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."
Whitedust posted an interesting commentary on this this other day. I agree with them.
I thought Windows Vista was due this year?
-- Linux user #369862
"2007" is a funny term for "whenever we get around to it"....
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
I read that and I wasnt one bit suprised in the least.
Somethings wrong...
- Sig
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
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.
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.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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/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.
no no -- they used a mat. with conclusions printed on it. and then they jumped onto the mat...
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.
...after the press release from the Duke Nukem: Forever team, where they announced they would be going gold when XP SP3 was released.
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.
Service Pack to fix windows is already out. It's actually up to version 4. It's called OS X 10.4.4
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!!!
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?
The new desktop theme was nice, but the service pack broke all my games.
It will take 18 months to download...
Well, it *is* hard to improve on perfection!
/sarcasm
AT&ROFLMAO
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 ----
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.
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?
How often do you get security patches and bug fixes for OS/2?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
But the Cringely clock is still ticking...
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."
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!
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!
Shit, by 2007 I'll be stealing Vista instead of XP anyways.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.