Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Apr 2008 17:53 UTC, submitted by mikemuch
Windows Despite Microsoft's obvious focus on selling Windows Vista to its customers, it hasn't yet forgotten about all those people out there that still use Windows XP (personally, I use Windows XP MCE 2005). The company has confirmed it has finally 'released to manufacturing' the third service pack to Windows XP - 7 years after the operating system's original release.
Order by: Score:
Great!
by suryad on Mon 21st Apr 2008 18:39 UTC
suryad
Member since:
2005-07-09

I would be really sad to see XP reach EOL to be honest. It has been a great run for me with that OS. Sure I am using XP 64 bit now but it had turned in to quite a solid OS over the years. Heres to hoping that SP3 makes it even better...though it seems its more of a patch rollup than anything else. SP4 anyone? ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Great!
by areimann on Mon 21st Apr 2008 18:48 UTC in reply to "Great! "
areimann Member since:
2006-06-12

SP4 for XP? I wonder if that will ever happen. I doubt that...if it takes 3 years or so to do a Service Pack, that means XP would be 10 years old before SP4. You would hope Vista would be the main OS for Windows consumers by that point.

On a funny note, that would be like releasing a Service Pack for Windows 98 this year.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Great!
by PJBonoVox on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Great! "
PJBonoVox Member since:
2006-08-14

"On a funny note, that would be like releasing a Service Pack for Windows 98 this year."

Not exactly. Windows XP is still relevant and the perfect tool for the job.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Great!
by bolomkxxviii on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 10:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Great! "
bolomkxxviii Member since:
2006-05-19

You would hope Vista would be the main OS for Windows consumers by that point (in three years).

You might hope that, but many of us do not. In three years I hope Windows 7 starts putting nails in Vista's coffin. It should be buried next to Windows ME and MS Bob.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Great!
by helf on Wed 23rd Apr 2008 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Great! "
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

yeah, highly doubt a SP4 for it... I'm surprised at a SP3, honestly.

NT4 - SP6a
Win 2k - SP4, 5 unofficially
XP - SP3
Vista - Already at SP1

The numbers are dwindling for service packs. I bet Vista will end at SP2 and no more.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Great!
by shapeshifter on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 10:14 UTC in reply to "Great! "
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

I would be really sad to see XP reach EOL to be honest. It has been a great run for me with that OS. Sure I am using XP 64 bit now but it had turned in to quite a solid OS over the years. Heres to hoping that SP3 makes it even better...though it seems its more of a patch rollup than anything else. SP4 anyone? ;)


Solid OS?
You probably just don't know any better and I feel sorry for you.
OS is not solid when even its "safe mode" is not safe.
I was cleaning one of those "trendy" Virusheat badboys yesterday on someone's computer and the thing is starting even in safe mode.
Windows is really a pinacle of bad software engineering.
Then again, this is still the "dark age" of computing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Great!
by polaris20 on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Great! "
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

"I would be really sad to see XP reach EOL to be honest. It has been a great run for me with that OS. Sure I am using XP 64 bit now but it had turned in to quite a solid OS over the years. Heres to hoping that SP3 makes it even better...though it seems its more of a patch rollup than anything else. SP4 anyone? ;)


Solid OS?
You probably just don't know any better and I feel sorry for you.
OS is not solid when even its "safe mode" is not safe.
I was cleaning one of those "trendy" Virusheat badboys yesterday on someone's computer and the thing is starting even in safe mode.
Windows is really a pinacle of bad software engineering.
Then again, this is still the "dark age" of computing.
"

It never fails that here at OSNews someone says they're happy with Windows, someone else has to chime in with their sob story of how they had to deal with viruses/spyware.

In the hands of a competent computer user, Windows XP is a safe operating system, and is quite powerful.

In the hands of an ignorant user, yes, it can be a problem.

Please, there's no need to "feel sorry" for someone happy with their OS, and certainly no need to use a condescending tone to another OSNews member.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Great!
by shapeshifter on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Great! "
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19


It never fails that here at OSNews someone says they're happy with Windows, someone else has to chime in with their sob story of how they had to deal with viruses/spyware.

In the hands of a competent computer user, Windows XP is a safe operating system, and is quite powerful.

In the hands of an ignorant user, yes, it can be a problem.

Please, there's no need to "feel sorry" for someone happy with their OS, and certainly no need to use a condescending tone to another OSNews member.


And then there is, here at Osnews, always someone (probably Windows admin that just discovered the registry editor) that has the need to chime in and claim complete nonsense that Windows can be secure and powerful in the hands of a skilled user.
No, it can't because it's faulty by design, so even Billy-upload-your-dollars-Gates can't make it secure and powerful without first redesigning it from ground up.
It's funny because people making that claim (you) think they can get away with it. But the problem is that there are already countless websites, articles, stories that directly disprove your claim.
So, again, no, Windows cannot be made secure and powerful because it's technically impossible.
And sorry, it's hard to talk to Windows users without being condescending.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Great!
by polaris20 on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Great! "
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

"
It never fails that here at OSNews someone says they're happy with Windows, someone else has to chime in with their sob story of how they had to deal with viruses/spyware.

In the hands of a competent computer user, Windows XP is a safe operating system, and is quite powerful.

In the hands of an ignorant user, yes, it can be a problem.

Please, there's no need to "feel sorry" for someone happy with their OS, and certainly no need to use a condescending tone to another OSNews member.


And then there is, here at Osnews, always someone (probably Windows admin that just discovered the registry editor) that has the need to chime in and claim complete nonsense that Windows can be secure and powerful in the hands of a skilled user.
No, it can't because it's faulty by design, so even Billy-upload-your-dollars-Gates can't make it secure and powerful without first redesigning it from ground up.
It's funny because people making that claim (you) think they can get away with it. But the problem is that there are already countless websites, articles, stories that directly disprove your claim.
So, again, no, Windows cannot be made secure and powerful because it's technically impossible.
And sorry, it's hard to talk to Windows users without being condescending.
"

I see you're taking advantage of the new mod system, troll! Well done!

Wow, you found me out. I just discovered the registry editor yesterday. And what's this neato thing called the command line? Wow, a batch script!? What's that? Group Policy? Neato!!

Try better, troll.

And for the record, I've got a pretty even split of SuSe, Ubuntu, and XP machines. So I see it from a far more objective view than a zealot such as yourself sees it.

I also actually work in the field, unlike someone such as yourself.

Yes, Windows is horribly insecure and unstable. Yet it seems to work well enough that everyone here gets there job done (and done well) and it leaves me enough time to post an argument with a faceless linux zealot on OSNews. Oh wait, gotta run; someone's driver update on SuSe just blew up X......

Edited 2008-04-22 21:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Great!
by blitze on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Great! "
blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

Oh wait, gotta run; someone's driver update on SuSe just blew up X......


Love that one. Thing is, we are still in the dark ages of Software development in Operating Systems. Non of the mainstream OS's have got it right and all have thier problems.

Maybe in 50 years time...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Great!
by helf on Wed 23rd Apr 2008 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Great! "
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

Ha! I'm using the mostly perfect OS. NEXTSTEP 3.3

mmmmmmmmmmmm.... ;)

Reply Score: 2

I'm glad this is finally out.
by baadger on Mon 21st Apr 2008 18:49 UTC
baadger
Member since:
2006-08-29

I have to say maintaining an XP machine that has lived in the hands of computer novices through the birth, and succession, of SP2 hasn't been easy.

Having responsibility for a 3 year old (and still pristine, believe it or not) installation of Windows XP Home Edition on my parents machine, I am both relieved and slightly nervous at the prospect of installing SP3.

Edited 2008-04-21 18:52 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: I'm glad this is finally out.
by casuto on Mon 21st Apr 2008 18:58 UTC in reply to "I'm glad this is finally out."
casuto Member since:
2007-02-27

just install sp2, go on windows update an you'll have 90% of sp3 (the set of patches released after sp2).

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm glad this is finally out.
by helf on Wed 23rd Apr 2008 00:36 UTC in reply to "I'm glad this is finally out."
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm currently typing on a 6 year old windows 2000 installation. It's only at SP2 ... I forgot to update it a long time ago and I had a bunch of cleanup/defrag programs running automatically. It's my bro's PC and all he does is play a few games and surf. I'm too scared of killing it to upgrade it to SP4.. heh ;)

every so often you run into a Windows machine that just refuses to mess up ;)

Reply Score: 2

baadger Member since:
2006-08-29

So what you're saying is your brother surfs the net using an insecure OS.

Windows 2000 SP2 is not a supported SP level, and hotfixes for it are not released.

Reply Score: 2

helf Member since:
2005-07-06

He surfs the web using Opera behind a hardware firewall with an AV scanner that runs weekly (I HATE real time scanning.. ugh). In the last few years, he has gotten like 1 "trojan downloader" virus that was inert. He knows not to download random crap, he asks me before installing things. I routinely do check ups on it and no, it doesn't have any root kits installed, either.

yeah, it might be unsupported now and "insecure", but what version of windows IS secure? ;)

Reply Score: 2

Seems faster to me...
by polaris20 on Mon 21st Apr 2008 19:17 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

On two identical VM's SP3 seems to operate faster than SP2. We'll see how it behaves in the real world on the 29th, when I am more willing to install on a physical machine.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Seems faster to me...
by suryad on Mon 21st Apr 2008 22:24 UTC in reply to "Seems faster to me..."
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Oh yeah I forgot about that. There is a performance increase. There were some blogs out I remember comparing performances on a machine with SP3 and on a machine without.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Seems faster to me...
by lemur2 on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 13:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Seems faster to me..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Oh yeah I forgot about that. There is a performance increase. There were some blogs out I remember comparing performances on a machine with SP3 and on a machine without.


I shudder to mention it, really, but once again I'm wondering about side-by-side performance comparisons of XP with other OSes on the same machine ...

http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/04/21/linux-eee-pc-far-faster-th...

Reply Score: 3

5 years behind...
by buff on Mon 21st Apr 2008 20:37 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

It was only three years ago I upgraded to XP from Windows 2K. At this rate I will be ready to upgrade to Vista in another five years.

I love it that users are holding onto XP since it mostly works good enough. I do have to admit that the other day I was watching a friend use Vista on a laptop and I was envious of all the transparency and fading in/out stuff. Seven years and you get transparent Window effect. Damn, that it progress!

Reply Score: 3

v Comment by satan666
by satan666 on Mon 21st Apr 2008 20:38 UTC
Provides support for SCCM 2007 Client NAP
by tmock on Mon 21st Apr 2008 23:42 UTC
tmock
Member since:
2006-03-07

If you use SCCM 2007 and want to use the Network Access Protection component with your client, it will require WinXP with SP3 installed.

Reply Score: 0

XP
by miro on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 06:28 UTC
miro
Member since:
2005-07-13

I only upgraded last month from 2k (newer visual studios won't run on 2k). Had to do a lot of tweaks (disable popups, disable update-restart nagging, etc.), but so far so good. Doesn't seem to be much slower than 2k, but then again my dev machine is powerful (but no vista for thanks:D).

I will wait a while before installing, don't want to hose my installation after a month:D

Reply Score: 2