Windows XP SP3?

[fighterpilot]

Now that Vista is released, is Microsoft going to release a Windows XP SP3? It would be nice to have a single "wrap-up" package with all updates, even including IE7 and WMP11.

 

[bendixG15]

Don't hold your breath....

MS is selling Vista, no money in free updates for old OS

 

[Aluvus]

Yes, they will. It is scheduled for the first half of 2008.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: bendixG15
Don't hold your breath....

MS is selling Vista, no money in free updates for old OS

WinXP will be supported until 2014, didn't you get the memo?

 

[Arkaign]

Microsoft isn't even supporting XP enough to roll out a DX10, and if you buy their BS about it not being possible ... lol. Microsoft is getting a lot uglier with their tactics regarding new OS/product releases. I remember being told that USB 2.0 wasn't possible on anything except Win2k or XP with the service pack installed, and then lo and behold, MSI released Win9x USB 2.0 drivers for my old MSI 845 GE-Max mainboard, which I was running a NW 2.4@3.2Ghz on at the time w/98SE. Worked like a charm, totally proving Microsoft wrong on the whole issue. It wasn't that it wasn't possible, they just wanted to try to force more people to upgrade. Same here. WinXP is simply too good for many people to even consider upgrading from, unless of course you FORCE them to by making integral windows components Vista-only. Nasty stuff, really.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Microsoft isn't even supporting XP enough to roll out a DX10

Regarding Vista's new features, you said there was "not a *single* one" you liked. I was going to ask if DX10 gaming really held no interest for you... looks like it does, though.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Microsoft isn't even supporting XP enough to roll out a DX10

Regarding Vista's new features, you said there was "not a *single* one" you liked. I was going to ask if DX10 gaming really held no interest for you... looks like it does, though.

Yes, but it's totally arbitrary. It's like saying, after packaging Firefox 3 into a particular build of Linux, that it's a *feature*. There's no credible reason that DX10 should be Vista-only, other than to attempt to force more people to 'upgrade'. I don't game anymore anyway, I run my own business and have a 9 week old son to raise Half a game of solitaire here and there.

I *do* think Microsoft is being ridiculous w/DX10 situation, even if I don't game.

 

[stash]

Yes, but it's totally arbitrary

Except that it isn't. Or else you misunderstand the meaning of the word arbitrary.

I *do* think Microsoft is being ridiculous w/DX10 situation, even if I don't game

How are Microsoft being ridiculous? Ridiculous would be backporting an entirely new video driver model to XP for the purposes of running DX10 on XP. It would be a non-trivial undertaking, requiring significant time and money.

 

[Brentx]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Microsoft isn't even supporting XP enough to roll out a DX10

Regarding Vista's new features, you said there was "not a *single* one" you liked. I was going to ask if DX10 gaming really held no interest for you... looks like it does, though.

Yes, but it's totally arbitrary. It's like saying, after packaging Firefox 3 into a particular build of Linux, that it's a *feature*. There's no credible reason that DX10 should be Vista-only, other than to attempt to force more people to 'upgrade'. I don't game anymore anyway, I run my own business and have a 9 week old son to raise Half a game of solitaire here and there.

I *do* think Microsoft is being ridiculous w/DX10 situation, even if I don't game.

DX10 is a completely new software architecture for DirectX. It would be impossible to port to XP, or at least not a wise decision. It is based on the new WDDM, which depends on WDDM Video drivers to be released from manufacturers. The problem with backporting it is that DX10 and WDDM all depend on User mode drivers. Most of XP's drivers are running in Kernel mode, especially the video drivers, which is why it would not work. You would have to rewrite XP's entire Kernel to get it to work. It is just not feasible.

Yes DX10 was a risky move by Microsoft, but just wait until DX10 games start hitting the market. Then they won't be complaining.

 

[tcsenter]

Any good projects out there that are repackaging the public release post-SP2 hotfixes, critical updates, and the like into one download that can be slipstreamed or applied to the SP2 codebase, or give good instructions on how to do it?

I tried one particular project a few months ago and found it to be lacking in refinement, won't mention the name. I'm aware of another that includes lots of non-public release hotfixes that have not passed full regression testing and are only intended to address specific issues in particular scenarios. I'm only interested in the release-ready hotfixes that can safely be applied to any configuration.

 

[bendixG15]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: bendixG15
Don't hold your breath....

MS is selling Vista, no money in free updates for old OS

WinXP will be supported until 2014, didn't you get the memo?

Define ..... s-u-p-p-o-r-t

Win2k was supposed to get support .... and it just went away in a rollup

(I did get the memo, but who believes memos from upstairs ??? )

 

[hclarkjr]

do search for the hot fix they have a project for service pack 3

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: bendixG15

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: bendixG15
Don't hold your breath....

MS is selling Vista, no money in free updates for old OS

WinXP will be supported until 2014, didn't you get the memo?

Define ..... s-u-p-p-o-r-t

Win2k was supposed to get support .... and it just went away in a rollup

Check your facts more closely, because Windows 2000 is still in its Extended Support phase, and will be so until 7/13/2010. Here's Microsoft's product lifecycle list to help sort this stuff out

 

[fighterpilot]

Originally posted by: Aluvus
Yes, they will. It is scheduled for the first half of 2008.

2008!?! WTF? I would think first half of 2007 makes much more sense, but what do I know?

I've tried nlite a few times, but I always get errors of some sort, and wanted to use nlite to save time, not spend more time installing and error checking. I reinstall once every nine to twelve months for each of my three PC's, so guess I will just go through the whole dance each time.

Or is there someplace that is consolidating the post-SP2 updates in a single file?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Microsoft isn't even supporting XP enough to roll out a DX10, and if you buy their BS about it not being possible ... lol. Microsoft is getting a lot uglier with their tactics regarding new OS/product releases. I remember being told that USB 2.0 wasn't possible on anything except Win2k or XP with the service pack installed, and then lo and behold, MSI released Win9x USB 2.0 drivers for my old MSI 845 GE-Max mainboard, which I was running a NW 2.4@3.2Ghz on at the time w/98SE. Worked like a charm, totally proving Microsoft wrong on the whole issue. It wasn't that it wasn't possible, they just wanted to try to force more people to upgrade. Same here. WinXP is simply too good for many people to even consider upgrading from, unless of course you FORCE them to by making integral windows components Vista-only. Nasty stuff, really.

It's not possible. Quit ranting and FUDing and go educate yourself. You look like a tard spouting that crap.

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: fighterpilot
Or is there someplace that is consolidating the post-SP2 updates in a single file?

Try Autopatcher.

 

[Nothinman]

Check your facts more closely, because Windows 2000 is still in its Extended Support phase, and will be so until 7/13/2010. Here's Microsoft's product lifecycle list to help sort this stuff out

Which just happens to not cover things like the DST update that people would like fixed.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Brentx

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Microsoft isn't even supporting XP enough to roll out a DX10

Regarding Vista's new features, you said there was "not a *single* one" you liked. I was going to ask if DX10 gaming really held no interest for you... looks like it does, though.

Yes, but it's totally arbitrary. It's like saying, after packaging Firefox 3 into a particular build of Linux, that it's a *feature*. There's no credible reason that DX10 should be Vista-only, other than to attempt to force more people to 'upgrade'. I don't game anymore anyway, I run my own business and have a 9 week old son to raise Half a game of solitaire here and there.

I *do* think Microsoft is being ridiculous w/DX10 situation, even if I don't game.

DX10 is a completely new software architecture for DirectX. It would be impossible to port to XP, or at least not a wise decision. It is based on the new WDDM, which depends on WDDM Video drivers to be released from manufacturers. The problem with backporting it is that DX10 and WDDM all depend on User mode drivers. Most of XP's drivers are running in Kernel mode, especially the video drivers, which is why it would not work. You would have to rewrite XP's entire Kernel to get it to work. It is just not feasible.

Yes DX10 was a risky move by Microsoft, but just wait until DX10 games start hitting the market. Then they won't be complaining.

It would have been possible to roll the WDDM/DX10 into SP3 for XP Just look at the Security Center they stuffed into SP2.

*impossible* is an overly strong word for the situation .. the decision to make DX10 Vista-only is nothing more than a cheap move by Microsoft to try to force more people to jump, or to give up PC gaming entirely and go to Xbox360.

Loose prediction : someone will make a DX10 patch for XP, from the 3rd party standpoint. I doubt that Nvidia likes the idea of millions of XP users being left in the cold, as those people will be much less likely to want to purchase shiny new DX10 hardware.

Microsoft has lied to me before, telling me that USB 2.0 was impossible on Win9x. I have a box running USB 2.0 right now, and it transfers data just as fast as my Vista and XP MCE units.

 

[stash]

*impossible* is an overly strong word for the situation .. the decision to make DX10 Vista-only is nothing more than a cheap move by Microsoft to try to force more people to jump, or to give up PC gaming entirely and go to Xbox360.

No it isn't impossible, but the rest of your statement is rubbish.

Sure it's possible, anything is. But at what cost? And for what benefit? If you are a shareholder of MSFT, what does the large investment needed to backport DX10 get you?

It's just the way things work when you are a software business. You have to work on putting out the new products that generate revenue and profit for your investors. Taking resources from things like Vista SP1, Longhorn Server, Media Center, Windows Home Server, etc would be a tremendously stupid business decision. It has nothing to do with forcing people to do anything. A lot of the same people who complain that DX10 isn't being backported will drop hundreds of dollars on new video cards without blinking. Sometimes they'll do it more than once a year.

Being a gamer almost by definition necessitates that you be on the bleeding edge of eveything...hardware and software. The gamer chooses to partake in this expensive hobby, nobody is forcing him to buy any of the hardware of software they buy. So the irony is quite apparent if you think about it.

 

[stash]

Have to respond to this too...

Loose prediction : someone will make a DX10 patch for XP, from the 3rd party standpoint.

I see this sort of statement a lot, and it really shows a fundemental lack of understanding about what is going on here. You can't just make a patch for this because it is dependent on the new Vista video driver model (WDDM). You would have to implement that first before even thinking about doing DX10. And unless you work at Microsoft, it's going to be rather difficult to shim your own approximation of WDDM into XP, given the necessary modifications to the kernel.

 

[tcsenter]

Microsoft has lied to me before, telling me that USB 2.0 was impossible on Win9x.

Windows 98 came out of the box with USB support. Windows 95 OSR2.5 had a USB supplement patch on the OSR2 CD that added USB support.

The operating system doesn't care whether its USB2.0 or USB1.1. That's between the driver and hardware.

A misinformed or uninformed low-level Microsoft help desk technician telling you that USB2.0 support is impossible on Win9x is not the same as Microsoft lying to you or misleading you.

I can't remember the last time I've received competent and accurate information from a low-level support or help desk technician, from any company.

 

[Solema]

Wow Arkaign really has it out for Microsoft. They are no different than any other software company. Arkaign, how is Microsoft any different than the Adobes, Nvidias, and Apples of the world? Sure, Apple could backport almost every feature in their upcoming OSX update, and Adobe could backport every new update to Photoshop. But stop blindly hating and think for a second. How would ANY of these companies make any money if they just backported everything and never gave any of their consumers REASON to purchase an upgrade?

Arkaign, it's Business 101. It's the same reason you work for a company and don't run one yourself. Try starting your own business and try spending tons of time working on something and giving it to your customers for free. See you long you last.

People like you are what's wrong with the tech world. Even just a small modicum of intelligence and logic is all that's needed to realize such simple facts of business.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: stash

*impossible* is an overly strong word for the situation .. the decision to make DX10 Vista-only is nothing more than a cheap move by Microsoft to try to force more people to jump, or to give up PC gaming entirely and go to Xbox360.

No it isn't impossible, but the rest of your statement is rubbish.

Sure it's possible, anything is. But at what cost? And for what benefit? If you are a shareholder of MSFT, what does the large investment needed to backport DX10 get you?

It's just the way things work when you are a software business. You have to work on putting out the new products that generate revenue and profit for your investors. Taking resources from things like Vista SP1, Longhorn Server, Media Center, Windows Home Server, etc would be a tremendously stupid business decision. It has nothing to do with forcing people to do anything. A lot of the same people who complain that DX10 isn't being backported will drop hundreds of dollars on new video cards without blinking. Sometimes they'll do it more than once a year.

Being a gamer almost by definition necessitates that you be on the bleeding edge of eveything...hardware and software. The gamer chooses to partake in this expensive hobby, nobody is forcing him to buy any of the hardware of software they buy. So the irony is quite apparent if you think about it.

So supporting OSes that are still currently available for sale, and exist in brand new systems purchased even a few weeks ago, are no longer a priority for reasonable support? To do so would be 'tremendously stupid'? From my perspective, it's spectacularly arrogant and disrespectful of their customers to force obsolescence on the immediately preceding release purely in the pursuit of forcing said customers to 'upgrade'. Are you a Microsoft employee, it's been quite some time since I've witnessed such rabid sychophancy.

Remember, this is the Microsoft which purposefully lost billions of dollars on the Xbox just to wedge into the gaming/home entertainment market of the living room. Putting DX10 as a SP3 rollout upgrade to XP would NOT cost even a fraction of such an endeavour, and would show good faith to their customers. As it is, they look like dildos for such a move,..

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Solema
Wow Arkaign really has it out for Microsoft. They are no different than any other software company. Arkaign, how is Microsoft any different than the Adobes, Nvidias, and Apples of the world? Sure, Apple could backport almost every feature in their upcoming OSX update, and Adobe could backport every new update to Photoshop. But stop blindly hating and think for a second. How would ANY of these companies make any money if they just backported everything and never gave any of their consumers REASON to purchase an upgrade?

Arkaign, it's Business 101. It's the same reason you work for a company and don't run one yourself. Try starting your own business and try spending tons of time working on something and giving it to your customers for free. See you long you last.

People like you are what's wrong with the tech world. Even just a small modicum of intelligence and logic is all that's needed to realize such simple facts of business.

Listen, genius (or lack thereof). I *DO* run my own business, complete with storefront and employees. I pay taxes, and am a Microsoft vendor. You are being unnecessarily rude. Microsoft has had the decency to continue support for their existing OSes for the preceding period, including DirectX all the way to 9.0 for the 9x class, IE7 for XP, etc.

It's called giving your customer confidence in your ability to support the product that you have purchased with your hard-earned money. Something I guess you wouldn't understand.

As for the reasons to upgrade, the best reason is to make the product more capable, more stable, and with better pack-in applications, NOT to enforce upgrades by gimping the preceding OS of even having the ability to run common apps (games).

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Solema
Wow Arkaign really has it out for Microsoft. They are no different than any other software company. Arkaign, how is Microsoft any different than the Adobes, Nvidias, and Apples of the world? Sure, Apple could backport almost every feature in their upcoming OSX update, and Adobe could backport every new update to Photoshop. But stop blindly hating and think for a second. How would ANY of these companies make any money if they just backported everything and never gave any of their consumers REASON to purchase an upgrade?

Arkaign, it's Business 101. It's the same reason you work for a company and don't run one yourself. Try starting your own business and try spending tons of time working on something and giving it to your customers for free. See you long you last.

People like you are what's wrong with the tech world. Even just a small modicum of intelligence and logic is all that's needed to realize such simple facts of business.

Btw, I'm forwarding your insulting post to the mods, given that you made assumptions about me without even realizing that I RUN an IT company.