- Related Stories
-
Microsoft sends out final test version of Vista
October 6, 2006 -
Microsoft puts end to Windows 98 support
July 11, 2006 -
No fix for 'critical' hole in Windows 98, ME
June 9, 2006 -
False alarm over Windows support deadline
January 12, 2006 -
PC makers: Look before taking SP2 leap
September 2, 2004 -
Older Windows versions win renewed support
January 12, 2004 -
PC makers take slow road to XP update
September 9, 2002
The move to drop support for SP1 is in line with Microsoft's stated strategy for support. According to its guidelines, Microsoft guarantees to provide "mainstream support" for a full product for five years, but will only guarantee to support a service pack for 12 months after the launch of the next version of that pack.
SP1 shipped in September 2002. SP2 was released in September 2004.
There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1; SP2 contained a range of improvements to XP's security. People can check which version they are running by right-clicking on the My Computer desktop icon and then selecting properties.
The ending of support for SP1 will help Microsoft to clear the decks for the arrival of Vista, which is expected to be released to business customers next month and to consumers in January.
In July, Microsoft ended support for Windows 98 and ME.
Colin Barker of ZDNet UK reported from London.
See more CNET content tagged:
service pack, Service Pack 2, Microsoft Corp., Microsoft Windows XP, security






systems in the home and business (Windows and OS X) NEVER
upgrade their computers unless they are forced to. They will
continue to use the OS that came with their computer come hell or
high water. They are simply too scared and incompetent to do
anything else. They aren't even aware of security issues until they
are bitten in the arse with one.
"issues" because of it).
costing you money in lost productivity why change it? I am a civilian
and military computer tech so I am not by any means "scared and
incompetent" when it it comes to computers. However there are
many times I find that the cost to purchase an upgrade just isn't
worth it. But that only applies to me personally, when it come to
the client I will upgrade them anytime they are willing to pay for it.
As small business person, I have to watch each dollar and upgrades do not always pay back in benefits.
I resent someone calling me simple or stupid. I have made a living for thirty years many of them helping people survive Microsoft upgrades or helping pick up the pieces after they do try to upgrade..
It took me three days to rebuild one computer after an upgrade from SP 1 to SP 2.
http://www.teckmagazine.com/content/view/690/43/
experts" when they would do nothing but cut and paste all day. As you would expect, the CEO began stealing money and now the company is on the brink of bankruptcy. Ahhh, typical U.S. tech company. Oh, and they didn't know squat about tech either which was a another reason.
Possibly all well and good, but according to who? (or whom?)
This reads like it was lifted from a press release or something.
Though it is refreshing to get a break from the normal Microsoft-bashing reporting that C|NET usually goes for.
It was a pain, but both SPs installed and operated without any problems.
I don't see why others are making such a big deal about it. Really.
All software companies do this (phase-out the old stuff) of late, but it's Microsoft that gets the attention because it has the biggest audience of users AND consequently has more to gain by calling for the upgrade. I'm not a huge fan of the "upgrade or die" logic; it costs time and money I don't have.
SP2 did bring a lot of security improvements, but let's not forget that to make those improvements, Microsoft nearly rewrote the entire OS. The cost of the rewrite is tremendous; SP2 places a heavier load on systems than does any prior version, and bult-in dummyproofing/security features backfire on otherwise useful programs.
I'm normally very pro-Apple, but they aren't much different in the upgrade arena. In 18 months, Apple released 8 major patch packs for the current OS X 10.4, plus a complete rewrite and four major patch packs for a new platform altogether. And in developing for this new platform, Apple drove the final nail in OS 9's casket. Mac zealots are still confused as to why Apple cut them off.
And it gets scarier for Mac users from there. Upon releasing a new OS X iteration, Apple immediately drops support for whatever was en vogue before the last major release; and with this, one or more model lines are forever dropped from its OS X HCL. Adding to the pain is the cost of a new license (~$144 where I am) plus some apps.
Yet, Mac users don't seem to mind. They're generally happy about their computers, their OS, and their overall experience.
As a user of both platforms, I've come to realize that phase-outs are normal in this age. Either you roll with 'em or stay behind. Either way, it will hurt, but in the end, there's no reason to whine about it.
Nate
When I got sick of Apple's upgrade path, I decided to crossgrade to Ubuntu 5.10. It definately extended the working life of my old computer and didn't cost me anything. It provided all the security patches I needed, and of course all my existing files and programs were available for use whenever I booted up Mac OS. (the same happens with Windows)
The current version of Ubuntu is supported on the desktop for 3 years, and on servers for 5 years. You can upgrade to a later version when one comes out, or stay on it until/after support runs out. Upgrading is free, and in my experience it is absolutely painless. Ubuntu pulls the new packages from the internet, installs them, and after you reboot you've got the latest version.
It might be of some interest to people who want to keep using their current computers, even if they eventually get a new computer to run Vista.
[http://Even though I quite agree that anyone who has failed to upgrade to SP2, and who has access to the internet, is either too foolish or incompetent to be allowed to have a computer.|http://Even though I quite agree that anyone who has failed to upgrade to SP2, and who has access to the internet, is either too foolish or incompetent to be allowed to have a computer.]
NOTE: as a comp tech, I have dealt w/ MANY computers that DID ALL updates to MSWindows (MOST had to be fdisk'ed/reformatted to eliminate the damage done by "MSWindows updates" - because "updates" CANNOT easily be removed - even w/ a prg like GoBack or Restore). W/ my own systems, if a problem was encountered, I ONLY d/l the necessary file.
NOTE: I run MSDOS 6.22 {1}, MSWindows95 {1}, MSWindows98SE {7}, MSWindows2000Workstation {1}, MSWindows2000Server {1}, MSWindowsXPPro (NO SP) {1} on 12 of my comp - I did not list my non-MS comp or servers (Linux & SGI Irix) - NO MS system can reach a non-MS machine (let MS try to share w/ a Linux or Irix server & prepare to go bald fixing the MS errors). The systems able to access the WWW are protected by both hardware/software anti-virus, firewall, & anti-spyware.
If General Motors (Chevrolet) can provide parts for a 17/18 yr old vehicle, WHY CAN'T MS provide fixes to an OS that is 11 yrs old (MSWindows95 - 1,000's of uncorrected errors) or an OS that is 8 yrs old (MSWindows98SE - 1,000's of uncorrected errors) or an OS that is 6 yrs old (MSWiindowsME - more errors/uncorrected errors than can be counted) or an OS that is 5 yrs old (MSWindowsXP - SP's have NOT corrected all errors).
MS, obviously, discontinues support/fixes for an OS in order to FORCE users to upgrade to the "latest & greatest" even though the "latest & greatest" WILL have problems (of course, NOT ALL of the problems will be resolved before support is discontinued) & of course, the "latest & greatest" may or may not support the "older" software that you want to use.
NOTE: I am an MS OEM partner (customers like to see the certificate).
This pattern of SUPPORT (OR LACK OF), DOES NOT show any reason as to why I should upgrade!! If NOT for certain prgs, I would be happy w/ MSDOS 6.22 (as a repair tech/web designer, etc, I have to use some current prgs).
Ever hear the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? I am here to tell you that I have living proof of the best way to go. For years now, as an experiment, I have been running a copy of Windows XP Pro, the original OS with no service packs. This has been installed on my wife's computer and every time I have done a major upgrade on her computer, I put this plain old copy back on. My computer is up to date with SP2. Guess which computer is more compatible with programs/games, USB connections and just about anything we can throw at it? You guessed it, the one with plain old XP. Take it for what it's worth, but anyone who asks me, I tell them this and let them make up their own mind.
Worried about all the security crap? Just keep your firewall, anti-virus and other detection programs up to date and let them be your shield. It's worked for us so far.
So all you with your theories that upgrading is the only way to go, can have your upgrades. I have living proof of the difference, I don't have to guess.
with older software using an unmodified version of xp pro. i too have noticed this. one additional thing i have noticed concerns ms-works 7.0. i purchased works 7.0 for 19.99 back in 2003. my new computer came with windows xp2 installed. strange works 7. did not work with sp2 i was prompted to install works 8. for compatability. i got works 8. and yes it worked. in june i got Vista beta 2. strange again! it would not work in Vista. but i bet the upcoming works 9 will work in Vista. i am noticing a pre-planned obsolecence here and with other ms products. what an interesting way to deal with the issue of backword compatabily! in vista those applications that are designed for xp sp2 only. fail miserably. some one said that people who didnt upgrade to sp2 are incompetent. i disagree each service pack introduces totally new problems and incompatabilities that must be delt with. i am just tired of playing the upgrade game. i spend almost as much time upgrading all my software as i do actually using the computer.
- What a service pack really is
- by Seaspray0 October 12, 2006 8:46 AM PDT
- It seems some people are not truely informed as to what a service pack really is. A service pack contains all critical and recommended updates up to a point in time. If you were to take a computer with the original XP and install all the updates up to this time (sans service pack) you have basically installed the service pack. The purpose of the service pack is to allow people to install all prior updates before the release of the SP in one fell swoop. This is useful if you reinstall the OS as it saves alot of time. If your computer is up to date at the time a new SP is released, very little changes. You'll get the optional updates that automatic updates tends to ignore (which usually isn't all that much).
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(25 Comments)