XP Service Pack 3 .... FINALLY!

[sinci]

Mak, I meant was the article comparing two beta versions, to uninstall one etc.

Oh well, it's okay =]
I understand now... =D

 

[KSoD]

Sorry. Yes the article was comparing a leaked Beta version to the official one that Microsoft released. It was suggested to uninstall the leak and install the official.

 

[Trotter]

There were at least two refreshes of the beta, maybe more. I am running the last one on my home rig.

No sweat to uninstall it before installing the "official" one, though.

 

[KSoD]

Yeah. Right now there is just rumors on the release date. But sure enough when it gets on TechNET and MSDN it will be "out" for many people.

 

[Trotter]

Looks like it is the 29th.

Microsoft Monday completed work on Windows XP SP3. The company said the final code of the service pack has been released to manufacturing and now is working its way to OEMs and corporate customers. Access via Microsoft's Automatic Update feature will begin April 29.

Microsoft says XP SP3 complete, available imminently - Network World

 

[SirCyber]

Mak... for performance between vista and XP... we all know that vista is more resource dominant... hence making it require more system components. doesn't that pretty much mean that xp performs better? you cannot claim that one is better than the other when you have two significantly different builds for that claim. they need to be equal systems, and if you have a system that will run Vista to it's fullest capabilities, then XP will rock in that same configuration. just a thought. as far as SP3 goes... are they releasing it onto CD as well? I'd be interesting in buying the disk vs downloading it... mostly because I don't know if this is genuine xp on this computer.

 

[carnageX]

Mak... for performance between vista and XP... we all know that vista is more resource dominant... hence making it require more system components. doesn't that pretty much mean that xp performs better? you cannot claim that one is better than the other when you have two significantly different builds for that claim. they need to be equal systems, and if you have a system that will run Vista to it's fullest capabilities, then XP will rock in that same configuration. just a thought. as far as SP3 goes... are they releasing it onto CD as well? I'd be interesting in buying the disk vs downloading it... mostly because I don't know if this is genuine xp on this computer.

So by your logic you could take a computer that could run Windows 95 to its fullest, and install Windows 98 and it'll work the same? Or Take a Win98 machine to its fullest, and expect XP to fly? Of course a new OS is going to be more 'resource heavy.'

 

[KSoD]

Mak... for performance between vista and XP... we all know that vista is more resource dominant... hence making it require more system components. doesn't that pretty much mean that xp performs better? you cannot claim that one is better than the other when you have two significantly different builds for that claim. they need to be equal systems, and if you have a system that will run Vista to it's fullest capabilities, then XP will rock in that same configuration. just a thought. as far as SP3 goes... are they releasing it onto CD as well? I'd be interesting in buying the disk vs downloading it... mostly because I don't know if this is genuine xp on this computer.

But as Carnage pointed out. Windows XP was double the resources of Windows 98. So would that mean that a comparison of 98 to XP that 98 would be better to run?

To use the same resources on a 98 Machine vs a XP machine the arugement would be tha same way. Since XP would lag with 128MB of RAM while 98 would soar.

It is a common occusance for Windows to double the requirements with every new release. Or jsut about doulbe the requirements. Every one griped when XP was released and it needed 256MB. Which was just about doulbe what people were running back in 2000/2001. So how is my point invalid? It jsut proves the same thing even back 7 years ago.

 

[revenge2]

another update......

 

[Osiris]

Some decisions that Microsoft makes are hard to understand, at least for me. Take the monthly patch days that provide security updates to various Microsoft operating systems and applications. Sometimes those patches are known weeks before they are released and that makes me wonder why it takes so long to release them. If Microsoft knows about security vulnerabilities the chance that criminals know them is at least feasible.
The same can be said for Windows XP Service Pack 3. Instead of distributing it to everyone at once Microsoft decided to supply it to users and manufacturers over the course of weeks. Is there any reason why this is done that way ? Interestingly though “pirates” get those releases more often than not earlier than other users. Why do pirates come first most of the times ?
Windows XP Service Pack 3 has been leaked and is now available on various Bittorrent websites and surely on ftps and other P2P networks as well. Why is it that honest users always seem to be at the end of the chain ? One could argue that companies can distribute their products any way they want and while this is surely right it will disappoint at least some of their customers.
Microsoft is releasing Service Pack 3 for Windows XP on April 29th to all customers.