Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th Dec 2007 10:17 UTC, submitted by stonyandcher
Windows Microsoft has posted the release candidate of Windows XP Service Pack 3 to its download site. The move marks the first opportunity for all users of the six-year-old operating system to try out its final upgrade. Previously, several thousand users were given access to test builds of SP3 only by Microsoft's invitation. Update: I just installed the RC on my Windows XP MCE installation, and it all went fairly painless. I haven't noticed anything radically different either yet.
Thread beginning with comment 292411
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Every 2 years?
by Tony_H on Thu 20th Dec 2007 13:26 UTC
Member since:

"You turn a necessity in to a feature. Oh well, I rather have a new release every two years then six years of support for old code."

Every 2 years? Thats insane. If you look at the companies that have released a new OS VERY often, such as a new Linux distro and compare it to that of a company that releases a Quality product that is supported and perfected (By no means is XP perfect) over a 6 year period of time, Which is the more successful company?

Whenever I decide to install a new version of Linux, there is a newer version available before the instillation is complete. The mentality of "if it's broke, lets just make a new one" is not quality control by any means. I think that is the BIGGEST problem with Linux. There are 40,000 people all working on their own version, and it creates chaos. The only thing that Microsoft has done differently is take those 40,000 people and put them in ONE company to work on ONE product. What do you get out of that? The most successful OS in the history of Computers.

I realize that I am exaggerating, and will be criticized for my view on this. Bottom line, I'm sure there are only a handful of people still using Fedora 4 six years after it's creation, but there are MILLIONS of people using XP. I dont see the folks at Fedora releasing updates for a 6 year old OS. They're working on version 9 now? or wait is it 10? ugh, I cant keep up.

BTW, I dont use Windows or Linux. I'm not bashing either OS. I like them both for what they can do for me as a Tech Director. I DO however respect Microsoft for giving me support for 6 years instead of trying to cover up a broken OS with ANOTHER broken OS. Wait, did I just say that? They released a broken OS to cover up 6 years of work? yea, they're all idiots. Thats why I use a Mac!

Reply Score: 6

RE: Every 2 years?
by Vanger on Thu 20th Dec 2007 16:35 in reply to "Every 2 years?"
Vanger Member since:

Most successful != the best.

You know, it's the old cathedral and bazaar thing. One flame, that bazaar is much more cooler, other - that carthedral is much more organised.

But, well, there is no evil magic, that makes Microsoft programmers less capable, then their open-source colleagues. Management does ;) .

And, making 40000 work on one product, as you say, will produse a horrible mess. Microsoft has many, very many projects, many APIs so it's complexity, maybe, is not less then Linux world variety ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Every 2 years?
by DeadFishMan on Thu 20th Dec 2007 20:38 in reply to "Every 2 years?"
DeadFishMan Member since:

While I do not agree with everything that you said, I agree that reinstalling your OS every N months just for the sake of doing it - like Ubuntu people do - is not exactly what I'd call reasonable.

I think that Linux distributions such as Debian, Gentoo and Arch nailed it down perfectly: you can have an always up to date installation without having to wreck your production environment completely and having to rebuild it from the ground up...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Every 2 years?
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 20th Dec 2007 20:41 in reply to "Every 2 years?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:

"I DO however respect Microsoft for giving me support for 6 years instead of trying to cover up a broken OS with ANOTHER broken OS."

Wait... you mean, like what they're doing with Vista? Seriously, what you describe them as *not* doing, sounds exactly like what they *are* doing: attempting to force Vista onto us and act like XP doesn't even exist. Only, Vista has probably been in development for longer than six years, and STILL broken like hell. Plus, XP these days really is not too bad of an OS... at least you don't need ridiculous amounts of processing power, RAM and hard drive space to run it, and are not forced into kernel-level mandatory DRM. Thankfully, Vista's not flying off the shelves as much as Microsoft wanted, so XP gets more attention. Yay for us, who don't want to "downgrade" our systems with the latest bloat-on-a-disc from Microsoft!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Every 2 years?
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 20th Dec 2007 20:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Every 2 years?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:

Wow, that one sentence caused me to completely bypass the very next/last one. Too bad there's no edit button. Never mind the previous post.

Reply Parent Score: 1