Why is Microsoft Patching XP? 370
akkarin noted a story about a new Service patch for XP. Dubbed SP2c, the new service patch contains no bug fixes or features. Instead, this exciting patch exists only to add new valid active product registration keys. Oops.
well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Will likely become more and more in favour of Vista as the years wind on, and of course in 2009 XP OEM supply will finish.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:well... (Score:4, Interesting)
SO 7 was blazing fast.
OOo 1.2? Dog slow.
Same machine. Same codebase.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Like any Java program, lots of components are lazy-initialized, and with most JRE's these are also slow.
But once you're operating, it's not slow.
What are you comparing? Computationally intensive resolution of spreadsheets? OO Spreadsheet isn't bad. When does a measure of "speed" enter into a Word Processor program, aside from the perception of font rendering, reflow formatting, preparation for printing, a
Re:well... (Score:4, Interesting)
My neighbor got a couple of new laptops a couple of months ago. Naturally, they run Vista. He asked me to set them up on his network, and I was amazed at how much slower they are than my laptop (which I got in 2004) that runs XP.
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Win95 - compelling reason to upgrade
Win98 - pass
Win2000 - compelling upgrade
WinME - hahahaha
WinXp - compelling upgrade
WinVista - Jury's still out, but probably pass
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
98se was such an improvement over 95, even over 95osr2, that it was definitely a "compelling upgrade". XP was not "compelling" for me until SP1.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:well... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is
The reality is that XP is a 'pretty good' OS. It's not a magnificent OS, but it's 'good enough'. OS X looks a lot nicer and in many respects is (along with being less vulnerable). Locked down BSD is a lot more secure than XP. And Linux is a lot cheaper. But for a large number of people, XP is 'good enough'.
The two big markets that Windows is tough to beat in are gaming and certain legacy enterprise applications. In both cases, Vista performance is inferior to XP.
Right now, nope.
Re:well... (Score:5, Funny)
We tried it once with the Ubuntu god but it just felt blasphemous and unclean.
Re:well... (Score:5, Funny)
Know ye not any better than to question which Tuesdays work and which don't? Ballmer works in mysterious ways, after all. Why, on several occasions, updates have even appeared on non-Tuesdays! Surely He has blessed us only to reward our dilligence in praying to Redmond 4.25 times each month?
In any case, you come very near blasphemy, Brother, in asking too many questions about Tuesdays - That sort of thinking can lead the mind in dangerous directions. Why, next you might start to question whether The G*tes (Blessed be his name, which we may not write upon anything impermanent) meant to pass the mantle of his fold on to his nephew or his brother-in-law. Such things only lead to tears and Danish mockery, my friend, so stray not onto that path!
Blasphemer! (Score:5, Funny)
And you dare to imply that Slashdot isn't permanent? Never have I witnessed a more true blasphemy.
We are permanent. We are one. We are +5 Karmawhores and can afford to burn. You promote a false God. There is only one root.
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they sent it out as a normal update, people could choose to ignore it. As a servicepack they can set it as a requirement for future security updates. This is just what they did with SP1 & 2, only this time without any added features for the user.
Also: they really have to sell Vista...
Re: (Score:2)
It may be funny, but I gotta agree with this one. When Microsoft went away from the Service Packs in favor of the many-downloads method, I was a bit sad. Gone were the days of NT and SP6a. I thought it was rather convenient to have a single service pack that rolled up all of the known fixes into a single run install.
But they never did get away from the service packs, since Win2k had 2 SPs released for it. XP got better after SP1 and it sounds li
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's due. I mean, how old is SP2? Two years? Three? Who'd take MS serious if they didn't release a service pack every few years?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
-uso.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a minor patch for Service Pack 2 to make it accept more key ranges that their validation servers probably do by now. I'm not really sure what's suspicious, notable, or strange about this article.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
New CD keys need to be added, and they need to be available when installing. Therefore, the keys must be delivered in a service pack, as they need to be included on the CD.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would it not be on the frontpage?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because this is the equivalent of Microsoft's changing one obscure icon in shell32.dll and then releasing it as a fullblown patch? I have no problem with noting major XP/Vista patches on the front page, but this is simply too trivial to be frontpage worthy news.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably 95% that it took them this long to get Vista out the door, and 5% the projected slowdown. I think everyone, including Microsoft themselves expected a new version so 2004ish, a year or two after Win2003 for servers.
More to the story.... (Score:2)
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Re:So.... (Score:5, Funny)
Because it's along the lines of "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. Doctors report his condition as 'unchanged'."
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Slashdot, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NT4 called... (Score:5, Funny)
you can patch in new keys? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:you can patch in new keys? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:you can patch in new keys? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Google gkend
Re: (Score:2)
missing a few (Score:5, Funny)
Did they elope together and disappear into the mountains - and now C is their lovechild?
XP service pack releases (Score:2, Informative)
I think it is just a matter of how many Windows Updates are included.
Windows XP Professional w/ SP1A (OEM-DSP) [directdeals.com]Only (?) release of SP1.
Microsoft Windows XP Pro w\SP2 (OEM-DSP) [directdeals.com] First release of SP2
Microsoft Windows XP Pro SP2B OEM DSP [directdeals.com] 2nd release of SP2
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly, MS are very fond of the letter C.
DirectX 9.0c came out years ago. Since then, DirectX has been updated almost every month - and it is still named 9.0c (except on Vista).
So when people are comparing DirectX versions to identify a game problem, they are not using version numbers. They are asking "Did you install the April 2007 patch for DirectX?"
Uninstall (Score:5, Funny)
Oblig Holy Grail quote (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not dead yet.
Aw, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
No, really, I'm feeling much better.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This clearly shows... (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect this is a shorterm problem only. Meaning I checked the Dell website and they are not providing XP as an option on all laptops, so I suspect M$ is simply providing this option to their larger customers until wider adoption occurs. Over time, it would be my guess they will slowly "fade" out XP and the forced Vista adoption will be complete. Longterm this will be seen as a major mistake made by them, in my opinion....
Re:This clearly shows... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you need to guess about something which is already publicly known and their obvious policy?
XP will eventually become unsupported, they won't have any new patches for it, and they'll expect everyone to upgrade to Vista. Oddly enough, Windows 3.x, 95, 98, and ME have all gone through this.
Believe it or not, every software company does the exact same thing. Just than when Microsoft does it, it's on a massive scale, and it gets rammed down the throats of everyone no matter what they think.
Longterm this will be seen as a major mistake made by them, in my opinion....
Long term, none of our opinions seem to alter what Microsoft does. It just happens.
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
Slow day? (Score:4, Informative)
MS is running out of keys, so they are releasing an updated build. mmmmm ok. so?
It's just a different build number, what's the big deal. The same thing happened back in the Windows 95 when they had SR 2, 2.1, and 2.5. The changes between those build were minor as well.
95 OSR releases were minor if you're an idiot. (Score:2, Informative)
OSR2.1 - LBA support is minor?
OSR2.5 - USB is minor?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So yes, the difference between 2 and 2.1 was minor. USB support was added, but typically supporting new hardware doesn't warrant a new build number. Also, from my experience back then.... the USB support was terrible in 95 (although it could very likely be the vender's USB products as well). USB didn't seem truly solid until 98.
The different between 2.1 and 2.5 was
"oops?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Way to spin it, Slashdot. Making the "mistake" of underestimating how well a product is going to sell: not a bad mistake to make.
Except they're supposed to be selling Vista now (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally made the switch from XP to Vista about two months ago because I wanted the driver updates to kick in first. There is no doubt in my mind -- I prefer Vista far more than XP because of all the nifty new features and the new look
Vista's "suckiness" is not a claim; it's a fact =/ (Score:5, Insightful)
Are all of these kinds of stories just trolls with spin skills worthy of Karl Rove? If the answer is no then Vista sucks. If the answer is yes then there are lot of people angry at MS - probably, at least in part, because Vista sucks so very much: http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=vista [slashdot.org]
I've been part of several discussions trying to ascertain what advantages Vista actually offers to outweigh the drawbacks and it ain't pretty. The bottom line for us, and I daresay hundreds of thousands of other organisations, is that XP works, is mostly stable and is well supported. Vista can't compete with that - and they're calling it an upgrade?
So if you need Microsoft - and unfortunately we still need to develop with DirectX - then XP will do fine. Vista has to bring something really worthwhile to make us want to go through the hassle of the upgrade and to put up with all the unwanted baggage that Redmond seems to think we all need.
And of course if you don't need Microsoft then you're already laughing. Whatever OS you're using will be just as secure as Vista (if not more so), fully extensible, support all sorts of open formats and not try to wrestle with you for control of your own computer.
I really am glad that Vista's working out for you but unfortunately for most of us the "nifty new features and new look" just aren't enough to justify a broad OS upgrade - certainly for anything other than a home or hobby rig. And my home'n'hobby rigs all run XP or Linux and serve me just fine. =D
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many of those codes are actually valid, genuine, and purchased?
Re: (Score:2)
no rollup? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:no rollup? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the rollup (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft hasn't done it, but these guys have. [autopatcher.com]
What about SP3? (Score:2)
Microsoft should stand behind their products and think more of long-term goals (customer satisfaction, etc.) than short-term marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
Will these pissed off customers stop buying microsoft products and move to a competitor?
No? Then why bother trying to keep them happy?
Dissatisfied customers will keep coming back, and so long as that happens there is no incentive to help them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really a patch/service pack/whatever (Score:4, Informative)
Let's see someone reverse engineer this (Score:5, Interesting)
An inadvertently BRILLIANT scheme! (Score:2)
So consider this: with every Microsoft Taxed machine that is sold with Vista as the only option, Microsoft is (according to Microsoft projections from the article) expecting an almost 80% chance that they will also sell a license for Windows XP. They win TWICE! Not only do they get to tax the machine, they also get to sell a second OS license.
This is what happened, more or less, with WindowsME. Everyone hated it and went
End-Of-Life on an O/S seems bizarre (Score:4, Insightful)
A hardware product has an official End-Of-Life date beyond which it is no longer sold nor supported. That's fairly logical, because it is a standalone physical item, and its physical end of life is inescapable.
But the concept of EOL'ing an operating system that's at the heart of bazillion old machines out there seems completely wrong, to the point of being bizarre. Those machines will (mostly) never change their operating system, and why should they --- after all, their manufacturer created them as XP machines, not as Vista boxes, and their manufacturer-supplied drivers might not even work with Vista.
Yet, except in the case of non-networked machines, their continued survival requires fairly regular O/S updates in response to the changing face of the Internet. End-Of-Lifing XP reflects a very myopic stance by Microsoft, as if their product Windows XP were somehow standalone. Well it's not.
Microsoft enjoys the $$$ benefits of Windows being adopted worldwide as the most popular operating system, but with that comes the responsibility of maintaining the heart of those myriad machines which use it
Yes, it's a responsibility. Operating systems are not toasters. They sustain the continued viability of machinery that uses them, and can't be treated as independent items. Their manufacturers committed to a dependency on Microsoft support.
While End-Of-Life is a common concept in commercial products, there is something fundamentally wrong with declaring an operating system as dead. While the hardware survives (at least 10 years, maybe 15), a degree of support should continue to be provided, as I see it. The rate of support calls will dwindle to zero over time, so "It would cost us too much" is not really a good excuse. Especially given the size of MS coffers.
Killing off older machines by denying support for their O/S seems irresponsible by the O/S manufacturer, regardless of which O/S that is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But the concept of EOL'ing an operating system that's at the heart of bazillion old machines out there seems completely wrong, to the point of being bizarre.
My experience as a programmer leads me to disagree. Sometimes old branches of code reach the point where they simply can't be taken any further, regardless of what pressing needs (like security updates) are placed upon them. After a while, you end up with huge deltas between the current release codebase and the legacy branches, and it may not even be possible to reverse engineer patches from the former onto the latter. There eventually comes a time when you have to say "we've done all we think we can d
Re:the beginning of the end (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the beginning of the end (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not entirely true.
Microsoft has bet significant bucks on the success of Vista, in both R&D and research. On the other hand, XP is nearing the "end" of its product cycle (in theory), having been supplanted by Vista. Or, to use a different turn of phrase, "old and busted" versus "new hotness."
Imagine you have an old and busted car, and you're buying a new sexy one. For some reason, you need to hang on to both, but you fully plan to get rid of the old & busted one at your earliest convenience. But it turns out that the new car has some serious problems with it, and it's constantly in the shop: but because of your family's needs, you can't just ditch it and start over. Now you're stuck with two cars, and paying upkeep on both of them...
Anyway, it's a flawed analogy, but suffice it to say that MS stands to lose a hefty chunk of change if Vista dies on the vine.
Re: (Score:2)
s/in both R&D and research/in both R&D and marketing/.
Re: (Score:2)
The longer people stick to XP, the better for Microsoft. If they were faced with "Vista or nothing" at launch date, they'd take a good hard look at alternatives. They have no motivation to do that when all of
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has bet significant bucks on the success of Vista, in both R&D and research. On the other hand, XP is nearing the "end" of its product cycle (in theory), having been supplanted by Vista. Or, to use a different turn of phrase, "old and busted" versus "new hotness."
You're right they have, and while XP is at its planned end, it is still fully functional, stable (relative term for windows), and very quick (compared to Vista, once again relative for windows.) It may be old, but it is in no way busted. In fact Vista is much more busted at this point.
Imagine you have an old and busted car, and you're buying a new sexy one. For some reason, you need to hang on to both, but you fully plan to get rid of the old & busted one at your earliest convenience. But it turns out that the new car has some serious problems with it, and it's constantly in the shop: but because of your family's needs, you can't just ditch it and start over. Now you're stuck with two cars, and paying upkeep on both of them...
Anyway, it's a flawed analogy, but suffice it to say that MS stands to lose a hefty chunk of change if Vista dies on the vine.
You're very correct that your analogy is flawed. To lend credit to your comparison we will instead say that the dealership you go to has either a used Corolla about halfway through its lifetime or a liquid hydrogen Ferrari f
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:More incredible (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More incredible (Score:5, Funny)
Which explains why a mouse driver needs to be 500MB.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, they should have had 10 times the needed keys
Re:I'm so glad ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apple has released 5x the amount of updates and security fixes in the past few months as Windows XP, Vista, and Linux combined.
Nice troll. A very large number of those updates and fixes are for software like QuickTime and iTunes. So you're not comparing apples to apples ... ahem ... so to speak.
Not to fanboi, but having run XP for years before switching to Linux and a Mac, I find the actual OS updates for OS X no more time-consuming or frustrating than those for other platforms. If you want to make an actual comparison, then let's talk about app updates as well as OS updates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More like $200 or so, every 5 years (XP came out in October of 2001, I think)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was with you until you made that statement (and I don't even own a Honda). Why do you have to disrespect Honda like that? Especially when Honda's cars are reliable, Windows not so much. Honda's cars are closer to OS X than Windows, in that they "just work." They also have very refined engines and well thought-out interiors (at least the ones I've seen). They don't require much maintenance. Yeah, they don't look all that great, but they aren't ugly (like Win
Re: (Score:2)
Driver level software that loads into the kernel can cause the OS to crash, that's expected.
As for lack of software, there is a good selection of mac specific software, most unix software can be recompiled for macos and you can run instances of windows and other os's with their assorted apps under vmware or parallels, and if you manage to crash your virtual windows it won't take your host macos down.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As of now, we use a Canon laser jet printer in the office (not supported by Vista, got driver from Canon), and an OfficeJet multifunctional (not supported by HP under Vista, supported by Microsoft). The XP drivers allowed faster scanning - much faster scanning in fact. Printing speed is abou
Re:funny, the first thing I thought when reading.. (Score:2)