XP Service Pack 3 release candidate ready to download

While Microsoft is quick to downplay XP when comparing it to Vista, the legacy OS continues to shackle the hearts (and systems) of many. Fortunately, Microsoft just opened up their XP service pack 3 release candidate for general download -- that means you. SP3 RC was previously only available by invitation. Now get going, you'll need time to download all 336MBs of the last major update to the six-year old OS.

P.S. This is a "release candidate." The final SP3 release isn't expected until the first half of 2008.

[Via PC World]

[DAZA @ Dec 19th 2007 2:08AM]

For a six year old OS, Windows XP has done really well. I'm using Vista on 3 PCs at home and XP on 1 (which is an old Celeron 800). SP3 will definitely be welcomed for that old machine, especially if the performance enhancements I've heard about come true. Still waiting for gold service packs on Vista and XP before I use either, but great to see MS nearly finishing both.

[Chris @ Dec 19th 2007 2:10AM]

Direct link to the service pack RC1 (you gotta dig for it a bit)

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=75ED934C-8423-4386-AD98-36B124A720AA&displaylang=en

[mmh @ Dec 19th 2007 2:17AM]

Thanks, but isn't that the exact same link as the "Read" link?

[Chris @ Dec 19th 2007 2:31AM]

Oops, that it is...go me for not putting 2 and 2 together.

For some reason I could have sworn I hit the read link and got sent to the PC World Page. I blame this on lack of sleep and not enough coffee!

[moe @ Dec 19th 2007 2:39AM]

old news, installed it last week.

[witsend @ Dec 19th 2007 2:47AM]

Congratulations.

Any thoughts on it?

[Bobs @ Dec 19th 2007 3:14AM]

This is new news to me

[moe @ Dec 19th 2007 3:23AM]

office 2007 runs a little faster.

[Ted @ Dec 19th 2007 5:09AM]

*Eyes bulge out, screams with primal rage*
Why would you bother to post that this is old news?!?! Most people don't follow 16 tech blogs or visit the microsoft website daily. Most people don't know about this.

[moe @ Dec 19th 2007 9:15AM]

actually it was old news on another tech site like engadget. guru3d announced it on dec.14

[thethirdmoose @ Dec 19th 2007 9:32AM]

OMG MOE!!! will you have my babyz???

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Dec 19th 2007 10:06AM]

That's funny, because Microsoft just released it yesterday.

Knowledge Base (KB) Articles: KB936929
Date Published: 12/18/2007

All you engadget haters are b*tches with out a gripe, looking for reasons to complain just to bring attention to yourselves.

[BorisBorf @ Dec 19th 2007 2:43AM]

The big question is:

Will you have to uninstall SP3 RC when the final SP3 is released?

That is always the big deal breaker for me. It is the case with Vista SP1 and for most other SPs, but I can't seem to find the small line on Microsoft's website that says that is the case.

[DAZA @ Dec 19th 2007 3:48AM]

Yes. Well at least 'yes' with regards to Vista SP1. I don't see why XP SP3 should be any different. I would definitely wait it out for the final so you are not installing/uninstalling service packs all the time. In fact best to slipstream SP3 into an XP image and then install it. Good luck.

[The Dude @ Dec 19th 2007 2:43AM]

I run Vista on a Core2Duo laptop and an AMD 64 X2 desktop and I couldn't be more pleased. Drivers and incompetent software authoring seems to be the issue. Slap your hardware manufacturers for not getting on the ball. Toshiba's upgrade system from XP Media Center to Home Premium was as simple as can be. Their Vista upgrade tool found, downloaded, and installed updated drivers for me. My desktop came pre-installed with it in February so that was of no complication. On the software side of things, UAC may nag but applications asking for admin level privileges isn't sensible either. As for yet the other side of the coin, Vista doesn't bring your system to a crawl if you're running acceptable hardware. Integrated graphics and anything less than a gig of ram isn't acceptable hardware. You bought a budget PC (or just a PC that is now antiquated) and you're getting the experience you paid for.

As for XP being preferable to Vista, it's nice to see Apple has jumped on the old bandwagon with that one. Although I don't think they realize just how telling their ad is. Not only are people going to an old OS, they're doing so in spite of Leopard. In other words, the hyperbole of legions of XP users supposedly running away from Vista may mean they don't like Vista, but it also means they still like XP more than OS X. Maybe the turtle-neck collars choked off some blood to a few brains at Cupertino who should've realized the indirect but still very much present implications of that ad.

[Andrew Harrison @ Dec 19th 2007 2:50AM]

"In other words, the hyperbole of legions of XP users supposedly running away from Vista may mean they don't like Vista, but it also means they still like XP more than OS X."

uhh... yeah. Or, perhaps, after spending all that money on a new Vista PC, they don't want to go out and buy a new Mac?

[DWells55 @ Dec 19th 2007 3:02AM]

Only a few comments in on an article about XP and we've already got Vista-praising and Mac-bashing. That was fast, but wholly unexpected.

"Integrated graphics and anything less than a gig of ram isn't acceptable hardware. You bought a budget PC (or just a PC that is now antiquated) and you're getting the experience you paid for."
Wow, nice elitist attitude there. So because many people can't afford or simply don't want to buy a high-end machine, they should be punished for it? How absurd. Vista uses an amount of resources that is, in my opinion, unacceptably large (regardless of your system specs). My new systme is anything but slow (E6750, 2GBs XMS2, 8800GT) and I still chose Windows XP for it. The fact is that XP still works very well and does what PC users need while running much quicker and on a wider array of hardware.

"Not only are people going to an old OS, they're doing so in spite of Leopard. In other words, the hyperbole of legions of XP users supposedly running away from Vista may mean they don't like Vista, but it also means they still like XP more than OS X."
Wow, way to bring in the Mac-bashing for absolutely no reason. Your comparison is absolutely absurd. The comment above mine covers this nicely - switching back to XP and going out and buying a whole new Mac are two completely different things. If OS X shipped as something that functioned on standard PC hardware you might have a potential argument, but here you have none.


Anyways, nice to see Microsoft is still updating Windows XP. XP has treated me pretty well and my experiences with Vista have been negative, so I'll probably be sticking with XP until the next Windows is released.

[kureshii @ Dec 19th 2007 7:05AM]

So, the mobile business user on a 12" ultraportable running on GMA X3100 deserves his sub-par experience because his laptop was designed to consume less power by sticking with integrated graphics?

It's absurd how a next-generation OS can't even run well on basic hardware produced around the same time as it.

[Spike @ Dec 19th 2007 7:49AM]

Heck yeah, DWells55!

[Johan S @ Dec 19th 2007 2:58AM]

Now I heard a lot of people saying XP is better than Vista on the performance front .. and so there is no need to upgrade. I wonder if Microsoft would deliberately cripple Windows XP performance via this service pack so that people will switch to Vista.

Ok, i suppose that's way too underhanded even for Microsoft.

[L.Cyphre @ Dec 19th 2007 4:01AM]

Oh hell, I didn't think of that.
...
Naah, they wouldn't REALLY do it, would they?
...Would they?

[Kristian @ Dec 19th 2007 3:47AM]

For a 6 year old OS its way more stable than most OS I have seen. Including Apples Tiger. Owned an iMac for a while and always fell back to my XP SP2. Cant wait to download SP3. Congrats Microsoft.

[Elliot @ Dec 19th 2007 8:01AM]

Calling it a 6 year old OS is a bit of a strange way of looking at it.
Mac's developments from the first OS X release to Leapord are analogous to the service packs which have come out for Windows XP. Microsoft can be congratulated for their pricing strategy of "you buy the OS once, and it lasts for 6 years" whilst still upping the features along the way with service packs like these. The specifics of who's come the furthest in this time however are less easy to identify.

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2007 12:08PM]

Wow, I didn't realize Microsoft added as many new features in this service pack as Apple did in its OSX releases.

Wait, oh crap, the official white paper and website is telling me different.

"This update also includes a small number of new functionalities, which do not significantly change customers’ experience with the operating system."

I'm sorry, how are these service packs the same as Apple's OSX releases?

[Carl Vitullo @ Dec 19th 2007 7:07PM]

Well, what did Apple add in leopard? Time Machine? What else major? I'm looking through the "300+" new features, and noticing a lot of them are either things you don't buy a mac for (programming and work). The only really impressive thing I've seen is the scratched disc recovery for the DVD Player. But, that's offset by the fact that they still have the terrible file browser.

[pete @ Dec 19th 2007 3:53AM]

I've officially given up. I'm currently in mid-install to switch my last Windows-based computer to Linux.

[JAmerican @ Dec 19th 2007 5:04PM]

I went to Linux over the summer when my XP SP2 started crashing randomly. Used Ubuntu for a Month and then switched to Vista. Used Vista for a month then switched to XP MCE. Been using XP MCE for about a month now and I'm not switching to anything else. XP MCE I think is the best Windows is going to get until Windows 7 (if thats not hyped like Vista and crap when released). If your interested in getting your XP to look like Vista and even have the Vista Sidebar (which works like for 99% of the gadgets), look here:

http://www.jamerican.net/?p=52

[mwaddoups @ Dec 19th 2007 4:08AM]

Anyone have a link or know what this service pack actually does/changes?

[focker @ Dec 19th 2007 10:17PM]

Whitepaper of changes.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/8/7/687484ed-8174-496d-8db9-f02b40c12982/Overview%20of%20Windows%20XP%20Service%20Pack%203.pdf

[m16 @ Dec 19th 2007 4:14AM]

I hear you get a 5% speed increase with XP SP3 over SP2.

While the Vista SP1 give you 0%.

[JAmerican @ Dec 19th 2007 5:05PM]

More likely to give you -50% performance boost :).

[JAmerican @ Dec 19th 2007 5:06PM]

Vista that is.

[Rynth @ Dec 19th 2007 4:15AM]

SP3 has brought some good performance gains, actually, it surprised me a lot.

Installed it when it was released all in all, go install it if you have XP, its worth it.

Oh , you get some more shiney hidden features to! ^^

[Nogami @ Dec 19th 2007 7:19AM]

Installed fine here, no problems. Seems a bit faster, can't complain.

[tamoghno @ Dec 19th 2007 4:23AM]

publicly released today ?

is not it is publicly available on torrenrts ?

[CB @ Dec 19th 2007 5:02AM]

I've just bought a 'low-end' laptop for my Daughter, OK it's got 1GB ram but it came with Vista so runs like a dog comapared to my XP lappy.
Is there any easy way to cut out all the crap to speed it up a bit? Bearing in mind she just uses it for Messenger and Stardolls.com.

[Spike @ Dec 19th 2007 7:54AM]

Holy cow!

Sex dolls?!?!?!

Guys watch where your kids are going on the web...at least better than CB.

[BubbaGump @ Dec 20th 2007 1:26AM]

Spike,

Your a freakin Moron,
Stardoll.com isnt a porn site,
its a doll dress up site,
like a virtual barbie,

Someone needs a swift kick in the nards for being a pervert.

[Juice Daddy @ Dec 19th 2007 8:51PM]

@CB

I might be able to help you out here


The first thing I would do is disable uac, but that's entirely up to you.

To disable it: click start > control panel > users .. then click on "turn uac on or off" and uncheck it.
(This won't take effect until you restart)


After that, click start then type msconfig and hit enter.
Click the startup tab and uncheck what you don't want to start at login.


Next, download and run ccleaner: http://www.ccleaner.com/
Run the cleaner, fix the registry, and get rid of all the preloaded software using tools>uninstall
(This can also be done via programs and features in the control panel)


I'd bet it came with a norton internet security trial...
KILL, DELETE, UNINSTALL, just get it off that computer ASAP
Norton software makes vista run HORRIBLY.

I'd be willing to guarrantee that more than half of vista performance complaints are due to people buying a manufactured computer with norton preinstalled.


For a new antivirus, I recommend avast:
http://www.avast.com/eng/download-avast-home.html
it is very resource friendly and plays nicely with the new os


Make sure to run windows update and install all "important" updates...


Install firefox along with ad-block plus (search for add-on 1865 and 1136


And last but not least, find out what type of ram the computer takes and head over to www.newegg.com and pick up another 1Gb stick for ~$40

[Michael @ Dec 19th 2007 5:48AM]

A friend of mine heard this enables DirectX 10 on XP... I have not been able to verify this... does anybody know otherwise or can any one confirm this?

I'm installing it now, so I guess I'll know soon enough, except I don't have any DirectX 10 games yet.

[Glen @ Dec 19th 2007 6:00AM]

1 - You will need to uninstall this RC before you install the official release earlier next year

2 - XP SP3 includes new code to support the dual/quad core processors (XP never officially supported dual core processors) - this is the reason for the "speed increases" most people are seeing. Vista already includes full dual/quad/eight core processor support - thus its just XP catching up to what Vista already does normally.

3 - XP SP3 DOES NOT enable or support DirectX 10 on XP. You'd need an enitrely new graphics subsystem for that... ooh! like Vista has - how about that.

[Hax Or @ Dec 19th 2007 9:59AM]

I have one of them there HT (Hyperthreading) CPUs... I wonder if I'll get a speed boost.

[Penguin Warlord @ Dec 19th 2007 3:54PM]

A new graphics system, or a crack for the games that lets you run them on XP ala Halo 2 PC and Shadowrun. And you need more than just new system software, you also need new graphics hardware, along the lines of an 8 series NVidia card. Personally I'll stick with the cracks since my 7 Series card is still plenty fast and it would be pointless to upgrade.

[CosterMonger @ Dec 19th 2007 5:49PM]

"enitrely new"

Direct X 10 is hardly an improvement of Direct X 9.0, looking into the facts you get a 10-25% speed increase for using XP for gaming after seeing the crysis high quality XP "hack" side by side comparison I can live without the extra effects that I've seen little impact of (unlike the HYPE that Microsoft spews forth) that Direct X 10 adds.

but hey it better suited to quad-core processors, so if your going to megatask I guess you could get Vista.

[Glen @ Dec 19th 2007 6:06PM]

I never said whether DirectX 10 was good, worthwhile or neither of those things - just that Vista has it built-in with all windowing and graphics calls using it by default.

You probably won't see an improvement right now but believe me, you will by this time next year when people have Vista, DirectX 10 hardware, good drivers for the graphics hardware (nVidia are still releasing BETA drivers :( ) and WPF programming.

I mean, who really wants a 2D graphics subsystem running the windowing in this day and age??! Microsoft HAD to entirely replace the graphics subsystem with a true 3D system!

Anyways, if you want to get stuck with a 8 year old crippled graphics subsystem in your OS, then stick with your XP :)

[Tiptup300 @ Dec 19th 2007 7:22AM]

Does engadget realize that not everyone is an apple fanboy that needs the newest of apple? We'd rather have a reliable os that can be used with virtually anything.

[AlexNC @ Dec 19th 2007 10:05AM]

I hear you ... At home I can surf the internet, check my email, play my music, watch my movies, and edit images on my PC. No, it doesn't have pretty icons, and cute animations - but that's fine with me, because it works great. Why would I want to change to a whole other operating system that is not compatible with my work files?

[Reid Conti @ Dec 19th 2007 11:27AM]

If this does deliver the promised speed boost, looking forward to when it goes on the work laptop once it goes live. Fortunately I'm getting a secondhand PowerMac this week so that I can get actual work done at the office and don't have to stay home to use my Mac Pro.... wait, damn, there goes that excuse for working from home! However, I'll be keeping the Thinkpad for datacenter visits, so anything that kicks Office 2007 in the pants will be welcome.

Currently it takes 5 minutes to give me a usable desktop after boot, but 10 minutes before everything + Outlook finishes loading and the hard disk activity dies down. I expect better from a dual-core 1.8ghz chip and 1.5GB ram.

[kigamoosh @ Dec 19th 2007 2:39PM]

You really need to get into your MSConfig and disable automatic startups, then. All those little programs that you have on your computer usually install a pre-fetch function so that they load faster when you open the program. But unless you're going to use that program every time you turn on your oomputer, those scripts are just sitting there eating your processor and RAM.

[M-unit @ Dec 19th 2007 1:57PM]

You most definitely can slipstream it. nlite works perfectly for this application.