backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by fictisiousname.. on May 7 at 11:56 AM

Bad news for those looking to get the latest XP service pack

DailyTech reported earlier today that Windows XP's third service pack was ready for full deployment via Windows Update, as promised by Microsoft.  However, in an eleventh hour move sure to draw criticism, the service pack was yanked by Microsoft and will not be released on April 29th as previously promised. 

The pack was pulled because it breaks or otherwise compromises the Microsoft Dynamics Retail Management System (RMS).  The RMS application is relatively uncommon and is chiefly used by small/midsize businesses, making Microsoft's decision to pull the pack seem a bit unusual.  A Microsoft spokesman released the following statement about the problem:
I wanted to update you on today’s planned release to web (RTW) (of XP SP3). In the last few days, we have uncovered a compatibility issue between Microsoft Dynamics Retail Management System (RMS) and Windows XP SP3 and Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1).

In order to make sure customers have the best possible experience we have decided to delay releasing Windows XP SP3 to Windows Update and Microsoft Download Center.

To help protect our customers, we plan to put filtering in place shortly to prevent Windows Update from offering both service packs to systems running Microsoft Dynamics RMS. Once filtering is in place, we expect to release Windows XP SP3 to Windows Update and Download Center.

Until we have published a fix for this issue, we advise Microsoft Dynamics RMS customers to not install either service pack. Microsoft Dynamics RMS customers running Windows XP SP3 or Windows Vista SP1 should contact Microsoft Customer Support Services for additional information.

The fix is currently in testing and will be available as soon as that process is complete.

Microsoft released the service pack to manufacturers last week.  After complaints from Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN) and TechNet subscribers, it released the service pack to them as well.

Microsoft acknowledges that some users have downloaded the file through direct links.  It is advising against doing so.  It states:
Customers should not download Microsoft software from links posted on non-Microsoft websites, when those links point directly to the executable as is the case here. Customers should always download from a page on Microsoft.com that provides all relevant download details, installation instructions, and release notes. In this particular case, it’s possible that some 3rd party websites are linking to the Windows XP SP3 software that we have published for MSDN and TechNet subscribers. Since we cannot confirm the source of every link that 3rd parties provide, out recommendation is that customers wait until we’ve published Windows XP SP3 to Windows Update and the Download Center.
Apparently the RMS glitch applies to Vista's first service pack as well.  Unlike XP SP3, Microsoft will not be pulling Vista SP1, but it is halting automatic downloads of the pack.  Says a Microsoft spokesman:
Microsoft is temporarily holding any additional automatic distribution of Windows Vista SP1. However, they continue to offer Windows Vista SP1 via Windows Update for interactive installation. While we are recommending that customers running Microsoft Dynamics RMS should not install SP1, there are many other customers who can benefit from installing Windows Vista SP1 immediately, so we are maintaining availability via WU.
Previously Vista SP1 distribution was halted due to reboot problems caused by one of the pack's prerequisites.

Vista SP1 and XP SP3 provide various bug fixes, security, and performance updates to their respect operating systems.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sure to draw criticism?
By daftrok on 4/29/2008 5:37:18 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sure it will now that you said that...




RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By JasonMick (blog) on 4/29/2008 5:41:08 PM , Rating: 5
Why thank you, my jedi mind powers have been getting stronger by the days, I would like to think.

"You don't need to see his identification" *waves hand*


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By daftrok on 4/29/2008 5:44:32 PM , Rating: 5
...I don't need to see your identification.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By BruceLeet on 4/29/2008 6:23:44 PM , Rating: 5
"You will destroy your Mac when you get home this evening" *Waves hand*


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By StevoLincolnite on 4/30/2008 2:53:37 AM , Rating: 4
"And your Care Bear Teddy's" *Waves Hand*


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By daftrok on 4/30/2008 10:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
NO, HE'S JUST A CARE BEAR!


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By eye smite on 4/30/2008 3:59:58 PM , Rating: 3
I'm actually rather surprised that MS held it back instead of releasing it and patch as they go, which they usually do. I'm not surprised there's a pothole in the xp sp3 road though. Overall, grudgingly I have to give MS a small compliment on this though, as they made a good decision on this.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By ViroMan on 4/30/2008 4:20:36 AM , Rating: 3
"You will install Linux instead of vista" *Waves Hand*


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By greylica on 4/30/2008 5:58:34 AM , Rating: 1
Comparing "WIP" for "WIP", linux seems better...:)

In my work, we are starting to test Ubuntu with our internal software that is being modified for Linux. Course, we are not exactly "screaming" for XP anymore like ballmer said. We prefer to switch. We need machines to do extremely simple things, and they are doing very well. Better machines coming with Vista is slower than XP. We bought new XP licenses to get rid of Vista and the machines fly with our simple task. But seems it getting worse and worse to acquire XP. Our answer was ask to the software vendor a new Linux version. We are pleased to know that there is a "WIP"(laugh here)for Linux...


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By greylica on 4/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By Screwballl on 4/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By just4U on 4/30/2008 7:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
Classic guys .. Very humourous first few posts early in the morning. Now I have to wash coffee off my monitor.. <grr>


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By Drexial on 4/30/2008 8:21:34 AM , Rating: 4
I'm sure you have had to wash worse off your monitor.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By TITAN1080 on 4/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By Locutus465 on 4/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By oab on 4/29/2008 5:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
Are you calling shenanigans?


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By Locutus465 on 4/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/29/2008 10:22:03 PM , Rating: 4
> "Otherwise it would have made sense to also pull vista SP1 which was not done... "

So if they had released SP3 anyway, you'd criticize them for not learning from their mistakes?

Sounds like a clear case of, 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'...a position MS often finds itself in.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By Locutus465 on 4/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By tmouse on 4/30/2008 7:28:25 AM , Rating: 3
Well I'm not going to say there was "plan" or not to make people second guess staying with XP. A simpler, albeit less conspiracy theory based idea would be that there are a lot more XP installations hence the SP3 would effect more systems. Likewise since the Vista SP1 has already been out for several weeks the majority of installations are already probably patched, so halting the SP1 would not offer any real protection at this point in time.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By darkpaw on 4/30/2008 10:20:05 AM , Rating: 3
And to carry that line of thought further, the number of Vista installations at companies that would also be using Dynamics are probably nill.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By NesuD on 4/30/2008 10:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly my thinking. We have over 50 systems configured with RMS and we would never even consider running it on a Vista box. Systems running RMS typically have a very focused role and are usually tasked with one thing. Using it on Vista would serve no purpose and would be likely to drive up hardware costs to support all the extra overhead created by vista. I would be very surprised if there was a single production box running RMS on Vista other than for testing. RMS is a very expensive package to be dropping on something like vista. Any IT professional worth his salt would never even consider doing it in a full production environment. At least not at this point in time.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By Smartless on 4/29/2008 5:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
Where's my broom?


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By MrWho on 4/29/2008 9:14:38 PM , Rating: 5
Somewhere inside Steve Balmer's a$$?


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By Omega215D on 4/30/2008 3:05:58 AM , Rating: 2
Netcraft confirms it.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By Samus on 4/30/2008 6:03:18 AM , Rating: 1
he owns Rubbermaid stock.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By daftrok on 4/29/2008 5:50:44 PM , Rating: 1
I highly doubt that. Also from what I heard, SP3 isn't really that much of an improvement. I'm fine with XP SP2. It works great with the occasional really slow shut down (I blame ZoneAlarm) but other than that I am willing to wait a week or two and see what people have to say about SP3.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By Locutus465 on 4/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By TomZ on 4/29/2008 6:20:00 PM , Rating: 4
AFAIK, Microsoft is preparing a fix in Dynamics. There are no planned fixes for Vista SP1 or XP SP3.

The rollout delay is just to give them time to write update filters to check if Dynamics is installed on the machine, and if it is, then it won't offer SP3. That will buy them a little time to get a patch for Dynamics out to customers. At least that's how I understand it.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 6:21:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why not pull Vista SP1 if it isn't that big of a deal then?
Probably because with Vista they are dealing with a fraction of a fraction of customers. Remember it is only RMS systems that are affected. XP still has a large userbase (90%) compared to Vista so you would have to imagine that many more XP users will be affected. With all the problems SP1 fixed in Vista, I can see exactly why they acted as such. Remeber XP sp2 is very stable, why take chances.

I always love the MS conspiracy theories, its not like they being watched by every watchdog agency, every minute of every day.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By larson0699 on 5/2/2008 5:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Remeber XP sp2 is very stable, why take chances.
1. Because SP2 is a few hundred hotfixes short of SP3.
2. I run SP3 5512. No RMS. No problem.
3. Just go download the damn thing and shut up.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By ToeCutter on 4/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By croc on 4/29/2008 7:14:58 PM , Rating: 3
That was informative....

/end sarcasm/


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By ToeCutter on 4/30/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By ChronoReverse on 4/30/2008 11:10:19 AM , Rating: 4
Why don't you see what the 10% "improvement" is in first?

It's not like SP3 gives you 10% more FPS in any game. It gives you 10% more speed in tasks like scrolling an Excel spreadsheet far faster than a human can and other silly "Office Tasks".


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By OblivionMage on 4/29/2008 7:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
We were fine with Windows 3.1, or 95, or 98.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By geddarkstorm on 4/30/2008 11:16:14 AM , Rating: 2
Totally should have stuck with DOS. I mean, who would use a GUI anyways? Pfft.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By tastyratz on 4/29/2008 10:58:56 PM , Rating: 1
sp3 generally tests 9% speed improvements with several nice little new features.

naw why bother cant be anything


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By rtk on 4/30/2008 12:44:21 AM , Rating: 3
Got a source? On the 50 or so machines I've upgraded so far, there's been no appreciable performance boost. It's a roll up with a couple of Vista features back ported, and nothing that the user would even care about.

NAP and keyless install aren't user features.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By tastyratz on 4/30/2008 8:34:21 PM , Rating: 1
I most certainly do.
www.google.com
I also have http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/windows-xp-sp...
40 seconds vs 50 seconds in office tests
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com...
10% average improvement at computerworld.
9% just happens to be the personal experience of my peers.
any more questions before another rate down?


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By tmouse on 4/30/2008 7:32:36 AM , Rating: 3
Well it does provide a single patch rather than the 100+ additional patches required after the SP2 patch. That alone makes it a godsend to IT people.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By encryptkeeper on 4/30/2008 8:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
If you still want SP 3, it's available on www.piratebay.org. Just search for "xp sp 3", and it's 8 or 9 selections down on the page. Last I checked, it had 100 seeders and was 316 mb.


RE: Sure to draw criticism?
By Major HooHaa on 4/30/2008 7:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
"This isn't the update your looking for." *waves hand*


Indefinitely?
By TomZ on 4/29/2008 6:00:38 PM , Rating: 4
Wow, talk about a sensationalist headline: "Microsoft Pulls XP SP3, Delays Release Indefinitely." You make it sound like Microsoft hasn't decided whether they will ever release SP3, which is almost certainly not the case.




RE: Indefinitely?
By Chapbass on 4/29/2008 6:06:51 PM , Rating: 5
its jason mick. i expect nothing less.


RE: Indefinitely?
By mikecel79 on 4/29/2008 6:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
I really think the DT writers get paid by the number of clicks on their articles. Anything to get a click....


RE: Indefinitely?
By omnicronx on 4/29/2008 6:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
or perhaps he did it on purpose, just to get a rouse out of readers like you ;)


RE: Indefinitely?
By Integral9 on 4/30/2008 3:27:00 PM , Rating: 3
"Mannn, alll you gotta do is get up on there dubya-dubya-dubya dot click-click-clickety click-click-click Boom! naked ladies!.. I tell you what."
-Boomhauer


RE: Indefinitely?
By michaelheath on 4/29/2008 9:28:03 PM , Rating: 5
Or, heaven forbid, someone used a proper dictionary term to describe the situation. Everyone just automatically assumed what was implied in the headline was the negative connotation and, by proxy, sensational journalism. Indefinite also means 'an indeterminable, undefinable, or unknown amount of time' last I checked.


RE: Indefinitely?
By TomZ on 4/29/2008 11:10:00 PM , Rating: 4
I disagree - the idiom "delayed indefinitely" typically means "cancelled." That is clearly not the case here. It is obvious to anyone that SP3 will be delayed for a few days or a couple of weeks at most, obvious to those except for Microsoft conspiracy theorists and sensational journalists.


RE: Indefinitely?
By radams on 4/30/2008 9:37:38 AM , Rating: 2
It has never meant cancelled, that's just an incorrect inference made by some people.


RE: Indefinitely?
By Locutus465 on 4/30/2008 10:00:33 AM , Rating: 2
Technically per the dictionary it wouldn't mean cancelled but in practical terms it does mean exactly that. Even going by the strictest dictionary interpitiation the title would lead one to beleive that Microsoft has no clue as to what is wrong and no clear plan of attack, this is clearly false.

It's incorrect for this report to be titled as it is and it really should be changed. I'm actually getting a bit dissapointed with the daily tech's reporting style.... At the very least the truth is included in the contents of their reports that way it's easier for people to call BS when required such as with this case.


RE: Indefinitely?
By radams on 4/30/2008 10:53:16 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Even going by the strictest dictionary interpitiation the title would lead one to beleive that Microsoft has no clue as to what is wrong and no clear plan of attack


No. That would be another incorrect inference. Going by the meaning, it means they don't know how long it will be delayed, not that they have no clue as to what is wrong. Since there is no new release date, it is the correct usage of indefinitely.


RE: Indefinitely?
By Natfly on 4/30/2008 10:21:14 AM , Rating: 3
The problem is that 'delayed indefinitely' is ambiguous. It doesn't specify whether or not there is an intent to release at all. 'Delayed indefinitely' could mean that they are going to release it at some undefined point or that they have no intention of releasing it at all, with the latter being common with software releases.

So the ambiguous title, while technically correct, will be misinterpreted by a lot of people.


RE: Indefinitely?
By radams on 4/30/2008 10:58:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The problem is that 'delayed indefinitely' is ambiguous.


Of course it's ambiguous. How can there be certainty when a release date is uncertain?

quote:
'Delayed indefinitely' could mean that they are going to release it at some undefined point or that they have no intention of releasing it at all


Only by adding your own meaning to it. There is no intent implied by the phrase only your own inference developed by biases.


RE: Indefinitely?
By Natfly on 4/30/2008 11:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course it's ambiguous. How can there be certainty when a release date is uncertain?


Because there is certainty that it will be released, Microsoft has full intentions to release SP3. The phrasing adds uncertainty where there is none.

quote:
Only by adding your own meaning to it. There is no intent implied by the phrase only your own inference developed by biases.


That is my point, the phrase doesn't imply any intent, it could mean either. My whole point is that the word 'indefinitely' increases the vagueness and opens it up to invalid interpretations.

"Delays release" - Implies intent to release, doesn't imply when.

"Delays release indefinitely" - Doesn't imply any intention to release.


RE: Indefinitely?
By radams on 4/30/2008 12:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because there is certainty that it will be released, Microsoft has full intentions to release SP3. The phrasing adds uncertainty where there is none.


The aforementioned ambiguity is in reference in only to the time.

quote:
"Delays release" - Implies intent to release, doesn't imply when.

"Delays release indefinitely" - Doesn't imply any intention to release.


Neither has any implication at all, that's just your inference. All adding "indefinitely" does to the phrase is add the information that it's unknown when the release will happen. Your insistence that it adds the implication that it might not be released is simply incorrect.


RE: Indefinitely?
By Natfly on 4/30/2008 1:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The aforementioned ambiguity is in reference in only to the time.


Yes, and that includes from now until forever/never/infinity.

quote:
Your insistence that it adds the implication that it might not be released is simply incorrect.


Perhaps I have to simplify it further.
"Delays" - to postpone until a later date/time
"Delays indefinitely" - to postpone to an undefined date/time (undefined includes from now until never)

I don't know how to further explain it if you can't understand it.


RE: Indefinitely?
By omnicronx on 4/30/2008 1:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So the ambiguous title, while technically correct, will be misinterpreted by a lot of people.
I bet Jason is laughing his face off right now, I think its pretty obvious he knew it had two meanings he just wanted to grab our attention. Judging by all the responses just for the title of the article, it seems he has succeeded.


RE: Indefinitely?
By 7Enigma on 4/30/2008 12:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
He got you to click on the article didn't he? Then he accomplished his job. <suckered me in too>


damn damn damn
By johnsonx on 4/30/2008 2:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Where the hell is that Jason Mick article filter? I starting reading this article without noticing it was by him. Usually the first two paragraphs are made up entirely of links to other vaguely-relevant articles; that was absent this time so I wasn't tipped off right away. Once I got to the end, and discovered the title and slant of the article were both much FUD about nothing, I realized it had to be HIM... scrolled up, sho'nuff!

Memo to Jason Mick: while your use of the word 'indefinitely' was technically correct (i.e. 'ending not yet defined'), in common usage that word implies 'without end'. It certainly doesn't imply 'a few days until they work out a minor bug'.




RE: damn damn damn
By TomZ on 4/30/2008 3:11:43 PM , Rating: 3
Right on. At a minimum, it would be nice if readers could rate DT articles, similar to the comments ratings. Obviously we couldn't rate articles down to where they are not displayed, but some kind of overall feedback to the author I think would be a positive thing.


RE: damn damn damn
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/1/2008 12:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
in common usage that word implies 'without end'. It certainly doesn't imply 'a few days until they work out a minor bug'.

The only people I've ever seen use the word wrong are sportscasters. Sorry, but I'm not changing it.


RE: damn damn damn
By TomZ on 5/1/2008 1:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
So then you've decided to be lumped into the same group as sportscasters? :o)


RE: damn damn damn
By johnsonx on 5/4/2008 3:21:15 AM , Rating: 2
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=A&...

I've just looked up 'indefinitely' in several online dictionaries, and also simply read many articles that use the word.

Not once did I see the word used to mean anything other than a very long time, possiby forever. It also usually implies that something significant or unexpected will have to occur before the situation will change.

Using the word in the way Jason Mick did is simpy wrong. This is a minor bug that will be fixed, and will be fixed quite shortly. That is most definitely NOT 'indefinitely'!

Unfortunately it appears I'll be stuck reading Jason Mick aricles indefinitely, unless I quit reading Dailytech.


RE: damn damn damn
By johnsonx on 5/4/2008 3:28:34 AM , Rating: 2
Also, do you really not get how badly Jason Mick's articles are regarded by much of your readership? You started posting his articles as a counterpoint to Michael Asher. Whether this was necessary is debatable, but that he should have remained relegated to that role is not.


Already have it
By oab on 4/29/2008 5:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
I already have it, does this mean the installer I downloaded is a collectors item? Sort-of like miss-printed stamps and whatnot due to it's rarity?




RE: Already have it
By EglsFly on 4/29/2008 5:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to know as well, I downloaded it via the link on a DT article, but have yet to install it.
http://www.dailytech.com/Windows+XP+Service+Pack+3...


RE: Already have it
By das mod on 4/29/2008 6:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
do i hear eBay ??


RE: Already have it
By zerocool84 on 4/30/2008 2:46:09 AM , Rating: 3
I installed it off the DT link also. I notice my start-up is slightly snappier.


As long as it comes out...
By Belard on 4/29/2008 5:48:45 PM , Rating: 1
Well... with such a bug IN BOTH service packs... at least they caught it now. And hopefully they'll figure out how they screwed up and fix it soon.

From the title of this article... it sounded like they were going to pull it, period... sometimes folks do that... out of spite.




RE: As long as it comes out...
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 5:53:22 PM , Rating: 3
I hate to have to say it but this posting seems to be sensationalizing the situation a bit... From the artical and quotes from MS it sounds like MS is well on top of the situation and working to get the issue resolved quickly. All indications are that this is what's going to happen based on what I read.

The posting title basically makes it sound like MS plans to yoik XP SP3 out of users hands forever and not even try to accomadate them. This really doesn't seem to be the case at all.


RE: As long as it comes out...
By mikefarinha on 4/29/2008 6:08:38 PM , Rating: 5
WHAT!?!?! Mick is sensationalizing?

Say it ain't so!


WTF
By 67STANG on 4/29/2008 5:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps they've changed the new SP? I've been running it on 3 machines for the past 2 months with no problems... Quite the contrary in fact... I've noticed some speed increases.

Wonder what they did in the RTM to screw it up?




RE: WTF
By Locutus465 on 4/29/2008 5:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
Do you use the RMS system? If not then you wouldn't notice a problem.


By SiliconAddict on 4/29/2008 5:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
Nevermind that everyone has yanked a patch here or there because it breaks this or that. I lost count of Apple doing that a couple years back.
At least MS was timely about it. Instead of waiting 2 weeks or something. *shrugs* As if my XP install on my desktop was dieing for a new Service Pack. Vista on my Tablet on the other hand....I swear to god I heard the system sigh with relief when I installed SP1.




By BruceLeet on 4/29/2008 6:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
You were beaten to the punch...line

Jason Mick wrote the article :P

you still cool jase 8)


By Spacecomber on 4/30/2008 10:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming that I've been keeping up with my windows updates for XP, what is new that I can't download piecemeal from MS, already?

I'm guessing that 90% of this service pack is the rollup of all the previous fixes to the operating system; so, what's in that 10% of it that everyone is so eager to get installed?




By ChronoReverse on 4/30/2008 11:11:50 AM , Rating: 2
Mostly because of a sensationalist article that gets parroted around about how SP3 gives a 10% performance boost.

What isn't as widely known (for some reason :rollseyes:) is that this is only in an "Office Tasks Benchmark" and isn't going to apply to things like games.


Still there
By Vinny141 on 4/30/2008 11:34:24 AM , Rating: 3
You can still get it

http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/updat...

If you use that program.......dont install it

If you dont use that program.......its ok to install it

If you installed it already and dont use that program its OK




business
By adam92682 on 4/29/2008 8:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
Why should I have to wait for a service pack that might increase performance for my games because it might cause some small business a problem.




xp sp3
By croc on 4/29/2008 11:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's a shame that I saw the first article before I saw the second... Now that it is installed, do I have to remove it??? ;-)




SP3 works 50/50 for me.
By iFX on 4/30/2008 1:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
I have tried it on 6 systems now. Three of them installed fine and booted right up. The other three were missing a file I had to manually copy off the XP media... somehow the file gets removed during the install and without it the OS blue screens on startup. Once the file is replaced it works correctly but it's a mild PITA.




New Microsoft catch-phrase
By Arctucas on 4/30/2008 5:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
If it ain't broke...it ain't one of ours.

Seriously though, I have been using SP3 BETA for a couple of months but I cannot say it offered any improvements that I noticed.




Blue screen of...... Ballmer!!!
By UsernameX on 5/1/2008 5:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
You should change the picture, and overlay the bluescreen of death on Ballmer's face.




It's Baaaaack!!
By Arctucas on 5/6/2008 6:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
Just came up on Automatic Updates.




XP3 now available 6 May 08
By fictisiousname on 5/7/2008 11:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
Auto update




man man...
By excrucio on 4/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: man man...
By das mod on 4/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: man man...
By croc on 4/29/2008 7:19:16 PM , Rating: 4
"to bad XP doesnt come with a built-in grammar checking tool ... "

Pots and kettles come to mind...


RE: man man...
By RandallMoore on 4/29/2008 10:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
Stewie - Ohh no way!! Jerry Jerry Jerry!!


RE: man man...
By SlyNine on 4/30/08, Rating: 0
Hi guys, I'm Microsoft....
By Ryanz on 4/29/08, Rating: -1
"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"?
Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"? 





0 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki