Slashdot Mirror
Why is Microsoft Patching XP?
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.
Without a service pack it just doesn't feel like windows.
Why is this labeled a service patch?
... and they're kinda nervous about their service release record being broken...
The game.
So if hackers figure out how to patch in some new "valid" keys with this mechanism, does that mean that no one will need to hack out a key anymore?
stuff |
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
What I find incredibly is that they reached such a limit at all. Every single f****n programmer knows by now that if you plan for a certain maximum limit, you multiply that number by a factor of 10,000, then raise it to the fourth power and add a few billion just to be sure.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
What happened to A and B?
Did they elope together and disappear into the mountains - and now C is their lovechild?
I wonder how hard it will be to uninstall when it does not work.
If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0.
FTA: Other signs of the not-dead-yet OS's...
I'm not dead yet.
Aw, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
No, really, I'm feeling much better.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
It's a good thing airplanes aren't designed that way. Solid steel and cement probably doesn't fly so good.
It's a good thing that airplanes aren't completely built in software, then.
I'm glad I stayed with Windows 98 Second Edition so I don't have to deal with all these endless updates and patches.
That the balance of features versus benefits in Vista are not correct. Meaning, in Vista they were too interested in providing features that consumers did not care about, such as drm and copyright protection, and not enough benefits above XP. Not only that, but the XP version is even cheaper...
I suspect this is a shorterm problem only. Meaning I checked the Dell website and they are not providing XP as an option on all laptops, so I suspect M$ is simply providing this option to their larger customers until wider adoption occurs. Over time, it would be my guess they will slowly "fade" out XP and the forced Vista adoption will be complete. Longterm this will be seen as a major mistake made by them, in my opinion....
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.
Way to spin it, Slashdot. Making the "mistake" of underestimating how well a product is going to sell: not a bad mistake to make.
I'd like it if they rolled up all of the 80-90 critical patches since SP2.
Not to fanboi, but having run XP for years before switching to Linux and a Mac, I find the actual OS updates for OS X no more time-consuming or frustrating than those for other platforms. If you want to make an actual comparison, then let's talk about app updates as well as OS updates.
So you can laugh all you want to...
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.
OSR2 - FAT32 is minor?
OSR2.1 - LBA support is minor?
OSR2.5 - USB is minor?
That's not entirely true.
Microsoft has bet significant bucks on the success of Vista, in both R&D and research. On the other hand, XP is nearing the "end" of its product cycle (in theory), having been supplanted by Vista. Or, to use a different turn of phrase, "old and busted" versus "new hotness."
Imagine you have an old and busted car, and you're buying a new sexy one. For some reason, you need to hang on to both, but you fully plan to get rid of the old & busted one at your earliest convenience. But it turns out that the new car has some serious problems with it, and it's constantly in the shop: but because of your family's needs, you can't just ditch it and start over. Now you're stuck with two cars, and paying upkeep on both of them...
Anyway, it's a flawed analogy, but suffice it to say that MS stands to lose a hefty chunk of change if Vista dies on the vine.
Every single f****n programmer knows by now that if you plan for a certain maximum limit, you multiply that number by a factor of 10,000, then raise it to the fourth power and add a few billion just to be sure.
Which explains why a mouse driver needs to be 500MB.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
So, if you want a Honda, then go by Windows
I was with you until you made that statement (and I don't even own a Honda). Why do you have to disrespect Honda like that? Especially when Honda's cars are reliable, Windows not so much. Honda's cars are closer to OS X than Windows, in that they "just work." They also have very refined engines and well thought-out interiors (at least the ones I've seen). They don't require much maintenance. Yeah, they don't look all that great, but they aren't ugly (like Windows is), simply very vanilla.
It would've made more sense if you made the Windows analogy with Ford or one of the GM brands.
#!/
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
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
There are 2 red flags on this that would concern me. One that Microsoft would secretly bundle more rights restrictions into XP (admit it, it's certainly tempting, and it's not like they haven't done it before), and two, that this SP would seemingly make it easier to crack windows keys - I mean, here's all the necessary components, isolated and laid out for you to decipher. Well, that's just my 2 cents.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Microsoft hasn't done it, but these guys have.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
A hardware product has an official End-Of-Life date beyond which it is no longer sold nor supported. That's fairly logical, because it is a standalone physical item, and its physical end of life is inescapable.
But the concept of EOL'ing an operating system that's at the heart of bazillion old machines out there seems completely wrong, to the point of being bizarre. Those machines will (mostly) never change their operating system, and why should they --- after all, their manufacturer created them as XP machines, not as Vista boxes, and their manufacturer-supplied drivers might not even work with Vista.
Yet, except in the case of non-networked machines, their continued survival requires fairly regular O/S updates in response to the changing face of the Internet. End-Of-Lifing XP reflects a very myopic stance by Microsoft, as if their product Windows XP were somehow standalone. Well it's not.
Microsoft enjoys the $$$ benefits of Windows being adopted worldwide as the most popular operating system, but with that comes the responsibility of maintaining the heart of those myriad machines which use it
Yes, it's a responsibility. Operating systems are not toasters. They sustain the continued viability of machinery that uses them, and can't be treated as independent items. Their manufacturers committed to a dependency on Microsoft support.
While End-Of-Life is a common concept in commercial products, there is something fundamentally wrong with declaring an operating system as dead. While the hardware survives (at least 10 years, maybe 15), a degree of support should continue to be provided, as I see it. The rate of support calls will dwindle to zero over time, so "It would cost us too much" is not really a good excuse. Especially given the size of MS coffers.
Killing off older machines by denying support for their O/S seems irresponsible by the O/S manufacturer, regardless of which O/S that is.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
XP is fine now (when they're not breaking it remotely), Vista was delayed and Vista sucks. If Vista didn't suck then I wouldn't still be reading horror stories about DRM, HD-crippling, driver issues, kernel vulnerabilities etc. etc. etc. long after it has been released. Barely a week goes by without a handful of things like this or this cropping up.
Are all of these kinds of stories just trolls with spin skills worthy of Karl Rove? If the answer is no then Vista sucks. If the answer is yes then there are lot of people angry at MS - probably, at least in part, because Vista sucks so very much: http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=vista
I've been part of several discussions trying to ascertain what advantages Vista actually offers to outweigh the drawbacks and it ain't pretty. The bottom line for us, and I daresay hundreds of thousands of other organisations, is that XP works, is mostly stable and is well supported. Vista can't compete with that - and they're calling it an upgrade?
So if you need Microsoft - and unfortunately we still need to develop with DirectX - then XP will do fine. Vista has to bring something really worthwhile to make us want to go through the hassle of the upgrade and to put up with all the unwanted baggage that Redmond seems to think we all need.
And of course if you don't need Microsoft then you're already laughing. Whatever OS you're using will be just as secure as Vista (if not more so), fully extensible, support all sorts of open formats and not try to wrestle with you for control of your own computer.
I really am glad that Vista's working out for you but unfortunately for most of us the "nifty new features and new look" just aren't enough to justify a broad OS upgrade - certainly for anything other than a home or hobby rig. And my home'n'hobby rigs all run XP or Linux and serve me just fine. =D
And you dare to imply that Slashdot isn't permanent? Never have I witnessed a more true blasphemy.
We are permanent. We are one. We are +5 Karmawhores and can afford to burn. You promote a false God. There is only one root.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
>> Which explains why a mouse driver needs to be 500MB.
So.... sqrt(sqrt(500,000,000 - 3,000,000,000)) / 10,000 = one imaginary mouse driver.
-- Nate