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

Windows XP SP3 moves closer to completion

By BetaNews Staff, BetaNews

November 19, 2007, 3:33 PM

Beta testers have received access to a release candidate of Windows XP Service Pack 3, but general consumers still have a long wait until they'll see SP3 available for download. Microsoft has scheduled the last major update to its six-year-old OS for the first half of 2008 - likely after Windows Vista SP1.

Around 15,000 testers now have access to XP SP3, and Microsoft says it plans one last public beta release before releasing the final bits next year. The same individuals are testing Vista SP1 RC Preview, although Microsoft has also promised a public SP1 build. Although XP SP3 is more of a roll-up of existing hotfixes and should be completed before Vista's first upgrade, Microsoft will likely delay its release and use SP1 to encourage holdout XP users to upgrade to Vista.

Add a Comment (58 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 Speedy_B

edited Dec 30, 2007 - 12:53 PM

That Neowow.us/tech3 download is old and plus the admin is nuts over there.
If you go to
http://zerosworld.net/fo...opic.php?f=22&t=720
you can get the up to date version of SP3 straight from M$.

Score: 0

By stansfield

posted Dec 10, 2007 - 9:07 AM

Have tried installing winXP SP3 three times but each time installation progresses to half way and then states installation interrupted and reversion
to previous state is initialized.
Any Ideas

Score: 0

By yedaly

edited Nov 25, 2007 - 8:27 AM

thanks to all

Score: 0

By Storytellerofsci-fiction

edited Nov 21, 2007 - 12:05 AM

If you want to download Windows XP Service Pack 3 go to the link below. If your 'smart enough'(duh)to figure out what you have to do to get your system set up as a 'target system' for Windows Update you can download SP3 RC1 directly from Microsoft.(No torrents thank you!!)

Follow the instructions given. (He tells you exactly what you have to do, don't read anymore into it)

Don't bother with the 'links in the first listings' as the bandwidth has been exceeded. I don't need Microsoft hot at me because their servers crashed with too many downloads. (Windows Update)

Oh if you do manage to figure it out, it will take about an hour for the install. I only needed 70MBs of it. But it's showing XPSP3 RC1 is installed.

Here's your site link:
http://neowow.us/tech3/v...f931f00f3145079c162c976

And yes I'm a Microsoft fan boy, duh? (You can always wait for the official release, not).

Score: 0

By CyberDoc999

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 10:50 PM

Vista is great on Laptops

Score: 0

By Lumbergeek

posted Dec 17, 2007 - 1:23 PM

hahahahahahahahaha!

Score: 0

By DakotaSunRunner

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 10:05 PM

I see absolutly no reason whatever to upgrade to vista now or ever. In a couple of years they are coming out with a new OS once again. They plant to support windows Xp for several more years, so why would anyone want to upgrade to miserable vista if a new os is within two years and they are supporting XP for 4 more years? Vista was a big promise that never happened which is usually the case with Microsoft. Ugrade after upgrade after upgrade and still it is not right. So why spend the money on something you do not need at all unless it is merely to keep up with the joneses. I am sticking with XP.

Score: 0

By Alpha258

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 11:44 AM

For people who use Windows I honestly don't see why anyone should upgrade to Vista when XP is already a really good OS and its very well supported.

Anyway, I don't need to think should I spend x amount of money to upgrade my OS since I switched to Linux. If I want to upgrade my OS I can just check out the new features on the web and click upgrade if I want to.

Score: 0

By dracon8390

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 10:40 AM

From Win 3.0 thru Vista, I've watched and bought, tried and discovered that MS always promises the pot of gold will be in the next incarnation. I've beta tested 98 thru Vista. Conclusion? There are some very interesting Linux Distros that are worth downloading. Who knows, you might actually have time to use and enjoy your computer instead of constantly having to upgrade with service packs and new $$$ spent on incomplete MS oses.
Happy Using.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 12:30 PM

"There are some very interesting Linux Distros that are worth downloading."
Yeah, there are some worth downloading, but not many worth using as a day-to-day desktop solution in my opinion...at least not until they can make a default installation that doesn't have problems with mouse cursors disappearing. (Yes, I am sure there is a way for the user to fix it, but they shouldn't have to.)

"Who knows, you might actually have time to use and enjoy your computer instead of constantly having to upgrade with service packs and new $$$ spent on incomplete MS oses."
If you are spending that much time maintaining a windows machine, you are doing something horribly wrong.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 11:17 AM

Are you under the impression Linux never gets updated?

Wow....you've got a rude awakening headed your way.

Score: 0

By vyrwz

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 10:23 AM

HAHA!! you know what i love about BetaNews? . .
60% thier up to date news (but of course i could get my news somewhere else) and
40% their posters :D!! sometimes funny, sometimes techy, but you always learn more on the comments than on the actual news . .

thanks for posting people from around the world

peace

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited Nov 20, 2007 - 7:19 PM

redundant post deleted

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 4:59 AM

The Windows XP_Service_Pack_3_Build_3244_RC1_English.3900481 is already on line. So far, the only thing that I found is a partial torrent file from a closed down Pirate Bay and that damned RapidShare website, which takes hours to get in a half dozen pieces.
Or you pay these thieves who host pirated warez for a profit...

Score: 0

By photonboy

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 2:08 AM

Vista 32-bit still runs games at only 80% FPS on average and Vista x64 is horrible for gaming at 50%.

It turns out it is NOT the video drivers as many people thought but Vista itself and likely an issue that SP1 will fix.

As for delaying XP SP3, I don't believe that for a second.

As a semi-expert on Microsoft Windows I do see the benefits of Vista but I also don't recommend the average person upgrade from XP. If you are buying a new computer or are a gamer and "need" DX10 I say yes. If you are a gamer and will have both XP and Vista you most definitely should dual boot at least until frame rates vastly improve (SP1?).

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 7:25 PM

SP1 will be the only SP for Vista. How do I know? Let's consider:

-- Windows NT reached Service Pack 6, although service pack 7 was promised.

-- Windows 2000 reached Service Pack 4, although a service pack 5 was promised.

-- Windows XP has reached Service Pack 2, and although Service Pack 3 is promised, there's no 100% guarantee that they won't change their mind and issue yet another cumulative rollup.

Better hope there's a lot more fixes in Vista SP1 than there are currently.

Score: 0

By modicr

edited Nov 20, 2007 - 9:55 AM

No, the sequence will be (6,4), (3,2), (0,0)

So, there will be XP.SP3, Vista will have
two service packs and "Windows 7" will be
without service packs - updates will be
available only via network ...

Cheers, Roman

Score: 0

By mdotwills

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 12:20 AM

Lets just hope that they go ahead and release a "Vista Revised Version", where they fix up all the mistakes from the core out.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 8:18 AM

SP1 'partially' fixes the issues mentioned in above 2 posts... it is noticeably better, but still leaves a lot to be desired.

Score: 0

By GRACOMPUTERS

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 6:57 PM

How disappointing XP SP3 will be "purposely" delayed. How lame of M$! Although, I'm pretty sure that when is does go gold, it'll be "leaked" well beforehand.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 7:32 PM

First of all, Microsoft has always said that they release updates "when they are ready."

A release candidate in no way whatsoever means that it's genuinely ready for release, especially in Microsoft world. There are almost always two of them, sometimes three.

Very rarely do they hold back an update just to synchronize a schedule, especially so far as Windows, Office, and their server apps are concerned. The only case I can think of in the past 7 years is the Vista/Office 2007 releases, and they still released Office 2007 to business users several months earlier when it was ready.

Their only motivation in synchronizing the Vista SP1 / XP SP3 updates is to tempt users to move users to Vista, but they won't make the SP3 release beyond that time. The decision will only alienate the businesses that dislike Vista.

Score: 0

By Hurmoth

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 4:21 PM

I will be skipping Vista entirely, as Microsoft should have, so bring on SP3 for XP. Hopefully Windows 7 isn't as bad as what Vista has turned out to be.

Oh and bring on the Vista fanboys bashing me. It doesn't bother me because this is all about personal taste, I just happen to like an OS that works and XP does everything I need, no point in spending $250 on an OS that doesn't had any real functionality over its predecessor.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 7:21 PM

Maybe if you had a good PC you would see the difference. Vista works great on my PC. Just about to upgrade teh game machine for some directx 10 excitement.

Score: 0

By Hurmoth

posted Nov 21, 2007 - 7:02 AM

For your information, I have an AMD Athlon 64 X2 with 2GB of RAM. Maybe it isn't the hardware after all?

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 21, 2007 - 9:50 AM

Funny it works great on my X2.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Nov 20, 2007 - 1:06 PM

"Just about to upgrade teh game machine for some directx 10 excitement."

Such as?

I am using Vista and like it, but I have yet to find a single "DX10" game that isn't actually using DX9 with a few tweaks. We probably won't see a decent DX10 game for another year or so.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 2:29 PM

What about Crysis?

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 2:46 PM

Can run in full "DX10" glory on Windows XP using a few config file hacks.

The only way this would be possible is if they were using a hacked XP with DX10 (not possible), or Crysis wasn't "really" using DX10.

In case you're having trouble (;p), Crysis is, in fact, a DX9 game.

They simply coded the "ultra-high" DX9 settings to not be usable except under a system with DX10. Well, a few config file hacks later the "ultra-high" DX9 settings were unlocked in XP....under DX9.

Score: 0

By Alex1974BR

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 6:15 PM

Hey, it´s time to change that 128 MB Pentium III of yours... wanker!

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 7:34 PM

I beg your pardon, you bloody, pompous twat, but I run an AMD Athlon X2 processor with 3GB of RAM. I still run XP, because I simply don't like Vista. Sure, I can use Vista and not have much performance issue-- especially since I can spend hours tweaking it-- but why bother when I like what I have and don't need eyecandy to get my work done?

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 8:12 AM

Even then, XP will run circles around Vista on that same exact system.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 1:04 PM

Only because we have years of tweaking knowledge and experience with XP. We'll be able to do the same with Vista...eventually. Hell, vlite is actually starting to look somewhat usable.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

edited Nov 21, 2007 - 5:45 AM

HHmmmm, i don't know 'bout that for certain.... i'd say there's too much bloat at the very basic code-writing level-- & which is overcome 'only' by a subsequent OS being able to utilize more and more cores & ram.
For example, I had some investing software(huge databases constantly writing to disk- rather than memory) that ran slower and slower with each subsequent Windows release(BTW confirmed by program author and all users-- multibooting on a myriad systems):
98 ran it faster than ME, which in turn ran it faster than 2K, with XP bringing up the rear @ 5-10 times slower than 98... and now Vista slowest of all.
Said program was then reworked- shifting as much work as possible from disk to ram-- resulting in XP besting all, including Vista... with SP2 besting preceding XP releases. I suspect the same will occur with Vista-- both for the reason you allude to and the ironing out of expected initial kinks.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 7:23 PM

Yeah, that's helpful and mature...

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 5:18 PM

If it's all about personal taste, why lie about it?

"no point in spending $250 on an OS that doesn't had any real functionality over its predecessor."

First, it can be had legally for MUCH less than $250. Second, it has a load of real functionality that XP does not have.

The fact that you misrepresent these facts is not a matter of personal taste. It is a matter of ignorance or malice. Don't try to come off here as "above" all the conflict while at the same time using the same rhetoric that's been spewed by the anti-MS crowd since Windows 95. We're not that stupid.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 7:38 PM

Actually, it is still a matter of preference and perception. What you qualify as "real functionality" and benefit is still a matter of opinion.

For example, you may believe that the Windows Calendar is the greatest applet ever written, while I think it's a worthless pile of manure that couldn't fertilize a pasture if it sat for a millennium.

I think that Office 2007 is the absolute best version of Office ever released and would NEVER use any other version, and you may despise the ribbon and prefer 2003.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Nov 20, 2007 - 9:28 AM

Sorry. User-mode drivers, rewritten memory heaps and a entirely new audio subsystem is "more functional" no matter how you look at it. Let's not even mention DX10 or WPF...

If this additional functionality is not useful to someone, great, but stating it isn't any more functional is just plain ignorant.

Score: 0

By wreckedchevy

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 6:00 PM

i agree completely if you are having problems with vista then buy a real computer... vista is a great os with much better built in features than xp....

Score: 0

By treworld

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 4:37 PM

At least Vista looks a lot better than Millenium. Too bad, Millenium works better than Vista. =T

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 7:23 PM

No that is a real load of s*** there. Nice job at trying to be a troll.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 7:42 PM

Not really... several tech pundits are already calling it ME 2.0.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 8:43 AM

There is always going to be a side that likes it and a side that hates it. The sad part is only the complainers get the news.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 5:55 AM

At least Vista doesn't give you a BSOD before it even finishes a clean install.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 1:02 PM

Heh...

Got it 4 times my first 4 tries installing ultimate on my brand new system.

...of course, after replacing the faulty RAM is installed just fine. Never say never. :p

Score: 0

By dgootman

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 4:35 PM

Whats wrong with Windows 2000, then?

Score: 0

By Lumbergeek

edited Nov 20, 2007 - 6:50 PM

Absolutely nothing wrong with W2K. It lacks certain features, but here's my experience: I'm surrounded by computers, all but two of which run Windows2000. The one I'm typing on is XP and we have one running VxWorks for true real-time data acq. Everything else that runs the plant runs on W2Ksp4r1, including some near-real-time threads which are set to a ridiculous priority.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 7:41 PM

Absolutely nothing!

I loved Windows 2000 so much that I ran it exclusively from the time it entered beta in 1998 until 2005 when I finally upgraded to Server 2003 on my server. From that point, I took the plunge and upgraded my laptop to XP SP2.

I didn't hate XP either, I just liked 2000 that much. It was fast, light-weight, and had a surprisingly large hardware library.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 6:18 PM

It moves slower than a turd after an all you can eat burrito buffet.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 9:24 AM

Wouldn't a turd actually move faster after that? ;)

Score: 0

By Morsel

edited Nov 19, 2007 - 4:48 PM

It crawls, slower than a pregnant turtle

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 8:28 AM

Discounting apps for a particular win version only, 98 ran faster than 2k which ran faster than xp which runs faster than vista.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 4:11 PM

"Although XP SP3 is more of a roll-up of existing hotfixes and should be completed before Vista's first upgrade, Microsoft will likely delay its release and use SP1 to encourage holdout XP users to upgrade to Vista."

Sounds fine to me. There's no way that I will upgrade to Vista SP1 without the testing for months that I should have done for Vista Gold. Vista Gold was a bas**** of a release and obviously rushed by 3-4 months.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 8:21 AM

If already on Vista, SP1 is a MUST HAVE-- although not a total cure, it markedly improves things... not enough THOUGH, to upgrade from XP.

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 3:52 PM

My guess is sp3 will include a combination of 3 things. An update rollup that includes ie7, media player, windows defender and all those security updates, as well as fixes for WGA and naturally its not going to install on those pirated serial keys or hacks.

So what is so complicated about that and why does it takes years to figure it out? I mean its rediculous.

Score: 0

By burfadel

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 4:00 PM

Services packs don't usually contain news versions like IE7, WMP, Windows Defender etc, although I think they should. This has always been Microsoft's policy regarding service packs.

A service pack is more than just a combination of hotfixes. It includes the hundreds of hotfixes not available by the normal WU or download centre (and there's several hundred of them).

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Nov 20, 2007 - 5:59 AM

In Windows XP they do. Windows XP Service Pack 2 included a new completely new version of Windows Media player (version 9).

Score: 0

By Morsel

edited Nov 19, 2007 - 4:52 PM

"It includes the hundreds of hotfixes"...damn that sounds scary when you really think of it.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 19, 2007 - 7:45 PM

Service packs are almost always like that.

Mind you, some bugs are so small and unnoticeable that they only crop up in very rare circumstances, others are just performance adjustments in the codebase, and others comprise the 150+ hotfixes released to Windows Update and the Support Knowledgebase.

Score: 0

Jul 8 - 6:44 PM ET Siemens announces massive worldwide job cuts

Jul 8 - 6:23 PM ET Angry YouTube users boycott, Viacom seems to respond

Jul 8 - 6:13 PM ET World saved: There will be Scrabble on Facebook

Jul 8 - 5:57 PM ET Major fix to DNS vulnerability impacts Windows, Debian

Jul 8 - 5:46 PM ET PayPal, Google team in anti-phishing initiative

Jul 8 - 5:20 PM ET Sprint's answer to its troubles: better customer service

Jul 8 - 5:11 PM ET Face it, mobile TV doesn't need the set any more

Jul 8 - 5:07 PM ET Dawn finally nears for JBoss AS 5.0 application server

Jul 8 - 3:58 PM ET Microsoft to host 'Deskless Worker' entry-level Web services

Jul 8 - 3:23 PM ET Google adds fuel to Canada's BitTorrent throttling fracas