Neowin claims today that they've managed to get their hands on an "internal schedule" for the release of Windows XP service pack 3, with the official date of release pegged as April 29th. On that date, XP service pack 3 will be sent to Microsoft Update, Windows Update, and the Microsoft downloads center. The automatic update to XP service pack 3 will not be pushed to the user until June 10th, presumably in case they find any distressing and cataclysmic hardware incompatibilities in the soft opening.
For a full schedule, you can check it out here.
News of the impending Service Pack release comes along with the fact that XP users are fighting for the survival of Windows XP itself.
It seems like Vista is quickly turning out to be like the new Star Wars movies, while XP represents the original trilogy. The people who weren't raised on the old trilogy didn't find the new movies all that bad. The fans that have seen and cherished the old trilogy know how good things can be, and know what an aberration the new movies are.
This Service Pack will likely be the last for XP, unless the save XP users can fight to an unlikely victory.
[via Softpedia]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-15-2008 @ 4:13PM
dreamscape86 said...
I think your analogy is backwards... most of the people I know that like Vista are the ones who were around when XP was released, and remember how much *worse* that was than Vista's release. Most of the people who want XP to stay seem to be the ones that never had to transition from 95/98 to XP.
Reply
4-15-2008 @ 5:18PM
alienvenom said...
Clearly you've never used Vista if you think it's actually better than XP.
4-15-2008 @ 5:57PM
dreamscape86 said...
I use Vista every day and have no problems whatsoever. What are you talking about?
4-15-2008 @ 4:20PM
Enrique said...
I just think Vista is getting a bad rep. Sure, the UAC thing is annoying, so I easily turned it off through the Control Panel. It runs great with Aero on my 2.5 year old system (although I did have to upgrade my video card for Aero). And there are a lot of really nice upgrades to the Explorer interface; and I don't think I've had any crashes since I went Vista.
Installation wasn't TOO bad, I opted to go with a clean installation, and had a few problems getting my PC to boot to the DVD, but that's not completely Vista's fault.
The interface takes some getting used to, but overall, I still prefer it to XP's tiring 5 year old one.
Reply
4-15-2008 @ 4:49PM
Aron Trimble said...
Will it be possible to update an RC of SP3 to the final version?
I have a remote desktop client that requires me to set my date to the first of the month whenever I want to use it...
Reply
4-15-2008 @ 4:59PM
Simon K said...
"This Service Pack will likely be the last for XP, unless the save XP users can fight to an unlikely victory. "
Like Ewoks?
Reply
4-15-2008 @ 5:25PM
alienvenom said...
Blah blah blah. Whoever says Windows Vista is awesome needs to die. It's crap. The UAC is crap. It sucks for performance even on good computers. Have you tried gaming on it? Have you tried playing Blu-ray/HD-DVD on it? If not, then you cannot seriously tell me that it's better. Renaming a file in the C:\ root should not bring up the UAC. Deleting a file should not take 5 minutes to go into the Recycle Bin. Windows should not *REQUIRE* 2GB of memory to function nicely, and lasty Aero should not use 100% CPU doing certain tasks with a GeForce 8800. You people are stupid if you seriously think all of this is better.
I for one appreciate this XP update and will continue to support XP until Microsoft EOL's it. Hell, I might even bypass Vista completely and go directly to Windows 7.
Reply
4-15-2008 @ 5:44PM
Enrique said...
Sure the UAC is annoying. Especially to the seasoned Windows user. But I'm personally glad my g/f's Mom's new PC has Vista on it; this means every time she tries to make changes that she shouldn't be making, she has to think twice about it before the O/S lets her.
And besides, turning off the UAC requires a quick trip to your control panel. Really not all that difficult.
2 GB of RAM is really not that much. My 2.5 year old PC has that and systems nowadays often come with at least that much!
I don't have a BluRay or HDDVD player nor do I do much hardcore gaming, so I can't comment on that. But since your complaints don't really touch on why they suck, I wouldn't have much of a reply anyways. However, I have plenty of friends that game on Vista without issue.
4-15-2008 @ 6:01PM
dreamscape86 said...
XP performed far worse than 95/98/2000 too. And people complained about it at the time. And yet now it's the best thing in the world? C'mon. It's just "fast" because your computer was built in an XP world. Vista is great on modern computers that are built for it. And as another user said, 2 GB really isn't that much memory. You can easily get 4 GB for under $100, so why is 2 GB such a burden?
4-15-2008 @ 7:47PM
alienvenom said...
The fact of the matter is that I shouldn't need to max out my memory (4GB being the maximum on many many desktops) to run Vista half decent.
Reply