Windows XP SP3 Creating Havoc

ozmanjusri writes "According to Information Week, within hours of its wide availability Windows XP SP3 had drawn hundreds of complaints from users who claim the update is wreaking havoc on their computers. One user said in a Microsoft newsgroup: 'I downloaded and installed [the SP3] package for IT Professionals and Developers on one of my computers. Now I can't get the computer to boot. I don't think Microsoft should have made this a critical update.' Other sites including IT Wire are also reporting problems, which include include random reboots or the inability to boot at all." Note that XP3 won't install on systems running beta IE8; and after a successful SP3 install users will no longer be able to downgrade from IE7 to IE6.

Time to upgrade

[Midnight Thunder]

Maybe this was just a sneaky way of trying to get people to 'upgrade' to Vista. Then again this is probably more evidence of a broken process at Microsoft.

Huh

[His Shadow]

Four systems and counting , including my own laptop, i have upgraded to SP3 and not any problems of any kind. Systems even seem snappier. I did have to replace the standard Windows boot screen on my lappy. SP3 would not install with a custom boot up screen. For all my bile directed at Microsoft, XP is the most stable and versatile Windows I've ever used. People don't want to switch because of that, and Vista offers nothing at all compelling. Especially since it expects you to abandon all your current hardware and peripherals.

Re:installing SP3

[JeremyGNJ]

You are an idiot for not installing SP2 as soon as it was available.

"If it ain't broke don't fix it" does not apply to computers unless you're an end user who doesnt understand how to read the technical benefits you get from a given upgrade/patch/service pack.

Re:installing SP3

[plague3106]

Well, do you consider an OS with security holes broken or not? Personally I do; I'd rather deal with MS trying to fix my computer after an SP messes something up than with a virus trojan that I may not even notice at first.

No Problems

[PeterFnet]

Yeah, I've had ZERO problems with XP SP3. Write an article about that.

I love the /. bias

[Anonymous Coward]

News about XP SP3 when it's delayed, when it doesn't work with some server...

No news when it's released.

News again when some minority of systems fail the SP3 installation.

I love that Microsoft is held to 100% success rates, too. 100%. Even though there are millions of systems with trillions of potentially screwed up configurations to miss in testing, 100%.

Unless testing for SP3 was going to take hundreds of years, stuff was going to slip through.

Whenever a SP/major update is released ...

[jsnipy]

Whenever a SP/major update is released, can't you always find people who are complaining and having trouble?

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[ppz003]

Windows service packs have never helped broken systems. They have only made them worse. See exhibits SP1 and SP2.

If you suspect the SP won't take, just go straight to slipstream, wipe, and reinstall.

Re:Oh Yes It Will

[Anomolous Cowturd]

So if you jump through a whole lot of bizarre flaming hoops before installing the upgrade, you should be ok. Could MS be trying to kill off XP for some strange reason?

Mod this one informative

[Lonewolf666]

Looks like a screwup by OEMs that was exposed by the service pack.

Re:People mess with thier own machines..

[Dancindan84]

Yes, but the updates in those cases probably aren't done as a critical update that basically gets shoved down the users' throats. There's likely a lot of people blindly installing SP3 when they get the pop up that could be in jeopardy of having their computer locked up on them. Those type of people also likely don't know how to fix something like that on their own, so they're going to have to fork over $80/hour for some teenager at Best Buy to tell them it can't be fixed and blow away their install.

Microsoft - you never fail to amaze

[unity100]

here, those ms fanbois with mod points among us. now you can waste your mod points on this post so that you wont be able to use it to downmod any valid comment from anyone else. thank you.

Re:installing SP3

[kalirion]

If they released this as a critical update, wouldn't it be picked up by auto-update if you have that turned on?

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[MightyYar]

Ahhh, I'm having dreamy flashbacks to the old Mac System 7 days, when you just replaced the "System" file - or worst case renamed the "System Folder" and replaced it with a fresh one.

But what's that? A bomb icon? Extensions conflicts? Co-operative multitasking... networking and printing from the... Chooser? Ahhhhhh!

Maybe the more complicated install is worth it after all :) I'm just a bit nostalgic from knowing what every single file did on my PC... DOS was good like that, too.

Re:Access Denied!!!

[Taliesin]

I just installed SP3 on my mother-in-law's new Dell laptop running Norton Internet Security (which included anti-virus functionality) and didn't encounter any problems.

They should put this in the readme.txt

[argStyopa]

So the point is, make sure you have your linux bootable cd available when you install the XP3 patch, so that if this is the issue you can successfully boot up, go in, delete that offending file, and you'll be good to go!

Re:People mess with thier own machines..

[JeremyGNJ]

I disagree that computers arrive in a "pristine state".

All too often machines arrive with a whole slew of crap-ware pre-installed. These programs are generally either outdated by the time the user gets the PC (ie Real-Player et al), or just half-assed software written by a 2-bit audio-chipset-maker. These programs are rarely tested properly or in a timely manner when it comes to Service Packs, and there's no way MS could ever account for them.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[mgblst]

Yes, but the industry is built around that soory excuse for an OS, when it would be a lot better of if it had gone with something else.

no IE6?

[werdnapk]

Not being able to downgrade to IE6 is a bad thing?

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[Blahbooboo3]

I have never been able to get a repair to work correctly -- though I am not a OS administrator. Every single time I have tried with ALL the Windows products (going back to 3.1) the repair would not work properly. In the end, format and fresh install always, in my experience, took less time and had a higher probability of making things work correcctly.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[JediTrainer]

Look, I'm a Linux fan too, but this isn't a problem necessarily with Windows alone. I have certainly dealt with my fair share of Gentoo, RedHat, Fedora distros that cacked up the big one after an upgrade. Sometimes a reinstall is just easier than trying to figure out what broke, especially on a non-critical machine.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no Microsoft apologist, but I do think the unbridled hate that pervades /.'s reaction to every single Windows article is a bit out of hand. Maybe this will help stem the tide of Vista-bashing. Sure, Vista kinda sucks, but all Windows versions kinda suck. I think most people who are ripping on Vista for being the operating system anti-christ are forgetting how badly XP sucked pre-SP1, and even pre-SP2. 7 years ago, the chorus of "OH MY GOD XP IS SO MUCH WORSE THAN 2000! THERE'S NO NEED TO UPGRADE!" in every XP article's comments were eerily similar to the ones you hear now every time Vista gets a mention. Vista's maturing, and as it does it'll become a better operating system, and everyone will benefit, even if they don't use Vista. Microsoft still competes largely on the basis of being a de facto standard. Vista's release has caused them to lose this edge somewhat, and the window has opened for their competition, who compete mostly on features, to get a little lazy (Leopard, anyone?). Microsoft competing more vigorously on their stale plank, assuming they don't magically find traction they've been unable to find for years, can't do anything but help the products on the market. Okay, now it's time to cue the million responses calling me a Microsoft shill. Suggested topics: "There really was no reason to upgrade from 2k to XP, I still use 2k just fine," "Vista is beyond repair because of DRM," and "Vista is way more broken than Leopard, how dare you rip on OS X."

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[SatanicPuppy]

It's still possible to fubar Linux or Unix or OSX. One advantage that you DO have is that it is possible to do a "real" restore from a working backup...On the other hand, most people are sloppy with backups for their personal machines.

If you do a good job of screwing the system, it still can be quicker to start from scratch. Whenever I have a huge upgrade on a development machine, I tend to start from scratch, to hopefully avoid the problems that accumulate over time.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[AmaDaden]

The reason it's so difficult to fix a windows system is because you are encouraged to not understand it. With a more open system you can learn where the system files are that get edited and replace any that begin to cause problems. With Windows however you even try to learn about more complex parts of the system like the registry you are greeted with one page messages telling you "It's important. Don't touch it." I know I sound like a open source zealot but it's stuff like this that has made people like me go from not caring either way to pro open source.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[Sancho]

It was VMWare? Why the hell didn't you take a snapshot before performing this major OS update?

If there was a failure of one part (e-mail, SSH, even the kernel), you only need to repair or fix that one piece and you're back and running again and that repair can be done independently of other parts of the system.

Guess you've never suffered through a botched libc update.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[TriZz]

But with all of the delays of Vista they could have made it more stable before they released it. I think that's the problem with Microsoft is that they release everything before it's ready. I, personally, am an OS X user simply because I fix Windows machines all day, and don't want to go home and look at Windows. I do have XP SP3 on my MBP (boot camp/parallels) and have no issue with SP3 My problems with Vista have been minimal. The fact that it took 10 minutes to move even a small file from one location to the next was my only complaint at first. After SP1, it's been much better. I agree with a lot of what you say...given time, they'll fix more things making it more stable...but they definitely should have known about A LOT of the bugs before it was released.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[neoform]

I haven't had to do a clean reinstall on any of my macs since OS 9..

I can't tell you how many times I've had to reinstall windows on my PCs.. I've completely lost count.

My Experience...

[thebonafortuna]

Downloaded and installed on my six year old ThinkPad A31 last night -- everything works fine. Didn't even take all that long.

Might be redundant, but I think its become important for people not having problems to report on that now too, considering the heat M$ takes on just about everything these days. If my old computer can handle the process of upgrading to SP3, not sure why its "wreaking havoc" with so many others...

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[SeeManRun]

I don't find this comment insightful. Why should regular users need to understand their computer? It is a tool and it shouldn't matter how it works, as long as it works. Imagine if you had to be a mechanic to drive a car, or an electrician to watch a TV. We geeks seem to forget lay people don't want to know what a memory leak is, and shouldn't have to know. The exact problem with Linux is that you are forced to know more about how it works than you are with Windows, which is what many people don't want. Unfortunately, knowing more about the machine always makes for a better experience.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[vandit2k6]

Your point is definitely valid. However, if you're going to sit here and tell me that you would open up and start walking through Linux kernel rather then doing a few googling about the problem you're facing with Windows than I am going to go ahead and call you a masochist. Or no I will just say you have a lot of time on your hands. That's just my 2 cents.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[Knuckles]

He didn't say that regular users should need to understand their computers, but that there should be the option to understand them. To apply your analogy, what would car users think if rebuilding the whole car was the only way to fix issues even for a mechanic?

Cool a new conspiracy theory

[arrgster]

Here's my theory, they did this on purpose to make everyone hate XP so we will now flock to vista... They can even say.. hey look it's an old OS it's going to have problems like this, that's why you need to buy Vista.. Then you'll have the same problems because you moved to a new OS, which is better because it's new...

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[SithGod]

He's not saying that regular users should need to fully understand how an OS works, only that people who want to know how it works should be able to. This would be akin to GM saying "Don't bother trying to fix your transmission, just buy a new car" (Yes, I know not quite the same, but close enough). Does the average car driver know how to fix their car, no. But if one had the desire to learn how to, they could. In that same way, those of us who want to learn how to fix a Windows install instead of simply reinstalling would like the oppertunity to be able to do so.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't find this comment insightful. Why should regular users need to understand their computer? It is a tool and it shouldn't matter how it works, as long as it works. Imagine if you had to be a mechanic to drive a car, or an electrician to watch a TV.

Not sure what you're rambling on about here. He said the reason it's so difficult to fix a windows system, not run it. This comment thread is discussing the absurdity that even for someone who knows how to fix a computer, Windows makes it too difficult.

To use your analogy, imagine if you took your car to a mechanic because the head gasket was leaking and he said "sorry, your problem is in the engine, and I can't open it up to fix it. You'll have to just get a new engine."

The fact that, in this case, the user of the computer is also the person trying to fix it when it's broken is irrelevant.

/integrate

[unrealmp3]

I wouldn't really apply a Service Pack on a live system. Integrate the Service Pack 3 to your installation CD, and install a clean OS. There are so much different configurations that a Service Pack, which deeply modify the operating system, it's almost impossible it might not cause issues on a running operating system. I've installed a slipstreamed Windows XP Service Pack 3 without any problems.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[Idbar]

Problem is, you don't pay for open source. When you pay for something, and there's people behind, waiting for the right time to sue, then you have to label stuff in such way: "If you touch it, you may break it, so you better leave it alone". It amazes me that plastic bags have to come with a disclaimer because you can kill your self with them, and I bet that if someone got killed, they didn't know how to read anyways. That is, if you don't read the "readme" file and click every single "ok" without even looking what you're doing, well, don't expect that everything will go smoothly.

Although I know /. is full of gurus that know everything about computer, I for one, believe that not everyone has to. Even though I know is important, I can't complain if my dad or my mom don't fully understand what the OS does for them, and I won't expect them to go mess with the /etc files either. And I don't expect them to read a confusing literature as the one provided in some manuals.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[mweather]

XP was an improvement over the previous Windows version. Vista is not.

I guess vista is good enough now...

[McNihil]

so botching as many XP installs to make people shift to Vista is in Microsoft's and their shareholders best interest.

I see this as nothing more than business as usual, bate and switch.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[jZnat]

Windows Vista will continue to be bashed as is until Microsoft releases fixes a la Windows XP SP2 that actually stabilise the operating system in most cases, fixes many existing issues and annoyances, improves security (although, Vista is supposedly a lot more secure than XP et al.), and makes it an overall usable operating system. Some people still swear by Windows 2000 to this day, so I don't doubt that there will be people who will swear by Windows XP several years from now anyway.

To be fair...

[sco_robinso]

A casual yum update has broken various Linux servers of mine over the years. I'm usually a lot more careful doing yum updates than I am with Windows updates - not because one is inherently more destructive than the other, but because there's almost always a variety of one-off packages that it can break. Microsoft's casual [security] updates are usually fine, but even their service packs don't seem to break too much.

As usual, a couple XP installations get broken and there's mass histeria.

I am happy with it

[i4u]

My system is working very well after the upgrade. XP feels better with XP SP3. I can imagine though that lots of XP users have all kinds of stuff installed over the years and this SP is a major update that can have many side effects.

It's the "Microsoft Solution".

[gr3y]

This is the status quo. How many times have you called the help desk to report a problem, only to have them tell you to reboot? When you call the company that made your computer, and you're in the queue waiting to speak to someone, in their litany of instructions you will hear the following: "Please reboot your computer".

When did the "Microsoft Solution" become commonplace? When Microsoft managed to convince the people who use their software that the expectation that their information technology infrastructure will be reliable is unreasonable.

Several factors contribute to this problem: disclaimer of fitness for an intended purpose, lack of liability, a software ecosystem that has relied for far too long on "experts" who haven't read the book that came with their certification, and a lack of any real measure of lost productivity due to poor information technology decisions, in general. And Microsoft has been able to use its dominant position to stave off market forces. The market isn't making Microsoft's software better, and neither is Microsoft.

But good luck getting management or anyone else making a purchasing decision to embrace the idea that a software company should be at least as responsible as any company that manufactures a real, physical product for the quality of their product.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[number6x]

I agree.

I use linux not Windows, but this is ridiculus!

WinXP sp3 is causing hundreds of complaints?

HUNDREDS?

How many millions of XP users were automatically upgraded to sp3?

Hundreds are complaining. That is a pretty good outcome.

There are plenty of things to bash MS about.

This seems like a non-issue to me.

Re:Mod this one informative

[Lonewolf666]

Usually, you know what hardware you have and you apply the correct drivers. Also, many setup programs have safety checks built in, as in "stop installation when correct chipset is not detected".

In this case it seems that HP and others took disk images from Intel machines and copied them onto AMD machines. That circumvents any test the driver developer might have implemented in the setup program. At best, the driver will re-check for the correct chipset at startup (and what then? Refuse to run and leave the OS minus an important driver? Almost as bad).

In short, the really surprising thing is that the computers did NOT fail under SP2. The OEMs made a pretty stupid mistake here and deserve to be bashed.

Re:no IE6?

[petermgreen]

It isn't as bad as some people are making out. If you have IE7 installed when you install SP3 you can't go back to IE6 afterwards but SP3 does not force you to upgrade to IE7.

And as you imply if you have to run an old insecure browser for some specific task using a VM is probablly a good idea.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[nevesis]

You're right in the similarities between XP and Vista in that they were both more bloated than their predecessors and that many users were reluctant to "upgrade" because of that. But there are some big differences.

XP was considered bloat and XP doubled the minimum requirements from 2000 Pro.

Vista quadruples the minimum XP processing requirement, octuples XP minimum RAM, decuples the minimum HDD free space, and adds a new requirement for video cards.

On top of all of that, XP and 2000 were essentially the same kernel. There weren't many compatibility issues, and users weren't faced with drastic UI changes.

So, was XP twice as "good" as 2000? Maybe, so people switched. Is Vista ten times as "good" as XP? Plus IT support costs? No, so people aren't switching.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[mrchaotica]

I really prefer 2000 over XP even now. But I tend to use XP, because of particular needs: my laptop is a Tablet PC; there's no "Win2k tablet edition." My desktop is shared with my girlfriend; 2000 doesn't have fast user switching. It really sucks, because I'm morally opposed to activation.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[Keruo]

Vista is bashed for a reason!

I had vista on my work laptop for 6 months, I kept hoping that SP1 would fix everything.. after installing it.. I downgraded to XP.

The result?

Battery life went from 1h 40min to 2h 30minutes.
The system now boots to usable state in 3 minutes. With vista, it took 28 minutes to actually get to login screen. After logging in it took another 5 minutes to actually do anything.
I don't have constant UAC annoyance (yes I know that can be turned off, but it was touted to be one of the good new features)
I can actually use 3 legacy corporate programs we need daily which didn't run on vista.

You might assume the laptop was old, but no. It's brand new! Yet my home laptop 4 years old running XP felt 3x faster than the new dual core machine with 3gb memory!

Under the line:
I can get more work done therefore costing less to my employer!

As for w2k, we still run it on few computers. Why upgrade since it works flawlessly and those machines aren't connected to public network.

I don't see any reason for vista deployment. It's like Windows ME all over again.
Only good thing with vista is downgrade right to xp from business and ultimate.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[macslut]

I have to agree with you. I personally don't like much of what Microsoft has to offer. I certainly can't stand Windows, but a lot of the complaints about Vista *are* exactly like XP when it came out. Likewise we hear how ME was the worst ever from some people, and how 98 was the worst for others, and so on... The problem is that Microsoft is in a catch-22. You can't make a new OS without breaking some compatibility, introducing new bugs, and requiring the user to learn new things. The more they change Windows, the more pain they'll inherently introduce. The less they change Windows, the less worth it it'll be to upgrade. In this regard, Apple has the same problem, but it's a lot less of an issue because they control the hardware, there's smaller market share, and less software to worry about. This comment is sponsored by L' Chepeau Organic Tamari Soy Sauce [chepeau.com]

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[thetoadwarrior]

I'm no Microsoft apologist, but I do think the unbridled hate that pervades /.'s reaction to every single Windows article is a bit out of hand.

Yet your reply makes you sound like a complete tool by defending the world's richest company and one which has a monopoly. You seem to think it's acceptable that they have all this power yet release operating systems in a broken state. Your apologist views are the reason PC software sucks and why PC software is being held back because companies can just rely on shitty programmers to churn out border line code with the intention of fixing it later.

7 years ago, the chorus of "OH MY GOD XP IS SO MUCH WORSE THAN 2000! THERE'S NO NEED TO UPGRADE!" in every XP article's comments were eerily similar to the ones you hear now every time Vista gets a mention.

XP's reception was much better than Vista's reception. Vista is definitely more in line with Windows ME but most MS apologists ignore this and just claim that Vista's respection is standard for all MS operating systems.

Secondly this whole "Vista is maturing" rubbish doesn't work. Vista is not a child, pet or a plant. It's not expected to grow. It should work out of the box.

Like I mentioned earlier, this mentality that it's acceptable to release a bit of software that costs hundreds of dollars in a broken state is why PC software in general sucks.

Console gaming was always superior to PC gaming in terms of quality because there wasn't any patching. They had to get it right. Where as PC game markets just had to get it sort of right. Now console gaming has the ability to patch games and, no surprise at all, the quality is dropping.

There is no reason software companies, especially one as large and as rich as Microsoft can't get it right on the first go.

Tell me this, are you willing to by a car, dvd player or microwave that only sort of works out of the box and the manufacturer promising to fix it at a later date? If not, then why is it acceptable for Microsoft to do this?

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[Doctor Faustus]

In what way was XP an improvement over Windows 2000?
As far as most users were concerned, Win98SE was the previous version of Windows.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[operagost]

Better support for hyperthreading and dual core is the only thing I can think of, but even that could easily have been implemented in a service pack for W2k.

I don't think it's reasonable for a customer to expect those for free. Those are non-trivial features. There are also remote desktop/remote assistance, fast user switching, a user-friendly firewall, Cleartype, wireless support, and built-in zip folders.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[Cairnarvon]

XP sucked mostly by mistake, so it was fixable. Vista sucks by design, so even if the bugs get worked out it will still be a worse OS.
Claiming Slashdot has an irrational hatred of Microsoft is very facile and for some reason seems to be a rather popular thing to do nowadays (there's generally at least three comments to that effect on every MS-related article), but have you ever stopped to think that maybe people have a real *reason* for their dislike?

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[somersault]

When your OS has greater requirements than the games you play, you know something has gone very very wrong.. unless perhaps you only play the built in Windows games :p Sometimes life really is stranger than fiction..

Re:A steady trend of less user control.

[somersault]

I hate all those companies that sell non free crap. Why should I pay them for the decades of developer time that they pay for when creating their software? Grrrrrrr

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[somersault]

Maybe he included the install time of a larger HD plus Vista? Though I can say it definitely is slower on startup/shutdown after seeing our MDs Vista laptop. It has better specs than mine, but runs like a dog. I always noticed Mac OS and Windows felt more sluggish to use than my 30Mhz Amiga. Sure there is slightly more going on with the interface (though not much, especially not anything that >2000 extra Mhz and accelerated graphics shouldn't take care of), but it's a joke that all modern user interfaces aren't lightning quick (not talking about browsing files, just rendering displays). Windows XP windows also flicker when you move them around quickly.. they should use double buffering just to make the whole thing feel more 'solid'

Every time you install sp3 a puppy dies

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I installed SP3 and my external HDD died, I know it's about 4 years old and makes a grinding sound, but it was SP3 that did it.

My friend installed SP3 and his system crashed. Apparently it had some kind of virus on it, and upgrading to SP3 caused it to crash, Microsoft should make SP3 compatible with his virus. I'm starting a letter campaign.

My boss installed SP3 and his network stopped working. Granted, the cable fell out, but it's obvious that SP3 must have caused the problem.

Someone I know installed sp3 and their dog got run over by a car, RIGHT after he rebooted. It's obviously SP3 at work.

Thousands of people have installed sp3 and at least 100+ are having problems, this is obviously sp3's fault, because no one ever screws up their computer.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[man_of_mr_e]

Honestly, that's just the way software is these days. Open Source is the same way, except they just call stuff beta for 5,10 or more years.

With any reasonably complex project, if you wait for it to be perfect before you ship it, you go out of business (if you're a commercial company) or you lose relevance (for open source). Meanwhile, for the 99% of people that don't have problems, they wonder why you haven't shipped already, and if you ship then 1% of people cry because they think you shipped too early.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[ickoonite]

Honestly, that's just the way software is these days. Open Source is the same way, except they just call stuff beta for 5,10 or more years.

Yes, but the difference with Windows is that you pay a small fortune for it. And if it's broke, you can't just poke at the code to fix it.

With Vista, all of this has become even more pronounced. Not only was it terribly late anyway, but it was shipped in this really rather broken state. Given that it took them five years to deliver it, waiting another 6 months to deliver something that actually works would have gone a long way to giving Microsoft some credibility. Instead, now they have next to none, with the result that everyone - from the student off to university right up to massive multinational enterprises - is avoiding Vista like the plague.

I think the root of the problem is that Microsoft has lost its way. Completely. Back when they had someone to compete with, the releases came thick and fast, as with Internet Explorer when they were out to crush Netscape. But now, for whatever reason, the company has ground to a halt. Apologists are talking about Windows 7, about eschewing backwards compatibility, a break from the past, a leaner, more modular system - in short, everything Windows Vista was supposed to be. But it won't happen.

Face it, Microsoft is dying.

:|

(Yes, I admit, that last line is a little dramatic. But these days it has an eerie ring of truth to it...)

The trick is ...

[golodh]

you have to make sure you aren't the first or even among the first to install Miscrosoft software. So shy away from anything Microsoft named "1.0", or even "x.0".

It doesn't matter if we're talking about OS, tools, Office, or service packs. You should *always* let somebody else go first, and wait for an "x.1" version.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Yes, but the difference with Windows is that you pay a small fortune for it.

You know, I thought the same thing about the cost of Windows (or any other piece of large, complex commercial software out there) until I sat down and did the math. What I found was surprising.

Let's assume you buy the fairly-standard Windows Vista Business Edition. Newegg lists it [newegg.com] for $279, assuming you get the full retail version and not an OEM or upgrade version. Now let's assume you use it for three years. XP users have waited five years, but MS claims they'll never go that long again between upgrades. Time will tell if MS can actually do it, but I digress.

Three years is 1,095 days (assuming no leap years). That means the amortized cost of that Vista buy is right around $0.26, or a tad more than a quarter a day. Most people probably spend more than that on coffee. Unless you work at home (or are unemployed, or walk/ride a bike), you definitely spend several times that amount on either gas for your car or a subway/bus fare every day. If you have the typical $39/month DSL Internet feed, you're paying five times as much per day for that feed compared to the cost of Vista. Depending upon what kind of PC you have and what power costs are like in your area, your daily Slashdot surfing probably costs you more in electricity than Vista does.

Now, you can say that things like Fedora Core are free and thus have no amortized costs, and you'd be right. But to say that Windows costs a "small fortune" is utter absurdity. When considered over the course of a typical Windows OS lifespan, it's probably one of the smallest computer-related costs you'll incur. Even if you throw in Office 2007 Professional ($389 at Newegg [newegg.com]), the cost per day only goes up to $0.61 per day. You can't even buy a bottle of Coca-Cola for that. A small fortune? I don't think so.

Re:One problem machine out of many installs

[WuphonsReach]

Except that:

a) That's $276 that can't go towards other improvements in the business, or that we could use to pay employees a bit more salary. And that $276 buys you zilch in terms of support, while with open-source I could probably get a decent support contract for $100/desktop per year. If I'm going to spend money, it better be to make our jobs easier.

b) We have to deal with tracking the licenses. Which is a damn PITA. Or else we have to install some sort of license server from Microsoft (more $$$ for the hardware and OS). I hate tracking licenses for commercial software.

c) We have to deal with Vista's opinions about tracking whether it is licensed or not. A ticking bomb waiting to go off resulting in support headaches.

what a bunch of bs

[stylemessiah]

Heres yet more proof that the collective IQ in the world is sinking.

What do you expect if you try and install SP3 over a machine thats been running SP2 for god knows how long and picking up gunk from the internet etc, slowly corrupting drivers etc.

Any sane person, and im one of them, would slipstream SP3 into the original release and install that fresh....

So after doing this i have:

• No issues.
• Speedier startup and the long delay in shutting down is gone.
• All my drivers work and i have some hardware in this thing, no issues.
• Less notices in event viewer than i actually had using SP2 in the last few years.

The one thing i had to do was download IE7 off the net, i tried using the one from AutoPatcher (how i loved thee), but it wouldnt install. Other than this its been brilliant.

So the person who started this topic and the pages around the net are proof that a certain segment of people will always try and do things the hard. I never thought id say this, but stop blaming Microsoft, they did their job and SP3 is fine. Again some people just like the sound of their own voice in internet forums, and for once its not me, its the incompetent whingers that post this crap about SP3, take some ownership you mental midgets....i suspect most of the whingers are also the ones without valid product keys too................