I think Microsoft is moving in the wrong direction with this move. Why would you move onto a new project with out keeping up the support for the current project. Does this also mean that we can expect to see less patched for Windows XP when Vista comes out? I think that Microsoft should focus on the coustomes they have now and make sure that they are happy so when Vista comes out people will know that "Microsoft stood behind XP, They will stand behind Vista." I don't know about the rest of the world but when I pay for Windows I want the support if I did not I would run Linux.

Like I said before, maintenance work isn't sexy. Besides what this is saying is that they are having technical problems with Vista. Faced with pushing Vista or SP3 out to 2007 they make the financially expedient choice. Delaying Vista another year would be bad for their stock for sure. Too bad for XP users however.

OS X for Intel anyone?

about downloading 108 patches and fixes after reinstallation of windows xp, don't panic. there is the autopatcher :)
http://www.autopatcher.com/

Maybe Microsoft should focus on making one OS relatively solid form a security standpoint. I still think they spend more time on marketing than fixing holes. What is "Windows XP Media Edition" - yet another flavor of XP full of holes? If it's anything like the other "ME" we will be in a world of hurt.

Installing Windows is a nightmare not only with all of the hot fixes and patches, but it also requires anti-virus software, some sort of anti-spyware, and a firewall program to keep hackers at bay.

Since the OS is full of holes, Microsoft should bundle these services as part of their software but instead we get a "Vista" and a "Windows Update Service" that we can pay for. They just roll out Balmer, he busts a vein in enthusiaism for a new version of winblows and we all spend hours patching our systems.

I really love my Mac systems and though they too can have holes - the QT issue was a big one for security (thanks Brian!, however, Apple has only released a handful of small patches compared to the river of updates required for Microsoft.

The only reason they dominate is because some people have no other choice but that's all that keeps them in business. If they made cars they would be going the way of GM. At least GM's tring to make it better instead of flooding us with marketing BS.

Not everyone has a copy of XP SP2 or SP1. My cd is the release version. It takes me about 3 hours to fully install every patch.

It's starting to look like Vista may be the beginning of the end for Microsoft. If they rush it to market, it could end up like Windows Millennium Edition [need I explain this?]. Once Microsoft ends support for XP, I'll probably switch to Apple or Linux. I really wish Apple would port and support OSX to standard PC Intel/AMD chips. I can't understand Apple's logic for not immediately doing so - as it would absolutely and unequivocally devastate Mr. Softie's business model [need I also explain this?]. OTOH, that may go a long way in explaining why I'm not running a Fortune 500 company. Plus I spend way too much time picking at my nose. *grin*

JosephG -- You should really look into taking that original install CD and downloading a copy of SP2 or getting an install disc from Microsoft. Then you can slipstream SP2 and the original install disc together (you can also add any other additional patches you want) so that if you have to re-install again, you can do so all at once.

Check out: http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/articles/guides/Windows-Slipstream-Guide_1.html

Its a shame that no matter what Microsoft does, people will still complain. But I think this is because people are just too comfortable with their current systems to realize how easy they have it by using Windows. Granted, Windows is not perfect and it does issue more security updates then any other operating system. But its also important to point out that Windows is the dominant operating system out there, so if more people use it then obviously more problems will be discovered. As for the spyware and viruses; well it's the same reason why software developers and game developers design their products to run on windows, because the majority of your target customers are using Windows. Hence it is more logical to spend your budget on developing products that will reach the most people; this includes spyware and viruses. If you can't accept these facts then don't use Windows and stop complaining.

And for those left in the crowed that still wish to complain about any operating system then I would recommend them to try and design a better operating system or at least ready the book "Operating System Concepts." If you absolutely must complain about your operating system then please do it in a constructive way and join their support community and voice your problems to the people who can actually do something about it.

P.S. Don't for get to vote!!!!!

Hum, I'd thing either way- downloading 104 patches or SP3 would take the same amount of time. What's so hard about going to Windows Update, leaving your computer alone for a while, and coming back to restart it? Granted it's nice to have a service pack to burn to a disk or place on a network for easy updates, but anyone needing multiple patches for numerous machines is probably ghosting their network. Quite with the whining, I'm more excited to see Vista come out the door than SP3.

Why not just buy a Mac?

Microsoft already has XP users' money, ofcourse they are going to devote the majority of their special olympic team to readying the next cash cow for release. Service pack 3 makes them no money, at least in their eyes. When something doesn't make sense follow the money.

Don't any of you guys know that Windows 2000 was the best and the most stable OS. It may not have had all of those extra pretty colors that Microsoft wasted their money on, but it had it were it counts. That was where its UNIX core came in. Now count and compare the patches between 2000 and XP and see what I mean. Oh, and by the way, Vista is only XP with more pretty colors and a flip-flop menu design.

I would like to second autopatcher as extremely useful. Only XPSP2, 2000SP4 and 2003 are supported but it works extremely well. It does Office and some backend apps as well and autodetects like windows update. A recent run on a brand-new laptop had it passing the MBSA in less than 1/2 hour.

Dan's link however, is not where you would end up if you want the latest version.

The neowin forums is where the latest versions can be found.
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showforum=89
or
http://tinyurl.com/82dxv

78 minutes to download and install the updates since SP2, over a broadband connection!!!???

I think someone's taking a little poetic license here.

Paul,

I included the office patches, which -- if you've never done them, often require you to install not 1, not 2 but 3 service packs and then more updates. Reboots are required w/ each. Give it a try, time it yourself. Post your results.

Another issue is that it can be difficult to keep patching the system plus Microsoft delay some fixes until Service Packs anyway. There comes a critical point when delaying cannot make sense from a quality point of view. So cash is probably the driving factor. Maybe Microsoft is hoping issuing IE(Internet Explorer) 7 will make it easier for them. They might be right given the number of fixes in IE 6, but then again that assumes they will not have to do many patches to IE 7. Their track record does not inspire confidence. Microsoft should have got it right in the first place rather than issue poor quality, insecure code.

Brian, I would like you to write a book on Vista. Interested?

bpruett@wiley.com

You can make your own SP3-like CD, it is called a slipstream. Check out:
http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/view/web/1/

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.