Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why is Microsoft Patching XP?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the you-wouldn't-believe-me-if-i-told-you dept.

akkarin noted a story about a new Service patch for XP. Dubbed SP2c, the new service patch contains no bug fixes or features. Instead, this exciting patch exists only to add new valid active product registration keys. Oops.

13 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Slow day? by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I just love it when the subject line of a article is a question answered by the summary just below it.

    MS is running out of keys, so they are releasing an updated build. mmmmm ok. so?

    It's just a different build number, what's the big deal. The same thing happened back in the Windows 95 when they had SR 2, 2.1, and 2.5. The changes between those build were minor as well.

  2. Re:So.... by Himring · · Score: 2, Informative

    I hate to be persnickety, but it's actually called a "Service Pack" not "Patch." The actual developer's name for it is CSD or, "Corrective Service Diskette" which can be seen in the registry if you look. I believe the term comes from the days of OS/2 and shows yet another example of IBM's legacy in Windows....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  3. Re:Funny. I can understand... by Calinous · · Score: 2, Informative

    Microsoft got the number of supported devices in Vista up for some 700 000 at launch, to more than two millions now (close to three millions). However, for some drivers, you must go to the producer.
          As of now, we use a Canon laser jet printer in the office (not supported by Vista, got driver from Canon), and an OfficeJet multifunctional (not supported by HP under Vista, supported by Microsoft). The XP drivers allowed faster scanning - much faster scanning in fact. Printing speed is about the same, and we don't send faxes from the server (we use the printer's controls).
          So, someone is at fault with your system, and most probably the drivers are flaky. Vista is not (right now) what your computer needs.

  4. 95 OSR releases were minor if you're an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    OSR2 - FAT32 is minor?
    OSR2.1 - LBA support is minor?
    OSR2.5 - USB is minor?

    1. Re:95 OSR releases were minor if you're an idiot. by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      To my knowledge OSR2 is what introduced FAT32 and LBA. USB came in 2.1. OSR 2.5 was just IE and some other misc fixes you could download.

      So yes, the difference between 2 and 2.1 was minor. USB support was added, but typically supporting new hardware doesn't warrant a new build number. Also, from my experience back then.... the USB support was terrible in 95 (although it could very likely be the vender's USB products as well). USB didn't seem truly solid until 98.

      The different between 2.1 and 2.5 was even less than minor.

      The point of the original post, wasn't that they updated the build number. It was about what a slow news day it must be for slashdot to be running a story on it. What's next?... are we going to start getting updated whenever a DLL is updated too?

  5. Re:no rollup? by n0dna · · Score: 5, Informative

    SP3 is in late alpha, scheduled be released later this year with Vista's SP1.

  6. Not really a patch/service pack/whatever by webrunner · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's only for OEMS and stuff- it's for new OS installs, not for ones that are already there. In fact its' pointless on systems that already are installed because they already have working keys.

    --
    ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
  7. XP service pack releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think it is just a matter of how many Windows Updates are included.

    Windows XP Professional w/ SP1A (OEM-DSP)Only (?) release of SP1.
    Microsoft Windows XP Pro w\SP2 (OEM-DSP) First release of SP2
    Microsoft Windows XP Pro SP2B OEM DSP 2nd release of SP2

  8. Here's the rollup by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Microsoft hasn't done it, but these guys have.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  9. Re:So.... by dosius · · Score: 2, Informative

    IBM's version of DOS 5.00a was called a CSD, so it dates at least that long (1992)...

    -uso.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  10. Re:well... by Billhead · · Score: 3, Informative

    Last I checked there were 4 SPs for Windows 2000, not 2.

  11. Re:End-Of-Life on an O/S seems bizarre by icydog · · Score: 2, Informative

    The End-of-life date for XP is due for 2014. I think it's fair to say that if MS continues to provide patches until then, it has done a good enough job and doesn't need to continue for the rest of eternity. The end-of-life mentioned in the summary is just about the end of being able to acquire additional new licenses.

  12. Re:well... by captain_cthulhu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Win98 - pass Win98 was NOT a pass... at least not for gamers who saw a huge increase in performance. in fact, there was a good 8-12 months where Win98 outperformed WinXP in gaming until the XP drivers caught up. Windows2000 was not an option for gamers until long after it's release and some issues still remain. of course win2000 was/is the best, IMHO.
    --
    certified elipsis abuser