- Related Stories
-
Microsoft: XP SP3 won't arrive until '07
January 17, 2006 -
Microsoft confirms next XP service pack
September 30, 2005 -
After delays, Windows security update ready to go
August 6, 2004
This week, Microsoft updated its lifecycle Web site to note that the introduction of Service Pack 3--the next XP update--has been pushed back until the first half of 2008.
Service Pack 3 has seen its schedule pushed out a few times, amid delays to Windows Vista. Most recently, Microsoft said in January that people should expect to see SP3 in the second half of 2007.
Microsoft officials in France had earlier said that the service pack could arrive late this year, but that was when Vista was set to debut earlier as well.
The last service pack for XP, Service Pack 2, included a greater than usual number of changes, particularly around security, and debuted in August 2004.
The change was noted earlier Thursday by Microsoft enthusiast site Neowin.net.
Microsoft is just now finishing up development on Vista, with the new operating system scheduled to go to large businesses next month and to launch more broadly in January.
See more CNET content tagged:
service pack, Microsoft Windows Vista, Microsoft Corp., Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows
Microsoft systems are legacy systems. Any business that decides to run on Microsoft technologies already has one trike against it.
1993 - NT 3.1
1994 - NT 3.5
1995 - NT 3.51
1996 - NT 4.0
Or the less than 2 years between the release of 2000 and XP
Are a royal pain in the ass and offer very little actual benefit.
I'm not even going to address your ignorant "Microsoft Sucks" statement.
Vista got delayed because of windows xp sp2.
Microsoft gave away sp2 free because it was their goof up with windowsxp to begin with.
Vista as a platform will provide them opportunity to provide quick upgrades. If microsoft fails with Vista then they will be outof business in probably a decade.
Stop trying to force feed your Vista hacker OS on
http://www.teckmagazine.com/tutorials/tutorials/adobe-photoshop-style-layer-tutorial-1-indiana-jones-logo.html
consumers.
Windows NT 4.0 SP7 was in ßeta when it was killed off to force adoption of Windows 2000.
Windows 2000 SP5 was in pre-ßeta and was killed off to force adoption of Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP.
It's extremely doubtful that MS will relases SP3 for XP more than a year after Vista's introduction.
For example, Exchange Server 2003 runs well on Windows 2000 Server. But Microsoft has limited some of the features Exchange Server 2003 can do if it isn't ran on Windows Server 2003.
Exchange Server 2003 allows Outlook 2003 to securely connect to it when not on the network and without the need for a VPN. This feature though only works if Exchange 2003 is running on Server 2003.
I cannot think of any reason why this wouldn't work on Windows 2000 Server. Microsoft intentionally did this so companies would be forced to upgrade to Windows Server 2003 or continue using complex VPNs.
Microsoft didn't stop developing and supporting Windows 2000 after Windows XP, SP1, & SP2 were released.
If Microsoft actually forced businesses to upgrade on a strict schedule then businesses, especially large businesses with 10,000s of computers, would be less inclined to use Windows.
Vista.
Maybe this tactic will be successful. But, is Vista really ready? If
not, or if no migration, SP3 will be made available, or some subset.
I for one am excited about Vista coming out. I could care less that XP SP3 may be delayed. I am going to buy and install Vista when it is released. Anyone who says that it is an insignificant OS and that there isn't very much different between it and XP, obviously hasn't used it yet. Vista is awesome. The changes they have made (virtual folders especially), are very useful.
And for all those Linux/MAC lovers who like to bash Microsoft products: I laugh in your face!
I'm an IT manager at a government department, and I would not even dream of using Linux or MAC over Windows. I have a MAC also at home, and it sucks! It takes 5 minutes to try and find where a file is stored, and its ok to use unless you want to try and find useful software that is not pre-installed on the machine. And I won't even get started about application development software or games that are actually fun to play. Anyone who says that a MAC is easier to use is full of it.
As for Linux.... I compare that to about the same level of OS as Windows 95, maybe 98 1st Edition. Great for a free OS, but not really a good OS for people to get work done on.
I'm done with my rant. I will stick with Microsoft for as long as they stay ahead of the others with something that is actually nice on the eyes and easier to use. The ease of integration between Active Directory, Exchange, and windows makes IT admin's jobs way easier also, so there is no real choice there either.
Peace out
Officer in the Army. I like both Windows and OSX. I use OSX for
my primary home computer though because I like it better
(personal preference). I don't like to bash MS products (in fact I
try to point out that bashing anyones OS preference is stupid)
but Vista has some issues that concern me and thus I will more
than likely not upgrade until at least SP2. Also software is not
that hard to find if you are looking for normal home user
software with the exception of games and then in my opinion
you should just get a game console. I have tons of 3rd party
software on my Mac, not to mention I like MS Office better on my
Mac then on Windows. And I find Spotlight very easy to use in
regards to a file search. By bashing Apple/Linux products you
are making yourself no better the MS bashers.
And concerning the original story, waiting to release SP3 until
after Vista has been released is just a ploy to get more people to
upgrade to Vista and start the phase-out of support for XP.
This means that you can actually use it. Microsoft's 64bit was so late coming out that they shouldn't have even bothered.
You mention Active directory. Yet Microsoft refuses to isolate the OS on a workstation like Unix based OS's do. This makes it much harder to keep the trojans, spyware and virus' out.
Also if you use cloning you can save time installing new systems. With the new Vista liscense sceam, this will be impossible. You won't have this issue with any modern non Windows OS.
So that is my rant and I havn't even gone into Microsoft's business practices.
out"... You are a sad person.. A sad person with a sick fantasy.. I
am an IT manager and that's the last thing i would pretend to be.. It
sucks..
BTW.. What Mac do you have? Maybe it's out dated? If you were
using Windows ME maybe you would be a Mac fan...?
you to be 'excited' about vista. When Leopard debuts, I too, will
be excited to install it and see how the new OS operates, so I can
relate to your enthusiasm.
I do use a Mac both at home and at work, and while I find it
ridiculous to get in a debate over something so trival as which
OS is better than the other one, I am going to say that I just do
appreciate working within OSX. It's seriously a gem to use.
Once again - Good for you to be excited about your next OS
purchase. We 'geeks' have to stick together, even though we use
different machines! ;)
I have Vista installed on my test PC, it's not that much different that Xp its just xp with a Updated GUI.
hardly worth the 269$ upgarde price, and for sure "NOT WORTH" 400$ a Copy.
And lets not forget that Microsoft changed its EULA You now can only change your Hardware one time! after that U have to fork over more $$$ for a new Key if you change your Motherboard more than once, and it may do this even if u just upgrade a few pices of Hardware at one time..
For this very reasion I Will never upgarde to Vista ...
I am not Rich and even if I was I don't see why I must pay Microsoft more money for a product that I all ready paid for just becuse I changed hardware?
That would b e like my house payment starting over if All I do is remodel a room!
I don't see how Microsoft can get away with this ?
where i s the Goverment when we need them????
migraine@knology.net
But in the long run, it mean windows xp is here to stay for a long while and I don't believe they will be cutting off support to it for a fear years.
I tried windows vista all the beta's and rc, and I don't like it. I have upgraded my computer to their commands regarding graphics and dvd drive and more. Still I'm not for it at least not yet. I probally will wait until service pack 2 comes out on vista if that. Unless I find another, better os. So far the others do not cut it.
Nothing compares to windows xp and that's that.
Hey CNet, here's an idea patrol your adverts like you do your downloads.
:-} (tongue firmly against cheek)
want in an operating system. I have a few machines that currently
run Windows XP and if I upgrade them to a Unix derivative, there
will be unsupported hardware devices. But there is no alternative. I
am tired of the Microsoft ride, and I want to get off. It is a good
thing that I have been learning Unix all these years. I am right at
home with the alternative operating systems. I look forward to a
future where Windows is the alternative operating system.
The problem isn't updating to newer and better versions of "free software".
The issue is supporting >LEGACY APPS< in a consistent and stable manner. If I build a business that has part of it's business practice a certain, predictable, and stable environment, then it needs to stay certain, predictable, and stable if I want to stay in business (or, since I work for the Navy, in existence). I need the users of that software to have a consistent interface and method of interaction, so they can USE it without being retrained every other week. Because my users aren't IT guys, or computer geeks (I'm proudly both, and yes, I do like and use Linux; I even used to be on an Open Source development team). My users don't CARE that I've gotten a point release upgrade in a library to close an obscure bug... they care that the point release has now broken their ability to enter a new Operation Trouble Report against the system to get the information from someone who knows how to USE it to someone who knows how to FIX it. Or from a person who wants to order a Fluffy Green Spathi puppet to someone who has a Fluffy Green Spathi puppet in a warehouse waiting to be purchased (yes, that's an obscure geek reference... Google Spathi). Or someone who wants a Tickle Me Barbie. Or someone who needs to do a real estate search, or close a loan, or print church bulletins, or pull up dental X-Rays.... in other words, the vast majority of users of IT >AREN'T US<. They don't CARE. They want it to work. So we have to upgrade OUTSIDE of where they need it working, to see it doesn't break anything.
A few months ago, a coworker bypassed the normal SOP for making changes, and changed (turned on) a new feature on one of our systems. It worked perfectly... for him, and myself, because we were the only folks who had done testing (the system recognized that, and allowed us to use it). EVERY OTHER USER couldn't use it... in fact, it broke the Logon prompt for all users not him or I because he miscoded the section that checked whether or not to allow some users access. He then tested it with his account, said "It's good!" and went home (I was off that day, and scheduled off the next... note >SCHEDULED<) After I came in the next day to correct the issue, he learned a lesson (as did some of the Non-IT managers in the IT food chain). Test, Test, Test any changes before implementing, then Test, Test, Test after implementing to insure you didn't break anyting.
Daily background updates indeed! To paraphrase something from a TV show (Fairly Oddparents) my daughter loves (in a thick Spanish accent): "Daily updates are against The Rules. That way lies madness."
Hackers own u and you don't even know it!
Why? Simple economics, why give your loyal customers a service pack when you can make them pay for a whole new OS? Like HP, that's the "Microsoft Way".
Why support all the hard work you put into stabilizing an Operating System when you can sell a brand new one that has more bells and whistles and looks pretty too? After all, isn't that the main consideration for an enterprise Desktop Operating System is looking pretty? Who needs that stability that a mature product brings to the enterprise?
I do, along with Fortune 500 companies and all other companies that want to do their work uninterrupted.
But microsoft cares less about that as we can see in a premature release of the most kludged GUI OS in history.
I can only hope that this will cost Microsoft as much as it will the companies that choose to deploy it.
I have completely lost faith in Microsoft, they are a "has been".
I thank Microsoft for innovations like reducing my screen real estate to almost zero and making sure my video card runs nice and hot. I wasn't getting any work done anyway!
I also appreciate the fact that my games and other programs run slower due to all of the new overhead I can't get rid of or turn off. I needed to get out more. I have time for walks on the beach now while I wait for programs to launch and for explorer windows to open draw all those nice pretty thumbnails!
Thanks Microsoft! You're a real pal!
- Bill Gates contradicted once again
- by mgss0lidsnak3 October 20, 2006 8:05 PM PDT
- Is it just me or was it not Bill Gates himself who said a few months ago that "Never again will we have to wait so long for another update to our Microsoft Windows line". Thats not an exact quote but its quite close to it.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Yes He Did. So wait 2-3 yrs and skip Vista...
- by fred dunn October 23, 2006 6:15 AM PDT
- Vista is like Windows ME and Microsoft BOB with an "Age of Empires III" GUI rolled in.
- Like this
-
(60 Comments)It's not an OS, it's a freakin 3GB game.