Windows XP SP3 delayed to 2008

[ViRaL1]

From Zdnet - http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/index.php?p=54&tag=nl.e539

Posted by Mary Jo Foley @ 6:40 am

Windows XP Service Pack (SP 3), which Microsoft officials said in January to expect in the latter half of 2007, now has slipped into 2008.

Microsoft delivered the last service pack update for XP, Windows XP SP2 (which was actually more of a whole new version of Windows than it was a typical service pack) in August of 2004.

And that's not all that's slipping: Windows Server 2003 SP 2, until recently due out in the second half of 2006, is now slated for Q1 2007. Microsoft released SP1 for Windows Server 2003 in March, 2005.

The latest bad news on the Windows SP front comes directly from Microsoft, via its own Windows Service Pack roadmap page. The new XP service pack dates are listed as "preliminary." The Windows Server 2003 SP2 date is not.

No word yet from Microsoft directly as to why the service pack dates are slipping again. I would guess the company's response will be that getting Vista and Longhorn Server out the door is the No. 1 priority for the Windows team and SP updates have taken a back seat.

There's no doubt that some (many?) Microsoft customers will see the latest slip as a less-than-subtle attempt by Microsoft to force them to upgrade to the latest versions of Windows that are coming down the pike. Why stick with an operating system that hasn't gotten a full-fledged set of bug fixes and updates for two-plus years? Why not just make the move to Vista and Longhorn Server?

I, for one, am doubtful customers are going to buy that logic.

Meanwhile, before anyone asks, I have not yet heard a timetable for Windows Vista SP1. Anyone else out there heard something on that front?

Update: Microsoft provided the following statement late on October 19, regarding the timing of XP SP3:

"As we have previously confirmed, we will be releasing another service pack for XP over the course of the (XP) product lifecycle. We are now tentatively targeting the first half of 2008 for release. Right now our priority is Windows Vista — we'll have more information to share about the next service pack for XP after Windows Vista ships."

Sounds like another push for Vista if you ask me. I'll probably give it a shot just because I'm dumb like that but it will probably be well after SP3 before I give up XP, just like it took me until XP SP1 to move away from 2000.

[solarfox]

I voted "No interest in Vista"... although in reality, I needed an option that said "No interest in Vista or XP; I'm sticking with Windows 2000."

[ViRaL1]

Updated

[JohnnyMalaria]

I'm using Vista and XP.

As a developer, I'm using Vista to ensure compatibility with our software.

I have to use different versions of XP, too (e.g., English and Dutch).

I have quite a complicated OS arrangement on my main development system!

[teegee420]

I'm sticking with XP until I have a need to upgrade.

[CBC]

Not sure what(if any) improvements SP3 would bring to XP anyways. More security fixes? I can already get the critical ones from the Updates. XP really does all I need for it to do as-is. I have really no interest in using Vista at this time. Especially after seeing the pricetag & the extreme licenced user restrictions. pass.

[Paul_G]

I will stiick with 2000 rather than downgrading to xp/vista

[CBC]

I tried running 2000 for several months , but found it to be way too unstable for anything other that a complete "vanilla" install. I have found XP to be mch more robust , configurable, & forgiving

[LSchafroth]

I voted "No interest in Vista"... although in reality, I needed an option that said "No interest in Vista or XP; I'm sticking with Windows 2000."

2000??? That's like still using 98 in my opinion. One you install XP and use the classic interface and turn off all the eye candy and do some tweaks it kills 2000. Why????

LS

[TheFamilyMan]

Anyone have problems with XP that requires a SP3 to fix? Not me. I'll use XP until I buy a new computer in about 3 years, by that time Vista should be stable. Another sneaky Vista fact: DirectX10 will only be available in Vista; microsoft has stated that there is currently no plan to make it available for XP (not that it really matters to anyone around here). So all you gamers out there are gonna be left with a dead end OS in a year or two, when those DX10 titles start appearing (and BTW I do know that DX10 is not really called DX10). Nice carrot on that stick, isn't it?

[edDV]

Anyone have problems with XP that requires a SP3 to fix? Not me. I'll use XP until I buy a new computer in about 3 years, by that time Vista should be stable. Another sneaky Vista fact: DirectX10 will only be available in Vista; microsoft has stated that there is currently no plan to make it available for XP (not that it really matters to anyone around here). So all you gamers out there are gonna be left with a dead end OS in a year or two, when those DX10 titles start appearing (and BTW I do know that DX10 is not really called DX10). Nice carrot on that stick, isn't it?

You haven't done a new computer or a format reboot lately. While the hundreds of updates are loading, the machine is vulnerable. I'd vote for a monthly SP2-0611, SP20612, etc.

Then SP3 can be postponed forever.

[CBC]

You haven't done a new computer or a format reboot lately. While the hundreds of updates are loading, the machine is vulnerable. I'd vote for a monthly SP2-0611, SP20612, etc.

Then SP3 can be postponed forever.

erm...There are several ways to slipstream updates to your XP CD before installing it. & I would suspect that the vast majority of said vulnerabilities wouldn't be exploited while connected to the Microsoft Updates webpage.

[TheFamilyMan]

You haven't done a new computer or a format reboot lately. While the hundreds of updates are loading, the machine is vulnerable. I'd vote for a monthly SP2-0611, SP20612, etc.

Actually I have. I was an interesting process breaking the update log jam. It turns out one of the updates was an update to update. When I finally got past this, it was almost entertaining to watch. And now thinking of this, I guess I missed the point, and was lucky not be expoited during my period of vulnerability...

[lumis]

I might check out Vista when it comes out, but I probabaly wont make the switch until running Windows XP becomes limiting. I imagine by that time all the "h4x0rs" will have had their way with Vista and it will be fun to run.

[DereX888]

Windows 2000 rules.
There is absolutely nothing in Windows XP that cannot be on Windows 2000 - except for useless crap like Windows Movie Maker etc ofcoz (which all can be substituted by far better software nevertheless).

Those who say Win2K is like Win98 are clearly talking out of their asses

Win2K "plain vanilla" or "out of the box" is what actually sucks (IMHO). Well set and well configured Win2K is a joy OS, more stable than anything else that ever came out from Redmond (even Msoft admit it). Unfortunately to set it up require some knowledge and - first of all - use of brain, something which is clearly beyond the capabilities of majority Earth's habitants :/

[Enygma]

Methinks MS is just trying to force WGA down out throats. Think about it... if you can install XP and then run SP3, then you're less prone to visit Windows Update to "validate" you copy of XP. So people who don't have a legit copy of windows just might buy a copy of XP or Vista.

Lastly, I think they need to spend every waking minute fixing Vista so that it's ready for release and won't have to have it's own service pack within a few months of release.

[mats.hogberg]

Want to take a bet on that WGA will be included in SP3?
DereX888 is spot on with W2k - If you look at the versions, w2k is NT 5.0, and XP is NT 5.1 - not even a new major version. The W9x line is completely different, and has absolutely nothing in common with 2k/XP.
w2k is the most stable OS MS has ever created. XP adds lots of eyecandy (and foot print and resource hogging) but very little added features, other than deliberately made add ons not to run on w2k. The XP release was pure business - there was/is no technological reason for it.
As for Vista - Maybe, one day when enough "Only for Vista" applications that I need are out there.

/Mats

[GKar]

You haven't done a new computer or a format reboot lately. While the hundreds of updates are loading, the machine is vulnerable. I'd vote for a monthly SP2-0611, SP20612, etc.

Then SP3 can be postponed forever.

erm...There are several ways to slipstream updates to your XP CD before installing it. & I would suspect that the vast majority of said vulnerabilities wouldn't be exploited while connected to the Microsoft Updates webpage.

Slipstreaming all the updates as they come in onto an install cd image using nLite is the way I like to do it. If I ever need a fresh installation, I'm already updated.

[Sam Ontario]

I am quite happy with SP2, so what will be in SP3 besides someone mentioned vulnerbility (what vulnerbility, excuse my ignorance!).

[edDV]

I am quite happy with SP2, so what will be in SP3 besides someone mentioned vulnerbility (what vulnerbility, excuse my ignorance!).

The SP3 release will be primarily SP2 plus all the security updates and patches added since SP2 was released in August 2004. When you install SP2, the machine is vulnerable until all the subsequent updates are downloaded and installed.

[KBeee]

Fundamental misunderstandings going on here -
1. Vista ISN'T to make your computer work better, it's to earn Microsoft more money.
2. XP could do everything Vista will do, but that won't earn Microsoft enough money - How can you charge exhorbitant rates for an update... but a Whole New Operating System every 2 or 3 years...

Just got to get the OS different enough so's TMPGEnc 6 won't work with XP and force the sheeple to change - Oh, and add on a bit of We Own All Your Content unless you can prove otherwise in a court of law. License to print money? We heard of it, but don't agree with paying license fees, unless it's to us (or we get sued)

Cynical? Me?

[edDV]

Fundamental misunderstandings going on here -
1. Vista ISN'T to make your computer work better, it's to earn Microsoft more money.
2. XP could do everything Vista will do, but that won't earn Microsoft enough money - How can you charge exhorbitant rates for an update... but a Whole New Operating System every 2 or 3 years...

Just got to get the OS different enough so's TMPGEnc 6 won't work with XP and force the sheeple to change - Oh, and add on a bit of We Own All Your Content unless you can prove otherwise in a court of law. License to print money? We heard of it, but don't agree with paying license fees, unless it's to us (or we get sued)

Just to be fair to Microsoft, I'm amazed and thankful that they haven't charged for an update since the original release of XP in October 2001 and won't be charging for SP3. Compare that to Mac OS over those same years.

I do fault them for trying to tie the license to a motherboard. A motherboard is just another computer part that needs updating, reconfiguring or replacing when it fails.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Fundamental misunderstandings going on here -
1. Vista ISN'T to make your computer work better, it's to earn Microsoft more money.
2. XP could do everything Vista will do

Your are just plain wrong. Here's a very in-depth article on what new features Vista will provide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyBoost

Read it, understand it and then claim there's nothing new.

As developers begin to make use of these features, you will eventually need to move to Vista (of course, it may be a couple of years). Just like people eventually moved from Win3.x to Win95. It's the same old story. And from Win9x to XP.

[dr9553]

ummm i do believe that over the same amount of years you have not been forced to buy an upgrade for the Mac OS. ALL .x updates are free (10.2.x, 10.3.x, 10.4.x). Plus each new version of 10 offered up signifigant OS improvements and applications. And $129 for a full system / upgrade is a hell of a deal to me.

To go from XP -> Vista is going to be a hell of a lot more than that.

[JohnnyMalaria]

ummm i do believe that over the same amount of years you have not been forced to buy an upgrade for the Mac OS. ALL .x updates are free (10.2.x, 10.3.x, 10.4.x). Plus each new version of 10 offered up signifigant OS improvements and applications. And $129 for a full system / upgrade is a hell of a deal to me.

To go from XP -> Vista is going to be a hell of a lot more than that.

Does that mean 10.2 to 10.3 requires a $129 upgrade, and for 10.3 to 10.4 etc? If so, that's rather a lot over a short period:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS_X:

Apple released Mac OS X Server 1.0 in January, 1999. A public beta of Mac OS X was released in the year 2000, and March 24, 2001, saw the full and official release of Mac OS X version 10.0. Version 10.1 shipped on September 25, 2001, followed by the August 24, 2002, release of Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar"; the October 24, 2003, release of Mac OS X 10.3 "Panther"; and the April 29, 2005, release of Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger".

Are the .x upgrades similar to Service Packs for Windows?

XP Home to Vista Home upgrade will probably be $99.95 ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx )

[dr9553]

you are correct in the $129 for each version, but just like Windows 2k -> XP not everyone upgrades until they feel the absolutly need something from it. And yes the .x versions are similar to SP's.

A lot of software is still working in 10.2.8 and there are still a lot of people using it. its one of those if it aint broke dont fix it kinda things.

if you think about it like this it will most likely be $129 to upgrade to 10.5 when it comes out, thats the fully enabled, full featured version for $129. To get the best and most full featued version of Vista you will have to spring for Ultimate Edition which will set you back $259 for the upgrade.

And if you buy a PC after vista is out that only has a version of home on it (premium or basic) but want to use the features of office you are going to have to for out the cash for the upgrade to a higher level system. With the mac os you get the same features in both.

[TwistedLincoln]

Personally, I still use Windows 2000, and always will (until I switch totally to Linux), as I refuse to buy any software program that uses Product Activation. However, I certainly see the need for another Service Pack to XP. There are soooo many updates at this point that running Windows Updates on a new install of SP2 takes forever. Yes, I know I can slipstream updates into a custom CD, but regardless, a new Service Pack would certainly be easier when it comes to doing reinstalls for my customers (though I would, of course, rather just give them Linux instead of reloading XP...)

I do find it a bit odd that they are waiting so long to release it, however. According to their product life cycle charts, XP will be retired appox. 2 years after the general availablity of Vista. That means that SP3 won't live too long...

[edDV]

...According to their product life cycle charts, XP will be retired appox. 2 years after the general availablity of Vista. That means that SP3 won't live too long...

They also said that about Win2000 but corps saw little reason to update until much later.

[SCDVD]

Fundamental misunderstandings going on here -
1. Vista ISN'T to make your computer work better, it's to earn Microsoft more money.
2. XP could do everything Vista will do

Your are just plain wrong. Here's a very in-depth article on what new features Vista will provide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyBoost

Read it, understand it and then claim there's nothing new.

As developers begin to make use of these features, you will eventually need to move to Vista (of course, it may be a couple of years). Just like people eventually moved from Win3.x to Win95. It's the same old story. And from Win9x to XP.

Here is a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyBoost. Even if some amazing future application that requires Vista to run is something that I have to have, I will use a dual boot system with all the "nuggets below lurking in Vista.

"Digital Rights Management
Microsoft is introducing a number of Digital Rights Management and content-protection features in Windows Vista, to help digital content providers, corporations, and end-users protect their data from being copied.

PUMA: Protected User Mode Audio (PUMA) is the new User Mode Audio (UMA) audio stack. Its aim is to provide an environment for audio playback that restricts the copying of copyrighted audio, and restricts the enabled audio outputs to those allowed by the publisher of the protected content[16].
Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management (PVP-OPM) is a technology that prevents copying of protected digital video streams, or their display on video devices that lack equivalent copy protection (typically HDCP). Microsoft claims that without these restrictions the content industry may prevent PCs from playing copyrighted content by refusing to issue license keys for the encryption used by HD DVD, Blu-Ray Disc, or other copy-protected systems[16].
Protected Video Path - User-Accessible Bus (PVP-UAB) is similar to PVP-OPM, except that it applies encryption of protected content over the PCI Express bus.
Rights Management Services (RMS) support, a technology that will allow corporations to apply DRM-like restrictions to corporate documents, email, and intranets to protect them from being copied, printed, or even opened by people not authorized to do so. MSN Spaces will also offer an open RMS server that home users and smaller businesses can use to extend this ability to their own documents."

[DereX888]

"Digital Rights Management
Microsoft is introducing a number of Digital Rights Management and content-protection features in Windows Vista, to help digital content providers, corporations, and end-users protect their data from being copied.

PUMA: Protected User Mode Audio (PUMA) is the new User Mode Audio (UMA) audio stack. Its aim is to provide an environment for audio playback that restricts the copying of copyrighted audio, and restricts the enabled audio outputs to those allowed by the publisher of the protected content[16].
Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management (PVP-OPM) is a technology that prevents copying of protected digital video streams, or their display on video devices that lack equivalent copy protection (typically HDCP). Microsoft claims that without these restrictions the content industry may prevent PCs from playing copyrighted content by refusing to issue license keys for the encryption used by HD DVD, Blu-Ray Disc, or other copy-protected systems[16].
Protected Video Path - User-Accessible Bus (PVP-UAB) is similar to PVP-OPM, except that it applies encryption of protected content over the PCI Express bus.
Rights Management Services (RMS) support, a technology that will allow corporations to apply DRM-like restrictions to corporate documents, email, and intranets to protect them from being copied, printed, or even opened by people not authorized to do so. MSN Spaces will also offer an open RMS server that home users and smaller businesses can use to extend this ability to their own documents."

and they still insist on calling DRM a "Digital Rights Managemenet" LOL while all it does is to RESTRICT the user.

PUMA - I wonder will this work on normal, standard CDDAs as well?
If so, I can already imagine pissed letters from legitimate audio cd owners not being able to transmit their audio feed over their home network to all the receivers with Vista
and god-forbid MSN Spaces server should go offline... imagine all users not being able to play their own music hahahaha


This is a great question for a poll:
Have you (as an end-user) have you ever copy-protected your own music files?
edit: scratch that, there's no need for such idiotic poll - obviously maybe 1% or less of "end-users" would be stupid enough to restrict themselves from copying their music on their own devices