Windows XP Service Pack 3 Not Due Until 2007 334
vitaly.friedman writes "Microsoft has published the due date for Windows XP SP3 (Service Pack 3) on its Windows Lifecycle Web site. The preliminary due date (the latter half of 2007) for the next collection of fixes and patches for Microsoft's desktop operating system is as more than a year later than many company watchers were expecting."
Re:XP SP-3 in 2007 (Score:2, Informative)
I'm keeping up to date with the patches - why wait a year? Service Packs don't add anything I can't live without. It won't make the stuff I've got work better, and it won't contain anything you'll have to have for future software to work. Also, it won't be available to anyone with a dialup modem (unless they've got a provider that doesn't cut them off every 2 hours like the ones I've used do).
Annoying, but there is good news. (Score:2, Informative)
Getting people to install SP2 was and still is a pain in the ass. They don't trust it becuase their mother's cousin's son-in-law, who saw something on TV about it, says that it can cause problems.
But just as we'll probably be just about finished getting the students to upgrade, here comes SP3.
The good news? I get to work a lot more hours when it comes time to get people to install it.
uhhhhh... (Score:5, Informative)
How often do you get security patches and bug fixes for OS/2?
I can find service pack 3 just fine.. (Score:3, Informative)
Fine tools from the folks NOT at microsoft..
Re:if they built it right to begin with... (Score:2, Informative)
Not quite...
1) Apple only charges $130 for the newest version of MacOS X.
2) A MacOS X 10.x -> 10.x+1 release isn't the same as a Windows Service Pack. It's the same as, say, Windows NT 5.0 (win2k) -> 5.1 (winxp), which, incidentally, Microsoft charged $200 for. The MacOS X equvalent to a Service Pack would be a 10.4.x -> 10.4.x+1 release, of which there are about 8-10 in the product's life cycle. Each one is between 10 and 50 MB. And the product life cycle is approximately 18 months (pre-10.2 was a shorter cycle due to a less mature system). The updates tend to include things like post-OSX-release updates to GNU tools and other FOSS stuff outside of Apple's control.
Re:What does this mean for Vista? (Score:5, Informative)
They might not "love" it, but they released two service packs for Windows 2000 after Windows XP Professional was released:
Win2K SP4 was released 20 months after WinXP Pro was released.
Re:Microsoft's behavior is extremely abusive. (Score:5, Informative)
I am not sure to whom your "we" refers. I know I am not in that set as the last time I had to reinstall Windows XP because of its vulnerabilities and instability was...well, never. Reboot, why yes I have had to do that countless times when a patch was pushed out. Hopefully that kind of architecture will be out the door with Vista. Until then I can live with reboots due to certain patches. This box has been running the XP SP2 install since, well, I installed SP2. I use it heavily every day to develop code, test, install and reinstall applications, and do my daily software development work. It could be that my company has a competent IT department, but I am sure a lot of it has to do with me not running as Administrator and not installing suspicious software or browsing suspicious websites when I am. My point being that with proper care and feeding an XP system does not need to be reinstalled often.
Re:You wouldn't ask that question... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Linux (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
Not too sure why you're post was rated insightful...
Re:Cry me a river (Score:2, Informative)