“Customers tired of downloading the 30 or more post-Service Pack 1 patches for Windows XP have eagerly awaited the release of Service Pack 2, which would integrate all these patches into one file. It appears, though, that they’ll be waiting a good bit longer than they anticipated. Microsoft has pushed back the release of Windows XP SP2 to the third quarter of 2004, nearly a year later than expected,” writes J. Eric Smith for Geek.com.
Smith writes, “The wait might just be worth it. Speculation abounds as to why Microsoft has delayed this release so long. The leading predictions are that Microsoft intends to bundle a variety of new functions, not just fixes, into the next Service Pack. Among these new functions are a revamped and more effective built-in firewall as well as fully integrated virus protection software. Microsoft already has such an initiative in beta, dubbed the ‘Microsoft PC Satisfaction Package.'”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: “Microsoft PC Satisfaction Package?” Talk about a misnomer! Why start shooting for “satisfaction” now, Bill? If you’re as successful with this as you were with “Microsoft Trustworthy Computing,” you’ll have a real winner on your hands as usual. Folks, if you want real satisfaction with your PC, try here instead.
(Updated to fix headline typo – 9:56am ET – thanks Atomic Bomb)
LOL: still have to find a satisfied Windows user. After digging a bit and making them feeling comfortable they all start complaining.
They are full of horror stories we Mac users could not even imagine.
The headline reads “3rd quarter 2003.” It should read “3rd quarter 2004.” That’s a big difference.
If I remember correctly, Microsoft paid $8M for the rights to use the Rolling Stones’ “Start Me Up” for their advertising a few years back; do you think they’ll now license the Stones’ “(I can’t get no) Satisfaction”?
Re Angusm
How about “Waiting for a Friend”?
Both OS systems have problems. My XP machines crash less than my Apple X machine; hard to hear I’m sure, but true. Configuring the XP machines on my wireless network was simpler than configuring the Apple (not from familiarty, I’d never done either before–the PCs basically set themselves up, I had to hunt through various folders etc. on the Mac to find the settings, PIA). Yes, you have to download patches for XP, but I don’t have to run two OS on my PC (anybody else still running 9 and X??), in total they both have issues. I am a satisfied XP user, and a satisfied OSX user–they’re just different beasts with different problems. PC-bashing is a sign of fear, just like racisim–Apple users need to get over their fear of the big bad MS and be happy that Apple makes some great products that work well, bashing the “opposition” just makes Apple users look weak and whiny. Pre-XP or NT Apple had the best OS by far; now it’s like Fords and Chevrolets, use what works for you and be happy about it!
People are having fun with this. The name IS funny. Nothing to get defensive about on MS’s behalf.
Paranoia runs deep wrote:
“My XP machines crash less than my Apple X machine; hard to hear I’m sure, but true. “
Yes, really hard to hear. You’ve had more OSX kernel panics than sytem crashes on XP? I will believe you, but still: absolutely amazing. You must be the only one…
“Configuring the XP machines on my wireless network was simpler than configuring the Apple (not from familiarty, I’d never done either before–the PCs basically set themselves up, I had to hunt through various folders etc. on the Mac to find the settings, PIA).”
Are you sure you did this (at least on an Apple)? I’ve set up network (wired in my case) with my G4 as well as with my IBM Thinkpad running XP. With XP a lot more browsing through varoius menus was necessary than with MacOSX, although both resulted succesfully.
Also, with MacOSX you can’t hunt through folder for settings like this, because system preferences can only be accessed through the system preferences menu, where they are all nealty together. This makes me doubt your story a bit….
However, I fully agree with your final note “use what works for you and be happy about it!”. I chose macOS X.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Wow i don’t even have to setup my TiBook for Wireless. I think i just enabled airport and told it to autoselect networks. and that is that.
Oh yeah and i have crashed twice since i got in december. Both times while trying to network with a ThinkPad.
I finally successed, but his XP run machine couldn’t find me, ever. And setting it up to allow me to find him was the usual pain the rear
Yes paranoid, if you believe all that crap, you are indeed paranoid.
Paranoia, your experience is really hard to understand. We’ve been running several OS X machines in our office over the past year or so, and I don’t believe they have ever crashed. However, our 5 windows machines are quite fickle, indeed!
“Paranioa runs deep” is a freaking moron. If your OS X box crashes more than an XP box you are doing something with it that you shouldn’t. If you’ve installed every “haxie” available what do you expect? And how can it be simpler than not having to do anything to setup your wireless access? I have never had to do anything to get airport working out of the box, with the exception of typing in the password if it’s using WEP.
Ton wrote, “Are you sure you did this (at least on an Apple)? I’ve set up network (wired in my case) with my G4 as well as with my IBM Thinkpad running XP. With XP a lot more browsing through varoius menus was necessary than with MacOSX, although both resulted succesfully.
Also, with MacOSX you can’t hunt through folder for settings like this, because system preferences can only be accessed through the system preferences menu, where they are all nealty together. This makes me doubt your story a bit….”
I have a Linksys router/wireless/ethernet hub. With XP on my notebook I slapped in the card, the “new hardware detected” wizard came up, follow the steps, boom. With the Imac I opened up the base with a screwdriver, put the card in (no big deal for me, but this is primarily my girlfriend’s machine, she wasn’t having any of that!), nothing happened. OK, system prefs, etc, it took a while as I remember (this was a few months back) to find the right buttons to open up the right settings to make the rig work (“Folders” was probably a bad word choice, “settings” would have been more accurate). No big deal, but definitely not as simple as with XP. There were more options and the whole process required more time and thought. Not a major hassle, just not as simple as with XP. I’ve also used USB wireless on some of the other XP machines in my house, also easy. I tried the USB wireless first on the Mac (would have been nice if that worked and I didn’t have to buy the much more expensive internal card), no go, I don’t think the external USB rig worked with Macs (it has worked on lots of PC notebooks house guests arrive with, same setup wizard, no issue). No drivers availible for it to work with Macs…
I’m sorry I can’t be more definitive about the exact steps required, but you can be sure I did actually do this and found it simpler on XP.
Crashes: Last night my girlfriend tried to duplicate a photo in Iphoto, Mac version of blue screen of death. My XP machines haven’t crashed in a very long while (last time was after installing new memory, screwdriver also required, no big deal). I have owned many Mac books (from the 100 to the Ti) over the years and many PC books, overall I’d say they were about the same for stability, just different issues.
Thanks for the reasoned response, back to work and waiting for the new Al 15 books, aaargh!!!
“Paranioa runs deep” is a freaking moron. If your OS X box crashes more than an XP box you are doing something with it that you shouldn’t.”–Chuck U
Ah, no, I’m not generally regarded as a moron; if you read my post, the Imac primarily my girlfriend’s machine, she’s not doing anything radical, it’s fully “stock.” It doesn’t crash a lot, but it does crash.
Earlier Windows OS were as unstable as earlier Mac OS; if you are comparing Windows 95/98/ME or something to OSX, then absolutely the Windows machines will crash more! Compare XP to OSX, they are about as stable–I think most people who actually work on both platforms would agree. It amazes me how stable both systems are today! Crashes are not an “integral” fact of life now, pretty nice.
Not really a fair comparison since you were putting the wireless card in a desktop mac versus a laptop pc.. try putting that wireless card in a dell or hp desktop and then see if that experience is painless…
“Not really a fair comparison since you were putting the wireless card in a desktop mac versus a laptop pc.. try putting that wireless card in a dell or hp desktop and then see if that experience is painless…”–Dave Mac
Done that too–same experience. XP Wizard, done. No big deal either way. My somewhat computer-challenged mom even managed it OK (I did have to explain the difference between a phillips and a flathead on the phone to her, but the actual setup was easy enough for her to do on her own.).
Computers are a hassle no matter what OS they run; pick your OS, pick your hassles. Braying about the superiority of one system by attacking the faults of the other system is weak. Again, it’s like cars: drive a ford, drive a subaru, check the bank balance, change the oil regularly after purchase…
Paranoia runs deep wrote:
“Computers are a hassle no matter what OS they run; pick your OS, pick your hassles. Braying about the superiority of one system by attacking the faults of the other system is weak. “
I fully agree on this. On my work I (have to) use Windows machines and at home I (choose to) use a Mac. This is the case for many years now (I am 41) so I have thousands of ‘flighthours’ on both systems, and I feel I can judge them both quite well. I do regard MacOSX as (much) better, but there are certainly also weaknesses. The autodetectfeature – although sometimes a problem itself – is a good concept on Windows, as is the automatic addition of a shortcut to the startmenu when installing new programs. But on the whole, my choice is quite clear…
I still can’t quite figure out how installing on the iMac could be so troublesome for you, but your story I find convincing, so I apologise for doubting it a bit.
Good luck to you and ypur girlfriend with your computers. may she (and het iMac) win….
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
For a site that has the slogan “where mac news comes first,” why is there so much room devoted to covering Windows? It all comes off as petty and weak from our (MacOS X) standpoint. Stick to “articles” that have to deal with Macs, not finding every chance to bash another OS.
(unless the slogan of this site should be: “catering to 15 year-old mac users with self-esteem issues”)
“For a site that has the slogan “where mac news comes first,” why is there so much room devoted to covering Windows?”
I agree. It seems that half of the stories on here lately have a lot more to do with Windows than they do with Macs. Like this story here has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. If we wanted to read about Windows, we wouldn’t be coming to a Mac site. Besides, we already know Macs are superior anyway, we don’t need the nonstop bashing to tell us that.
I fail to understand why “Braying about the superiority of one system by attacking the faults of the other system is weak”. We are not talking about people. In these examples, readers are comparing computer systems. One system may have strengths in certain areas, and that can automatically make the other weak in the same area. But, it is definitely possible for a system to have obvious faults. Major errors in programming decision that have no direct counter in the opposing system. For example, Apple has adequate error and dialog messages, neither great or unique. But MS often has cryptic or ambiguous messages ( http://www.xvsxp.com/dialogs/ ). This is a serious fault of MS and should be under consideration, especially for novice users. This does not make Macs better, but simply makes Windows less novice friendly, a trait that should be considered. [By the way, http://www.xvsxp.com is awesome reading for anyone that really wants to see the differences between X and XP point-by-point and well illustrated.]
Back on topic: Apple DOES offer the equivalent of “Service Packs”. But they are without fanfare and are merely helpful files so the user that may be a few upgrades behind can download just the one and be fully updated. They are named “Update Combos” and very comprehensive, as they include all feature and security updates to that point, and intelligent enough to add/update only the files you are missing. They are located at http://www.info.apple.com/support/downloads.html .
There is no doubt that MS cannot have secret auto-updating, but will instead implement something similar to Macs OS (no surprise) and still find a way to screw it up. I agree that hackers will simply see this as a new point of vulnerability, perhaps a whole new species of virii.
Why do people stay with the hell they know, rather than the heaven they don’t know?
Any OS X 10.2.X system that is crashing either has a hardware problem or marginal third party memory. Applications may go down, but if a machine is throwing kernel panics, it’s one or the other reason. People say well the machine ran great under OS 9. Well folks, OS X pushes memory much harder than 9 ever did. Every OS X machine that I have been about that was crashing, has been attributable to crappy memory.
http://www.xvsxp.com is reasonably fair (for an obviously pro-Mac site), good reading, thanks–more people should read it. For the equally slanted PC version, check http://macbuyersguide.com/editorials/Switch2Mac_report.htm With these two sites you can get a pretty good education on the strengths and weaknesses of each OS.
Note that I didn’t say installing the card was horrendous, just not as easy as XP (and I focused on the after-hardware installation as an Imac is not a notebook as noted).
I think that comparison between OSes is good, but I find that Mac sites often belabour the ease of use and stability concept way past the point of validity in my experience–this makes me doubt anything Apple says, I doubt I’m alone there. The Apple site is truly ridiculous about this; PC sites just say, “Hey, here’s our machine, here’s what’s in it, we’re badass.” Not, “And this cost thousands less than a comparable Mac and will work with any useful software but FCP.” I think this is a lot more credible to the buyer; if you walk into a showroom and all the salesman does is compare his car to the other one with every breath then it pretty much clues you in that the other car might be worth looking at, yeah? The switch campaign is good and Apple needs more users (if only so that drivers and such will catch up, not so virus writers will get excited about having a “market” for their wares, grin).
OK, now I’m gonna go download some Windows updates (still worm free!), this process does suck and I agree with the message if not the tone of the article above. The posts on it are what set me off and took me out of lurk mode.
Now if only the 15AL would appear… I’m WAITING!
“Both OS systems have problems. My XP machines crash less than my Apple X machine; hard to hear I’m sure, but true.”
You might be able to float BS like that in your Wintel forums, but it ain’t gonna fly around here!
We all know how stable OS X is. It don’t crash Dude!
If you want to try and BS Mac users, you need to try something that is even remotely likely to be true! LOL!
Typing this from a Mac G4-500 running on a three week old restart and counting. (only restarted because of some new installs. I have gone months between restarts with Jag. No XP machine I have ever seen can even approach that level of stability)
Unisys system trainer claim Unisys window sever achieve 99.99% uptime. But you have to restart the server every week and run only Microsoft ceritified softwares. The server components are hot swapable but you have to shutdown the system first but you don’t have to turn the power off. This is Unisys definition of “hot swapable” and this is no BULL!!!. Later I found out that the server components can actually be hot swapable if it run Unix system but not Window system.
“Both OS systems have problems. My XP machines crash less than my Apple X machine; hard to hear I’m sure, but true.”
I guess you only use the Apple X machine. I am sure XP machines crash less if you don’t touch it
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />. My window 2000 box never crash even when the power is down!!. Guess what, I never turn it on!!.
Practically all my Windows colleagues run XP. True, they are pleased with how much more stable is but they do not BS because they see my OS X as well at work. I have only rebooted so far for system updates or some installation. Never crashed.
XP does crash, not as often as W2k but id does. My colleagues with XP CANNOT have their laptop sleep for too long. Their machines hangs. This happens with HP and Dell laptops so I guess it is due to some quirks with Windows. They were amazed when they realized I left mine sleep for my 2 weeks vacation and fired it up in no time as usual when back. Usually what they do is shut down for the night.
Another issue they have: they cannot put to sleep the machine during compilation/link tasks on a shell or with emacs up and running: they look with envy when I can simply close the screen, go home, lift the screen and have compilations/link processes resume where it has PAUSED!
On Windows instead they loose their work if they try to do that and are stuck into the office till the job is done if they want to continue work later from home. Kind of being slaves of their computers.
It is all those little (
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” /> ) things that make work experience on a Mac so much better.
With Mac you are the master, not the computer. I prefere being able to tell the computer when it can continue the work rather then having the computer telling me when I can go home.