"In the past, we've speculated on an early 2008 launch, and according to a recent Redmond Channel Partner Online article, Microsoft could be planning just that. "We're currently planning to deliver SP3 for Windows XP in the first half of CY2008. This date is preliminary, and we don't have any more details to share at this time." Service Pack 2 was released in August of 2004 and added various features like the Internet Explorer Pop-up blocker, Windows Security Center, firewall updates and improved wireless and Bluetooth support."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-12-15
This is great news for Windows XP users. I do wonder what they'll include in the way of new features. If it's nothing more than previous patches bundled together then it's practically useless except to those who need an all-in-one patch bundle.
I'd like to see at least DX10, IE7 & an improved firewall as a minimum. A new theme would also be nice, but lets not get too greedy.
Member since:2005-11-12
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2006-04-10
C'mon fellers - get real.
XP-SP3 will be specifically designed to kill XP dead.
Scattered among the "improvements" will be dozens of gotchas deliberately engineered to destabilise XP, screw up existing drivers and drive people to Vista SP1.
With most copies of XP already sold and the fact that MS will no longer be selling XP at all quite soon, why on earth should MS have any interest in improving it.
They want to sell Vista now and they'll have no compunctions strangling its older sibling.
They're soooo predictable....
Member since:2007-05-20
Microsoft may be able to do this on home consumers, but will have a lot of trouble with businesses moving to SP3. SP3 I believe will be the last installment of a successful desktop OS. And it will be good. And while, inevitably, consumers will move to Vista (or Vienna) by changing PCs, business will continue to run XP for quite a long time.
Member since:
2006-10-12
Presumably, in that case, there'll be a Windows Server 2003 SP3 at some point (although Server 2003 shares its codebase with XP64, which is a little newer and healthier than XP32)—and as much as Microsoft wants to replace XP with Vista, they're in no position to replace Server 2003 just yet.
Member since:
2006-03-17
Member since:2006-08-17
Even though I haven't used windows in 3 years, this is my opinion.
It really depends on what the person want from his or her computer.
The objective here is to support what the user needs. Not everyone is going to spend money for new hardware or for the Vista installation CD/DVD so it is good to see Microsoft still supporting Xp for the time being.
So for people happily running Xp, then keep running it if it makes you happy and satisfies your needs.
Edited 2007-08-04 01:42
Member since:2005-07-12
Member since:2007-02-07
In January, Microsoft announced extended support for XP until 2014.
( http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&x=16&y=12&C2=1173 )
btw, people bitch they're being forced to upgrade if MS drops support and then if MS continues support people bitch that it's because next product (Vista in this case) sux. I just don't get it. I see this as a good move, it means I'm not forced to upgrade to Vista anytime soon.
And in regards with Vista being "such a flop", let's wait and see, I heard EXACTLY the same being said about XP back in 2001-2002.
Member since:2005-08-10
Member since:2005-07-06
Pardon? there is a BIG difference between Windows XP and Windows Vista.
When Windows XP was released it was aimed at those who were running Windows 9x. Sure, to some degree there was marketing to corporations who hadn't moved onto Windows 2000, but the main target of Windows XP were Windows 9x users. Windows XP was aimed as the replacement of 9x in favour of having a unified code base.
Windows XP wasn't a failure in the first year - it was very successful - it didn't take off initially as fast as what people hoped - but that was due to a massive change in the operating system and compatibility issues. But it did eventually take off in terms of sales due to the massive improvement over 9x.
Windows Vista is a different story altogether. Had they decided not to release Windows XP Service Pack 2 in favour of marketing the next release as the 'solution' to Windows XP security problems - you would probably see a lot more retail sales today. But lets remember, when Windows Vista competes, it competes with Windows XP SP2 - one could argue that Microsoft was *too* good at fixing the problems in Windows XP.
Although Microsoft have been hyping Windows Vista, they have been reserved about their outlook for sales - many times in interviews Balmer has actually had to calm the reporter down from hype.
As for Windows Vista and Microsoft - Microsoft has alot more issues they should be concerned with besides the success or failure of Windows Vista. What I'm talking about is long term growth and expansion into other markets - a multi-pronged strategy. It will be interesting to see how XBox plays out - in NZ Playstation 3 is all but out of the reach of most people - especially considering some of the great 'in store' bundles which are being sold with XBox 360s.
It would be wise not to make pre-emptive conclusions about Microsofts future direction given how rapidly things can change in the IT and consumer product world.
Edited 2007-08-04 05:33
Member since:2005-11-13
When Windows XP was released it was aimed at those who were running Windows 9x. Sure, to some degree there was marketing to corporations who hadn't moved onto Windows 2000, but the main target of Windows XP were Windows 9x users. Windows XP was aimed as the replacement of 9x in favour of having a unified code base.
Of course, what I heard back in 2001 on sites like this right around its release was that XP was just Win2k with extra bloat and a Phisher Price theme. Product Activation was the anti-christ and people were going to switch to Linux in droves because of it. Now it's 2007 and all people talk about was how great XP was compared to Vista, but people certailny were talking just as much shit about XP back in the day.
Member since:2005-07-06
You are right - there are those who ran around claiming activation is the anti-Christ - the interesting thing will be whether Microsoft will continue to allow people to activate long after Vista. Here is something funny; Microsoft is being quite casual about older versions with activation - Office 2003 reactivation on a new computer, no worries.
Like I said, Windows XP was geared for those running 9x - for Windows 2000 there was little in the way of major improvements - but like I said, it was *NEVER* aimed at them.
As for me, I find it funny, those who complain about Vista who are keeping with Windows XP - and yet, are doing to 'stick it to the man'; if they really wanted to 'stick it to Microsoft' they would use a non-Microsoft operating system, but that would actually require them to take responsibility for their computing experience rather than acting like some sort of victim of the IT industry.
Member since:2006-01-10
I'll agree with you. It was made more for Windows 9x. If people recall, Windows ME was supposed to be just a quick one off release before Microsoft could release XP to appease those that were having troubles with Windows 98, but didn't see the need to upgrade to the 'Professional' Windows 2000. That's why we have Windows XP Home Edition and Professional Edition as well.
Of course if we really want to bash Microsoft, just mention Windows ME 
Windows XP IS Windows 2000 with a Fisher Price theme. Windows 2000 was a good system, and Windows XP is just as good as it is, as long as you change the theme back to classic, which is what I always do.
Of course after being in Gnome and then rebooting into Windows XP (to play games) I always find the WIMP interface to be horribly ugly. But it's still nicer on the eyes than the bright green and blue.
I had such high hopes for the theming of XP when the first screenshots came out. But they ruined it by making it non-free in the sense that even most of the utilities to add more themes costs money, unless you go the hack of changing the uxtheme.dll. But That's just the way Microsoft is, I've noticed any little tiny utility for Windows costs money. Even something as required as archive files (zip, rar, 7zip, etc) there are a few free ones, but not many.
Charging for software to add THEMES is just sad and pathetic.
Member since:2005-07-06
Actually, the saga goes well beyond that.
Windows 2000 was actually initially meant to be the unifying NT code base, hence the reason they provided everyone with superuser privileges, major GUI improvements over NT4 in regards to ease of use and manageability, TCP/IP stack improvements etc. etc.
The problem was this; Windows 2000 just kept growing and growing - taking into account that it had been 5 years since NT4 was released, Microsoft was desperate to just get Windows 2000 out the door. It was basically the Windows Vista of its time; taking too long because the scope of the project was just too huge. Pulling NT4 out of the dark ages whilst creating a platform which provided a smooth transition from 9x to NT.
Microsoft decided to cut their loses and instead market Windows 2000 as the operating system for corporate/enterprise desktop, workstations and technical people - basically those whose applications were already NT native and would not have issues of considerable size to warrant major compatibility work arounds.
Windows XP was marked as the 'unifying' release for which all new releases would be based on - Windows 2000, kernel improvements (MSDN article circa 2001 laid out the changes), compatibility improvements were added, driver support was improved. It was basically Windows 2000 with all the needed additions to make it usable in the consumer market.
Edited 2007-08-04 15:52
Member since:2005-11-16
A bit of an exaggeration perhaps, as there were a few useful tweaks in XP, but it was hardly a major upgrade from 2K. More like the change from Windows 95 to 98 than the change from XP to Vista.
I don't think the criticism from 2K users, annoyed that the much hyped new OS was little more than a 2K service pack, was that out of line. Of course, as other people have pointed out, XP wasn't really aimed at them...
Member since:2006-07-30
Now the big question is:
How does Steve A. Ballmer calm anybody down?
a) He paralyzes the unsuspecting victim with a flying chair to the spine.
b) He does the monkey dance in front of him and shouts
"Calm DOWN! CALM DOOOWN!!!"
Member since:2006-11-24
You make it sound a bit as if there hadn't been any updates in 4 years. I prefer to have an SP, but really, how often do you need that? Get yourself a 3rd party patch pack, this is a professional one:
http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/80682
My first thought was that they realise they might be more dependant on XP in future than they'd like to be. Anyway, seeing how the next Windows is due in ~3 years, I don't see why a business should transition to Vista now and again in three years. So maybe SP3 is a good thing as they could then ship updated CDs with SP3 for the coming 5 years 
Member since:2006-03-12
"You make it sound a bit as if there hadn't been any updates in 4 years."...you mean 6 years.
Absolutely there have not been upgrades there have been bugfixes/patches *no* major upgrades. Thats the point.
Saying there has been upgrades is a outright *lie* and a stupid one. The *best* thing about XP or in reality how Microsoft release products with what should be a couple of years. Is proprietary software can be deployed with confidence that it will work on the *single* release, and many although not me consider not having this in GNU a failing of the GNU platform, which follows an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary(sic) approach. Its actually very very successful, and it comes with *major* benefits from application support to software deployment to hardware support to a stable interface, which has knock on effects for training of IT to users, development etc etc.
Its an major *advantage* of the Microsoft Platform which comes at the high cost of stagnation, and well ...beta releases. You can argue which is the *better* approach, but lying that Microsoft have done an upgrades to XP is a bad lie. Vista is the upgrade.
Member since:2006-10-12
Member since:2006-03-12
"Service packs generally add new or change functionality" I will never argue that Microsoft is a completely static platform, because its not. It does suffer from dll hell, that upsets a lot of users.
If you are trying to argue that the service packs did change functionality you are *absolutely* correct. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457151.aspx , but the bottom line is *nothing* changed things were only fixed. Its in direct contrast to a release of X every 6 months; Linux every 2.5 months; Gnome every 6 months and the 100's of other packages that make up GNU. You can argue that the additional protection added in service pack 2 turned XP from a piece of Garbage to a usable OS *literally* and I would agree, and this in itelf is a *major* upgrade...but I will not be drawn in semantics.
The bottom line is XP's killer feature is its static nature, I would love you to even attempt to argue with that one, becuase Its an area GNU *cannot* compete with. Its why it will be better than Vista for the forcible future.
Member since:
2005-11-16
After speculation that Microsoft would be dropping XP as soon as possible to encourage migration to Vista, it's nice to see this commitment to a new service pack.
I don't think there's any chance at all of Microsoft developing DX10 for XP, not after claiming that it would never be available. That isn't good news for gamers, but for business users it's not an issue.
As for other features, I think tweaks to IE7 and the Windows firewall are likely, but to be honest they don't interest me that much. I simply don't trust the integrated Windows security enough to rely on it, and it's hard to imagine what Microsoft could do to improve IE7 that would get me to switch from Opera.
Even if it's just a bundle of minor updates and patches; that's a very nice time saver when installing the OS. Personally I see little reason to upgrade to Vista at the moment, and I doubt that'll change in the near future. I expect to install XP on the next couple of computers I build for myself and a new service pack will be very welcome (once I'm sure that it isn't going to mess anything up).
Member since:2006-10-10
Yeah, on our corporate images, IE7 and Windows Firewall is disabled at the registry. In fact, the whole "Security Center" thing is disabled as well. No need to muck up the waters using that half-shod crap.
Microsoft and Security are two words that don't belong in the same sentence together.
Member since:
2005-10-19
Member since:
2005-07-12
Member since:
2006-10-28
Member since:
2006-08-17
The important thing is to use a OS that is currently supported.
With time. windows users who have computers capable of running Vista will eventually upgrade.
Of course, it will take businesses an universities more time because those need to test their applications for certain amount of time on vista before deploying it.
The reason why MS are giving XP long term support till 2014 is that this keeps people with old computers running windows. if MS ended support for XP now, people running old hardware and are unable to purchase new computers will have to consider switching to Linux.
Member since:
2007-02-02
Member since:
2006-12-30
Vista will only make it because the consumer refuses to boycott that strange product , vista has its own win32 program format thats incompatible with previous windows.
I think they did it on purpuse so that ppl gets more forced to use bloatware and newest versions of anything and get that famous sluggish system.
Look at XP used for 5 years, humanity isnt really ready for vista but i suppose gamers push too much , why not boycott it instead?
Member since:2006-03-23
you are sadly overestimating the sad bunch of sheeple best described as "the majority".
they are a bunch of morons that will accept ANYTHING with an MS sticker on it. MS on the name?! i shall bend over immediately!
they are too stupid to realize anything thats going on, and so they dont do shit, even as they are being assraped they are praising to their masters and overlords from redmond.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-12-28
Vista is a transitional release, that begins the migration from Win32 to .NET.
Actually Vista runs legacy applications (Win32) in a VM, this also increases the security by further seperating all of the not-100%-secure legacy stuff som the rest of the system - not a bad thing. Therefore there are some problems regarding some of the older applications.
AFAIR does the new primary platform .NET (WinFX) also run in via a VM - thereby making the underlying operating system irrelevant. If they wanted to they could port it to Darwin and discard the Windows family. A new beginning.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2005-07-30
The why are you posting here? I think most people interested in SP3 don't really feel that XP is dead.
And for your information, a lot of people don't see the benefit of moving to Vista, when really XP is good enough. The only real drawbacks of XP (e.g. lack of DirectX 10) are artificial...
Member since:
2006-10-28
xp doesn't need a new theme. You can get all sorts of themes for xp some very nice. I run a dark slate blue looking theme myself.
the Alky people have brought dx10 to xp thought it's in alpha.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Components-Libraries/Alky-...
If people really are sick of Vista they only have a handful of choices stick with xp, use linux, buy an apple, or wait for vienna.
Me personally I hope more people choose the first two options.
Member since:
2006-10-28
this isn't where I got my theme but since I don't feel like wasting a few hours to find that site which had like ten themes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Blue
I use royal noir which is nice I installed it by hand but the wiki has a link to an .exe installer.
Here is clearlooks for xp
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/18591720/
Member since:
2005-07-06
I wouldn't expect much more then bug fixes and security updates with this service pack. The reason I say that is because It probably is not in Microsoft's best interests to add more functionality to Windows XP. Vista has not been selling as well as Microsoft had hoped and adding more functionality to Windows XP would only make users that much less likely to upgrade.
As far as what many have been saying about a DX10 backport, not likely.
Perhaps after Vista has saturated the market more they may backport DX10 to XP (if it is possible) simply because most of the gamers will already be running vista and not be tempted to stay with XP.
Member since:
2006-03-12
...DRM, more restrictive WGA, Internet Explorer Next.
Microsoft is about *Money*. It will contain fixes for *current* generation of technology as listed...but thats it their interest is to *sell* more copies of Vista whatever you think of it.
Microsoft is moving into the content provision market and anyone keeping a jaundiced eye on things like iPlayer; Zune; XBox 360...and there scuttling of HD-Disk war can see where Microsoft plan on their next revenue stream. I expect more "At lease I have the choice" will have "Its already in XP" ammended. Although this already has a ring of truth to those who would love to try the iPlayer, but are helpless to handshakes in corridors.
We have already seen the gradual *tightening* of WGA/OGA/Activation and expect this to continue in future twinned with better pricing in Developing Markets, to not slow any adoption.
...and Internet Explorer simply because the space between your browser and the internet has become if anything *more* important than the Office/OS Monopoly, and is an excellent place for new lock-in technology most of which is looking undeniably tantalizing, as well as the massive market in advertising.
See how easy it is to abuse your Monopolistic position. Although *good* news for those tied to the Microsoft platform that they get fixes on an 8 year old OS, now with many of the Disadvantages associated with Vista...might as well go buy from one of the big four OEM. In my happy place they install GNU...but I suspect they will want to download content from zMedia.
Member since:2006-10-12
Not quite… if big business is going to stick with XP for the foreseeable future, Microsoft have to do two things (in the interests of money):
1) Fix issues preventing people from migrating to Vista, if possible
2) Keep the vast numbers of XP business users sweet so they don't jump ship to Mac OS X or Linux in the meantime
Member since:2006-03-12
"1) Fix issues preventing people from migrating to Vista, if possible
2) Keep the vast numbers of XP business users sweet so they don't jump ship to Mac OS X or Linux in the meantime"
Business will pay whether they upgrade or not. I doubt that Microsoft are concerned by people jumping ship to Linux or MAC OS X, although I am fully aware that they will keep this in check. I suspect strongly that there are more overwhelming reason why they need to maintain XP, ignoring the OS smackdown, its simply good business.
