Slashdot Mirror
Windows XP SP3 Postponed Until 2008
Rockgod quotes an article saying "With Microsoft now saying that its next major service pack for Windows XP will not ship until 2008, some Windows users are wondering whether the software upgrade will ever be released." and then later "Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, agrees that Microsoft may very well decide to drop XP Service Pack 3. "It absolutely could happen. Microsoft is under no obligation to produce any service packs, ever," he explains. "They feel that because these fixes are available through the auto-update that there's less need to create a service pack."
> Microsoft is under no obligation to produce any service packs, ever
In fact, I would love for them to completely stop. It would encourage more people to reverse engineer the kernel, or better yet, switch. (Notice that last word is lower case.)
Solomon Chang
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
I thought that the SPs were large(ish) changes that were not just a bundle of all the old patches. Forinstance, when ever I do a reinstall of 2K I need to first patch up to SP4, and then start the auto update stuff....
Oh well, I still don't use XP, and I am still confuzzled by MS.
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
Provide an update rollout? Really, have you seen the massive amount of updates required to apply against SP2 on a fresh install?
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
It'll be released when Duke Nukem Forever comes out.
I change my sig often.
I don't think they will put Aero or other big dev they put on Vista in a free upgrade, so what would be left for a SP except the new DRM?
Maybe they are planning a whole slew of security fixes in 07 and want to make sure to include them in serve pack 3.
Or maybe they just don't care....
The whole SP thing is a throwback to the bad old days of 28.8k modems and CDs by post. Now we can add the fixes as they come along so why bother with a monolithic chunk of code that must be a testing nightmare for MS as well as corporate end users?
The only thing I can see that will be missed is that SPs often slipped in a new feature or two but no doubt someone somewhere thought it would be good business to stop that and insist people plonk down the $ for Vista. As per usual with suits, that's short term thinking. If you're being obliged to do a full OS upgrade you may as well consider other options like Linux.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
> "They feel that because these fixes are available through the auto-update that there's less need to create a service pack."
What about the people who make their own install media with the service packs already integrated?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
... is spelled V I S T A
Seriously, are there problems? I've not run into any in a long, long time.
Oh, no. I shouldn't have said that.
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
They killed Windows NT 4.0 SP7 in the ßeta process
They killed Windows 2000 SP5 in the pre-ßeta stage
Given this track record of killing off Service Packs shortly before they are released, as some (including me) might suspect in an effort to drive adoption of their newer software (which makes them money unlike a service pack) I'll be extremely surprised if Windows XP SP3 is ever released.
IMO, what they are saying now is just lip service/stalling and they have already made the decision.
Why bother at all? The next breathe M$ makes is that Vista is going to be out very soon since RC2 is out and is the final release before vista goes gold?
Didn't I just see SP3 in the previoes slashdot article?
"They feel that because these fixes are available through the auto-update that there's less need to create a service pack."
Yes, much more fun for all those admins at high secure locations (without internet access). It is almost impossible to install a new Windows machine using XP, since you will have to do a lot of updating after the installation itself. Even if you have a dedicated server this is a real pain, since you will have to wait for all the tiny updates to complete. It's hard enough to get Internet Explorer or DirectX installed as it is.
And those with only a modem will really enjoy this. Previously you just bought a CD-ROM with the service pack. Not anymore it seems.
I wonder if there is any good reason any more to do monolithic service pack releases. I mean, if you instead just release a series of small patches as each bug or feature is squashed/added, in the end you achieve the same effect in an incrimental fashion, and your users get better overall functionality sooner rather than later. What would be the benefit of throwing a whole bunch of stuff out there all at once instead?
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
Microsoft will not produce SP3 because of very simple reason: they want Vista to replace XP. It's cash, a lot of it.
Everybody knows that Win XP has more holes than swiss cheese. And it started to get Joe User. So they will upgrade just because of being scared of 'all those viruses, you know...'. So they'll be effectively forced to buy new system. And Miscosoft will be able to withdraw support for XP faster - which is good for them - they don't earn any cash from supporting it and it costs a lot.
I think they'll not make the same mistake like with Win2000 that is still quite alive and kicking because of good compatibility with XP and SP3 they released for it.
We can expect that Vista will quite fast become quite 'not exactly' compatible with XP. And without SP3 situation will get only worse. That's called strategy. On a big scale.
"an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
I thought I heard that Vista was coming out in january? Whew, close call! Here I was thinking that I needed to make a vista strategy for the company, but after hearing this and knowing Vista wont be out till 2008, thats a big load off my back.
Sounds like what happened with Windows 2000. Service pack 5 never materialised, but a security roll-up package was released to somewhat satisfy major customers. My guess is that the same thing will happen with Windows XP. A security roll-up package will be released at some point because the number of post-SP2 patches is approaching insane amounts. But other than that, Microsoft will be far, far too busy pushing Longhorn Server out of the door.
Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft
No more Service Packs, OK? Please? Which a (Michael) Cherry on top?
Truthfully, i don't care much for Microsoft Service Packs. Microsoft Cakes, however, that may be a different case entirely.
Have you read my journal today?
I seem to remember them postponing Windows NT Service Pack 7 "for a later date" at one time. Then, it was Service Pack 5 for Windows 2000. Both of those never saw the light of day. Sounds like they're putting off SP3 for XP until it sinks into the abyss.
It were 2 updates in the first run (new windows installer and new update-system), then 67 critical patches in the second run, then 6 critical patches in the third run.
Because downloading a single service pack is somewhat quicker for a new machine than it checking for every single update required and the longer an unpatched new machine is on the net the quicker it can get rooted. Plus with lots of little patches what you really end up with is myriad versions of the OS since not everyone will have every patch , leading to god knows how many minor (or not) glitches and issues with other software. A single service pack can be considered a fairly major OS upgrade which you either have or you don't have , your PC is either compliant or it isn't.
WELL THEN, I guess I will have to RUSH OUT and buy Windows Vista!!!
As others have pointed out, there are a massive number of fixes required for XP SP2 making it a PITA for any new deployment.
Now larger ships can slipstream these fixes into their installation source thus reducing the pain but adding the pain to build a new slipstreamed image every so often.
Of course Microsoft (and many users) will say that any new deployments should be on Vista but many many organizations don't want to run a mixed environment and many more will wait a while to see how stable Vista is (i.e. wait for Vista SP1).
The real motivation here is that Microsoft makes money from selling a Vista upgrade or when people buy a new PC with Vista, whiel they make zero money when someone uses SP3 to keep their XP going for a little while longer.
Seriously. And no hella profit, price it just enough to cover expenditures.
"Download the current ISO by clicking the download link below or order the Windows XP (Home/Pro dropdown) update disc which includes all security updates up to and including (this Tuesday's date). [Note - use of this disc will automatically update your system to SP2.]"
They're Microsoft, surely they can produce an always current ISO? Why don't they? Why? WHY? Why do they hate us so?
But then again, without any real competition, why should they care? Once again, it's clear that Microsoft's primary obligation is to its stockholders -- you can be sure that they're doing the very best they can to maximize their profits.
I guess it's official then, end of the line for Windows XP except for patches until end of life. By 2008, Jane Consumer will have bought a new PC with Vista on it, or won't even care if some post-PC device is providing the desired functionality at lower cost and greater ease of use. I personally don't want to tangle with anymore XP service packs anyway. So if SP3 is canceled, it really won't matter anymore.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
This has to do with WGA. With a service pack, you can just burn a cd, install Windows XP without the network plugged and then upgrade the installation to the latest SP without having to connect to the network.
M$ doesn't want you to be able to do that. They want you to use the network updater so they can test the validity of your license.
Whether you are in a highly secure setting without internet access or behind a modem in a 3rd world country, they don't care. They want to check your license.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
They aren't under any obligation to provide us with SP's. It's all a marketing ploy to get us to buy Vista (those who actually buy their software nowadays) and other MS products. It's a vicious cycle, and we'll all probably have chips in our foreheads soon.
I suppose it all depends what a service pack is there to do - even going back to nt3, service packs have also included "increased" functionality.
If MS are not going to introduce any new functionality, it could be argued that they don't need a service pack as all the patches are available - either as downloads or as "live" updates.
Corporate customers probably have a build process that already includes these updates - SUS/Bigfix or whatever so it wouldn't effect them. System builders will integrate the fixes in their image, so it wouldn't affect them. The only people affected will be those that like to rebuild thier computers often - like most of the world, and the solution will be - upgrade to Vista!
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die
That Vista was Windows XP SP3... guess it is delayed again. :P
www.autopatcher.com
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
MS is doing all they can to move people from their crap to Linux. 1. Vista may be installed on one machine and only one change. PC builders like myself change mobos a lot and I will never use Vista if it means having to buy a new copy every second PC upgrade. 2. XP will be orphaned, you wait and see. MS will push people to Vista. 3. Media compatibility is becoming an issue. Windows Media already dropped support for the Mac and have turned it over to Flip4Mac which sucks and MS will never support Linux with theor media player. Flash 9 stands to become the holy grail of complete cross platform compatibility. MS is making some huge strategic mistakes and Linux stands to win.
Aw, man! Vista's never gonna come out!
And you may say that this is made mmot by the EULA, but that clause is not binding in many jurisdictions and probably not in *any* juristiction.
Almost all hotfixes released in the past few years have also been slipstreamable.
We use this for our XP and Windows 2003 media.
For XP you start with a clean (virgin) XP SP2 media, install it, then run Microsoft Update to determine what fixes Microsoft thinks that system needs. You manually download all those fixes and do a slipsream setup to integrate into your installation media.
The process is the same with Windows 2003 only we start with Windows 2003 R2 media.
The problem is that you pretty much have to start over from scratch every time you do it, because some hotfixes replace older hotfixes you are really best off repeating the process from the beginning.
We re-build our Windows 2003 media about every 6 months, it's been closer to a year since we did our XP build (we're overdue).
At least with a service pack, you can download it and install it on non-connected computers.
I guess they dont want customers that arent 'on-line', where they can maintain control.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Thinking as a legal residential user of Windows XP : Service packs aren't needed. With obligatory increases in bandwidth from the large providers to remain competitive with each other, I'm thinking specifically to changes in methods of distribution. Why were there 7 Service Packs Released for NT4? Why were there 4 for W2K? 2 For XP? With more users finding it easier to allow their computer to download updates automatically from the net, reaching a state of updated equilibrium doesn't require service packs. Service packs for Windows are outdated, and cause confusion. The average user doesn't always realize that after the service pack is installed, they still have to use windows update anyways to obtain security hotfixes, signed driver updates, etc... So Microsoft, let's just say that windows update should be the only way to go from here on (if your not already using yum or apt-get).
flectere si nequeo superos, Achaeronta movebo
Most people who are responsible for such systems are presumably intelligent enough to slipstream the latest Service Pack AND all current security patches onto a WinXP installation CD which can then be used to install a machine - in fact, this would be the recommended procedure, as it results not only in the machine having the latest SP from the start but also all the miscellaneous security updates which have been published since the last SP.
Remember, a fresh install of Windows XP + Service Pack 2 is still vulnerable to known exploits. Being able to incorporate all the security updates which are available at the time the machine is brought online results in a signifigantly more secure situation (although Microsoft's well-documented history of ignoring certain inconvenient security holes until they get their collective nose rubbed in them would still make me nervous, personally).
Of course, this only works for i386 versions of Windows - from what I can gather, it's not possible to slipstream the x86_64 version. If I've got that wrong, somebody please correct me (and provide a link to instructions).
you can be sure that they're doing the very best they can to maximize their profits.
Hardly.
If Microsoft wanted to maximise their profits they would have jumped at the chance to split the company up so the Windows team wouldn't be able to piss in everyone else's milk, and all the other products they've had to drop or cripple because they couldn't be turned into life-support for Windows or Office could be created and sold. Microsoft is desperate for a way to get people to Buy More Windows, everything they've done since XP shipped has been tinged with "oh my god, what are we going to do now"... and Vista is more of the same.
Three or five "Baby Bills" would end up making more money for the shareholders than one big Microsoft.
Microsoft's products will always be required and used by business and individuals . Get over it. Linux and alternatives are ok, but MS still does and will always reign supreme.
From the article, and insight from other users, it can be stated simply: SP3 is not coming. It's a red herring to buy time for a roll up package and an EOL announcement on XP some time in 2008 or 2009. In the mean time, you can integrate *most* of the windows updates into your installations already. Sure, it's a royal PIA, and a total waste of time, but it works. For those of you in uber-secure environments, might I suggest Windows SUS? It works well enough, and is free for the patch portion. Better, you can tightly control what patches get pushed to the masses in case there's a conflict with some existing software. (Like one of the patches recently blew up some computers at our office with a particular version of ZenWorks that we were using.) As for commentary on Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA), it's probably true. Microsoft doesn't care what your excuse is, they want to validate everything. Thus, it's an entire LAYER of the next OS, and not just a simple patch on top that can be hacked in 30 seconds. Ultimately, in an effort to enforce tighter control on who's pirating software, they're about to alienate a whole mass of corporate consumers hell bent on keeping a tight ship. Look for Microsoft to cave on this issue sometime within the next 2 years (they eventually caved on Product Activation for corporate consumers shortly before release), or if they haven't, within 3 years after Microsoft announces EOL on support for XP SP2, watch corporate consumers with highly secure locked down environments (like credit card vendors, federal government organizations, and possibly hospitals) to start looking at viable Windows alternatives. Unfortunately, with the number of competitors shrinking, options are becoming fewer. Many companies will probably want to avoid proprietary hardware, eliminating options from Apple (unless they start allowing third party hardware -- doubtful), or Sun (unless they seriously commit to supporting x86 -- doubtful), leaving flavors of Linux or BSD as the next most likely candidates.
I live in a rural area where most of the people are on dialup. I like to provide my friends and family with the security patches so they need so they don't have to spend weeks downloading them through dialup. A service pack would make this job a LOT easier, but as it is I have to rely on AutoPatcher to handle this.
Microsoft doesn't seem to want to make it easy. If you want to get your patches from Microsoft, you have to either use Windows Update on every single machine, or sift through hundreds of pages to individually download the updates you need. It shouldn't be that hard.
I have four computers running Windows. I want to download updates ONCE for all of them, without wasting bandwidth and without all the hassle that Microsoft wants to put you through to do that. AutoPatcher does this (and hats off to those guys for doing so) so why can't Microsoft get their act together and start putting out something similar?
So when SP3 finally comes out I guess MS is gonna start phasing it out. Oh wait, they've already started phasing it out with the DX10 being Vista only and games like Halo2 being Vista-only.
I still use Win2k and I growl everytime I try to install something because it says, "WE R SORRY, YOU CANNOT USE THIS BECAUSE IT'S XP ONLY."
The same goes for all of those crappy XP-only mp3 players. I can't wait until more Vista-only things come out!
Brand new WinXP installation w/ SP2 slipstreamed finds over 50 critical updates needed (not including upgrading WMP or adding .Net). Of course that's all after you connect to the Internet,download the Genuine Advantage Tool and updated Windows Installer, reboot and reconnect to Windows Updates all in the hopes of not being compromised while doing so.
[sarcasm]But year, why provide a SP to help out your corporate customers. Just doesn't make sense.[/sarcasm]
And slipstream this, too: RyanVM's Windows XP Post-SP2 Update Pack. It'll take care of most of those updates left. Makes life a hell fo a lot easier.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
They could postpone it until 2108 for all I care. I'm switching to Mac. Windows is freakin broken it's beyond hope. Vista will be the last cardhouse OS of windows that get's released. MS has to start from scratch and stopped adding stories to this building called windows built in a swamp.
I mean, sure pirates have cool eye patches, and peg-legs, and shout 'Parlay' when in a bind, but what will the Pirates use to create Windows Install CDs with all the patches already.... oh wait.. slipstreamed... Nevermind... Pirates already solved this issue.
Its the legimate users that are getting screwed.
"Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
If you doing that you should also add the drivers to the install diskD riverPacks/
http://www.driverpacks.net/DriverPacks/index.php/
This made me think. Having basic firewalls on network interface controllers would be so great. We could say goodbye to remote exploits and botnets forever. Too bad they'd probably be way too expensive compared to normal cards.
Deus est fatalis
How? Did you try a system restore?
I tend to think that MS cranks out fixes the same way that AV vendors crank out new sigs. Maybe the actual risk of not patching is less than the operational cost of micromanaging your machines? Is MS planning on some built in compatibility issues that would make SP3 or Vista necessary? If not then it probably doesn't make much sense to do it.
Who cares about Joe Sixpack? Microsoft makes its money from selling Office, .Net and SQL Server. Its about enterprise, where Apple's threat is 0. Although even Joe Sixpack will wind up buying a $500 Dell.
Who cares?! It's a fight to keep the stupidest of users; the PC has obviously distanced itself far beyond the cognitive reaches of the countless morons, trying to use a computer for the first time. Let them all buy a brand new shiny Intel laptop and use both operating systems; I know tons of morons who have, and still come crying to me for all the 1337 w4r3z that can run on Windows. Eventually this will change, cause porting projects to other OS's has never been easier or quicker. The interweb in no longer the cool elitest nerds-only club it used to be; apparantly some of us got greedy and invited the morons to join us. (I blame corporate America)
there was no cake for the XP team. :-(
Adventure City Tours
Microsoft has just added one piece of additional functionality to Windows XP, and that is Internet Explorer 7. Six months ago I thought that SP3 would basically consist of IE7, a couple of minor improvements here and there (better driver support for Bluetooth built into the OS was the one I was hoping for) plus all the patches since SP2 rolled up together. Put this on the install disc, and making a fresh install on a new or upgraded PC would at least become less painful than the "Install the OS, then install vast numbers of waves of patches, including rebooting the PC six times" process that we go through now.
But Microsoft didn't do this. Instead I suspect they want us to upgrade to Vista, and leaving XP installs more difficult, and not providing a service pack makes this more likely, I suppose. (IE7 is different, because we can all upgrade to Firefix instead).
Well, you could always turn on the firewall before connecting to the internet, and then get the updates...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Downloading a whole bucket of patches for each machine is a waste of network bandwidth, instead the SP can be downloaded once and applied to all machines.
But of course M$ wants everyone to switch to Vista instead and one way is to make life miserable for the users of earlier OS versions.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Did any one else notice the wording. "It absolutely could happen." Thats pretty definite. Is he taking lessons from John Kerry?
Hee Hee The drinking bird does all the work!
What a bummer. I feel bad for all the windows people. Vista not shipping till 2008 and being called XP SP3. I think I suggested that name a year ago.
h orn-vaporware-called.html
http://www.planetisaac.com/2005/07/microsoft-long
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
You see prencher, the parent made the same mistake he's accusing others of. He lives in a box and doesn't realize it. He accused the GP of being closed minded/not realistic about the numbers of people who might switch to Macs. He then assumed his position from somewhere inside the IT industry was representative of the larger market. In other words, he's just as closed minded/brainwashed as the "Mac fanboys".
Make them available for free at Wal-Mart
Tony Stewart edition UBUNTU!!
Dale Jr. Edition Mandriva
Collect 'em all!!
Many of you say Microsoft may want to axe XP SP3 to help speed up Vista adoption and make it seem more attractive. But, as others here have said, SP3 does not NEED to include any fancy new features like SP2 did. At the very least, all it needs is to include all updates since SP2 so I can install a fresh XP slipstreamed with SP3 and have a fully up-to-date system from the get-go. All this does is save users time with XP installations and reduces the time an unpatched system is on the net. I don't see how this would tempt someone to not bother switching to Vista.
Integrated all the updates listed in Windows Update History from my XP box onto an SP2 slipstream disc. On installing to a clean machine I had a number of problems with system file checker reporting incorrect version information and attempting to recover from its cache (naturally, containing the updates and failing). In the end the recovery was to rebuild using my trusty Windows XP SP2 slipstream, and swallow the additional ouple of hours I'd spent trying to make the NLite install work.
None of the fancy options were used other than integration of critical updates, the switching off of Luna and the display cruft and to set the default language to UK English. This was nlite 1.0rc3i, 1313823 bytes for the installation exe.
I'm not saying that I won't have another go in the future (tis getting close to 200 meg with Windows XP SP2 from slipstream and MS Office) but that my experience wasn't all I'd expected.
I'll certainly give that a try, given I've also had a poor experience with NLite. Much appreciated. F_T
This text is misleading, as is the Yahoo! Article!
MS is not saying anything about XP SP3 yet, only a for-profit company that has a lot of former MS staff called "Directions on Microsoft" is saying that this *may* be what happens.
I'd turn off the panic alarms.
This is akin to making broad policy decisions on the word of John Dvorak's speculations.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
you know, this makes me think how to make it easier to migrate. Something like a tool that runs on windows to prepare the system (decrypt EFS files, record hardware and network settings from the registry), maybe even copy files to a remote network share (or to a gmail account created for the purpose).
Then the linux installer would take over, move you from FAT32/NTFS to ext3, restore enough windows config settings to make your linux install look the same. Screen background, saver, favourites, all those things should go over. Printers, fileshares &c, all there.
That'd be slick. Most of it is just configuration settings; we need to pull them from windows, turn them into linux/gnome/kde options.
"Microsoft is under no obligation to produce any service packs, ever," he explains.
This is not quite accurate. As the Ford Pinto case illustrates manufacturers have certain obligations when it comes to the performance of their product. If a major, easily fixable malfunction in WinXP was discovered tomorrow and M$ refused to fix it, it is very likely that a class action lawsuit against it would succeed.
I bet if you could make Bill Gates set up several 100 machines(without cloning) that there would be a service pack tomorrow. It's a pain to have to download all those separate patches even with Windows update to update new machines. Novell has done this right for years.
1.) Release service pack.
2.) Release interim bug fixes.
3.) Once a large number of interim fixes are out and tested regression test it all and release another service pack.
http://www.ryanvm.net/msfn/
This is what I've used with good results.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
for XP support. As the Vista License stands my employer already stated we WILL UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES upgrade to the Vista client. We currently have more than 110,000 copies of XP and 4500 copies of 2003. We have turned down EVERY copy and trial offer that M$ has made to premier members and made it known to our M$ rep that Vista is a NO GO at our place. How long the management hold out is unclear but they are standing firm over the re-install issues, and their 'new' rip you off all the way licensing terms.
We've been in serious talks with 2 or 3 unamed Linux providers for some BIG TIME migration *crosses fingers but doesn't hold breath*.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
their corporate sp3 version will be released this year under the name vista and next year to the consumers.
it is one year ahead of schedule.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
No more free SP CD's? Crap! That was the only good thing about this whole "buy XP and patch till you die" thing. I'm sure the bells and cable bastards are behind this. They want that fee after you hit a few gigabytes of downloads.
The software you mention, HFSLIP, is actually at http://hfslip.org now.
M$ to offer free installs of gigabit ethernet connections into the home of every XP user, to allow for super-speedy install of every.single.freakin.kbfile that's come out since SP2 was released. Meh. I'll stick to autopatcher...
remember to loot and pillage before you burn!
... a lot of the patches MS makes aren't released to the public on a public website, you've to call PSS (public support services) of MS to obtain the patch. A service pack contains these as well. So a service pack is more than just the publically available patches.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Keep in mind that repair shops are not allowed by the licence to download and save Windows updates, so basically they have to be downloaded every time. That means around 100MB in 70 odd updates on a fresh Windows XP SP2 machine, or add another 100MB of SP2 if needed.
It would be nice if they could consolidate things into one roll-up like they did with 2000. Legally, shops are not allowed to do it, so we have to wait for Microsoft. You would think they would be happy to reduce bandwidth to their site (my shop pulls at least 1GB a day from MS).
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Microsoft is under no obligation to produce any service packs, ever
And the public is under no obligation to buy any Microsoft software, ever.