"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.en> wrote in message news:Xns993B523E9258BReplyScoreID@140.99.99.130...
> Michael Jennings offered these thoughts for the group's
> consideration of the matter at hand:
>
>> Ah, likely not so. Try sometime in the first half of 2008, if
>> not delayed: http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=470
>>
> Whatever it really turns out to be, I'll likely take my standard
> "wait and see" for at least 6 months, maybe a year, maybe never. By
> 2008, I will have had a new state-of-the-art-minus-one PC built for
> me, and trade my 2.6 gig AMD to my wife. She doesn't need ultra
> speed, and it'll be better than what she has. I suppose by then,
> Vista will be ready for prime time, enough drivers will be
> available or I'll get a couple new pieces of HW, and fully Vista-
> capable apps will be debugged enough.

SLED 10 seemed slow - I probably needed to be able to tweak it.
Fedora 7 will be released in a week - should have automatic updates.
I feel that Vista constrains me and makes things needlessly difficult,
so I'm interested in alternatives. Apple has some amusing ads.

Operating systems may become commodities for web services.
I think I'll just unplug everything and go camping for a few months.

XPsp2 is far more stable than Vista.

sp3 is just to help people slipstream it and avoid the 70 patch download
each time they install XP.
But you know all about that? Or dont you? No?

They might add a few new tricks too but I dont expect much... especialy if
they add ANYTHING they have in vista it
will be a disaster....

I can forgive ie7 and wmp11.... but if they add defender or windows
search...or other hideous things vista has..

then I guess I wont be saying only vista sucks.. but XP sucks too....




"Justin" <None@None.com> wrote in message
news:eX2oppvnHHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Tiberius" <James@tiberius.kirk> wrote in message
> news:u$nlV2knHHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> There were rumors that perhaps there would never be a sp3
>
> You believe rumors? If not then SP3 has always been planned for release.
> If so then that explains a few things.
>
> Also, you claim to have posted this info in some effort to prove that XP
> can be MORE STABLE (?) thus a WANT to stay with XP? SP3 will do nothing
> to make XP more stable or any better then it already is. It's just a
> compilation of what is already available. SP3 will mostly benefit IT
> professionals so they can re-install XP without a large sum of updates to
> follow.

"Tiberius" <James@tiberius.kirk> wrote in message
news:#rnQwFwnHHA.1388@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> XPsp2 is far more stable than Vista.

Since this has nothing to do with my post, I take it you didn't understand
my post.

> sp3 is just to help people slipstream it and avoid the 70 patch download
> each time they install XP.

NO. SP3 does not help to slipstream. You are ABLE to slipstream the SP.
As for the 70 patch download:

1. There are more then 70 variations of patches.
2. I already addressed that. I take it you didn't understand my post.
Noted.

> I can forgive ie7 and wmp11.... but if they add defender or windows
> search...or other hideous things vista has..

Who are you trying to appease?

> then I guess I wont be saying only vista sucks.. but XP sucks too....

Oh, ok. So no change in your trollism. Got it.