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."
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
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
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.
"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.
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
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.
Service packs are largely comprised of all the service updates and software patches that MS releases between major service packs. They're basically a "catchup" package that allows people to ensure that their software is completely up to date up to a certain time. They occasionally bundle in extra stuff, but IIRC they didn't do that all too often before XP SP2.
Since people's machines are nominally downloading and applying these updates automatically, there's less of a need to release a "catchup" package, since most people are supposedly already caught up.
Yes, I'm sure Joe Sixpack is going to switch to Apple/Linux because SP3 for XP wasn't released...
Unlikely, but the previous poster did not mention who he thought might be motivated. Johnny Systems Engineer might be more motivated to migrate his enterprise to Linux if SP3 is never released and he must choose between upgrading all machines and replacing many of them outright, or finally funding that Linux migration the junior sysadmin has been trying to sell him on.
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."
Actually, even Joe Sixpack is pretty tired of crashing spyware ridden computers. And the very moment they see another option, they are sure to at least look at it. And with Vista's new hardware requirements likely not matching their current hardware, there's yet another possibility he will look at his options before buying a new computer. Apple has become rather affordable as of late and their reputation for being easy will do a lot in the way of bolstering confidence. And if he actually talks to someone and finds that a mac can also run Windows, he'll be sold.
That's a lot of IFs, and I don't expect a huge number of people to fall within those cracks, but I think the numbers will increase and become rather noticable.
I wasn't going to reply, but I kept seeing more and more of the same posts as I was reading through. Try a test. Connect a simple out-of-the-box router to a DSL/Cable connection with default settings. Connect an unpatched Windows XP SP0 machine to the router and make sure it has web access. Don't use that computer. See how long it takes to get rooted/malware. Answer? It NEVER will. Because the router blocks all unsolicited incoming traffic, unless you've monkeyed with the config to change this. The only way a computer can get rooted/malwared through a default-settings router is by stupid user tricks, or by another already infected machine on the NATed network.... which would have got infected by stupid user tricks.
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).
Unless you are building that box in a lab which is ALREADY infected.
When I was in college we had our own removal hard drives and it wasn't that uncommon for the students to bring them home, get infected with EVERYTHING and then bring it to the lab.
Sometimes being secure out of the box, even for the box, is important.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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?
You're completely missing the fact that this means that SP3 will come out a year after Vista ships. This means that, in effect, enterprise systems will have to decide if they want to remain with unpatched XP systems or upgrade to Vista.
This is obvious planning by MS to not cannibalize their Vista sales by giving an "incentive" to "upgrade" to Vista.
There are training issues with Vista as well. It does not look just like XP. Some users freak out when the "screens" are different. If someone picked a windows like environment such as KDE, end users might believe its the new Windows version. They still have to learn new screens either way. Remember the new MS Office version also has a face lift. IE7 is now different looking.. the transition from IE6 to firefox, IE7 or another browser is the same. This is the time to do it. Microsoft has set everyone up to switch. They felt they had to change the UI to get people to upgrade and it might just cost them a few percent market share in the long run.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone