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."
I read that and I wasnt one bit suprised in the least.
Somethings wrong...
- Sig
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.
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/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.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
"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.
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.
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!!!
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 ----
No, instead, they release their point releases under clever new names like 95, 98, NT, 2000, me, xp, Vista...
They leave the version numbers off all together so they avoid morons such as yourself claiming that they charge for point releases.
Each "point release" to OS X has contained over 100 new features.
You can't say that about any of the software Microshit releases.
What a fucking idiot you are.
Microsoft 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
Too bad that update requires an expensive proprietary hardware dongle.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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!
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?
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.