Microsoft backports Vista features for new Windows XP SP3 beta

It looks like Vista isn't the only OS Microsoft is working to improve, with the folks at Neosmart now reporting that a beta of Windows XP SP3 Build 3205 has been sent out to a select group of testers. Apparently, it includes more than a thousand patches and hotfixes, some of which have actually been backported from Windows Vista. Those include a new Windows Product Activation mode, which doesn't require you to enter a product key during setup, as well as new a network access protection module that replicates many of the features found in Vista. Other notable additions (to some) include a new Kernel Mode Cryptographic Module and so-called "Black Hole Router" detection, which protects against "rogue routers" attempting to discard data. All this, of course, follows the recent extension of XP sales until June of 2008, so it certainly seems that there's quite a bit of life left in the venerable OS that many are still clinging on to.

[Via Slashdot]

[Richie @ Oct 9th 2007 12:59AM]

Nifty? what more can really be said. XP is getting old and it's about that time for that last big update.

[paul34 @ Oct 9th 2007 1:33AM]

True, but its still the best darned OS MS has ever put out.

Seriously. Vista is a disaster, and definitely is giong to need at least 2-3 more years. XP still works. It just *works*.

It'd be nice to have an update.

[Thomas @ Oct 9th 2007 6:30AM]

$20 says you've never even tried Vista.

[zargon @ Oct 9th 2007 7:58AM]

"$20 says you've never even tried Vista."

I haven't had much face time with Vista yet, we won't be rolling it out here at work until 2009, so some time before then I will be testing and tweaking it for our work environment. Nevermind the fact that we are going to have to do a huge upgrade of our computer systems, I would say about 20% of our computers are going to need to be replaced and 80% or more will be getting upgraded to at least 2 GB of ram. It is actually going to take a lot of work to get Vista rolled out.

Until then, I will stay clear of Vista. I don't have any real beef or problem with the OS other than it strains most new hardware, not the high end, but most people are not buying the high end hardware. I got a laptop for my wife last x-mas and thankfully it came pre Vista, XP works great for what she needs it for and it gets the job done. Example, my wifes friend bought almost the same laptop with Vista and it runs like crap. Sure it has something to do with 512 MB of ram, and I told her to spend the $40 or so to get up to 1 GB, but still. A OS should not tax a brand new system like that, even after I turned off all the visual bells and whistles, it still did not run as it should.

I am sick of OS's being these bloated resource hogs, which is why I am running linux on all my computers. The core linux system just works and works great on older hardware. If I want eye candy and that stuff, I can add it, but I know it is build around a rock solid core that isn't going to strain the system.

That is Vista's major problem, give it 2-3 years and most peoples current hardware should be able to handle Vista a lot better and I think more people are going to be fine with making the switch.

[Long @ Oct 9th 2007 12:27PM]

I got a pre vista for christmas but with a free copy of vista premium when it came out in Spring of 07. So far it's great.

It looks much better than XP and it has some very cool although below the radar functions. One is the volume control. You can now mute or adjust each programs you want at from the system tray rather than digging through drop down menus from each program individually. There are some sidebar programs that are neat like the one that changes your desktop wallpaper every x minute or showing you how much ram or cpu you are using. Also syncing to my smartphone is better than xp. I didnt even need to install any drivers. Also for some reason the flash memory on my phone would take forever to send a large file to it. With vista, its quicker.

Vista didnt impact performance on my laptop that much. I was worried that battery life would suffer, but so far it is on par with xp. In fact I installed vista on my mom's computer which was a very old and tired computer. Although it has 512 ram and a pentium 4 chip, I took off all the visual settings and it works fine.

[sr @ Oct 9th 2007 1:01AM]

Well they better. Win2K had 6 service packs and is still on extended support until 2010. There are big, big clients who will continue to use XP for many years.

It is nice to get some of the features and core improvements of Vista without the annoying Apple wannabe UI and annoying UAC (yes, I know it can be disabled). Still, I wonder how much of Vista's crap DRM is coming along for the ride.

[sr @ Oct 9th 2007 1:09AM]

I meant 4 service packs. I wonder why I said 6.

[Richie @ Oct 9th 2007 1:09AM]

"Apple wannabe UI" Just because a UI is nice looking does not mean it copied apple. For real I'm sick of my pc being more dull then jamie kennedys' stand up, with my only alternative being something that closely resembles my nephews toybox.

[ryan @ Oct 9th 2007 1:10AM]

'Vista's crap DRM' will be coming to OSX as well. As much as it sucks, it's not actually Microsoft's fault

[Jesse S @ Oct 9th 2007 1:21AM]

DRM? So what? Who cares? If they support it, that just means it will be easier for the average Joe to get exposed to some music, movies, or whatever.

I buy CD's, DVD's, BRD's, and HD DVD's, then I rip them myself. No crappy DRM, and lossless goodness.

I seriously do not get what the big stink is over DRM, it's been on DVD's and whatnot for years, and good ripping software can get right past it.

[michael @ Oct 9th 2007 1:30AM]

"annoying Apple wannabe UI"?

Uh, there's only so many ways to make an OS look nice. It was just time until Microsoft eventually put some nice effects on it. I rather like AERO.

"crap DRM"

As far as I can tell, this DRM does not hurt me, or practically anybody. Do you even know what it does?

Microsoft HAS to do it by the Hollywood studios. If you're blaming anyone, it's Hollywood.

Also, the PVP (Protected Video-Path) won't be in effect until possibly 2010 or even 2012. By that time, a new version of Windows will be rolling (hopefully better).

And guess what? Linux or OS X users won't have official access to these premium movie content.

So I'm tired of people using "Vista" and "DRM" in the same sentence, to connotate something bad. Read it up people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista#Reaction

I love XP for the stability and large support.

Vista is pretty awesome too, if it was more supported, and companies would just put up the darn drivers.

[suv4x4 @ Oct 9th 2007 1:34AM]

"vista's crap drm" -> any sources?

You don't have to enter the license during install, that's actually good, not bad.
And second, the cryptography module which many touted as "drm", is actually nothing of the sort. It's just a collection of harmless standard cryptography algorithms for apps to use without the need for reimplementing.

[Dustin Frazier @ Oct 9th 2007 2:09AM]

Mac fanboys aren't the most computer savy or open minded people. But they are definitely the loudest most irritating band of the ignorant spectrum. If you say that Vista is anything like OSX then you have never used Vista. There is a night and day difference between the two. Vista is actually useful. It doesn't treat me like a retard or a 90 year old man. I can actually do what I want with it. I am forced to use a mac for school. At the end of the day I run back to Vista with open arms. How can 6% of the computing world be such loud asshats?

[smoke_tetsu @ Oct 9th 2007 2:27AM]

I'm a Mac user and even I can see that Aero and Aqua are nothing alike. Just because a person is a Mac user doesn't mean they are blind.

[Sam Winter @ Oct 9th 2007 2:48AM]

@Dustin Frazier

Way to generalize you dumbshit. Mac people aren't Computer savy? Is that why I was writing code when you were shitting your diaper?

"Vista is actually useful. It doesn't treat me like a retard or a 90 year old man."
Oh really? is that why every fucking time you click the mouse it locks out the whole screen except for a dialog box to "make sure" you really know what you're doing?!?

Speaking of asshats like yourself, it truly is sad that only 6% of people with a computer have enough intelligence to actually run an operating system that doesn't crash every 10 fuckin seconds and only get worse with each pathetic generation.....

[Dustin Frazier @ Oct 9th 2007 3:30AM]

@Sam Winter

"Mac people aren't Computer savy?" I'm sure there are many computer savy Mac users, Sam. You are just not one of them. You may be a Mac expert (which isn't very hard), but that's about as good as being able to change a carburetor in the age of fuel injection. If you look again you'll see that I said fanboy, a loathsome group to which you have proven yourself a member of. I'll back that up with the following from your post "operating system that doesn't crash every 10 fuckin seconds". Really? Is Vista really that much for you to handle?

But you were right, I did say "How can 6% of the computing world be such loud asshats?" and that was a generalization. Not every Mac user is irritating. It is just the highly vocal highly brain-washed minority such as yourself that give the rest a bad name. "6% of people with a computer have enough intelligence to actually run an operating system that doesn't crash every 10 fuckin seconds and only get worse with each pathetic generation....." lol you just keep running for that cliff.

[Vanillacide @ Oct 9th 2007 7:14AM]

sr is right, some big organisations are still using 2000. One large corporation I know well has 350,000 desktops running 2000, they even blitz new PCs and install 2000 on them so they can run their remote controlled Standard Operating Environment on them; they aint likely to change anything OS related unless they _really_ have to.

[axemte @ Oct 9th 2007 9:20AM]

It's 3% worldwide and 5/6% in the US. Why do these morons always try to inflate the numbers!?

[sr @ Oct 9th 2007 10:41AM]

Alright. Saying that it is Mac wannabe might be taking it a little too far. However, what improvements have the UI changes really brought to you?

Aero is pure eye candy. Has it really changed the way you interact with the OS? All in all, for most users it just made everything harder to find. My friend picked up a Vista pre-loaded laptop and he tried for a long while just to find "add or remove programs" and he's a smart guy who can find his way around XP just fine. It might get better with getting used to, but really they put all the features that power users might use and put them under menu, under menu, under another menu. Things are not even grouped very well. It was hard to find the turbocache settings. If it were XP, it would be sitting right there in Control Panel and that's it. If not it would be in "System Properties" - just right click on "My Computer" and there it is.


As for DRM, I have some reading for you:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

http://www.forbes.com/security/2007/02/10/microsoft-vista-drm-tech-security-cz_bs_0212vista.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=trF&q=vista+drm+analysis&btnG=Search


Vista actually devotes resources away from running applications to make sure that ALL media is being run through a "protected path" and it will check every few milliseconds to make sure there is no breach of DRM. This protected path applies to non-DRM media as well since ALL media goes through this path.

How many of you remember the "bug" where your network connection slows down when playing an MP3?

They then went on to say that it done by design. Then they wrote up some fancy paper saying that it was done to make sure all media plays back smoothly without any glitches or interruptions.

Let me tell you something: My 9 year old P-II 400MHz can play MP3s without slowing down a network connection. They apparently decided to take resources away from networking to make sure that this protected path had resources available at all times when playing a media file - even a piddly MP3.

Yes, folks MS sold out big to Hollywood and the record label fat cats this time. They could have just given them a fat middle finger since they have a de facto monopoly, but they didn't.

It's a bold new world out there and a time will come when you - the user - has no real control over what YOUR computer is doing. I hope everyone likes the new eye candy though.

[sr @ Oct 9th 2007 10:42AM]

Alright. Saying that it is Mac wannabe might be taking it a little too far. However, what improvements have the UI changes really brought to you?

Aero is pure eye candy. Has it really changed the way you interact with the OS? All in all, for most users it just made everything harder to find. My friend picked up a Vista pre-loaded laptop and he tried for a long while just to find "add or remove programs" and he's a smart guy who can find his way around XP just fine. It might get better with getting used to, but really they put all the features that power users might use and put them under menu, under menu, under another menu. Things are not even grouped very well. It was hard to find the turbocache settings. If it were XP, it would be sitting right there in Control Panel and that's it. If not it would be in "System Properties" - just right click on "My Computer" and there it is.


As for DRM, I have some reading for you:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

http://www.forbes.com/security/2007/02/10/microsoft-vista-drm-tech-security-cz_bs_0212vista.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=trF&q=vista+drm+analysis&btnG=Search


Vista actually devotes resources away from running applications to make sure that ALL media is being run through a "protected path" and it will check every few milliseconds to make sure there is no breach of DRM. This protected path applies to non-DRM media as well since ALL media goes through this path.

How many of you remember the "bug" where your network connection slows down when playing an MP3?

They then went on to say that it done by design. Then they wrote up some fancy paper saying that it was done to make sure all media plays back smoothly without any glitches or interruptions.

Let me tell you something: My 9 year old P-II 400MHz can play MP3s without slowing down a network connection. They apparently decided to take resources away from networking to make sure that this protected path had resources available at all times when playing a media file - even a piddly MP3.

Yes, folks MS sold out big to Hollywood and the record label fat cats this time. They could have just given them a fat middle finger since they have a de facto monopoly, but they didn't.

It's a bold new world out there and a time will come when you - the user - has no real control over what YOUR computer is doing. I hope everyone likes the new eye candy though.

[Derbeste @ Oct 9th 2007 11:25AM]

sr....

Aero wasn't meant to redefine how we interact with the OS. It was just ment to quite critics who felts XP was way behind the times graphically.

MS's next OS (code named Avalon) is supposed to be the big UI redesign. It supposed to be as drastic of a change a Office 2007 was.

[sr @ Oct 9th 2007 12:10PM]

Derbeste..

Okay, so it is known that Aero is just pure eye candy and nothing else. At the same time they made it harder to find things in the menus. So there was actually regression in usability, but everything looks better. That's not a trade off I would make, but then again that's why I am sticking with XP for the time being.

Sounds like a UI designed for average joe, not for us.

[Dustin Frazier @ Oct 9th 2007 12:46PM]

@ SR

There are exactly as many steps in Vista as there were in Xp to get to the programs menu, two total. Open control panel, click on programs and features. Or you could just type "program" in the start menu search box. It is pretty pain free and easy to use with a very short learning curve to get caught up from XP.

Aero = taskbar preview and flip 3d. Both can be very useful if used regularly.

As has been said a million times before, the quality of an OS is subjective. I can work and play faster on a Windows OS and have less overall frustration.

[sr @ Oct 9th 2007 7:37PM]

It's not about getting into programs which is fine on Vista, but making changes to settings that is frustrating. Even after turning off UAC, it still takes some finding what you are looking for in Vista. The same happened in Office 2007, but it really does a good job of placing what is used most often very conveniently. I can't say the same for Vista.

[holycow @ Oct 9th 2007 1:20AM]

nice move.. putting a bit from vista into xp .. so that people wont have MUCH problems adapting to the new OS when they decide to install it :)

[TEM @ Oct 9th 2007 1:30AM]

Wait, so let me get this straight: they are bring features from Vista to XP?

Sounds like Microsoft is trying to cripple XP so people will have to switch to Vista. :p

[Naveed @ Oct 9th 2007 1:32AM]

cant wait for Win XP SP3 to hit the torrents, ive been using a copy of SP2 for a few years now that has me install about 100 updates everytime I do a fresh install.

[suv4x4 @ Oct 9th 2007 1:37AM]

"every time I do a fresh install"

How often do you reinstall. I haven't touched this XP I use for nearly 4 years and it's working ok.

What continues to amaze me is the people who keep reinstalling their OS every month as some sort of weird ritual.

The Windows 95 days are gone, XP works fine without being reinstalled all the time.

[Keaton @ Oct 9th 2007 2:40AM]

Ever thought of slipstreaming all those updates into your install CD? What has the world come to... Seriously... Illiterate monkeys using computers... Tisk, Tisk.

[hn333 @ Oct 9th 2007 2:51AM]

I reinstall all the time because I like to mess around with the os. Sometimes I kill it by mistake.

[Naveed @ Oct 9th 2007 2:58AM]

i do it to a lot of other peoples computers, but i also like to do it to mine about once a year. I just did all the comps at work (5).

[Chip @ Oct 9th 2007 8:17AM]

Reinstalling WinXP.
1. What in the world are you doing. I haven't reinstalled XP in... I can't remember.

2. Disk imaging backups are your friend. Embrace.

[Xsecrets @ Oct 9th 2007 1:39AM]

Too bad they didn't backport the one thing that matters DX10. Far be it from Microsoft to give the customers what they want. No they backport all the vendor lockin bits.

[Vanillacide @ Oct 9th 2007 7:15AM]

If they backported DirectX 10 there really would be no good reason to "upgrade" to Vista, so that aint never gonna happen.

[Chip @ Oct 9th 2007 8:26AM]

I was wondering when someone would mention DirectX 10. WinXP was done so "right". It supports everything. It just doesn't crash. It recovers pretty well. It has almost limitless addons to make it whatever you want. If Microsoft gave it DirectX 10 (which you know they could), Vista sales would really suffer... even more than they are now. Microsoft is a victim of their own success.

[sr @ Oct 9th 2007 10:47AM]

Well they would still get OEM sales since they will go out on new computers. As for everyone else, especially people who are computer savvy, there is no reason whatsoever to get Vista if DX10 were available on XP. It would be nice if some rogue developmental DX10 install file leaked for XP.

[Robb @ Oct 9th 2007 2:18AM]

"True, but its still the best darned OS MS has ever put out.
Seriously. Vista is a disaster, and definitely is giong to need at least 2-3 more years. XP still works. It just *works*. "


I remember the EXACT same statements being made about XP when it came out. And by now it should "just work"... after all this time XP is so darned fixed & patched up it actually IS a good OS now.

No hate for XP, I love it myself, but come on... seriously ;)

[jeremy s @ Oct 9th 2007 2:19AM]

I had some fun trash talking Microsoft for Vista, but the truth is that what's happening now with Vista is the same as what happened with XP when it was first released I honestly think that XP was a iffy OS untill SP 2 and that will probably be the case for Vista but one would think that Microsoft would have learned from passed mistakes. I am gratful that XP will be around a bit longer and give Vista a chance to mature before I have to finally "upgrade" the windows that I have to use.

[sr @ Oct 9th 2007 11:05AM]

That's all fine. But today if you want DX10, you have to use this buggy OS TODAY. Vista will probably be fine after SP1 or maybe after SP2 and many of us will switch THEN. But what do we do for DX10? Talk about shoving an unfinished product down our throats.

IMHO, XP was best after SP1. SP2 is great for average joe, but for the power user it forced a good deal of stuff on us. I disable most of the extra services, but now Windows Update REQUIRES 3 different services to be running constantly even for manual updates. That was BS.

[Luke @ Oct 9th 2007 2:25AM]

I can understand the vista hate coming from average joes. After all, would you want to buy one of these new Vista computers with 512 MB of RAM without knowing how to adjust services, background programs, and upgrade RAM?

But for an experienced user... I love it. It's prettier, easier to set up (try setting up raid in XP.. that alone sucks worse than ANYTHING in Vista), has great 64-bit support so I can actually see my 4gb of RAM, and has lots of new niffty features.

Although my computer isn't 100% stable (I get the weird freeze for 30 seconds and then "catch up" bug every so often), it is 100% as stable as it was with XP (I got that in XP too.)

So yeah. XP is SOOOO 2001. Really enjoying Vista.

[Sai Bharadwaj @ Oct 9th 2007 4:50AM]

Like to point out that though the security flaws are less in Linux & I am used to linux, I still prefer Windows XP over other operating systems. It gives me enough flexibility & I am fine with it except a few technical glitches. Windows Vista looks a bit complicated as I never tested it out personally.

Regards,
SaiBharadwaj
http://www.publishernotes.com

[zargon @ Oct 9th 2007 8:14AM]

Glad I made the switch over to Windows Deployment Services with Business Desktop Deployment instead of RIS here at work. Recreating all of our images would have been a absolute nightmare. All I will have to do is either slipstream SP3 into the XP install files or let MS do it for me and copy the XP SP3 install files over.

[Luigi193 @ Oct 9th 2007 8:56AM]

As an apple fan, I say to all my fellow apple fans...

SHUT THE HECK UP!

[jared @ Oct 9th 2007 10:37AM]

My personal machines have been Macs for a while, and until recently I booted NT/2k/XP at work. I now run Eclipse or Parallels to develop software for XP, Vista, and a variety of other platforms. Still, one man's opinion, and people should use whatever they like using. That said:

Vista is a collection of cool lab experiments, some of whose masters eventually learned to beat them into submission, some of whom are now rampaging through the user and developer community and eating people's brains and productivity.

Yeah, it's a little like when XP first came out. It's also a little bit like when OS X first came out. The problem with that excuse is roughly the same as in the XP case:

IT'S the SAME F*CKING UNDERLYING CODE BASE! HOW DID THEY BREAK SO MUCH SH*T?

UAC's too easy a target, so here's a better example:
Vista so radically changed how drivers are loaded, some of Microsoft's own drivers still have crashing or stuck IRP bugs in them. And we're not talking about boutique hardware here; stuff like 1394 is broken.

And just to be clear, I have a lot of respect for engineers at Microsoft. Their driver peeps *really* know what they're doing. And I have reason to suspect that their OS developers are solid coders too. But that only serves to underscore how "questionable" some of the high-level design tradeoffs were at the product management level. It will get a lot better, but there's really no excuse for how bad it is right now.

For the record, there's an extensive list of things that still suck in OS X...just not numerous or severe enough to make me prefer using anything else.

@Luke: If Vista is "for advanced users," I guess that explains why there's roughly one major corporation in the USA using it: Microsoft.

[CB @ Oct 9th 2007 10:55AM]

I don't want a frukin OS on my computer, who put them in charge anyway?
Has my cars black box got a bloated OS running on it?
No!
If Microshite got their grubby hands on them it would, your car would have a progress bar on the dash every time you turned the key.
I'd run Windows 3.1 if someone would write software for it, the hardware is nearly the same and every time they increased it's power amazingly Microshite increased the OS bloat factor to keep the speed down.
My new XP machine boots no faster than that old 286.

[9bit @ Oct 9th 2007 10:39PM]

You don't want an OS on your computer? That would make things so much harder for software developer who would have to wtrite programs that can work off the bootloader.

[Steve Jobs @ Oct 9th 2007 11:12AM]

I agree with luke, average users who buy a new pc with shitty specs will hate vista. What I don't understand is why pc makers are still building machines with only 512 mb of ram. I bought a laptop in March, admittedly its a lower end machine (1.6 ghz turion x2, 1 gb of ram, on-board video) its runs vista just fine including aero and does it very well.

So average joe do some research before you buy a new pc, there are tons of options under 600 bucks for a machine that'll run vista just fine. Its not overly complicated, the user interface is pretty slick, UAC isn't annoying and doesn't propmt even a 1/3 the number of times you mac bitches fantasize about.

So In conclusion my *lower-end* laptop runs vista great and I'm really happy with it.

[sjdurfey @ Oct 9th 2007 12:54PM]

@Steve Jobs: UAC is horribly annoying. Mine is disabled. I got tired of being asked, seemingly, everytime i ran a program on my computer. My favorite UAC error so far has been when i install Visual Studio 2005, and it asked me if i was "sure i wanted to install this, because its coming from an unauthorized source" and the window even listed "Microsoft Corporation" and the publisher of the software! I found this quite humerous. But not as much as this, even though its completely off-topic, i just found it on youtube last night http://youtube.com/watch?v=8MmPFMPl-f4

[B @ Oct 9th 2007 7:17PM]

Good to see that Microsoft is still supporting XP wholeheartedly, however godawful Vista is.

Engadget, would it be so much to ask for you to implement some kind of ranked-based comment hiding system, so we can bury pretentious douchebags like Sam Winter in the deep hole they deserve?

[IowaSuby @ Oct 10th 2007 9:54AM]

Every OS is secure out of the box if not attached to the internet. This idea that Vista is "more secure" than WinXP is crazy, both are secure, until you attach that ethernet cable to your computer.

Anyway, large businesses usually regulate what you can and cannot do on the internet so for most of them win2k or winXP are perfectly fine. On top of that if you have custom apps. working on an older Microsoft OS, why upgrade? You have to look at your ROI and upgrading to Vista isn't worth the expense.

Most of you are arguing about HOME computers, Microsoft doesn't care about you. They only care about their top 5-10% of customers using a campus agreement or business agreement. Those are the people driving the changes at Microsoft.