Windows XP update delayed

While Windows Vista is nearing completion, Microsoft has delayed the next service pack update for its predecessor, Windows XP.

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.

[Microsoft_Facts]

Microsoft = Legacy Software

Other major operating systems have complete new releases faster than Microsoft can get service packs out. Name any other current OS that goes 5+ years between releases, I challenge you to try and find one that goes beyond two years.

Microsoft systems are legacy systems. Any business that decides to run on Microsoft technologies already has one trike against it.

[raitchison]

I'll be surprised if XP SP3 is released ever

Microsoft has a history of killing off service packs for their previous products to force adoption of the "latest and greates" After all they make no money from a Service Pack but make their bread and butter from new sales.

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.

[pentium4forever]

XP SP3 won't see the light of day

I'm betting there's a 95% chance that XP SP3 won't ever be released. Delaying till 2008 means they aren't going to be focusing on it for awhile since Vista is coming. They will likely scrap the project and that will be it.

[lawrencewinkler]

SP3 out in 2007 if migration to Vista languishes

They clearly are using the 2008 date as "encouragement" to install
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.

[rich kev]

Excited about Vista

Is it just me, or is everyone just here to complain? All anyone ever does is say Microsoft sucks, Linux rules, MAC rules, blah blah blah.

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

[system001]

sp3 delayed to push vista

the only reason microsoft is pushing back sp3 for xp is to try to push vista when it is released. i have beta tested each vista version including the latest rc and at this point i would not upgrade to it. i can not uninstall windows defender, there is no longer the compatibility wizard. i have several programs including games that rely on the compatibility wizard. the graphics are better. i have a theme i normally use in xp and when i used it in vista i could see a huge improvement in the colors. other than the new graphics i do not see any thing in vista right that would make me upgrade, so i want sp3 for xp in 2007 not 2008. microsoft did a great job with xp. i can not say the same for vista. i believe most people will stick with xp.

[i_made_this]

This is a tough one to forecast

For two reasons: (1) Vista IS different than previous Windows Operating Systems. Most people who've been trialling it in BETA think it sucks - with the loudest protests coming from the market segment of big business, the technology industry, educational institutions and government agencies. Its adoption rate will probably be a good 50% slower than than of XP which was quite slow itself. I'm fairly certain that, altho they'd never admit it publically, Microsoft itself also thinks it sucks because they've become painfully aware that what was truly needed was a new Windows build from scratch, rather than adding onto an already flawed bunch of mistakes. Vista could well be the final version of the OS we know as "Windows." (2) Because of #1, XP SP3 IE8 will probably be demanded by Microsoft's major customers sooner than later. XP SP3 IE8 - I reckon - will be the OS that Vista meant to be but failed to be. Just a guess.

[Tergon]

Advertising for SP3

The MOST disturbing part of this whole thing is that at the bottom of my screen in this story I see an ad touting Windows XP SP3. Way to go CNet

Hey CNet, here's an idea patrol your adverts like you do your downloads.

:-} (tongue firmly against cheek)

[easyindian]

Vista SP1 & SP2 in 2007 XP SP3 in 2008

Since I am using Vista RC2 and Micorosoft is planning to release Vista in November, I can bet that vista will require atleast one service pack in the first 6 months to stabilize it.

[Douglas W. Goodall]

Why Upgrade to Vista? Because M$ Says so?

I have to agree that I have not seen anything in Vista that I even
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.

[william.e.ward]

Wow! You don't understand IT at all!

The very premise of your arguement shows your don't understand corporate IT at all.

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."

[fred dunn]

Microsoft Timeline 2H-2007 = Never....

With Microsoft's loyalty to their customers on service packs like NT40 SP7 and Windows 2000 SP5, oh that's right they never released them.

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".

[gernblan]

IN other words....

...upgrade to Vista. Then please break your computer twice so you can buy it again!

[gernblan]

Vista is...

...Windows 2003 with a bolted on 3D GUI that makes me want to stab myself with kitchen utensils ten minutes (or less if the lighting is right) after looking at it.

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!

[mgss0lidsnak3]

Bill Gates contradicted once again

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.