Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Microsoft: XP SP3 an 'Update Roll-up'

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

August 29, 2007, 2:23 PM

Although Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is the big news of the day, Microsoft is concurrently preparing the third service pack for Windows XP. But SP3 won't introduce much of anything new for XP users, and will simply serve as a roll-up of already released fixes, Microsoft says.

Essentially, SP3 will provide a new baseline for the aging operating system, which was released to the public six years ago. As XP nears its end-of-life, Microsoft can ensure customers are up-to-date by telling them to upgrade to SP3, as opposed to SP2 with 85 or more additional patches. The first beta release of XP SP3 will reach testers mid-September, with final availability scheduled for the first half of 2008.

Add a Comment (45 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Henry Kinney

edited Sep 11, 2007 - 12:04 PM

Hm, this sounds as if they decided to postpone release of NAP client for Windows XP or the article misses something. I thought they should release it for Vista, Windows Server 2008 and Windows XP Service Pack 3 only that for the former two it is included by default.

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Aug 31, 2007 - 9:16 AM

i wonder if the final update will likely have a time-out programmed into it so that xp will become increasingly uncooperative at some point in time and will induce all xp user's to upgrade.....

i suppose one thing will be clear when the final update is released: the ratio of computers with xp and vista

Score: 0

By philosopher_dog

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 11:18 PM

Maybe by the time XP is no longer supported they'll have Vista in some workable condition. Mean while I think I'll hold off for as long as I'm hearing the horror from Vista users.

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 3:03 PM

If we can get:

1. DirectX v10
2. NGTCP/IP Stack
3. Superfetch Service

In Windows XP, Vista can be considered pure garbage. These above are the ONLY worthwhile features introduced into Vista after 5 years an 11 f*cking billion dollars. Naturally these features are ECLIPSED by the disgusting bloat of dosens of new UTTERLY and WITHOUT QUESTION, USELESS services and stupid drive-hogging BS.

Vista is beginning to look like another MS FAILURE! Not "quite" yet, but definitely ON that road. Watch out MS, you don't want another "Windows ME" repeat!!!!!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 4:04 PM

I suppose kicking the drivers from kernel mode to user mode is useless, as well as the memory subsystem rewrite that makes it easier for developers to code apps, as well as increases system stability.

I mean, hey... When the video driver crashes, I want a BSOD, dammit, not some pop-up tray bubble telling me it restarted the driver.

...and who wants all that RAM used by the system? Let it sit there, unused, like it's supposed to be.

/sarcasm

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 6:31 PM

More machines running Vista I've worked on are unstable then their XP counterparts. Ok, so it is a little early, but still! I hear all of this stuff and read it, I follow Russinovitch's excellent blogs and articles about this new "useful" technology. The problem is, ITS NOT IMMEDIATELY VISIBLE to me in any way shape or form. If I can't FEEL it working, it's not really there. It's not doing something for the user, its not putting their 300$ to use.

Let the RAM just sit there? RAM never just "sits there". Not mine anyway. Software is moving in and out constantly. Video is being edited, so is audio. Often many applications stay open for days. So no, I don't want MORE memory being used by the system. I want LESS being used by the system and more available for everything else; even if it just "sits there" till it gets used.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 31, 2007 - 9:38 AM

[i]If I can't FEEL it working, it's not really there/i]

So your car doesn't have airbags. Or traction control. Or ABS.... Because you can't *feel* them there. That's ridiculous, and you must know that.

As for RAM, you'd rather RAM, unused by applications, *not* be used by the system to speed it up? You can't be serious. You do realize the moment the RAM becomes necessary for a program to run, Vista releases it, right?

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Sep 2, 2007 - 11:17 AM

I see your point. but it's still no, it's NOT really there if i don't feel it. Airbags eventually deploy (if needed). All these "wondrous" (and expensive) technologies don't EVER seem to be "there", working for me. I have not had a better experience with Vista (yet) then with XP. There is a detraction in quality in fact. It actually feels considerably slower in every facet. Even benchmarks haven't given me hope.

Vista releases the RAM? Oh is that so? And XP doesn't? Anyway, it looks good on Microsoft's tech column but in practice Vista is still buggy after 6mo and we're all still waiting for a glimmer of light to justify the un-justifiable price.

The bottom line is I don't see why people here are vigilantly defending Vista (basically you). I'm struggling to give MS chances to prove to me IN practice that all these technologies are working for me and they're consistently letting me down, all the way from the betas' and RC's to Final + Patches.

Even after disabling over a dosen useless services and the entire aero junk, 32-bit Vista is taking up more memory (much more) then XP. This of course is logical, you know "new OS", "new cool stuff", "better". But ATM it's NOT. It really is just NOT and I'm sure a massive percentage of users feel this way.

furthermore I am seeing CONSTANT calls for downgrades to XP. PEOPLE SEEM TO JUST NOT LIKE Vista. No matter how many new technologies are working oh-so-diligently for us all "under the hood" (or in the steering-wheel for your analogy), if it sucks, those technologies mean zero.

lastly, other then the features I've mentioned above there really is just no reason (yet hopefully) to upgrade to this buggy behemoth! My older system (2y old AMD 4200 DC) runs faster, better and more stable with XP then my friends new Intel f*cking Duo bought 4mo ago.

MS. Get back on track you've created another joke that needs serious service packing. Who knows, perhaps one day when MS releases the successor to Vista, we'll be clinging to Vista like we were clinging to 98 when XP was first released. Hopefully that will be the case, but somehow I don't think they'll pull it off this time.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 4, 2007 - 1:28 PM

Vista releases the RAM? Oh is that so? And XP doesn't?

WOw. Never said XP didn't, but then again, XP doesn't utilize the RAM properly, so it doesn't really need to, to the extent Vista does.

we're all still waiting for a glimmer of light to justify the un-justifiable price.

I'm very sorry $100 is too expensive for you. I hear Linux is on the verge of taking over, though...and it's free.

/sarcasm

As for the other comments regarding performance, I'm certain the same claims were likely made by you when XP came out. It takes time for the hardware to catch up. If you have an existing system running XP, great! Stick with it. Never said you couldn't or shouldn't. In fact, I've said in the past people using XP should stick with it.

What I am arguing here is the fact that you seem to be under the impression that Vista has no real improvements. This is false. The fact that the new kernel and memory handling don't pop out at you just means MS did a decent job keeping the "under the hood" changes, well....under the hood.

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

edited Sep 4, 2007 - 8:34 PM

$100? WT? Is that Vista "Baby fetus starter Zimbabwe Edition?" Around here "Ultimate" editions are in excess of 250€ (Not Dollars). Windows XP Pro is still going at 145€. Anyway I never said Vista didn't bring anything new to the table either! I just said it brought way less then I was expecting for what they spent on it (in both time and $$). We'll see if sh*tsta starts getting better post SP1.

If I can offload this clunky, almost "syrupy" feeling I have while using Vista (specifically regarding common operations like right-clicking, dragging menues around, file-copy operations, etc.) Then Vista has a chance.

Oh and off topic, I'm infuriated that I can't purchase a laptop WITHOUT Vista anywhere on earth now. This MS strong arming is inexcusable and a despicable tactic to rape users with the Vista stick. Once again MS has topped themselves. So as you can see, just simply "sticking to XP" might not be as easy as one thinks. MS has a full blown campaign to shove Vista down peoples throats. Clever advertising is one thing, but not even giving new buyers a choice?? that is not only unfair, its EVIL and unacceptable.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Sep 5, 2007 - 9:48 AM

Vista Home Premium-OEM. $111 on Newegg.

This MS strong arming...

You really think MS is forcing the issue? Did you miss all the news about MS allowing OEMS to continue selling XP? Guess they just don't want to...

S has a full blown campaign to shove Vista down peoples throats.

You mean a company with a new product is *gasp* trying to *sell* it???!?! OH NOES!!!!111oneone

You do realize you are sounding more and more like troll each time you post?

The strongarm comment was just plain false, the campaign to force bit is just *pure* spin...

That very fact that you ended it with MS is EVIL pretty much covers it.

It's been fun. Either relax and try to think logically (which means you can still dislike Vista, just not so irrationally), or you can head over to Slashdot and hone your trolling skills.

Either way, I'm out.

Peace.

Score: 0

By c4p0ne

posted Sep 5, 2007 - 3:22 PM

Great note to end this discussion on, with a downright insult aimed at a forum-goer. shows a little bit about your personal security doesn't it now little camper? ;)

Enjoy your Vista, think i'll wait till SP2.

either way, I'M out.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 4:44 PM

And lets not forget disk space, lets just let it sit there and hope one day we can use it.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 5:31 PM

I don't really have a problem with that. I'm at 750GB right now and I'm pushing it. I really do need 2TB...

Pretty sad, eh?

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Aug 31, 2007 - 8:53 AM

That's called being a pack rat.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 31, 2007 - 9:35 AM

You try putting 60 DVDs, several .avis, and a metric ton of ripped CDs on anything less. :p

Score: 0

By BB88

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 2:19 PM

Is this the reason why Microsoft has finally taken on AutoPatcher?

Score: 0

By jofin

edited Aug 30, 2007 - 2:16 PM

An ageing system XP may be but it is still many times better than Vista.
I run a computer business and a lot of my technicians work in recent months has been removing Vista and installing XP, even on brand new machines bought from major retailers a few days before!
Vista looks much more pretty but it only goes to prove the old saying, "looks aren't everything".
I really do believe that while Vista is the alternative then there is years of life left in XP! Personally I prefer the saying, "many a good tune played on an old fiddle".

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 12:40 PM

Well I have to say that I am perfectly happy with my copy of XP media ed.

I have a Vista Premium upgrade still in it's wrapper and I'm not touching it until I hear a lot more and a lot better news (over some time) about how Vista gets along a lot better with other programs etc etc.

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 8:12 PM

I haven't understood why they didn't do this a long time ago. I mean a year ago before I started using Vista A fresh install of XP from the RTM cd took installing sp2, then watching windows update do a 280mb update session, I mean it was a very time consuming process and for anyone who didn't have a fast internet connection it would of taken days to update. Why they resisted putting out a update rollup shows just how customer focused they really are.

Now they say oh gee lets go ahead and put out a "sp3" and call it a update rollup woohoo thank you soo much I appreciate that effort.

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Aug 29, 2007 - 6:14 PM

Although I applaud the lengthy beta testing phases that go into some of their products (some not lengthy enough), I wonder what would necessitate such a long period of testing for patches and fixes already available.

EDIT: Never mind. Nate, you bring up a good point.

I'm not sure that SP3 should be the correct name applied, since that is basically all it is... a security roll-up. Windows 2000 had Service Pack 4, but also additional security roll-ups, and they were named accordingly. Even if it didn't offer anything new, at least integrate IE7 or Windows Defender (preferably both). That would cut down on bench time.

Whatever they decide to name it, I honestly don't care... just as long as I don't have to suffer the 80+ patches on a post-SP2 install anymore. That's fine with me.

Score: 0

By Joco

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 4:51 PM

"as opposed to SP2 with 85 or more additional patches."

Should probably read "SP2 with 85 WEEKS of patch releases".

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 3:47 PM

"As XP nears its end-of-life..."

Sorry folks, but XP is living a lot longer than Microsoft will admit. I don't see end of life for this until a year after Seven releases.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 2:16 PM

I agree. I've tried Vista four times now, once during the beta phase, again during the RC phase, and twice after the final product was released. Each time I got fed up with it in less than a week and uninstalled it. Vista is such a resource hog, it's not even funny.. and I have 2GB of RAM and I *still* think it's a resource hog. It really doesn't bring anything new other than a fancy GUI, which I don't need. I hate how they scattered all the neatly organized items from XP found under Control Panel and Display Properties. Everything is now buried under sub menu, under sub menu. It annoys me to no end.

Anyway, I will be using XP for a long time to come. I couldn't care less if Microsoft stops supporting it, in an effort to force everyone to upgrade to Crapta, err, I mean Vista.

Score: 0

By xlnt123

edited Aug 31, 2007 - 3:54 AM

I agree with u its Crapta, I personally tried it and installed on 2.8 core duo, 1gb ram, but I was disappointed... I will stick to XP although the support is stopped and until Microsoft Vienna Comes... or Linux becomes usable for Desktop... out of box

Score: 0

By nilst2006

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 3:44 PM

I have read on the net that sp3 should include 900 bug fixes.

Score: 0

By burfadel

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 1:47 AM

You are correct. Its not just a bundled pack of current patches from Windowsupdate. As I was saying in my previous post, there are well over 800 patches/fixes available, just most of them aren't officially downloadable. Some of them are fairly minor, and also Microsoft aren't going to release every patch because there's so many of them. They can still be downloaded, but I'm not going to post where you can download them from. You can also downloaded ALL the fixes for Vista, Office 2007 SP1 beta, Windows XP SP3, AND Windows Vista Sp1. The information in the other thread about Vista SP1 that I wrote is correct because I've seen it first hand, same with XP SP3. Most of the information regarding these two packs I've read are wrong. You really think every fix currently released for Vista, plus all the extra ones that haven't been released, only comes to 50mb?. Do people really think Xp SP3 is only a combination pack? they do but they shouldn't!

Take it from someone thats seen all these extra patches in action for both Xp and Vista, and the Service pack beta's thereof :D. I have not read ONE correct article relating to these two packs.

Its true they contain no new features, but the number of fixes is their standout point!

Score: 0

By frankwick

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 5:26 PM

I'm sure it's inclusive of SP1 and the massive SP2 overhaul. That's a lot of work rolled into SP3.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 3:15 PM

Actually, including optional/non-critical updates, there have been more than 140 updates to Windows XP since the release of Service Pack 2. I think the 85 number might just be the "critical/high priority" security updates.

Score: 0

By burfadel

edited Aug 29, 2007 - 3:19 PM

Windows SP3 include a whole lot more fixes than those available to download (the 85 or so mentioned here), I can assure you of that. MOST updates aren't readily available to download, there are over 660 additional updates/fixes on top of those downloadable from Windowsupdate/Microsoft Download since SP2!!! I know that because I know where to download them from :) The same goes for Vista, there are literally a couple of hundred fixes than can be normally downloaded!

So my point is, SP3 is much, much more than just the current normal updates in one package, its an amalgamation of around 800 updates/fixes current available :) I hope that explains the lengthy testing period!

The current build of SP3 for XP is around 333mb. You have to remember the individual updates take a lot more space due to the setup part, the fact there's usually a normal and QFE version of each file (and with older post SP2 updates a SP1/SP1 QFE version of a file), and the fact that newer updates supercede files in older updates.

That 333mb is compressed, so by the time you discount the general drivers etc. its a pretty extensive update to the system.

Score: 0

By Ruf

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 10:36 AM

"That 333mb is compressed"

Yeah, but what is it uncompressed, 2GB?

I still use XP SP1 minus any updates and it runs fast with never a crash. Granted, this is a home system but I have yet to justify tampering with a OS when everything is working fine.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 6:37 AM

Do you have a source for you claims? I would love to see all of these extra patches you are talking about.

Score: 0

By scorp508

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 10:28 AM

Anybody with access to the Microsoft Premier Support website https://premier.microsoft.com (I do and I'm sure many others here do too) site can verify this. There are and will always be "Public Hotfixes" and "Private Hotfixes". The private ones are far more numerous than the public ones as they typically fix very minor or very very specific issues the general public doesn't need to worry about.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 4:36 PM

Precisely my point thou. The public fixes will be incorporated. The private ones, in the majority, are designed to fix very specific issues on very specific hardware platforms and configurations. The general public does not need them. I know for a fact, I am a microsoft premier customer as well, that there are hundreds of patches, its just that the OP makes it seem as thou the private ones will be incorporated when this is not true. Most of the private ones undergo testing for the configuration they are designed to resolve an issue on, not for the mass public.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 3:54 PM

source?

Score: 0

By guru_v

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 2:36 PM

It seems silly to have to beta test 'fixes already available' simply put together for convenience sake, doesn't it?

Score: 0

By nate

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 2:45 PM

Well, when you're installing 85 or 100 updates all at once, you need to make sure they will play nice with each other. Oftentimes, Microsoft delivers updates incrementally (install, reboot, install, repeat), so things change when you do them all at once.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 3:24 PM

I believe that to a point. For a service pack, I certainly agree that extensive testing is necessary.

However, the effort would be greatly reduced if Microsoft made more frequent "cumulative" update packs, or if they release the monthly updates as bundled package based on the product (ie. a Windows XP August 2007 Update or an Office 2007 August 2007 Update). These could very easily be all of the individual hotfix packs extracted out and then bonded together.

It would still require some testing to make sure they play nicely together, but they already do this process now for Patch Tuesday.

At the very least, they could release quarterly or semi-annual cumulative updates, but this policy of a Service Pack every 3-4 years is becoming absurd.

Score: 0

By JeremyGNJ

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 4:07 PM

ever try to to update a corporate standard XP build using "a bunch of cumulative update packs"?

Believe me. SP3 is needed.

Score: 0

By skags442

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 4:18 PM

thats why some invented imiging... its built into every windows server.

either way a sp would be good instead of 100 diffrent updates, its just cleaner and less prone too problems.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 3:01 PM

^This^

With added 'I don't want to be downloading 80-100 patches each time I format my computer'.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 6:35 PM

You guys should really look at N-Lite...

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 1:27 AM

I would point to Autopatcher, but oh well.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 4:46 PM

Yup. That's what I was doing.

Score: 0

By cdunn

edited Aug 29, 2007 - 4:01 PM

Exactly.

Score: 0

Aug 29 - 3:26 PM ET Google markets Android Market as the 'anti-App Store'

Aug 29 - 3:23 PM ET Apple looks to fix 'minor' iPhone security flaw

Aug 29 - 3:02 PM ET Debian Live 5.0 Beta 1 released

Aug 29 - 2:33 PM ET 802.11r now a published IEEE standard

Aug 29 - 1:07 PM ET Rogers adjusts data plans for iPhone, BlackBerry Bold

Aug 29 - 12:51 PM ET Microsoft buys a shopping service for $486M, but will only keep part

Aug 29 - 12:21 PM ET Google extends its investment in Mozilla, restores MPL license

Aug 29 - 12:11 PM ET Dell's new low-end strategy for emerging markets includes Linux

Aug 29 - 11:43 AM ET Comcast to deploy 250 GB/month usage caps in October

Aug 28 - 6:20 PM ET Where does Barack Obama stand on technology issues?