Microsoft To Release XP SP3 Next Week
Posted by Steven Parker on 21 March 2008 - 12:22 · 95 comments & 41368 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by Jock Horror on 21 Mar 2008 - 12:25
- yeah bring on sp3 and long life to XP
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by Hurmoth on 21 Mar 2008 - 12:43
- Long live XP
A great and trustworthy OS that I will continue to use for years to come.
-
#4 Posted by gigabyte89 on 21 Mar 2008 - 12:50
- Finally!
-
(7 replies)
#5 Posted by rdhw on 21 Mar 2008 - 12:53
- You expect Microsoft to release something on Easter Monday? I don't think so.
-
#5.1 Posted by phiberoptik on 21 Mar 2008 - 14:19
- Easter Monday? rofl... wtf?
-
#5.2 Posted by akav0id on 21 Mar 2008 - 18:49
- (phiberoptik said @ #5.1)Easter Monday? rofl... wtf?
You know, the day that comes after Easter Sunday.
Geez, some people can be so dense -
#5.3 Posted by I HAS PICKLE on 21 Mar 2008 - 21:31
- (akav0id said @ #5.2)Geez, some people can be so dense
Geez, you're a real ass. -
#5.4 Posted by Tikitiki on 22 Mar 2008 - 02:53
- (I HAS PICKLE said @ #5.3)(akav0id said @ #5.2)Geez, some people can be so dense
Geez, you're a real ass.
Coming from a pickle... -
#5.5 Posted by TRC on 22 Mar 2008 - 07:30
- You know, the day that comes after Easter Sunday.
You mean Monday?
-
#5.6 Posted by samw61 on 22 Mar 2008 - 14:52
- (TRC said @ #5.5)You know, the day that comes after Easter Sunday.
You mean Monday?
Yes, Easter Monday is in fact a Monday.. The day after Easter Sunday surprisingly.. -
#5.7 Posted by mcloum on 23 Mar 2008 - 17:58
- (samw61 said @ #5.6)(TRC said @ #5.5)You know, the day that comes after Easter Sunday.
You mean Monday?
Yes, Easter Monday is in fact a Monday.. The day after Easter Sunday surprisingly..
-
(1 reply)
#7 Posted by jrolson85 on 21 Mar 2008 - 13:04
- Sounds like an early April fools joke to me.
Last edited by jrolson85 on 22 Mar 2008 - 06:56
-
#8 Posted by andy2004 on 21 Mar 2008 - 13:12
- best news ever. Cant wait to ditch 64bit vista sp1 and go back to xp. Dont get me wrong its been great but i badly want to play games again and 64bit vista still isnt optimised for the job. For everything else its great but i do badly miss xp
-
(3 replies)
#9 Posted by archer75 on 21 Mar 2008 - 13:16
- If you have been running XP you already have SP3. All it is is a collection of all the updates since SP2. That's it.
-
#9.1 Posted by osm0sis on 21 Mar 2008 - 14:40
- (archer75 said @ #9)If you have been running XP you already have SP3. All it is is a collection of all the updates since SP2. That's it.
Not exactly. I'm currently running the RC2 and it has kernal updates and other things that they don't roll out through Windows Update, so it is different than just a cumulative update. Fixes a number of annoying bugs that had recently started to get on my nerves in SP2. I'm quite happy with it. -
#9.2 Posted by Andy1369 on 21 Mar 2008 - 20:49
- osm0sis: What kind of annoying small bugs? Can you clarify on that?
-
#9.3 Posted by osm0sis on 22 Mar 2008 - 09:33
- Ones that I'd become a bit tired of were the tooltip bug, where tooltips can lose their z-level and be hidden behind the taskbar, and a "feature," where if you have the "Use web content on desktop" option checked (which allows .jpgs for backgrounds), once you set a file from My Pictures as your background, every .jpg in My Pictures gets added to the Desktop Background list. For the tooltip problem people had written small programs (the once-at-a-time tooltipfix.exe and the resident tooltipfixer.exe) to handle it, I didn't like the resident program's memory consumption for such a small task, so opted to set up tooltipfix with a hotkey that i'd press every time the z-level got screwed up. Call me anal, but it's a huge annoyance put to rest to have that fixed; I won't need to wear out my Ctrl+Alt+T keys anymore.
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by andy2004 on 21 Mar 2008 - 13:19
- i havnt though. I bought a new computer 2 months ago and wanted to put xp on but oh wait , id have to find the quad core fix (for games and applications) id have to find the latest drivers , id have to sit and wait several hours for all the updates since sp2 to download and install. With one downloadable executable file i can do it all at once and not have to trawl the net. Yay for service packs !! vista was easier to put on at the time however ive since learnt its optimisation for games really does suck badly. EVerything else (web browsing, email etc) is fine but i can run UT3 on this rig at 50 to 60 fps if im lucky. Similar rigs with xp sp2 run it at over 100fps. Why is it so poorly optimised ? or are the drivers just bad ? i dont know. Either way i want to enjoy games and on vista I just cant do that.
-
#10.1 Posted by buletov on 21 Mar 2008 - 15:53
- To bad you weren't aware of the RyanVM Windows XP Post-SP2 Update Pack:
http://www.ryanvm.net/msfn/updatepack-sp2.html
-
(12 replies)
#11 Posted by Avi on 21 Mar 2008 - 13:36
- Well... The vista articles have tons of "xp is better" and "vista sux"-like comments... So I thought I'll give my shot here.
I wouldn't even THINK about switching back to XP. It is OLD.
Vista x64 is a much better experience.
:: runs for his life :: -
#11.1 Posted by NateB1 on 21 Mar 2008 - 13:42
- I totally agree. I'm running Vista x64, and have had absolutely no problems. Then again, I'm not playing any 16-bit games, either...
I'm NEVER EVER EVER EVER going back to XP. I can't stand using it any more. -
#11.2 Posted by andy2004 on 21 Mar 2008 - 14:27
- (NateB1 said @ #11.1)I totally agree. I'm running Vista x64, and have had absolutely no problems. Then again, I'm not playing any 16-bit games, either...
I'm NEVER EVER EVER EVER going back to XP. I can't stand using it any more.
unreal tournament 3 is hardly a 16 bit game. Explain to me why it runs poorly on 32bit vista , even worse on 64 bit vista yet the same rig can run it on xp at a much higher FPS ? why is vista so poorly optimised for games ? i dont disagree that for everything else its alot better than xp. -
#11.3 Posted by bucko on 21 Mar 2008 - 14:52
- I don't think it's Vista, I think the game developers don't test it enough, (with big publishers like EA they have enough resources to test but they don't).
I think Vista runs well with a lot of ram it does for me anyway and update your drivers you should be fine. It's better with SP1 now as well. -
#11.4 Posted by ecotrojan on 21 Mar 2008 - 16:46
- yup
bollox to XP , what an old antiquated legacy OS
To be honest, i like Vista but prefer W2K8 as a workstation. (64bit)
1 x issue - no Securemote 64 bit (yet) -
#11.5 Posted by Faisal Islam on 21 Mar 2008 - 17:34
- (andy2004 said @ #11.2)(NateB1 said @ #11.1)I totally agree. I'm running Vista x64, and have had absolutely no problems. Then again, I'm not playing any 16-bit games, either...
I'm NEVER EVER EVER EVER going back to XP. I can't stand using it any more.
unreal tournament 3 is hardly a 16 bit game. Explain to me why it runs poorly on 32bit vista , even worse on 64 bit vista yet the same rig can run it on xp at a much higher FPS ? why is vista so poorly optimised for games ? i dont disagree that for everything else its alot better than xp.
Lol..unreal tournament 3 doesn't run well in vista, it's "unreal tournament 3"'s matter not vista's matter. -
#11.6 Posted by pjak on 21 Mar 2008 - 18:29
- unreal tournament 3 runs great on my Vista x64 system. and it's not a new system either. it's about 3 years old.
-
#11.7 Posted by mayamaniac on 21 Mar 2008 - 18:55
- Provided you have the hardware power, quad-core/4GB and up, Vista 64bit all the way. You'll see the "WOW" that MS is talking about.
-
#11.9 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 21 Mar 2008 - 21:33
- (ANova said @ #11.
Vista is slow and bloated. There's your answer.
And Vista-bashing comments are stale and moldy... -
#11.10 Posted by toadeater on 21 Mar 2008 - 22:58
- (GreyWolfSC said @ #11.9)(ANova said @ #11.Vista is slow and bloated. There's your answer.
And Vista-bashing comments are stale and moldy...
What else are we supposed to talk about? The whole industry is talking about this. On top of this, SP1 was just released.
If MS would stop releasing propaganda about Vista, maybe some of the criticism would die down. Every time Steve Ballmer opens his big mouth and says how great Vista is, it gets people in a fury, because that's not the experience they are having.
I doubt Ballmer even uses Vista. He probably uses a Mac like Bill Gates does. -
#11.11 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 22 Mar 2008 - 04:22
- (toadeater said @ #11.10)(GreyWolfSC said @ #11.9)(ANova said @ #11.Vista is slow and bloated. There's your answer.
And Vista-bashing comments are stale and moldy...
What else are we supposed to talk about? The whole industry is talking about this. On top of this, SP1 was just released.
If MS would stop releasing propaganda about Vista, maybe some of the criticism would die down. Every time Steve Ballmer opens his big mouth and says how great Vista is, it gets people in a fury, because that's not the experience they are having.
I doubt Ballmer even uses Vista. He probably uses a Mac like Bill Gates does.
You're nuts. The whole industry is not bashing Vista. It mostly comes small, noisy group of bloggers and a small, noisy group of Neowin users, (these groups probably overlap somewhat.) If you don't like the OS, just shut up and don't use it. -
#11.12 Posted by ANova on 22 Mar 2008 - 20:09
- (GreyWolfSC said @ #11.11)You're nuts. The whole industry is not bashing Vista. It mostly comes small, noisy group of bloggers and a small, noisy group of Neowin users, (these groups probably overlap somewhat.) If you don't like the OS, just shut up and don't use it.
How about we all just shut up about it, that includes the "Vista is the best evar!1!1!!" group.
-
(19 replies)
#12 Posted by Kushan on 21 Mar 2008 - 13:50
- Anyone know if there'll be a XP x64 Service Pack as well, or will I have to wait?
-
#12.1 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 21 Mar 2008 - 13:58
- Service Pack 3 (SP3) for Windows XP will not be compatible with Windows XP x64 Edition/Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, and Microsoft has not announced any plans for a future "x64 Edition" service pack.
From wikipedia, via here.
****ers. -
#12.2 Posted by Davebo on 21 Mar 2008 - 14:08
- (tiagosilva29 said @ #12.1)Service Pack 3 (SP3) for Windows XP will not be compatible with Windows XP x64 Edition/Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, and Microsoft has not announced any plans for a future "x64 Edition" service pack.
From wikipedia, via here.
****ers.
They really don't want folks switching to 64 bits anytime soon - that much is clear... -
#12.3 Posted by RyanVM on 21 Mar 2008 - 14:10
- Windows XP x64 Edition is based on Server 2003 code. I'd say that if Server 2003 gets another service pack, so will XP x64.
-
#12.4 Posted by X'tyfe on 21 Mar 2008 - 15:57
- (RyanVM said @ #12.3)Windows XP x64 Edition is based on Server 2003 code. I'd say that if Server 2003 gets another service pack, so will XP x64.
64 bit is not ready for the market, and they see this now
and would people please STOP calling it x64? that is so wrong its not even funny -
#12.6 Posted by +Dakkaroth on 21 Mar 2008 - 16:39
- (X'tyfe said @ #12.4)64 bit is not ready for the market, and they see this now
and would people please STOP calling it x64? that is so wrong its not even funny
Windows XP Professional 64-bit is only hurt by the coming of Vista. Since Vista arrived, manufacturers pushed to make drivers for Vista, instead of XP 64-bit. Doing so, they've only hurt the adoption of the 64-bit OS. Now, the problem that lies with Microsoft is that they aren't moving to a 64-bit only OS. By allowing x86 platform to continue on, it simply puts more load on the manufacturers having to create two sets of drivers for one OS.
What's worse is that there will still be an x86 version of Windows 7. Honestly, I feel it's really time to move on. However, Microsoft likes being able to support every last piece of hardware, so it's understandable why they don't move in an x64 only OS.
Oh, and what's wrong with calling it x64? I do not understand... -
#12.7 Posted by Esvandiary on 21 Mar 2008 - 17:21
- (X'tyfe said @ #12.4)64 bit is not ready for the market, and they see this now
and would people please STOP calling it x64? that is so wrong its not even funny
Very well. I believe that the x86 architecture with extensions to support native 64-bit integers is, in fact, ready for the market, especially now manufacturers have actually started making half-decent drivers to support it (this was, IMO, the major issue, especially in the early days of Vista).
Windows XP x86-with-extensions-to-support-64-bit-integers Edition (great name they gave it, eh?) was a bit of a screw-up on Microsoft's part. I don't think the market was ready for a 64-bit OS then, nor do I think it was needed. Now, on the other hand, there are applications and drivers to make it a good and usable experience. -
#12.8 Posted by Kushan on 21 Mar 2008 - 17:31
- XP x64 is still one of the best OS's I've ever used. It's got all the good bits from XP, but none of the bad bits from Vista. I've tried using vista a few times and it just doesn't work for me (and yes I've tried SP1).
At least with x64, I get great performance and stability. -
#12.9 Posted by Esvandiary on 21 Mar 2008 - 17:52
- (Kushan said @ #12.8 )XP x64 is still one of the best OS's I've ever used. It's got all the good bits from XP, but none of the bad bits from Vista. I've tried using vista a few times and it just doesn't work for me (and yes I've tried SP1).
At least with x64, I get great performance and stability.
Perhaps I just had bad luck with what hardware I had and those manufacturers' drivers for XP x64 - I had issues left, right and centre... I even once had games run at double speed, in a VAC-secured online game (CS Source, in that instance). NFS Most Wanted also did it, can't remember what else.
Very odd... But perhaps the drivers and stability are better now; it was a while ago I used it (although well past release).
Last edited by Esvandiary on 21 Mar 2008 - 18:05 -
#12.10 Posted by X'tyfe on 21 Mar 2008 - 18:58
- (Esvandiary said @ #12.7)(X'tyfe said @ #12.4)64 bit is not ready for the market, and they see this now
and would people please STOP calling it x64? that is so wrong its not even funny
Very well. I believe that the x86 architecture with extensions to support native 64-bit integers is, in fact, ready for the market, especially now manufacturers have actually started making half-decent drivers to support it (this was, IMO, the major issue, especially in the early days of Vista).
Windows XP x86-with-extensions-to-support-64-bit-integers Edition (great name they gave it, eh?) was a bit of a screw-up on Microsoft's part. I don't think the market was ready for a 64-bit OS then, nor do I think it was needed. Now, on the other hand, there are applications and drivers to make it a good and usable experience.
people have bought the hype that 64-bit = performance upgrade
they are mistaken, at this time its currently nothing more then a headache since nothing supports it and any 32-bit programs have issues running under emulation -
#12.11 Posted by Esvandiary on 21 Mar 2008 - 19:42
- (X'tyfe said @ #12.10)people have bought the hype that 64-bit = performance upgrade
they are mistaken, at this time its currently nothing more then a headache since nothing supports it and any 32-bit programs have issues running under emulation
Having not used Vista x64 since the late betas, I don't know what sort of performance you do get under it. However, I don't remember there being any headaches other than drivers; of course third-party apps will have issues, but the same happened between 16-bit and 32 - they'll get sorted out, given time. I don't consider 64-bit to be "essential" either, but the chances are most people will be fine with it (and get a slight performance boost on applications designed to take advantage of it). If you know it won't be good for you, then don't use it. -
#12.12 Posted by Kushan on 21 Mar 2008 - 20:49
- (X'tyfe said @ #12.10)(Esvandiary said @ #12.7)(X'tyfe said @ #12.4)64 bit is not ready for the market, and they see this now
and would people please STOP calling it x64? that is so wrong its not even funny
Very well. I believe that the x86 architecture with extensions to support native 64-bit integers is, in fact, ready for the market, especially now manufacturers have actually started making half-decent drivers to support it (this was, IMO, the major issue, especially in the early days of Vista).
Windows XP x86-with-extensions-to-support-64-bit-integers Edition (great name they gave it, eh?) was a bit of a screw-up on Microsoft's part. I don't think the market was ready for a 64-bit OS then, nor do I think it was needed. Now, on the other hand, there are applications and drivers to make it a good and usable experience.
people have bought the hype that 64-bit = performance upgrade
they are mistaken, at this time its currently nothing more then a headache since nothing supports it and any 32-bit programs have issues running under emulation
I've yet to find any 32bit programs that have issues running under emulation, other than the odd AV or a poorly coded install (I don't mean 16bit stuff, I mean programs that don't recognise windows and throw a fit). I get full speed on all my 32bit apps and a nice performance boost on any 64bit ones.
The biggest problem is drivers, but since all my hardware works fine (except for a webcam, that it's about 4 years old anyway and no big loss), I have no problems at all. -
#12.13 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 21 Mar 2008 - 21:12
- (X'tyfe said @ #12.4)64 bit is not ready for the market, and they see this now
I disagree.(X'tyfe said @ #12.4)and would people please STOP calling it x64? that is so wrong its not even funny
Agreed.(X'tyfe said @ #12.10)people have bought the hype that 64-bit = performance upgrade
I'm going to be a jerk and say that in my case, going 64-bit is a performance upgrade. Specially if you play (and by play, I mean work/code/develop) with multithreading.
And my system is crippled (can only use just 2GB, ASUS mofo mobo).(Kushan said @ #12.8 )XP x64 is still one of the best OS's I've ever used. It's got all the good bits from XP, but none of the bad bits from Vista. I've tried using vista a few times and it just doesn't work for me (and yes I've tried SP1).
At least with x64, I get great performance and stability.
Same here. XP Pro x86-64 is ****ing awesome. Rock solid and runs great.(Esvandiary said @ #12.9)Perhaps I just had bad luck with what hardware I had and those manufacturers' drivers for XP x64 - I had issues left, right and centre...
My build is made with ~3 yo parts, with the exception of the display and the new graphics card (8800GT), all runs fine, with native drivers.(Esvandiary said @ #12.9)I even once had games run at double speed, in a VAC-secured online game (CS Source, in that instance). NFS Most Wanted also did it, can't remember what else.
Very odd... But perhaps the drivers and stability are better now; it was a while ago I used it (although well past release).
And you didn't installed the AMD Dual-Core Optimizer..?. The issue happens in GTA
A and NFSMW, for example.
AMD Dual-Core Optimizer - The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer can help improve some PC gaming video performance by compensating for those applications that bypass the Windows API for timing by directly using the RDTSC (Read Time Stamp Counter) instruction. Applications that rely on RDTSC do not benefit from the logic in the operating system to properly account for the affect of power management mechanisms on the rate at which a processor core's Time Stamp Counter (TSC) is incremented. The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer helps to correct the resulting video performance effects or other incorrect timing effects that these applications may experience on dual-core processor systems, by periodically adjusting the core time-stamp-counters, so that they are synchronized. The most recent version was released on August 2007. Get it here.
This could help you. -
#12.14 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 21 Mar 2008 - 21:35
- (X'tyfe said @ #12.4)(RyanVM said @ #12.3)Windows XP x64 Edition is based on Server 2003 code. I'd say that if Server 2003 gets another service pack, so will XP x64.
64 bit is not ready for the market, and they see this now
and would people please STOP calling it x64? that is so wrong its not even funny
Why not call it x64? That's what it is. Mine says, "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition" -
#12.15 Posted by toadeater on 21 Mar 2008 - 23:01
- (GreyWolfSC said @ #12.14)(X'tyfe said @ #12.4)(RyanVM said @ #12.3)Windows XP x64 Edition is based on Server 2003 code. I'd say that if Server 2003 gets another service pack, so will XP x64.
64 bit is not ready for the market, and they see this now
and would people please STOP calling it x64? that is so wrong its not even funny
Why not call it x64? That's what it is. Mine says, "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition"
x86 refers to x86-compatible processors (386, 486, 586, Athlon, etc). There aren't any x64 processors, so it doesn't make any sense. -
#12.16 Posted by X'tyfe on 21 Mar 2008 - 23:41
- (GreyWolfSC said @ #12.14)(X'tyfe said @ #12.4)(RyanVM said @ #12.3)Windows XP x64 Edition is based on Server 2003 code. I'd say that if Server 2003 gets another service pack, so will XP x64.
64 bit is not ready for the market, and they see this now
and would people please STOP calling it x64? that is so wrong its not even funny
Why not call it x64? That's what it is. Mine says, "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition"
because 64-bit IS x86
always was and always will be -
#12.17 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 22 Mar 2008 - 04:25
- (toadeater said @ #12.15)(GreyWolfSC said @ #12.14)(X'tyfe said @ #12.4)(RyanVM said @ #12.3)Windows XP x64 Edition is based on Server 2003 code. I'd say that if Server 2003 gets another service pack, so will XP x64.
64 bit is not ready for the market, and they see this now
and would people please STOP calling it x64? that is so wrong its not even funny
Why not call it x64? That's what it is. Mine says, "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition"
x86 refers to x86-compatible processors (386, 486, 586, Athlon, etc). There aren't any x64 processors, so it doesn't make any sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64 -
#12.18 Posted by TRC on 22 Mar 2008 - 08:08
- (GreyWolfSC said @ #12.17)
x86-64 (Redirected from X64)
There is no such thing as an x64 processor despite some people calling them that. Some people also refer to Pepsi as Coke. -
#12.19 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 22 Mar 2008 - 08:19
- (GreyWolfSC said @ #12.17)
#REDIRECT[[x86-64]] is pretty self explanatory.
X64 came as a Microsoft branding to simplify the terms (newbie/vendor friendly). But to anyone with knowledge of architectures/instruction sets... that's a bit screwed up **** to swallow.
-
#13 Posted by KevinRGood on 21 Mar 2008 - 14:10
- Oh great! Happy, happy, joy, joy! I downloaded Vista SP1 the other day and installed it. I'm still not impressed. I'm going to switch back to WinXP.
-
#14 Posted by ThaCrip on 21 Mar 2008 - 14:33
- cant wait for SP3
Vista i might eventually try but i just aint sure on it yet.... cause i dont want to sacrifice any noticeable performance drops.
-
#15 Posted by Chicane-UK on 21 Mar 2008 - 15:10
- Good stuff. Looking forward to the download
-
#16 Posted by +Dakkaroth on 21 Mar 2008 - 15:22
- I don't normally say this outside of playing a game, but...
w00t!
-
#17 Posted by shen on 21 Mar 2008 - 15:39
- damn. and i just finished doing an xpsp2 install on my roommate's machine last night and had to wait through 93 critical windows updates.
ah well. it'll be nice to grab it and slipstream it for future use.
-
#18 Posted by Swift33 on 21 Mar 2008 - 15:46
- Problem #1 with CRN's "theory":
5503 contains an EULA for pre-release software so it's doubtful that's RTM.
Problem #2:
Tech ARP, who were spot-on with the Vista SP1 dates, say it's not coming until the second half of April,
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=521
-
#19 Posted by EduardValencia on 21 Mar 2008 - 15:55
- Great news! thank you steven !
-
#20 Posted by ThePitt on 21 Mar 2008 - 16:20
- lol... They should consider mininova as a new method of distribution of their stuff. haha
-
(5 replies)
#21 Posted by Somnus on 21 Mar 2008 - 17:09
- I have made the full switch to Windows Vista on my machines, all but my children's computer as they play older games that simply don't run on Vista. (16 bit cereal box type crap)
The only real problem I faced was drivers, but that happened under XP as well when it first came out. XP also used more resources than Windows 98/2000, so I don't see why people are up in arms about the resource requirements of Vista. It is only reasonable that once computers get faster and lesser expensive to upgrade, that software vendors would use the resources that are available in the marketplace to better their products. I can't see me ever going back to XP as it will soon be discontinued and not updated anymore. Why stick with older technology?
While XP is possibly faster in some areas, Vista uses memory better and has better security, which in today's internet marketplace is crucial.
My software all works with Vista, drivers are all properly updated, and frankly "feels" better than XP once I have used it more than a passing user.
While this is just my two cents on the matter, history is only repeating itself in the digital world. -
#21.1 Posted by freeeekyyy on 21 Mar 2008 - 18:27
- (Somnus said @ #21)I have made the full switch to Windows Vista on my machines, all but my children's computer as they play older games that simply don't run on Vista. (16 bit cereal box type crap)
The only real problem I faced was drivers, but that happened under XP as well when it first came out. XP also used more resources than Windows 98/2000, so I don't see why people are up in arms about the resource requirements of Vista. It is only reasonable that once computers get faster and lesser expensive to upgrade, that software vendors would use the resources that are available in the marketplace to better their products. I can't see me ever going back to XP as it will soon be discontinued and not updated anymore. Why stick with older technology?
While XP is possibly faster in some areas, Vista uses memory better and has better security, which in today's internet marketplace is crucial.
My software all works with Vista, drivers are all properly updated, and frankly "feels" better than XP once I have used it more than a passing user.
While this is just my two cents on the matter, history is only repeating itself in the digital world.
My feelings 100%. Back when XP came out, everybody was going off about how horrible it was, and nothing would ever be better than windows 2000, or 98 for gaming. Now everybody uses xp, practically. Same thing will happen with vista. -
#21.2 Posted by Captain555 on 21 Mar 2008 - 21:40
- (Somnus said @ #21)I can't see me ever going back to XP as it will soon be discontinued and not updated anymore.
Soon ? Microsoft announced not too long ago that the support for XP was extended until 2014. It was originally set to 2012. -
#21.3 Posted by Somnus on 22 Mar 2008 - 01:02
- (Captain555 said @ #21.2)(Somnus said @ #21)I can't see me ever going back to XP as it will soon be discontinued and not updated anymore.
Soon ? Microsoft announced not too long ago that the support for XP was extended until 2014. It was originally set to 2012.
And I am betting that hardware vendors drop support for Windows XP in the next two years.
Legacy support costs will deter hardware and software manufactures from keeping it in the loop much longer. Windows 98 was axed from support, Windows 2000, and XP will follow soon enough.
As I stated before, this is just the natural evolution of the digital world. -
#21.4 Posted by AfroTrance on 23 Mar 2008 - 03:24
- (Somnus said @ #21)Why stick with older technology?
Because older technology is known to be reliable. Why the urge to keep updating the latest? Just because it is newer doesn't make it better. (See Winamp 3)
The best thing to do is let the people who must have the latest of everything (beta) test the products and adopt them once they are ready. -
#21.5 Posted by osm0sis on 23 Mar 2008 - 11:50
- (AfroTrance said @ #21.4)Because older technology is known to be reliable. Why the urge to keep updating the latest? Just because it is newer doesn't make it better. (See Winamp 3)
To be fair, AOL forced Nullsoft to release Winamp3 before it was properly developed.. if it had been given the proper care/time it could've been great and instead of a Winamp 2 base with Winamp3 skin support, we might've had Winamp3 base with Winamp 2 plugin/skin support layer, and that wouldn't have necessarily been a bad thing. But that's the case with everything new lately in terms of computers I suppose: being released before it's ready, so you're right in a way. XP wasn't very good at all until SP1 rolled out, and then SP2 solidified it. I won't be moving to Vista until SP2 for it is out for that very reason.
-
#22 Posted by Faisal Islam on 21 Mar 2008 - 17:31
- great news!!
-
#24 Posted by ivanz on 21 Mar 2008 - 18:34
- Finally. XP is staying on my computer for a long, as Vista is horrible when it comes to the type of development I do (cygwin/djgpp).
-
(3 replies)
#25 Posted by jesse on 21 Mar 2008 - 20:24
- question for people running any RC's of SP3....
has it gotten rid of the "click her to activate" on flash etc in IE? -
#25.1 Posted by TRC on 21 Mar 2008 - 20:44
- I'm pretty sure they've got rid of that already some time ago.
-
#25.2 Posted by jesse on 21 Mar 2008 - 21:42
- (TRC said @ #25.1)I'm pretty sure they've got rid of that already some time ago.
from what i remember some time ago, it was gonna come out with sp3, and also come out as a seperate cumalative patch sometime in april (if i remember correctly)...
-
(2 replies)
#26 Posted by +rm20010 on 21 Mar 2008 - 20:55
- Question: Will XP SP3 allow both Vista and XP to co-exist in dual boot without XP deleting the system restore points from Vista?
-
#26.1 Posted by TRC on 21 Mar 2008 - 23:02
- Vista and XP shouldn't have any effect on each other's restore points.
-
#26.2 Posted by canprince on 22 Mar 2008 - 04:15
- But XP does delete Vista's restore points & shadow files as explained in microsoft's knowledge report kb926185
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926185.
That's a good questions rm20010.
-
(1 reply)
#27 Posted by mkol on 22 Mar 2008 - 07:09
- thank god for this the updates and patches on windows updates are likes worm in the can. How much one can download it's like never ends. I hope this provides some relief for sometime in terms of upgrades.
-
#27.1 Posted by Chicane-UK on 22 Mar 2008 - 09:01
- Quite. A clean install of Windows XP SP2 means an additional 90 downloads from windows update, not to mention DirectX updates, etc etc.... will be good just not having to go through all of that!
-
#28 Posted by +Doherty on 22 Mar 2008 - 22:13
- This should be interesting.
What are the major updates in this release?
According to the file description notes, Microsoft will release the final version of XP SP3 on March 24, but the 5503 test build passes all Windows Genuine Advantage checks and is able to download Windows updates that previous XP SP3 builds weren't able to, which suggests that it could, in fact, be the final RTM build. When Microsoft released Vista SP1 in February, the final RTM code was identical to the Vista SP1 Release Candidate (RC) 1 Refresh 2 test build that was released to a group of 15,000 testers two weeks earlier.
A Microsoft spokesperson, perhaps weary from the months-long barrage of Vista SP1 related inquiries, said the final version of XP SP3 is still on target to be released the first half of calendar year 2008, and the XP SP3 5503 build was a minor interim build released to address one specific issue for a subset of private beta testers.