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 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.
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.
I'd like it if they rolled up all of the 80-90 critical patches since SP2.
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.
Why would you need to guess about something which is already publicly known and their obvious policy?
XP will eventually become unsupported, they won't have any new patches for it, and they'll expect everyone to upgrade to Vista. Oddly enough, Windows 3.x, 95, 98, and ME have all gone through this.
Believe it or not, every software company does the exact same thing. Just than when Microsoft does it, it's on a massive scale, and it gets rammed down the throats of everyone no matter what they think.
Longterm this will be seen as a major mistake made by them, in my opinion....
Long term, none of our opinions seem to alter what Microsoft does. It just happens.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
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
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.