October 19, 2006 11:30 AM PDT

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.

See more CNET content tagged:
service pack, Microsoft Windows Vista, Microsoft Corp., Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows

60 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
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.
Posted by Microsoft_Facts (109 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I can't disagree more
If you're in IT you don't want to be stuck in a state of perpetual upgrades, frequent upgrade cycles (like Microsoft used to have:)
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.
Posted by raitchison (103 comments )
Link Flag
Windows XP sp2 is new OS!!!
Windows XP Service Pack 2 includes so many changes it is equivalent to a new OS.

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.
Posted by Tanjore (322 comments )
Link Flag
M$ strongarming consumers once again
Dear M$,
Stop trying to force feed your Vista hacker OS on
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.teckmagazine.com/tutorials/tutorials/adobe-photoshop-style-layer-tutorial-1-indiana-jones-logo.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.teckmagazine.com/tutorials/tutorials/adobe-photoshop-style-layer-tutorial-1-indiana-jones-logo.html</a>
consumers.
Posted by cnutsucks (25 comments )
Link Flag
Can you say Fortune 500
The majority of the Fortune 500 would beg to differ with you.
Posted by Shakingmy head (48 comments )
Link Flag
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 ├četa when it was killed off to force adoption of Windows 2000.

Windows 2000 SP5 was in pre-├četa 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.
Posted by raitchison (103 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Bye bye SP3
You are right... SP3 will never see the light of day.
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Link Flag
Wrong - MS always issues one last service pack
MS always issues at least one final service pack after they release the next version of Windows. It's the *second* service pack which gets cut.
Posted by aabcdefghij987654321 (1721 comments )
Link Flag
Microsoft Kills a Different Way
I don't think Microsoft tries to kill off old operating systems with service packs. I believe their main weapon of choice is features.

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.
Posted by hybris06 (66 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by pentium4forever (192 comments )
Reply Link Flag
No they won't...
Microsoft won't stop development of SP3 because businesses will still use Windows XP in 2008 and Microsoft cannot abandoned business users. Microsoft continued to develop for Windows 2000 after Windows XP, Sp1, &#38; SP2 was released.
Posted by hybris06 (66 comments )
Link Flag
No they won't...
Microsoft won't abandoned Windows XP anytime soon because of businesses. Many businesses will still be running Windows XP in 2008.

Microsoft didn't stop developing and supporting Windows 2000 after Windows XP, SP1, &#38; 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.
Posted by hybris06 (66 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by lawrencewinkler (56 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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
Posted by rich kev (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Sorry but your problems with OSX&
sound like lack of use. I use both systems also. I am a Signal
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.
Posted by jones_8099 (177 comments )
Link Flag
If Microsoft is so far ahead of Linux why then
was Microsoft so far behind on thier 64bit version of Windows. Linux started releasing 64bit versions within a couple of months.

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.
Posted by slim-1 (229 comments )
Link Flag
Riiiggghhhttt
A government IT worker ends his comments/options with "Peace
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...?
Posted by Mephux (51 comments )
Link Flag
Well, I was going to say
I was, and actually still am going to say that I think it's noble of
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! ;)
Posted by NeverFade (402 comments )
Link Flag
MS Shill
It's obvious.
Posted by peaceguy (43 comments )
Link Flag
Vista is Sp3
in my Book Vista is SP3!
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
Posted by Migraine (95 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by system001 (45 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I'm for staying with windows xp!! Service pack 3 or Not!
I am with you and hope Microsoft changes there mind in releasing service pack 3 next year not 2008.

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.
Posted by Robynsnest613 (12 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by i_made_this (302 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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)
Posted by Tergon (74 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by easyindian (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
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.
Posted by Douglas W. Goodall (14 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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 &gt;LEGACY APPS&lt; 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 &gt;AREN'T US&lt;. 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 &gt;SCHEDULED&lt;) 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."
Posted by william.e.ward (14 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Easy to hack your network then...
No updates to SP2.. you are screwed!

Hackers own u and you don't even know it!
Posted by baswwe (299 comments )
Link Flag
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".
Posted by fred dunn (793 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Yet, Vista release is "premature". Curious...
I for one prefer software is realeased when it's ready (read Windows Vista), no matter how much a delay will make Microsoft-bashers talk and talk, than have unfinnished beta-like software released on time (iTunes anyone?). But that's just me. Why go through all the hard work and resources needed to update an already old OS when you can use those resources and work building something (Vista) that will have better security and performance than an simple update would ever have/give? If the main consideration for an enterprise desktop OS would be looking pretty, they would use Mac, but everybody knows they use Windows (why is that again?). So if you agree that big companies need stability and they almost all use Windows, what does that say about it, hm? 1+1=2, right? Not for some people, it seems. And the proove that Microsoft cares about what people want/ask is precisely IE7 and the oft-delayed (so it can't be "premature release" as you said) release of the best and most secure, stable and reliable Windows ever: Windows Vista. I fear your hopes will have a very sad ending. I for one never had so much faith in Microsoft as now, interestingly enough, and I think "has been" is not exactly what you could say about a company that has more than 85% on the web browser market and more than 90% of the so-unimportant and insignificant OS market; I would go more for something like "here to stay" (whatever you want or not).
Posted by Ryo Hazuki (378 comments )
Link Flag
IN other words....
...upgrade to Vista. Then please break your computer twice so you can buy it again!
Posted by gernblan (71 comments )
Reply Link Flag
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!
Posted by gernblan (71 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Sorry for typo...
...in the last sentence... my copy of Vista crashed and I had to activate it again, and after 45 minutes on the phone to Microsoft I forgot where I was for a bit.
Posted by gernblan (71 comments )
Link Flag
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.
Posted by mgss0lidsnak3 (18 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Yes He Did. So wait 2-3 yrs and skip Vista...
Vista is like Windows ME and Microsoft BOB with an "Age of Empires III" GUI rolled in.
It's not an OS, it's a freakin 3GB game.
Posted by fred dunn (793 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.