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."
XP SP-3 in 2007 (Score:4, Insightful)
Somethings wrong...
Re:cuz vista is coming out. (Score:1, Insightful)
They're doing the same thing for people who don't want to upgrade to the next version just yet, or can't because of other circumstances.
Not that big of a deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
This shouldn't surprise anyone. MS wants Vista to be out before any major patch to XP. Its in their best interest as it compels more people to upgrade to Vista. XP will be treated like a red-headed step child so Vista will look more appealing. So long as they issue security patches I'll be happy. It's what I've come to expect.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:But.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the original poster was joking that Vista is not much more than a small upgrade from XP. That seems true; but XP wasn't much of an upgrade from 2000, and '98 wasn't much of an upgrade from '95 either.
Re:But.. (Score:2, Insightful)
2k had 4 SPs, and NT4 had 6. On the other hand, 98 only had one, and I can't find any info on other versions.
Re:Not that big of a deal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, NT 4 had 6 service packs and number 7 was not released. But supposedly was pretty much complete, number 7 added a bunch of features that were supposedly in Windows 2000.. and with the release of Windows 2000 just around the corner.. why would they want to make 2000 less appealing?
Also, notice that 2000 has just 4 service packs..
And it's looking more like XP will be getting just 3 by the end of life period, now... either Microsoft have absolutely amazing QA which means they're fixing all the bugs in their OS's by the last service pack or they want to force people onto their newest OS with the promises of bug fixes etc.
This is disheartening, they're trying to force people into a perpetual upgrade cycle and are being very successful at it too. I guess we can only hope that stuff like Linux and OpenOffice start making some inroads to at least reduce the price of Windows to help reduce the pressure on people who are locked into MS solutions.
Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
My question: If this enrages people - why not switch over to Linux where the SOTA is always available in a no-cost distribution?
why is that silly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or NT after 2000 came out.
While the product is still under 'support', you can expect fixes to come out. Support doesnt end on day 1 of the release of a new version, in the real world.
Re:why is that silly? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has been listening to big companies; they created "patch Tuesday" as a way to reduce the pain for corporate IT departments. Think about it, why wouldn't MS release the patch ASAP for consumers? In fact, that would be better for MS debugging because it would be easier for MS to tell if a particular patch caused problems. As it is, they're all clumped together each month.
If nobody in particular is clamoring for an update, Microsoft will oblige them by not issuing one.
Re:doesn't matter (Score:1, Insightful)
They leave the version numbers off all together so they avoid morons such as yourself claiming that they charge for point releases.
Each "point release" to OS X has contained over 100 new features.
You can't say that about any of the software Microshit releases.
What a fucking idiot you are.
Re:Interesting commentary on this... (Score:4, Insightful)
A SP release to them just adds more QA and testing, that i think they want to avoid and release vista. I keep seeing people posting how they think MS is doing this so they can sell Vista. I do not think that is the reason, as most people buy windows through OEM with new computers, and a late SP is not going to change that. Corporations are not going to just switch to vista in a few months because of SP3 being late either, because by the time they test and release SP3, SP1 for vista would be out....
The only people that might upgrade are well Windows fans/devs/sys admins, and well they will upgrade irregardless of SP3 timeline
Re:Wrong, it's already out. (Score:4, Insightful)
Security of Microsoft's existing users sidelined (Score:3, Insightful)
That's always been Microsoft's policy, in my opinion. Microsoft makes more money when Windows is not secure because many people buy new computers when they begin having problems.
The interests of billionaires are almost never the interests of society in general. Billionaires begin to believe that they are superior.
Re:cuz vista is coming out. (Score:3, Insightful)
Service packs aren't SUPPOSED to introduce new functionality, they're meant to roll up bug fixes so you don't have to install 50 patches after installing your software product. MS should be releasing a service pack every quarter or at most every half IMHO.
"Maybe this time" (Score:4, Insightful)
Software companies with virtual monopolies don't want to release a good product because then no one will upgrade to a new version, even if it has a new name.
Re:But.. (Score:4, Insightful)
XP being built on the old NT base and ditching 9X was the best thing to happen to Windows in a long time.
So, 2000 is to NT4 as Vista is to XP? We can only hope.
As the Windows fans says... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, distributions such as Debian make up for this in being very easy (and cheap!) to upgrade to the latest version, but still. I've run into situations where I really want to upgrade a Debian system but fear breaking something. Eventually I just bite the bullet and do it. Things usually work out pretty well, but if it were Windows, I would be able to upgrade individual programs without worrying about support from the underlying OS because most programs work on all Windows platforms going back to NT 4.0.
Just something to keep in mind next time you lament the Windows upgrade cycle...
-matthew
Re:But.. (Score:3, Insightful)
They've already blown their Vista deadline (at least once) so Why TF don't they keep it in testing for another 4 months instead of releasing buggy software?
Or why not a final Beta release to let the fanboys go at it and find the bugs?
Maybe with their 'new' patching system, patches won't need to be measured in MBs, in which case, Service Packs won't be hundreds of megs. I could live with that, but jumping on Vista worse than being an early Xbox360 adopter... with Vista you know something is going to go wrong
Preemptive patch? (Score:2, Insightful)
Vista Competition (Score:2, Insightful)