FYI,

New review:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895...MNL112706EP21A

SP 1 is not as long as you (we) thought: Second half of the next year
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2060137,00.asp

Since they share a common codebase, that makes sense. The same thing is
happening now with Windows Server 2003 and XP Pro x64. The codebase for XP
Pro x64 is Server 2003 SP1, so the upcoming service pack for both is SP2 and
will release in a few weeks.

Since there never was an SP1 release for XP Pro x64 it sounds a little odd
at first.

"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:O$z2yMqEHHA.3820@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> FYI,
>
> New review:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895...MNL112706EP21A
>
> SP 1 is not as long as you (we) thought: Second half of the next year
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2060137,00.asp
>

>The codebase for XP Pro x64 is Server 2003 SP1,[...]

Thanks for I did not know that.

And for those who are waiting for SP 1 to purchase the new OS, it won't be
too long :)



"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%232TK8kqEHHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Since they share a common codebase, that makes sense. The same thing is
> happening now with Windows Server 2003 and XP Pro x64. The codebase for
> XP Pro x64 is Server 2003 SP1, so the upcoming service pack for both is
> SP2 and will release in a few weeks.
>
> Since there never was an SP1 release for XP Pro x64 it sounds a little odd
> at first.
>
> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:O$z2yMqEHHA.3820@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> FYI,
>>
>> New review:
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895...MNL112706EP21A
>>
>> SP 1 is not as long as you (we) thought: Second half of the next year
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2060137,00.asp
>>
>
>

But SP2 will be better and SP3...well, why not just wait for Vienna? You
know the drill.

"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23EIMHtqEHHA.4212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>>The codebase for XP Pro x64 is Server 2003 SP1,[...]
>
> Thanks for I did not know that.
>
> And for those who are waiting for SP 1 to purchase the new OS, it won't be
> too long :)
>
>
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%232TK8kqEHHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Since they share a common codebase, that makes sense. The same thing is
>> happening now with Windows Server 2003 and XP Pro x64. The codebase for
>> XP Pro x64 is Server 2003 SP1, so the upcoming service pack for both is
>> SP2 and will release in a few weeks.
>>
>> Since there never was an SP1 release for XP Pro x64 it sounds a little
>> odd
>> at first.
>>
>> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:O$z2yMqEHHA.3820@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> FYI,
>>>
>>> New review:
>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895...MNL112706EP21A
>>>
>>> SP 1 is not as long as you (we) thought: Second half of the next year
>>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2060137,00.asp
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

This has been known for a while now.

"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:O$z2yMqEHHA.3820@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> FYI,
>
> New review:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895...MNL112706EP21A
>
> SP 1 is not as long as you (we) thought: Second half of the next year
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2060137,00.asp
>

Thanks and forgive my poor knowledge :)


"SAM-R" <SAM-R@news.postalias> wrote in message
news:%23DnvmosEHHA.4212@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> This has been known for a while now.
>
> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:O$z2yMqEHHA.3820@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> FYI,
>>
>> New review:
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895...MNL112706EP21A
>>
>> SP 1 is not as long as you (we) thought: Second half of the next year
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2060137,00.asp
>>
>
>

Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP x64 share service packs.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper******.com
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%232TK8kqEHHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Since there never was an SP1 release for XP Pro x64 it sounds a little odd
> at first.

That's because XP Pro x64's codebase (WS 2003 SP1) was already at service
pack level one when XP Pro x64 rtm'd last year.

I suspect that you will see the same thing happen when Longhorn Server
rtm's. Since it shares the same codebase with Vista and it looks like LH
Server will release simultaneously with Vista SP1, the codebase would then
be at service pack level one and LH Server would later go from LH Server
Gold to LH Server SP2 without ever having a separate SP1 release. Plenty of
folks will ask about that one, wondering if they somehow missed seeing a
release. We get the question now in the 64bit newsgroup about the "missing"
XP Pro x64 SP1.

"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
news:uM%23cF3tEHHA.996@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP x64 share service packs.
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper******.com
> * NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%232TK8kqEHHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>> Since there never was an SP1 release for XP Pro x64 it sounds a little
>> odd at first.
>
>