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
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/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.
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 ----
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
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?