No XP Service Pack 3 until at least 2007

By Justin Mann on January 17, 2006, 6:22 PM
Microsoft is taking their time for OS rollouts this year. Vista isn't due until December at least, and now it's revealed that Service Pack 3 for Windows XP won't even be around this year at all. Initially looking to be another set of security fix rollups, the amount of downloads Windows Update provides to a newly installed SP2 machine is hefty and 2007 seems like a long road. This is unusually long for a service pack release, leading some credence to Microsoft's claim of “full speed ahead” on Vista development. Some might see this as detracting from an existing OS to improve a future OS. From an IT management standpoint it isn't pretty, but with the vast improvements with Windows Updates over the past three years, it won't be a big hassle to the majority of conumers.




User Comments: 29

Got something to say? Post a comment
gamingmage said:
Come on Microsoft. The wait is very annoying, but once they release the new OS and service pack everybody will be happy. (I hope)
PanicX said:
There's no satisfying the bloodthirsty. I wouldn't mind about the date the service pack gets released if at all, except for the security updates they won't provide before hand.
nathanskywalker said:
Well, here's a office xp service pack 4 :)[url]http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Famil
ID=85af7bfd-6f69-4289-8bd1-eb966bcdfb5e&DisplayLang=en[/ur
]Well dang, hope they really make up for that, because there have been so many exploits lately, people are really going to need that service pack 3 soon.
DragonMaster said:
Was M$ already that bad? I mean, they release hotfixes weeks after security holes were found, they have more security holes I saw than ever, Vista takes centuries to develop, xbox 360 has lots of problems, etc. A lot of people wondered why I hate Microsoft years ago but they seem to make everyone mad now. Way to go Linux!(If only we could learn to use it without a manual like Windows and MacOS...)
asphix said:
There is a positive and negative side to this bit of news. The positive is directed at any and all of us waiting to get our hands on Vista. As the news bit states, this allows more time for the development of Vista. However its a big negative for those who dont plan on upgrading to Vista or are part of the masses who own dells and dont even know you can upgrade an OS and dont know how.I think its good Microsoft is focusing on Vista. Seems no matter what Microsoft does people will complain. If Microsoft focused on sp3 and let Vista slip a bit people woudl complain that Microsoft is slow, cant develop a solid product and needs to get its act together. They put their attention toward trying to develop a solid new OS and put major service packs to current windows version on a back burner, people think Microsoft is neglecting their customers, is slow to develop, and needs to get their act together.Seems like the exact same thing either way.. I'd rather people be pissed at them because they're working on a new OS though :)
blue_dragon said:
Well another day, I am not surprisedI just hope all this anger/annoyance turns into relief with the release of VistaI gotta ask this question too...is Linux free?
maxtor said:
Actually, this is old news. I read about this in September or so. Maybe I what I read was just speculation or rumors, this is the actual confirmation.@blue_dragon. Yes and no. :)
exscind said:
Like asphix said, there's no way Microsoft can ever satisfy everyone. The crowd that Microsoft serves is way too broad, and some groups are bound to get frustrated no matter the situation. However, Microsoft should hire more people so Vista and XP Service Pack 3 can both be done at a timely manner I say!And granted, this is one of the few occasions where I can excuse Microsoft. At least it has a legitimate reason for delaying SP3, right? It is better than a "umm... yeah, we'll get on that fix after lunch... maybe..."
Need_a_Dell said:
It's a bit of a shame that Microsoft is going to put their already buying costomers on hold until the new OS is out. There are people that rely on something that they have already purchased, (ie. XP) and if there are improvements that are available for XP, then those people should be able to get their hands on the service pack that is rightfully theirs. They shouldn't have to wait for security updates. Microsoft should patch the OS before the exploits become a known problem in the hacking world. SHame on you Microsoft, shame on YOU!
otmakus said:
It's very simple, actually. If they launch SP3 before Vista, everyone will have updated their XP and no one will buy Vista when it is launched. I just can't believe Microsoft doesn't have the resources to do Vista and SP3 at the same time, heck, we all know Microsoft is not an ordinary company, it's THE (evil) company.
cyrax said:
sp3 sounds like everything else that comes out of microsoft. Half done. Often these things need a patch for the patch that the other patch was suppose to patch. Hope i didn't lose you with that one ^_^
Race said:
I wouldn't be surprised if while Microsoft was strategizing over this, that they figured this could only help sales of the new OS.X number of customers.....both individuals and businesses, may lean towards upgrading to Vista and calling it a day, so there may be a bit more incentive there.Also, I wonder if they simply don't have enough qualified programmers, etc. to prioritize both...or...were they getting too far behind on Vista, and had to sorta drop everything else?If I was given a choice, I would want them to get the new OS done asap. After all, it does seem like Windows Updates every month are a fact of life and routine at this point.[Edited by Race on 2006-01-18 00:53:52]
Mictlantecuhtli said:
I thought they have programmers working on Vista and other programmers working on XP SP3, just like they have people working on Office, consoles etc.Maybe they aren't as big company as they have appeared to be in the media?
Nic said:
It's not as if Windows XP is being held back...updates will still be released through Windows Update. Having all those updates rolled into one package for easy deployement would be nice, but check out this website (autopatcher) if that's what you're after...[url]http://www.autopatcher.com/[/url]You get all of the windows updates rolled into one self-installing executable...so easy...current release includes all updates through December 2005...
paulwuzhere said:
If your operating system is gonna suck anyway untill it gets a patch/ updated/ service pack. just go ahead and release it. And as for the service pack 3. I don't even want it. pack 2 messed alot of stuff up for me. I run pack 1 and pc cillin with spy-bot and Nvidia forceware firewall. I am protected. Just hurry up Bill i wanna see how many people's systems crash with your new OS so i can get some more buisness.
Masque said:
As Nic commented, it (SP3) really isn't that big of a deal...especially in this broadband world where updates are downloaded (for the most part) very quickly....update...reboot and you're home again. Service packs are just a little handier for those that build/reload a lot of machines (like myself). Not much time difference though....just reduces the reboots.As for Vista....I can wait. Things are pretty solid with XP right now.
power091999 said:
I have to agree with Masque. Although I feel Windows could always be better. I think XP Pro is at a good place right now. I am a tech, for a large company so with new service packs come new problems with existing software. In this way I don't mind a long wait for any service packs, or new OS for that matter.
Cartz said:
^^ I agree with the folks above me, I'm very happy with the solidity of XP as an OS. I'll happily wait as they backburner a service pack in favor of a new OS altogether. It's not like they delayed something as significant as SP2, most XP users are relatively secure right now. The only real way XP is going to go haywire on you, other then a few exploits that have been exposed recently, is if you cause it to go crazy yourself. SP3 will likely just be a large bundle of security fixes that are already available, as well as a few other improvements.I say keep doing what you're doing MS, get Vista done right and out the door by Christmas 06!
jassim said:
Well, it's kind of strange, but won't everyone (almost) be using new and more improved OSes(not exactly!)? Say, Vista will be coming out and kinda all of us are computer geeks and gamers, so wouldn't we be needing better hardware to keep up with the future games and applications? And one of the only ways to get better performance is to get better support which only newer OSes can give us.And looking at the title -"No XP Service Pack until atleast 2007", there's an atleast between the until and 2007.Technology can be so unpredictable, so till then, just pray there would a 3rd Service Pack for XP!!!!!!!!!!!
MonkeyMan said:
Well, XP has seen its light, and now its time for Windows Vista. Microsoft, is basically focusing more on Windows Vista, than on any other operating system. If they wait to release SP3 after Windows Vista, it would be quite pointless, but I dunno, maybe they don't see it that way.
PUTALE said:
to be honest, you have got to handed to MS. On one hand, it takes them forever to produce a good OS and services packs. On the other hand, they don't charge us for thest "upgrades" unlike MAC has done with their os X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, etc:)>
PanicX said:
[b]Originally posted by PUTALE:[/b][quote]to be honest, you have got to handed to MS. On one hand, it takes them forever to produce a good OS and services packs. On the other hand, they don't charge us for thest "upgrades" unlike MAC has done with their os X 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, etc:)>[/quote]Um sure you do. The naming is just different. Instead of calling windows NT5 what it is, they renamed it Windows 2000 and sold it to you. Same for XP, which is basically NT6. I don't have a great understanding of Vista, but its likely its just NT7. The Service Packs are for the most part just fixes. They add the functionality and security that should have been included with the original OS release. I don't own a Mac, so I don't know if they charge for their security updates, but if they do, I'll never buy one.
mentaljedi said:
[b]Originally posted by asphix:[/b][quote]There is a positive and negative side to this bit of news. The positive is directed at any and all of us waiting to get our hands on Vista. As the news bit states, this allows more time for the development of Vista. However its a big negative for those who dont plan on upgrading to Vista or are part of the masses who own dells and dont even know you can upgrade an OS and dont know how.I think its good Microsoft is focusing on Vista. Seems no matter what Microsoft does people will complain. If Microsoft focused on sp3 and let Vista slip a bit people woudl complain that Microsoft is slow, cant develop a solid product and needs to get its act together. They put their attention toward trying to develop a solid new OS and put major service packs to current windows version on a back burner, people think Microsoft is neglecting their customers, is slow to develop, and needs to get their act together.Seems like the exact same thing either way.. I'd rather people be pissed at them because they're working on a new OS though :)[/quote]I don't think i'll be upgrading with my 1.4 GHZ pentium 4, 256 RD-RAM, 32 MB Gefore2, Dell 8100 thats 5 years old! Pathetic really i know but i'll get a new comuter soon anyway.
Kreuger said:
I'm not sure a lot of people are going to be buying vista anyway. The specs required are probably gonna be high and noone's going to wanna go out and buy a new computer especially if they just did recently. They'd rather just run XP and get updates for it, I'm sure.
Nic said:
Businesses will stick with XP for a few years yet, but users will upgrade because they'll want all the nice new features, and the OEM market will be supplying PCs with Vista already installed. How many Mac users didn't upgrade to OS-X Tiger?Vista is supposed to run quicker than XP, but you need a decent PC if you want the 'pretty' aeroglass desktop.
Mictlantecuhtli said:
[b]Originally posted by PanicX:[/b][quote]Um sure you do. The naming is just different. Instead of calling windows NT5 what it is, they renamed it Windows 2000 and sold it to you. Same for XP, which is basically NT6. I don't have a great understanding of Vista, but its likely its just NT7. The Service Packs are for the most part just fixes.[/quote]To be more precise, XP = NT5.1, Server 2003 = NT5.2, Vista will be NT6.0.
fury said:
This doesn't really affect people all that much if the service pack is just going to be a single download of all the security updates that are in Windows Update up to that point. Unless you're a dialup user and have not updated at all since SP2 (or even worse...since you installed Windows).I have broadband and I reinstall Windows just about every other month.. the downloads aren't that bad to me. Even if I was using dialup and kept reasonably up to date every time a new update came out it wouldn't be so bad. It just doesn't seem all that bad to me that they're taking their sweet time.
Cy6erpuke said:
Good thing, good thing. Just look at how many of us had to replace the flawed SP2 firewall with something worth while. SP3 would just contain a whole lot of things we need to switch off to get things working again. I have some clients who even refuse the hotfixes! I'm telling you, I don't need to convince them.
JMag034 said:
Won't everyone be over on 64 bit already?
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.