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."

14 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Is there a need for a Service Pack? by writermike · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  2. Personally I think they will kill it by raitchison · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Personally I think they will kill it by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Emphasis mine:
      They killed Windows NT 4.0 SP7 in the ßeta process They killed Windows 2000 SP5 in the pre-ßeta stage

      What is a Betaeta process/stage?

      Or do you bank at an ATM machine?

      I happen to agree with you, though, that SP3 is dead in the water -- unless Vista bombs and there is a lot of Linux switchover. Announcing a delay allows MS to change their mind later, if necessary, so that they can release SP3 if it becomes a good decision to do so.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Personally I think they will kill it by Anthracks · · Score: 4, Funny

      Clearly, he works for the Department of Redundancy Department.

      --
      Rock over London, Rock on Chicago. Wheaties: Breakfast of Champions.
  3. Companies requiring high security by owlstead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  4. It's obvious by jackharrer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Win2K SP5 all over again by winchester · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Sounds sensible by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 5, Informative
    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?

    Because you can read the SP from a CD and have the fixes installed before you connect the computer to the internet at all.
    In the past, there have been some security holes that could be exploited as soon as your PC is on the net, making it a race between the malware and the patches which gets to your PC first. Loading the SP from a CD removes this problem.
    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  7. Re:They're right, you know by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:Available from autoupdate? by theRiallatar · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. For those who are worried about their darknets ... by mmell · · Score: 4, Informative
    Granted, installing WinXP followed by the latest SP's from CD-ROM is a secure way to install a machine with some measure of confidence that it won't be hacked immediately upon exposure to the internet, but . . .

    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).

  10. Re:Could they at least... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

    you CAN slipstream all updates into windows. I suggest you get up to speed where the rest of us have been for over a years now...

    nlite integrates ALL patches, fixes, hotfixes, etc... into a windwos install CD. hell I can even automate the de-xpify process so I dont have to do it on every machine.

    Service packs and traditional slipstreaming is very old hat as microsoft does not care anymore.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  11. Re:Windows genuine advantage by tgd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except of course all those updates are available and can be installed without Windows Update.

    Nice conspiracy theory, though.

  12. Re:They're right, you know by laffer1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.