Print 85 comment(s) - last by nervousmike.. on Oct 25 at 10:06 PM

Windows XP SP3 slated nearly four years after SP2

On its Windows Service Pack Road Map page, Microsoft has updated the expected date for Windows XP SP3 to the first half of 2008. This represents the latest in a string of delays. SP3 was originally stated for the second half of this year, which was then pushed back another year to the second half of 2007.

No official reason was provided to explain the recent delay, but a Microsoft official did explain back in January that the company's main focus is on shipping Windows Vista. Some may believe that the delay in SP3 release is an effort to encourage more users to upgrade to Microsoft's newer, more secure OS.

Microsoft is expected to complete Windows Vista and release to manufacturers on or around October 25, 2006.

Comments     Threshold

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

By ttnuagadam on 10/19/2006 6:15:02 PM , Rating: 4
Haha, I know whats going on. SP3 is the patch that puts DX10 in vista. They're just going to wait a year later to screw over about 10 million people or so, and THEN release the service pack.

RE: haha
By ttnuagadam on 10/19/2006 6:15:31 PM , Rating: 5
err i mean puts dx10 in XP. Goddamnit i wish these post had an edit feature

RE: haha
By Tiamat on 10/19/2006 6:37:05 PM , Rating: 4
Thats why there there is a forced preview before you post your comment

RE: haha
By ttnuagadam on 10/19/2006 6:51:25 PM , Rating: 3
yeah but you dont always catch everything in the preview

RE: haha
By Scrogneugneu on 10/19/2006 7:37:25 PM , Rating: 5
That forced preview system is not working. People are not looking at what they type when they type, and when they're done they want to post, not review. When it's up there, they review it. That's just how people go.

The edit function can be limited to only be available when nobody answered or modded (up or down) a post. It offers the SAME functionnality (editing and removing errors) without denaturing the voting system, but goes along what everyone does.

RE: haha
By TomZ on 10/19/2006 8:57:14 PM , Rating: 5
I like the system the way it is now - no way to take back what you said. Better preview!

RE: haha
By rushfan2006 on 10/20/2006 9:40:43 AM , Rating: 2
Well I disagree...what's wrong with a simple EDIT.

As far as standing on "no way to take back what you said"...there are two sides to that coin too -- there's no way to ADD stuff (without a new post, which again you can "take back what you said" in a new post as well -- so what's the point?) either.

I don't know about most of you folks but 90% of my errors come from typing very fast and thinking on the fly....I know that's not really a good habit (especially the 2nd part of what I said).

RE: haha
By TomZ on 10/20/2006 12:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand how Preview doesn't adress your concerns. If you type fast and sometimes make a typo, and you care about how your posts look, then why not take a minute and Preview your post? In the case you describe, the only difference between preview and editing after you post is that you are reviewing your post in a different location.

And really, Preview is really only important if you are embedding tags and want to make sure they render correctly. Typos can be easily caught by proofreading your comment in the edit text box where you originally typed your comments.

RE: haha
By Alexvrb on 10/20/2006 1:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
Once the Preview feature is "used" more than once, it no longer remains a feature. It is a hindrance. People will try to get past this hindrance as fast as possible. Click click. I personally don't care for preview, but I don't NEED edit either. Typos be damned! If I botch it so badly that my message is unintelligible, I'm probably drunk, and I could always post a second time after I've sobered up.

Preview is either a solution for a non-problem, or a non-solution for a stupid problem. Pun intended.

RE: haha
By TomZ on 10/20/2006 1:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
I do agree with you, that it should be optional.

RE: haha
By rushfan2006 on 10/20/2006 2:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
Likewise I don't understand your hang up on the big deal to NOT use an Edit. ;)

So our "dismay" at each other's logic seems to be the same. Your's for preview, mine for edit.

I actually had to chop my earlier post short...I was going to also add in that another thing about this site is the timeout times are insane...another reason I vote for edit over preview. Ever have a lot of stuff to write on a hot button issue then the site times out and goes "oops!! something is wrong"...first..that's just plain stupid or at the very least its plain stupid how anally short their timeouts are set for. I've never been to forum as active as this one that has similar restrictions, so I find it odd.

With edit you just post what you want, have less worry about it timing out during a long preview phase looking to correct things. It saves to the site, you edit what you want already having found the mistakes (no time out issue this time).

FINALLY.....considering about 90% (if not even higher than that) of any respectable forum system indeed DOES have an edit feature...yeah...that's another reason their should be one....its part of the "standard" for Internet forums.

In short..its not really all that big a deal as my posts may make it sound I just jumped in the dicussion and gave my two cents.

Forever I'll say that this site should add an "edit" button though. ;)

RE: haha
By MarioC on 10/19/2006 8:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you precisely. Also, one of the psychological problems is that people frequently read over their own mistakes and read them correctly in their mind (one of the reasons that you notice almost every published book has an editor!). Taking this into considering, it is very difficult for people to correct their own mistakes when they are doing things quickly*.

*I am generalizing that people do things quickly on the internet, but I believe it is fairly valid. Why would posting a comment by any different?

RE: haha
By TomZ on 10/20/2006 12:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
The effect you describe would be the same if you review your post in Preview mode or after it is posted, right? So what difference would an Edit command have for that?

RE: haha
By PrinceGaz on 10/21/2006 8:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
When the preview window is up, you end to be in a hurry and won't see your mistakes because the longer you take, the greater the chance of an "Ooops... something went wrong" coming up when you hit send.

The forced preview is just an unneccesary annoyance to me. A far better option would be an edit button available for up to say ten minutes from when you post. That way you can correct errors when you read your post in the thread, without abusing the edit feature later.

RE: haha
By PrinceGaz on 10/21/2006 8:57:17 AM , Rating: 2
end -> tend. Exactly the sort of trivial error/typo that could be easily spotted and fixed with a limited-time edit function.

RE: haha
By GoatMonkey on 10/20/2006 8:02:08 AM , Rating: 1
Well, Tiamat has 5 heads, so at least one of them should catch any of your problems. What are the rest of us supposed to do?

Have they even started it yet?
By JackTheLad on 10/19/2006 6:29:34 PM , Rating: 1
So the new patch release won't be available for another year and a half.

I assume this means they haven't even started working on it yet. Maybe just a few rough specs of what will be going into it.

After Vista goes gold, they'll probably split their army of developers into two, one to work on Vista SP1 and the others to work on XP SP3

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By daftrok on 10/19/2006 6:37:05 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By hondaman on 10/19/06, Rating: 0
RE: Have they even started it yet?
By danz32 on 10/19/2006 9:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
I dont know....I am using Vista RC2 right now and I know there is no way I can ever go back to XP after experiencing Vista. They definetely need to continue support, but Vista should also get plently of their focus

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By carl0ski on 10/19/2006 11:04:59 PM , Rating: 1
the more important question is are you willing to pay for Vista Final?

RC2 is free
Final is not.

I am no eager to upgrade our 200 Windows XP machines by buying new licenses.
All our software and systems are XP certified
No Vista certification exists here yet.

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 10/20/2006 10:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
If your setup is working fine, why would you want to change it? XP will still work the day after vista comes out.

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By Wwhat on 10/20/06, Rating: -1
RE: Have they even started it yet?
By Wwhat on 10/20/06, Rating: -1
RE: Have they even started it yet?
By fumar on 10/25/2006 1:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
If you have read some of the stuff about Vista's EULA, you wouldn't want to upgrade to Vista unless you wanted DX10. There is no other good reason. The evil restrictions in Vista outweigh the new features and the slick GUI.

I will buy Vista when there are DX10 only games out and XP doesn't get DX10 support.

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By ZeeStorm on 10/20/06, Rating: -1
RE: Have they even started it yet?
By colek42 on 10/20/2006 2:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
Vista is just ram hungry. I have 1.5GB installed on a 3GHz P4 with ATI Radeon 9000 IGP Laptop, and like I said below it runs GREAT. Office '07 Beta also runs MUCH faster on Visa. I don't run (I can't) Aero so I can't comment on that, but I guess if you have a slow system just disable it. Who needs that crap anyways.

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By Hare on 10/20/2006 3:43:44 AM , Rating: 2
What if Vista made you 20% more efficient with your computer even though it might have 10% less raw speed than XP? If you have a moderately new computer Vista is fast enough and ultimately the bottleneck is the user. Try finding an invoice for customer X in XP. Scroll through the directories when in Vista (or MacosX) you can just type "invoice X" to the search and you have it in front of you in a second.

I'm tired of people complaining about increased requirements. I'd like to know HOW should MS include new features if they can't waste more cpu cycles? Maybe they should just release XP SP2 again as Vista lite. "For all the people who want 98% system idle process".

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By Wwhat on 10/20/2006 12:11:04 PM , Rating: 1
OH google desktopsearch is Vista compatible?

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By Pirks on 10/20/2006 12:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
OH some people still don't know about windows desktop search? time to crawl from under your fedora/ubuntu/whatever rock you were living under ;) smell some fresh air, read decent vista reviews, get a life! :P

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By colek42 on 10/20/2006 4:27:00 AM , Rating: 3
Yah, and doom runs a lot faster than Quake 4

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By Helbore on 10/21/2006 10:30:49 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, how is this ANY different than any previous OS update (or any new application for that matter?) New software has always required faster hardware to be used at its full potential. How can we expect new capabilities if the software can run happily on 3 year old hardware?

Its like somoene complaining that the new game they just bought is slower on their computer than the one they bought five years ago. Well, duh, of course its going to be slower, unless you want the new game to be no more advanced than the old one. Such is the price of progress. Get used to it.

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By colek42 on 10/20/2006 12:53:32 AM , Rating: 3
I agree! RC2 Is great, still some driver problems with my ATI 9000 IGP graphics card, and Toshiba hasn't released power management Vista drivers/software for my laptop yet. It does load much faster than XP, it is easier to control startup programs, (I don't want my torrent, iTunes, etc. software to load every time I start Windows). I can tell the kernel is MUCH faster -- most likely because it hasn't been patched a billion times. The wireless networking is also MUCH better. Most people will probably upgrade when they get a new PC, or upgrade their PC. Personally I am going to wait until I can get Ultimate for $1.50 from my University sometime in April. Student should check into this, most Universities offer licensing programs like this. Anyone know what time RC2 expires?

P.S. Fedora still kicks Vista's ass

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By WT on 10/20/2006 7:45:05 AM , Rating: 2
RC2 should expire in July 2007, or as MS says - 6 months after Vista is released.
So assuming they hold to the January 30, 2007 retail release, that would be June 30, 2007.

By trabpukcip on 10/20/2006 10:10:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think RC2 expires in July '07

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By alcalde on 10/20/2006 3:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
So what features are available that aren't available as tweaks to XP (usually free)? As someone mentioned above, search programs are available for XP, and I use startup delayer (free) to not only control what loads with windows, but when and in what order (for instance, make sure virus and firewall start first, delay 10 seconds before going on to the next program to load, etc.). People with well-tuned XP systems are going to need something more substantial to warrant an upgrade.

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By Russell on 10/19/2006 9:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you said that about XP too.

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By hondaman on 10/19/06, Rating: -1
RE: Have they even started it yet?
By Kuroyama on 10/19/2006 9:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps what he is asking is why Microsoft would devote resources to XP SP3. It is in their interest for us to upgrade to Vista, so they should leave it at issuing critical patches for XP so as not too sully the Windows name too much, but shouldn't devote any time to major changes like a service pack. After all, we don't pay for Service Packs, and no one will be shelling out money for new copies of WinXP, at least not once Vista is stable enough that the corporate world switches their licensing from XP to Vista.

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By JackTheLad on 10/20/2006 9:12:09 AM , Rating: 2
Well, really what I was asking was why bother giving a year and a half lead time for a patch which would only take 6 months to write and 6 months to test.

Tho' all of the other diatribes were interesting!

RE: Have they even started it yet?
By Kuroyama on 10/20/2006 1:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I was commenting on the post "....3?.....why?". Guess I hit "reply" under the wrong post.

But yeah, this 1.5 year lead time is rather excessive. Have they even said what will be in SP3?

More secure operating system!?!
By R65Guy on 10/19/2006 6:17:24 PM , Rating: 1
If the new "secure" IE7 has a zero day exploit on its launch day, how can you trust anything "secure" from that company. Their record in this area is poor at best.

By czarchazm on 10/19/2006 6:21:59 PM , Rating: 3

I feel yah. Same with Linux. How do I know whether the time I invest to learn how to use it is actually going to pay off in an environment where I never use the OS. I guess maybe I fight with it to amuse myself...

RE: More secure operating system!?!
By Zirconium on 10/19/2006 7:56:01 PM , Rating: 3
The nature of a "zero day" is that it has to be to be available on launch . So while it may be surprising that there is a zero day exploit, it is not surprising that the zero day exploit is on the launch day.

By lemonadesoda on 10/19/2006 8:27:16 PM , Rating: 1

RE: More secure operating system!?!
By mgambrell on 10/19/2006 11:26:54 PM , Rating: 3
In these cases, zero-day means that it exists when the flaw is announced. Its zero days from the flaw announcement, not zero days from the product launch.

RE: More secure operating system!?!
By Wwhat on 10/20/2006 11:40:04 AM , Rating: 2
It's a 6 months old flaw and actually a -182-day exploit

RE: More secure operating system!?!
By TomZ on 10/19/2006 8:57:59 PM , Rating: 3
What exploit is that?

RE: More secure operating system!?!
By Nekrik on 10/20/2006 2:57:10 AM , Rating: 2
wondering that myself.

RE: More secure operating system!?!
By TomZ on 10/20/2006 9:10:04 AM , Rating: 2
There was an exploit publicized yesterday, but it was incorrectly attributed to IE7. The problem was actually in Outlook Express.

RE: More secure operating system!?!
By Wwhat on 10/20/2006 11:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
Accessable through IE7, in other words an IE7 bug
Half of all exploits for IE6 were also by using underlying OS functions, this 'it's not an IE7 fault' is just damage control by microsft spinners, and a poor one at that.
And while I'm talking, how about fixing a 6 months old OE bug?

RE: More secure operating system!?!
By TomZ on 10/20/2006 12:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
By that logic, you could say it is accessable through TCP/IP stack software, and so it is a TCP/IP bug. Also, when they roll out a fix, it will be in OE, not IE7. Also, IE6 has not been excluded as being able to be used to access the same issue.

I don't care one way or the other, but I think many are trying to rain on IE7's parade by declaring that there are exploits on its first day out, when in fact the issue doesn't relate to IE7 at all.

RE: More secure operating system!?!
By Wwhat on 10/20/2006 11:45:58 AM , Rating: 2
It's all about the drivers
By Targon on 10/20/2006 12:26:24 AM , Rating: 2
I've noticed that far too many companies are holding their drivers back until Vista is released. That means that the Vista install that I set up has too many problems caused by being forced to use the Windows XP drivers.

Promise for example doesn't have the SATA drivers available for the controller on my motherboard. ATI has drivers that come with the OS, but without CCC. The result is the machine does NOT run Vista well because of the SATA driver problem(machine stalls due to SATA problems).

RE: It's all about the drivers
By TomZ on 10/20/2006 9:11:53 AM , Rating: 2
I agree - device vendors don't seem to appreciate the importance of the early adopters having a good experience. Early adopters usually influence others, either directly or indirectly, and so if early Vista users have a lot of driver problems as you suggest, Vista will develop a bad reputation for that.

RE: It's all about the drivers
By PitViper007 on 10/20/2006 9:29:56 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, all the vendors know that they can get away with it. Think about it for a minute. What are people going to do? Really, the worst they will do is stick with XP. For all the talk about Linux (and I do run a Linux server, Fedora Core 4 to be precise) it isn't an OS that the masses will use, plain and simple. Any new computer will have Vista on it. Do you think most people will change that? Nope. It's the reality of the computing world today that Windows is THE OS of choice, and when MS releases a new version, Vista in this case, it will become the NEW OS of choice. Sad but true.


RE: It's all about the drivers
By Wwhat on 10/20/2006 11:48:08 AM , Rating: 2
So true, well said.

RE: It's all about the drivers
By Alexvrb on 10/20/2006 1:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. Driver vendors won't even have to pin the blame on MS. Consumers will do it for them. A bad Vista experience will be pinned automatically on MS by many of its users, regardless of the actual cause. Although, OEM boxes will have hardware and software somewhat more carefully selected (hopefully) to mitigate that issue. More advanced users looking for drivers for their fancy gear will be out in the cold, so to speak, but at least many of them know who to blame. Vista has been around for tinkering with for some time, where's the drivers? Lackluster drivers are still better than jack squat.

as long as there's ryanpack...
By Pirks on 10/19/2006 7:04:31 PM , Rating: 1
...I don't care about XP SPs, MS can stop doing SPs altogether, Ryan will come to rescue, he's ze savior :)

RE: as long as there's ryanpack...
By RyanVM on 10/20/2006 12:18:00 AM , Rating: 2
lol, I'm flattered :-)

RE: as long as there's ryanpack...
By Pirks on 10/20/2006 12:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ryan, where did you get tools and MS hotfixes to create your pack? I have a buddy named farlander (posts here sometimes), he's got constant headache with installing XP on his corporate boxes and applying tons of post-SP2 patches with several reboots in process (and then he starts singing about OS X and how it's soo fast to install and gets regular updates from Apple and so on, I'm tired of that shit :), so when I'm saying to him or any other admins "hey, stop loving yourself hard, just use Ryan's stuff" they answer "WTF is Ryan?" and start telling me about some Sarbanes-Oxley act or something.. (does this Sarbanes act prevents installation of your pack on corporate PCs? pardon my stupidity, I never heard about Sarbanes aimed squarely at your pack :) so the question is: how easy some windows admin like this guy farlander can replicate your steps? Is there a guide somewhere about that? Do you use some custom tools/scripts of your own making?

It seems to be the problem of all the windows admins, so are they just stupidly dling post SP2 fixes like a monkey and rebooting XP all the time in the process? I'd just get your pack and problem fixed, but what should these guys do? Any advice for them?

Thanks for you pack, it really saves a lot of time!

RE: as long as there's ryanpack...
By TomZ on 10/20/2006 12:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
Fact is, in most well-managed IT groups, using something like Ryan's pack would be forbidden by policy. As you said, who is Ryan, and how does an IT group know that his patches are correct, legit, legal, etc.? For an individual user willing to take the risks, what he offers is great, but it is not usable by most corporate users at all.

RE: as long as there's ryanpack...
By Pirks on 10/20/2006 1:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
This is precisely the reason I'm interested in Ryan's know how. If admins can't grab his pack and save a lot of time for dozens of downloads and reboots for every XP SP2 install - maybe they can at least repeat his steps and get his fixpack self made, so to say?

I mean if Ryan just uses some scripts - that would save admins many many hours if they too use his scripts and build their own post SP2 fixpacks. Heck, Ryan could make lotsa money just by selling those scripts.

Look, people - there's a whole huge XP service pack market waiting to be tapped! MS just abandoned it (who knows whether SP3 will be postponed to 2009 or 2010... if it ever appears at all), and besides Ryan with his free fixpack there's NOTHING out there - I wonder how much time it will take for some commercial company to start selling those fixpack construction tools or scripts if Ryan doesn't want to do this.

Why buy Vista?
By encryptkeeper on 10/20/2006 10:47:42 AM , Rating: 1
Don't buy Vista unless you need directX 10. Period. There just isn't any other reason to switch. Don't expect to EVER see SP3. That's my gut instinct talking, but we've gotten to see some inside opinions and peeks at Vista. It just isn't impressive.

RE: Why buy Vista?
By TomZ on 10/20/2006 12:42:26 PM , Rating: 3
Don't buy Vista unless you need DX10? That's just silly. Why would you advocate such a position? What is the basis - have you done a full evaluation, and added up the value of all the new features for all possible types of customers, and decided that it doesn't come close to the cost, for anyone other than gamers needing DX10? LOL.

RE: Why buy Vista?
By Korvon on 10/20/2006 1:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
There is SO much more to Vista than DX10. Layout, ease of use, more user friendly enviroment... People that say the only plus to going to Vista is DX10 have not really tried Vista. Install it, use it for a week and then tell me the only good thing about it is DX10.

RE: Why buy Vista?
By fumar on 10/25/2006 1:15:18 AM , Rating: 2
Why have your reinstalls on the same machine limited to 2 like Vista does? I reinstall XP every few months so I would have to repurchase Vista several times. Plus if you step out of MS's trusted computing circle, they can wipe all your data. Doesn't that energize you for the Windows Vista launch, when you know that once you install it any moment could be your data's last?

I used the Beta 2 version, it was pretty and I liked the search engine embedded in the OS. But those features and some of the other new ones, besides DX10, don't outweigh the big brother parts of Vista.

Not microsoft too...
By TimberJon on 10/19/2006 6:03:54 PM , Rating: 1
Probably taking personnel off SP3 to help with Vista.

What they should do, like smart marketers, is push launch dates back and back.. but deliver on-time or early. Shock us all MS. Go ahead..

On the flip side, wouldnt want ANYTHING wrong with my SP3 patch.
I trust Vista should be pretty damn stable though.

RE: Not microsoft too...
By doctor sam adams on 10/20/2006 1:58:06 AM , Rating: 3
I would love an insider's view into the kind of Dilbert-esque bunglings that must be going on in there right now. . . .

RE: Not microsoft too...
By TomZ on 10/20/2006 12:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
I can tell you don't follow Microsoft too closely, if you feel it is greatly mismanaged at a product and resources level. Anyone at all familiar with software development knows that schedules change, dates slip, features change, etc. That is the reality of the current state of the art in software engineering.

The difference between well-run software companies and those that are not, is that well-run software companies get their projects completed and products shipped. Poorly-run companies' products may never even see the light of day.

SP 3 will just be a DRM install
By Randalllind on 10/19/2006 9:31:01 PM , Rating: 1
I be it will just add some of the hard core DRM that will be in Vista to XP.

MS announce Direct X 9.L for XP will be Direct X 10 for XP.

RE: SP 3 will just be a DRM install
By BudgetGamer2006 on 10/19/2006 9:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I believe Direct X 9.0L is just a direct x 9 version for Vista... as of now.. direct x 10 will have no place on XP at all.

That may change.. but apparently if it was done, it would be all software emulation? Which i would imagine would slow things down a fair bit.

RE: SP 3 will just be a DRM install
By trabpukcip on 10/20/2006 10:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
No it's a story that The Inquirer screwed up on. DX 9.0L is DX 9.0 for Vista. The Inq admitted the mistake and that the L probably means "Longhorn" which as you may well know is the code name for Vista.

RE: SP 3 will just be a DRM install
By Wwhat on 10/20/06, Rating: 0
NT4 SP7 or W2K SP5 all over again
By RogueSpear on 10/19/06, Rating: 0
RE: NT4 SP7 or W2K SP5 all over again
By TomZ on 10/20/2006 9:17:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I think Vista SP1 should and will come out first. After all, Vista is a new codebase, whereas XP is relatively mature and meets really all of the requirements of it.

By PitViper007 on 10/20/2006 9:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
I agree 100%. XP is what, 5 - 6 years old now? If they don't have the major bugs worked out of it by now..... Vista on the other hand is brand new. In the first several months there will probably be many bugs identified, simply due to the massively increased user base over the Beta releases.


Vista so close
By electriple9 on 10/20/2006 1:35:01 AM , Rating: 2
Vista release date is so close, One week away. Is it right octomber 25.

RE: Vista so close
By trabpukcip on 10/20/2006 10:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
It is close I can't remember it but that is for Corporate customers. Home users in January.

Dyslexic Reader or Unlucky Number?
By lemonadesoda on 10/20/2006 10:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
SP3 = PS3 = late

RE: Dyslexic Reader or Unlucky Number?
By Wwhat on 10/20/2006 11:56:28 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if there's some P3S or S3P project somewhere, if there is it might be delayed.
Perhaps they can rename the airbus380 (alos a 3 btw) to the S3P.

I just want Direct3D 10
By exdeath on 10/19/2006 6:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
Mmm every buffer is the same, every 'pipe' is the same, being able to draw multiple batches in a single call, etc.


By Wwhat on 10/20/2006 11:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
I find the news that microsoft assumes xp will be alive and well in 2008 rather positive, warms my cockles.

Why Vista?
By nervousmike on 10/25/2006 10:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, first of all. vista is being released as a new operation system. it supports new programming langauges, new graphic possiblities, new networking, new technologies, new security. This was the same reason that XP 2000 98se 98 nt were all realeased... if we just want to control statup functions, or search for files microsoft would just patch 95 and release it for free. But we want to be able to do more things support the new processors, video cards, launguages, XNA, direct X 10, Advance file sharing and screen sharing... When XP was released we saw .net for the first time... we don't know what microsoft is going to pull out for vista but XNA and directX 10 are a good start.. plus the new networking capabilites like presntations remotly abd Adhoc networks with a few clicks... in a year, we will see program that dont work on XP and only on vista and programs that need the new features in vista. DirectX 10 is being released for XP and most of the new features in vista maybe upgrade in XP but in year or two we will the new programs that vista is ment for.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007
Related Articles
Windows XP SP3 to Set Sail in 2H 07
January 18, 2006, 12:19 PM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki