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apple does not charge customers for the so called "service packs" They are all free. 10.4 tiger and 10.3 panther are not service packs, any more than calling XP a service pack to windows 2000. the service packs would be the updates of 10.x.1 -10.x.9 of the OSes.

  94. Re:Security of Microsoft's existing users sideline by Nikker · · Score: 1

    Umm how is security effected?

    A service pack is basically a rollup of all the patches released. So a computer that has updated using windows update will have the exact same patches installed as one with SP3.

    So it affect convience not security.

    --
    A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
  95. Re:At this point, I just want OSX or LINUX. No Tha by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

    You can't be convinced unless you try it. I use gentoo... probably not the best to start on for a newbie ;-), however, the gentoo forums have been helpful and complete with EVERY problem I have found. I have to use windows during the day, as a sysadmin trying to convince the PHB's away from windows is like pulling good teeth... but as for 3d animation... have you ever heard of blender? If you want to know more about any of this, email me.

    --
    Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  96. May someone please remind me... by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 1

    .. why the heck is the periodic Service Pack shot so essential to you?

    With the exception of SP2 for XP which was a larger kind of initiative, all service packs are just a combo of the latest patches in a single package.

    If Microsoft was just going after the SP demanding frenzy they can always pack the WMF update with few other bugfixes, call it XP SP3 and be done with it.

    With the advance of Internet, it's just a lot less essential to pack changes as "service packs" anymore. Did we have autoupdates over the Internet back when NT4 ruled? Well that might explain why it had 6 SP's where Windows 2000 had 4.

    1. Re:May someone please remind me... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      .. why the heck is the periodic Service Pack shot so essential to you?

      For me, it means I can do most of the security patches from a CD rather than connecting an unpatched OS to the net to download a mess of patches. The fewer patches I need to add is less time exposed. SP2 helps alot, but I've had machines owned before they could finish downloading the service packs and patches...

    2. Re:May someone please remind me... by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 1

      "For me, it means I can do most of the security patches from a CD rather than connecting an unpatched OS to the net to download a mess of patches. The fewer patches I need to add is less time exposed. SP2 helps alot, but I've had machines owned before they could finish downloading the service packs and patches..."

      Here's how I proceed (and it may be more of a hassle than having everything in the latest SP, but there will always be patches after the SP anyway):

      - The installation is slipstreamed with the latest SP available (so I install XP with SP2 already in it)
      - For workstation machines I install the firewall (ZoneAlarm Free usually) and configure it to block all traffic, but microsoft.com
      - I download the updates, restart, unblock the Internet and done.

      Of course there ARE things that could go through the firewall potentially, but I've never had issues so far.

    3. Re:May someone please remind me... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      I've been building pre-patched ISO's using nlite. Slipstreams in all the service packs and lets me pre-patch. The original parent asked why... nothing like an hour of downloading little patches to make me want a roll up of some sort.

  97. Oh hell by bradleyland · · Score: 1

    I don't care so much about new features, overall improvements to the OS, or even upgrade paths/incentives as much as I just want to avoid having to install 50+ updates and three reboots after a clean WinXP SP2 install. Any word on whether they'll offer a patch roll-up, or anything of that sort?

    IMO, it would be really nice if MS released a quarterly roll-up package that encompased all patches since their last service pack release.

    1. Re:Oh hell by baadger · · Score: 1

      Download nLite.

  98. Two words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Dial
    2. Up

    'nuff said.

    1. Re:Two words... by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Wasn't that something the dinosaurs used?

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  99. Re:Cry me a river by toddestan · · Score: 1

    True, but good luck finding any new updates for previous versions of OSX.

  100. The longer the better... by Mr_eX9 · · Score: 1

    To be perfectly honest, I'm still running XP SP1 on my Windows machines. I'm aware the annoying new features and prompts in SP2 can be disabled, but whatever new security features it implemented have most likely already been cracked. I feel like less of a target by running a legacy version of the OS, rather than the newest and most-targeted version.

    Then again, I don't want to become completely obsolete just because I don't want more of Microsoft's crap on my sytem. In my opinion, if SP3 gets pushed back from 2007, then all the better. I can stay in my little obscurity bubble for longer.

    Does anybody have any compelling reasons for me to upgrade to SP2 other than "...but it's the most recent version!"?

    1. Re:The longer the better... by 68K · · Score: 1

      Because Windows SP1 is just about the easiest modern operating system to hack. If you're using the Windows firewall to protect your machine, it's not actually loaded until after your TCP/IP stack in the booting process, and it's shut down before the stack when the machine is told to shut down. If you're using an always-on broadband connection, you will have periods when your machine is booting and shutting down where that firewall is NOT active, leaving you wide open to attack.

      I'd say that's a pretty good reason for installing SP2 on its own, let alone the driver updates and subsequent hotfixes. Also, a study was done where an SP1 machine, an SP2 machine and an OSX machine were created in their standard configuration and left to see how much time elapsed before the machine was compromised from the Internet. SP1 took the least amount of time before it succumbed to attack.

      SP1 ain't that old. It's still a target, because some people (like yourself) think they don't need to install it. I hope you're using AdAware, Spybot, etc. to make sure you're not getting infected.

    2. Re:The longer the better... by cnettel · · Score: 1

      The point is that all SP2 binaries use "canaries" to prevent unknown buffer overruns to go crazy. This means that some unknown issues, that were critical in SP1, never affected SP2, at least not with any obvious exploit. The canaries are nothing fancy, just put a random number of the stack and check it before you read EIP back from the stack. It's all over the place in SP2 code, to some performance penalty, but it's a feature that is impossible just to crack, unless you have a remote exploit to get the canary value for a specific module (it isn't rerandomized all the time) and then craft your exploit to that specific value.

  101. Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple continuously updates the previous version of the os. They still release security updates and the such, as well as 10.X.X incremental update. Plus there new software even works with older versions. iLife '06 and iWork '06 released earlier this month both run on OS 10.3.9 Panther. How many new programs that microsoft release after Vista ships do you think will be XP compatible? Not too many. They will use all the brand new API's and old users will be left in the dust.

    Cracker

  102. Vista Competition by mkosmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What will Microsoft do considering Vista should be released by then? Will there be in house competition, or will this be the final SP before XP support is dropped officially or otherwise? I dont see why they would maintain XP if Vista is their new market venture, since it would make more profitable sense (no pun intended) to stop support of XP to sell Vista.

  103. XP Didn't ditch the whole 9x base by Khyber · · Score: 1

    If they did, why did they add the feature of reading/writing/formatting to FAT/32? (too drunk, dont remember specifics.. sue me..) That wouldn't make much sense to me. 2k could read and write to FAT partitions, but I honestly could never find any option upon intial install that allowed me to format (or quick-format) an HDD before installing 2k on it, whereas XP did.

    This is just me being naive, but that kinda counts as keeping part of their base, since that was the filesystem they mainly relied on back then. Granted it may give some slightly better performance for stuff like games and things that depend on faster finding/access time, but for reliability, I think I'd stick with NTFS... now if only Windows would get a clue and allow ReiserFS as somethign they could support/run from. The only thing IIRC that they need to do is include the full unmodified source code with their distro, under GPLv2?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:XP Didn't ditch the whole 9x base by Jimmy_B · · Score: 1

      FAT is commonly used on floppies and memory cards, so they had to support it. It has nothing to do with retaining pieces of Win9x.

    2. Re:XP Didn't ditch the whole 9x base by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      You REALLY weren't paying attention.

      I've installed every version of Windows NT, except for 3.50. I wasn't paying much attention to 3.10, because there were other problems, but I did install it.

      On every version from 4.0 on up, I had the option to format as NTFS or FAT. 2000 and XP give the option to format as FAT or FAT32 on partitions that can handle both formats.

      On 3.51, IIRC, I had the choice, but if I picked NTFS, it would format it as FAT, and then convert it to NTFS on the first boot. Ditto for 3.10, IIRC.

  104. Don't forget the important part!!!! by Khyber · · Score: 1

    The August 2k and September XP pack you mention both fix a very common problem both machines had at that time. Blaster! That's why those packs kept being released, because a large percentage of corporations and other businesses were still running old 2K boxes!

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  105. Perpetual upgrade cycle? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I personally think (even though I am an MS fan for the game support and other F/OSS programs that have migrated over to the dark side) that Microsoft isn't planning these problems, they code them themselves, unintentionally fooling themselves into believing it's a 'feature' without doing any real testing first! They're too overcome with joy at the technology they've stolen that they've just creamed themselves and moved on to the next robbery!

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  106. Price, my friend. by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Cost to upgrade XP to SP3 for most users = $0.00

    Cost for new OS? $100+ easily.

    Why wait for the upgrade? Its cheaper!

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  107. Oh come on by bmajik · · Score: 1, Interesting

    this is just stupid. Do you honestly beleive "we" (microsoft employees) just sit around thinking "crap, we accidentally made this a bit too good. Quick, lets check in a bunch of integer overflows and null-dereferences!" ?

    Or maybe you think that our product cycle works like this:

    1: generally define what we think should go into product
    2: bust ass for multiple YEARS trying to get it all done
    3: modify plan in light of things that happened in multi-year time frame
    4: arbitrarily decide to NOT ship 50% of our features because they were all the way done and worked great, but, you know.. we need more stuff to ship in the future

    Unfortuneately, as you're all too aware, we have a big, 20 year backlog of bugs and design problems, and we hope to chip away a little more than we add with each new feature, which we also have a multi-year long queue of new stuff we think we can add. The only feature-complete peice of software i am aware of is TeX. That means that for everything _we_ make, we think there's more left to do.

    Do you beleive that there is no progress in the field of computing? Do you honestly think we pay developers and testers to sit around doing nothing for years at a time?

    Every person i work with is frustrated about
    - how long it takes us to ship
    - how many features we have to cut
    - anytime a bug affects a customer

    Nobody i work with is saying "lets save that for the next version, because we cant think of enough new stuff to make a new version. All the ideas we're capable of having, we've already had, and we just need to space them out."

    I can tell you i was pissed off when i heard some of the cuts for Vista. I bet the Vista team was 200x as pissed as i was - they weren't working crazy hours just so dipshits on slashdot could ask when we'd get around to "cloning OSX".

    How did you get modded insightful?

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  108. slashdot mods are windows sluts by EllynGeek · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Ever notice how many posts critical of microsoft are modded "troll"? I can live with "flamebait." But "troll" is just plain stupid. Just like people who like Windows.

    --

    we will end no whine before its time

  109. MS programmers are not allowed to finish? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    You said that you are a Microsoft employee. Microsoft programmers seem fine to me. It seems to me that it is Microsoft managers that cause the problems.

    I agree with this: "... we [Microsoft] have a big, 20 year backlog of bugs and design problems, ..."

    It is believable to me that Microsoft programmers work hard. But they seem simply have no influence whatsoever in the way Microsoft is managed. I've sold Microsoft products since April of 1983, and have developed the impression that Microsoft programmers are not allowed to finish their work before they are re-assigned elsewhere. Every Microsoft product I can remember was sloppy when it was first shipped. Then, over a period of years, programmers are assigned to fix the worst bugs. But the products never reach excellence. Microsoft products always contain grief for the reseller and grief for the customer.

    You said, "I can tell you i was pissed off when i heard some of the cuts for Vista. I bet the Vista team was 200x as pissed as i was..."

    You seem to be saying what I am saying above. Microsoft programmers are not managed in such a way that they can possibly deliver a nicely finished product. Is that correct?

    Change in subject: I usually don't like personal web sites, but I liked yours.

    Slashdot people! Here's a technical man with a wife who seems wonderful.

    The idea that male computer specialists don't have women friends never applied to me. People often tell me that they are impressed with my wife, and they're right to be impressed.

    My wife has more patience than I, which means that she is very helpful when we are trying to find the cause of some degradation in Windows XP. There is some weird problem with permissions that occurs on a very few machines. There are serious deficiencies with the Chkdsk utility, which makes it difficult to troubleshoot problems.

    I remember when were having serious problems with Sysprep. It was buggy. Then Microsoft released a new version. Microsoft documentation is poor, largely because it is so scattered.

    My overall impression of Microsoft is that Microsoft products are sloppy, and that Microsoft managers are lacking in idealism. I've always had the impression that Microsoft programmers would prefer to do a good job.

    1. Re:MS programmers are not allowed to finish? by bmajik · · Score: 2, Interesting


      You seem to be saying what I am saying above. Microsoft programmers are not managed in such a way that they can possibly deliver a nicely finished product. Is that correct?


      While Microsoft has its share of political problems and redundant layers of management (IMO), thats not actually what i meant.

      When considering how to deliver Vista, we had a few options, all of which were unattractive

      - keep working on it until its "done"
      -- and ship multiple years later than we wanted to, by which time customers have moved in droves elsewhere, generations of new partner hardware has gone unsupported/unutilized, the entire pace of the windows software world has slowed. Legitimate customer issues we deemed to expensive to address in XP / 2k3 take that much longer to get into customer hands.

      - cut a bunch of stuff completely to make it by date blah
      -- despite the # of bugs that we ship with, we are very bug averse and risk averse. if we dont think something will be done enough and meet the quality bar, we dont let it in the box.
      -- nobody is thrilled about doing date driven releases but everyone understands why sometimes its better to get a working product with a subset of features into the hands of customers sooner

      I would characterize our situation, in general, for everything we do, as:
      "we have a variety of choices, each of which will piss off somebody"

      We're in the business of minimizing the valence of "sombody"

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  110. Avalon by Mithur · · Score: 1

    Avalon is the new 3D Desktop system, and MS wats XP having it, but not before Vista is out. So the XP3 (With Avalon and other number of features) will be out later the vista is out.

  111. Re:At this point, I just want OSX or LINUX. No Tha by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    Oh i'm aware of that linux is used in my industry but really its not used for animators workstations. Its true that programs like Maya, XSI, and Houdini are all available for Linux, but most people still are using them on the windows side due to a larger complement of apps available such as photoshop and many other programs be it zbrush, to various utilities etc.

    Linux boxes are primarily used as a render servers/slaves. Shake is still out on Linux, and yes people do use xsi and maya, especially houdini on linux but they're so few in numbers compared to the window box side of things.

    Its great that linux has a handful of the major applications (even though they do lag a little behind the windows version in functionality sometimes but not by version, usually by a feature here and there)

    I'm willing to try linux again, but i think the issues stiil exist in that it needs to be a little easier. I do need to try more flavors of linux but i also have work to do. A linux transition needs to be fairly seamless i think at this point. Of course not at the expense of linux's useability, or making it look like windows... but to put things in places that make sense to users, and not burying settings in txt files that arent accessable by a ui component. Also the whole install packaging thing. I know its gotten better but is it as simple as a Windows installer yet?

  112. Umm... yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do any of you care if the service pack of windows 2k won't be out for another year? Of course not. Seriously - how is this news?

    Quit your MS bitching and go work on your shitty open source apps while you explain to grandma she has to recompile her kernel to get her sound blaster card to work on her hip linux desktop.

    If you don't like MS products then maybe you should stop posting so many articles about the company.

    Hey trolls! Take a few minutes to stop masterbating in your parents basement, take your fathers gun, and shoot yourselves in your fat, pimply head.

    XOXO

  113. Updates by thanextgeneration · · Score: 1

    Like other people have said it's becuase vista is coming out. But for a different reason, windows media player 11, internet explorer 7, WinFS and other such technologies are planning to be backported to to xp. However, seeing as most of these "features" arn't even compleate on Vista maybe 2007 is MS way to say "when it's finished and working and we have had 6 months to try and switch people over to Vista, then XP can be updated".

  114. Why should i upgrade? by vescovi · · Score: 1

    SP3 ?? why? my XP is on SP1 yet, and i have 0 virus, 0 spyware, 0 malware ... If SP3 take off the big problem on "Microsoft Windows XP", with is the "Microsoft" name, i will upgrade.

  115. cringley by miruku · · Score: 1

    that's one of robert x. cringley's predictions thwarted already..

    --
    MilkMiruku
  116. Debian... by cobrajs · · Score: 1

    Oh, sure. It is OK for Microsoft to take 18 months for an upgrade, but Debian on the other hand...

  117. Pack-X-Listed. From HOTFIX. by thomasxstewart · · Score: 1

    For those that missed joy of SP3 for WINDOWS XP cataloged by private source, I listed all updates that it contained. I had good luck with all except couple, so be prepared for "RESTORE" OR "ADD/DELETE" when you get LOGIE on updates.Any trouble will be slowdown from that last one specific update, not whole mess, which really helps computer puurrr. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

    --
    WINDOWS XP Service Pack -X- 396 mb. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html
  118. HOTFIX SP3 IS BACK 344MB DOWNLOAD HERE. by thomasxstewart · · Score: 1

    Just after I wrote all that down & made my second website in 7 years, oops, out comes original, I just downloaded it, so remember use Romanian mirror for fastest service. http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancement s/Windows-XP-Service-Pack-3-Preview.shtml Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.

    --
    WINDOWS XP Service Pack -X- 396 mb. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html
  119. We are not seeing sufficient care. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Here is more development of my ideas of what I consider to be enforced sloppiness by Microsoft management: Why no check of user code? Sociology.

    Matt, I can tell you something felt strongly by those of us who work in the field: We're suffering badly. Windows Vista is just Windows XP renamed and extended, which is just Windows 2000 renamed and extended. When Windows XP was released, it was very buggy, and caused many time-consuming problems. Windows XP SP2 is much improved, but we are spending days with extremely serious problems. If you would like one example, see the Windows Update Newsgroup. People are being dragged over the coals by the incredible inability of Microsoft to provide a service that works reliably. We ourselves have spent at least 30 hours in the last 3 months wrestling with Windows Update errors.

    If sufficient care is being taken, we are not seeing it.

  120. Remember that old images need to be updated... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    We use Acronis for imaging. We find that trojans attack the operating system, and we need to re-load Windows.

    Remember that old images need to be updated eventually. We are making new images now rather than restoring old ones. That also fixes the problems we have been having with an infection at a customer's site.

    In general, Windows XP SP2 gives us a lot of very expensive grief. For example, we wasted 1 1/2 days recently when a critical update caused some OS functions to stop operating. This problem was acknowledged by Microsoft, but only after many lost hours. Microsoft could have built the fix into a patch Tuesday adjustment, but decided to let users waste their time instead.

  121. Re:Security of Microsoft's existing users sideline by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    usualy, there are more to service packs then just the outstanding updates. In more recent years, These upgrade/updates only availible to service packs were not availible any other way.

    It took three months for microsoft to release an update to the help and support feature that fixed a hole were someone could delete any non-protected files on a computer without any user intervention. Of course microsoft sat on this for 11 weeks before releasing a service pack that fixed the issue but you could only get hat fix from SP1 (xp) for three months (never hit windows update, it had to be downloaded specificaly) and microsoft claims the only reason the fix was released seperatley was because large shops complained about SP1 breaking things and couldn't use it but needed the fix.

    If that isn't evidence enough, try to get the IE popup blocker without installing SP2. There are more examples but those two show your not up to date or secure form just doing updates.

  122. Just threw in my 2k disc. by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Funnily enough, there is no option under 2KPro that allows me to format a filesystem as FAT.

    *throws in another disc from a different employer*

    Same thing here. No on-install option to format to FAT.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  123. Re:Cry me a river by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

    What huge features did you last $129 credit card payment get you? A seach menu? Widgets? XP Service Pack 2 added just as much, enhanced firewall, security center, ect... The difference, I didn't pay $129.