XP SP3?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ColTom2
  • Start date Start date
So if you pay you are exempt from the Official (Microsoft) Secrets Act
<G>?



--
~~~~


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> ColTom2 wrote:
>> Just wondering if any of you had downloaded and installed the
>> new SP3. I
>> have heard so much good news about it that I would like to hear
>> some first
>> hand comments.
>
> Gordon wrote:
>> It is STILL only available to the OFFICIAL beta testers. No-one
>> here should be discussing it,
>
> Alias wrote:
>> Why not, Top Secret is it? LOL! It's being discussed all over the
>> tech web sites so I guess it can be discussed.
>
> Gordon wrote:
>> Well AFAIK they shouldn't be - there are private MS groups for beta
>> testers....
>
> As I said elsewhere in this thread - on or around December 3, 2007 -
> the Release Candiate (1) for SP3 for Windows XP was posted on MSDN
> and TechNET. It was in Private Beta - however - that private beta has
> been extended to all users with TechNET or MSDN subscriptions.
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
 
Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:41:39 -0700 from Ken Blake, MVP
<kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain>:
> Yes, I know. But a Release Candidate is not a released version. It is
> essentially a late-stage beta version, and is still very risky to use.

Right -- because the released version won't have a whole lot of bugs.
:-)

Back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and I developed software, a beta
version was intended to be as bug free as possible, and a release was
supposed to be bug free. (It never was, but that was the goal, and we
took it seriously.) Nowadays the release seems like just another in
the series of betas -- hence the incessant stream of patches and
updates post release.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"If there's one thing I know, it's men. I ought to: it's
been my life work." -- Marie Dressler, in /Dinner at Eight/
 
ColTom2 wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Just wondering if any of you had downloaded and installed the new SP3. I
> have heard so much good news about it that I would like to hear some first
> hand comments.
>
> Thanks
>
>
It has not yet been released. It will come out in 2008 and looks to be
very good with respect speeding up XP.

Rick
 
Gordon wrote:
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:ep4UWX1OIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Hi:
>>
>> Just wondering if any of you had downloaded and installed the new SP3. I
>> have heard so much good news about it that I would like to hear some first
>> hand comments.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>
>
> It is STILL only available to the OFFICIAL beta testers. No-one here should
> be discussing it, as I believe that the beta testers agree to an NDA before
> becoming accepted. they also have their own private newsgroups for
> discussing this. Anyone who is NOT an official beta tester has either got it
> "illegally" or from a very dubious source.
>
>
BS, it has been widely reported in the media expecially in regards to it
impact on Vista.

Rick
 
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:49:19 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote:

> Ken
>
> Sometimes you can say the same with newly released software. Whether
> it's beta or not makes no difference <G>!


I don't agree at all, Gerry. Yes. it's true that even released
software (and not just *recently* released software) can have serious
errors. But there's still a big difference between beta software and
released software. With released software, the manufacturer at least
thinks that there are no critical errors remaining, and it's safe to
use. With beta software, the manufacturer is normally aware that there
critical errors; if he thought there were none, he would release it,
rather than keeping it beta.

Note my last sentence, quoted below. I didn't say that there was risk
with beta software and no risk with released software; I said there
was "always *increased* risk when you run a test version."


> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:41:09 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"
> > <tom@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> >> news:aicrl31frp7atv1dpebhrevs55hn8lh3dt@4ax.com...
> >>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:16:16 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"
> >>> <tom@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ken:
> >>>>
> >>>> RC1 has been released to MSDN and TechNet.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I know. But a Release Candidate is not a released version. It
> >>> is essentially a late-stage beta version, and is still very risky
> >>> to use.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> The machine I'm running (testing) it on has had zero problems for
> >> several day.
> >
> >
> > Glad to hear it. But that does not make it safe it run, and proves
> > nothing. It's a still a test version, not a released one, and there is
> > always increased risk when you run a test version.
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Thats a beta
Dont you read before firing?

"AJR" <ajrjdr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ukBT1b2OIHA.5264@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Do people "pay" attention to posts?
>
> As Shenan stated in his post - XP SP3 RC1 is the current release and was
> made available to MSDN and TechNet subscribers.
>
>
> "DL" <address@invalid> wrote in message
> news:u5XMCw1OIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Only Beta released, I believe, supposedly 10% performance increase.
>> Therefore expect release date to follow Vista sp1 :)
>>
>>
>> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ep4UWX1OIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Just wondering if any of you had downloaded and installed the new SP3.
>>> I
>>> have heard so much good news about it that I would like to hear some
>>> first
>>> hand comments.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
OK I'll try and make this as clear as possible.

It's a freakin' Beta. Use at your own risk. If you really must try it,
then don't blame anyone but yourself if it goes tonto.

If that's not clear enough, try a new hobby.
 
Maincat wrote:
> OK I'll try and make this as clear as possible.
>
> It's a freakin' Beta. Use at your own risk. If you really must try it,
> then don't blame anyone but yourself if it goes tonto.
>
> If that's not clear enough, try a new hobby.
>
>

I don't do final releases until it's been *beta* tested by the
unsuspecting general public for a month or two.

Alias
 
Ken

Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live OneCare both have non-betas with
memory leaks!

Did you see what Mike M thought about Windows Live OneCare?

--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:49:19 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Ken
>>
>> Sometimes you can say the same with newly released software. Whether
>> it's beta or not makes no difference <G>!
>
>
> I don't agree at all, Gerry. Yes. it's true that even released
> software (and not just *recently* released software) can have serious
> errors. But there's still a big difference between beta software and
> released software. With released software, the manufacturer at least
> thinks that there are no critical errors remaining, and it's safe to
> use. With beta software, the manufacturer is normally aware that there
> critical errors; if he thought there were none, he would release it,
> rather than keeping it beta.
>
> Note my last sentence, quoted below. I didn't say that there was risk
> with beta software and no risk with released software; I said there
> was "always *increased* risk when you run a test version."
>
>
>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:41:09 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"
>>> <tom@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in
>>>> message news:aicrl31frp7atv1dpebhrevs55hn8lh3dt@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:16:16 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"
>>>>> <tom@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RC1 has been released to MSDN and TechNet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I know. But a Release Candidate is not a released version. It
>>>>> is essentially a late-stage beta version, and is still very risky
>>>>> to use.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The machine I'm running (testing) it on has had zero problems for
>>>> several day.
>>>
>>>
>>> Glad to hear it. But that does not make it safe it run, and proves
>>> nothing. It's a still a test version, not a released one, and there
>>> is always increased risk when you run a test version.
 
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:34:19 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote:

> Ken
>
> Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live OneCare both have non-betas with
> memory leaks!


Gerry, you are missing my point. I don't dispute that at all. I am
certainly not claiming that all (or even any) non-betas are perfect.
My point is that, as a general rule, the likelihood of a beta having a
serious problem is significantly greater that the likelihood of a
non-beta having a serious problem.




>
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:49:19 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ken
> >>
> >> Sometimes you can say the same with newly released software. Whether
> >> it's beta or not makes no difference <G>!
> >
> >
> > I don't agree at all, Gerry. Yes. it's true that even released
> > software (and not just *recently* released software) can have serious
> > errors. But there's still a big difference between beta software and
> > released software. With released software, the manufacturer at least
> > thinks that there are no critical errors remaining, and it's safe to
> > use. With beta software, the manufacturer is normally aware that there
> > critical errors; if he thought there were none, he would release it,
> > rather than keeping it beta.
> >
> > Note my last sentence, quoted below. I didn't say that there was risk
> > with beta software and no risk with released software; I said there
> > was "always *increased* risk when you run a test version."
> >
> >
> >> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:41:09 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"
> >>> <tom@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in
> >>>> message news:aicrl31frp7atv1dpebhrevs55hn8lh3dt@4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:16:16 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"
> >>>>> <tom@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ken:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> RC1 has been released to MSDN and TechNet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, I know. But a Release Candidate is not a released version. It
> >>>>> is essentially a late-stage beta version, and is still very risky
> >>>>> to use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The machine I'm running (testing) it on has had zero problems for
> >>>> several day.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Glad to hear it. But that does not make it safe it run, and proves
> >>> nothing. It's a still a test version, not a released one, and there
> >>> is always increased risk when you run a test version.
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
"Gordon" wrote in message news:fjk1rk$4vm$1@news.mixmin.net...
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:ep4UWX1OIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Hi:
>>
>> Just wondering if any of you had downloaded and installed the new
>> SP3. I
>> have heard so much good news about it that I would like to hear
>> some first
>> hand comments.
>
> It is STILL only available to the OFFICIAL beta testers. No-one here
> should be discussing it, as I believe that the beta testers agree to
> an NDA before becoming accepted. they also have their own private
> newsgroups for discussing this. Anyone who is NOT an official beta
> tester has either got it "illegally" or from a very dubious source.


Oh really? So if I get it from Microsoft's Windows Update site and am
not an official beta tester than the Windows Update site is an illegal
source? All it takes is to add one registry entry to get the WU site
to offer the SP3 update. I don't need to be an authorized beta
tester. I don't have to pay big bucks for an MSDN subscription. I
just go to the WU site to get it.

I've got SP3 installed but under a VM in VMWare Server. So far, which
is all of 2 days, it's been okay. No crashes but then no real need
for it, either. I don't need NAP (network access protection; see
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb545879.aspx) since this
is my home PC so I don't have to concern myself with running host that
are not fully updated and which present a security risk and want to
run those with restricted network permissions. I don't need to
concern myself with a roll-up of previous updates which are already
available from the WU site. And if I was having problems with
hotfixes that weren't available via the WU site then I would've gotten
those separately to fix those problems.

Most users asking for the availability of SP-3 haven't a clue why they
would need it. Most will never notice the claimed 10% performance
increase after applying SP-3. I don't even bother overclocking my
video card because a 10% faster result is nearly meaningless in
real-world use and at the cost of greater heat, increased instability,
and reduced time to failure. XP is already faster than Vista.
Another 10% faster is irrelevant. By the way, the way the 10%
increase was measure was to run through a script to run a series of
real-world applications to see how long it took for all of them to
complete. That doesn't mean YOU will be executing the same sequence
of actions so who knows if you'll see any of that 10% increase. SP-3
isn't going to speed up your games, and your word processor is sitting
so extremely idle waiting between your keystrokes that 10% faster is
meaningless. Remember that delivering a service pack that delivers a
"measurable" speed boost simply means that, thank God, it didn't make
it SLOWER!

Yeah, installing SP-3 has been interesting to see that it didn't
destabilize my host but it has been uninteresting in its effect (as
there are no real changes for users to experience; i.e., no ooh-aah
reactions). Remember that I'm testing it in a VM. That is for a
clean install of the OS, not with all the applications that gets
installed later to make actual use of the OS but garbage up the
pristine OS.

For the question "When will SP-3 become available?", the better
response is "Detail why to you need it?" I can get it but don't have
a good reason to deploy it into my working OS until it gets released.
 
Sorry Ken I was moving on from your original point which is patently
true.

--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:34:19 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Ken
>>
>> Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live OneCare both have non-betas
>> with memory leaks!
>
>
> Gerry, you are missing my point. I don't dispute that at all. I am
> certainly not claiming that all (or even any) non-betas are perfect.
> My point is that, as a general rule, the likelihood of a beta having a
> serious problem is significantly greater that the likelihood of a
> non-beta having a serious problem.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:49:19 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes you can say the same with newly released software.
>>>> Whether it's beta or not makes no difference <G>!
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree at all, Gerry. Yes. it's true that even released
>>> software (and not just *recently* released software) can have
>>> serious errors. But there's still a big difference between beta
>>> software and released software. With released software, the
>>> manufacturer at least thinks that there are no critical errors
>>> remaining, and it's safe to use. With beta software, the
>>> manufacturer is normally aware that there critical errors; if he
>>> thought there were none, he would release it, rather than keeping
>>> it beta.
>>>
>>> Note my last sentence, quoted below. I didn't say that there was
>>> risk with beta software and no risk with released software; I said
>>> there was "always *increased* risk when you run a test version."
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:41:09 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"
>>>>> <tom@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:aicrl31frp7atv1dpebhrevs55hn8lh3dt@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:16:16 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"
>>>>>>> <tom@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ken:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RC1 has been released to MSDN and TechNet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I know. But a Release Candidate is not a released version.
>>>>>>> It is essentially a late-stage beta version, and is still very
>>>>>>> risky to use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The machine I'm running (testing) it on has had zero problems for
>>>>>> several day.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad to hear it. But that does not make it safe it run, and proves
>>>>> nothing. It's a still a test version, not a released one, and
>>>>> there is always increased risk when you run a test version.
 
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:25:03 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote:

> Sorry Ken I was moving on from your original point which is patently
> true.


OK. Thanks, Gerry. Glad to hear we agree.




> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:34:19 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ken
> >>
> >> Windows Live Messenger and Windows Live OneCare both have non-betas
> >> with memory leaks!
> >
> >
> > Gerry, you are missing my point. I don't dispute that at all. I am
> > certainly not claiming that all (or even any) non-betas are perfect.
> > My point is that, as a general rule, the likelihood of a beta having a
> > serious problem is significantly greater that the likelihood of a
> > non-beta having a serious problem.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:49:19 -0000, "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ken
> >>>>
> >>>> Sometimes you can say the same with newly released software.
> >>>> Whether it's beta or not makes no difference <G>!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't agree at all, Gerry. Yes. it's true that even released
> >>> software (and not just *recently* released software) can have
> >>> serious errors. But there's still a big difference between beta
> >>> software and released software. With released software, the
> >>> manufacturer at least thinks that there are no critical errors
> >>> remaining, and it's safe to use. With beta software, the
> >>> manufacturer is normally aware that there critical errors; if he
> >>> thought there were none, he would release it, rather than keeping
> >>> it beta.
> >>>
> >>> Note my last sentence, quoted below. I didn't say that there was
> >>> risk with beta software and no risk with released software; I said
> >>> there was "always *increased* risk when you run a test version."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:41:09 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"
> >>>>> <tom@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in
> >>>>>> message news:aicrl31frp7atv1dpebhrevs55hn8lh3dt@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:16:16 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"
> >>>>>>> <tom@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ken:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> RC1 has been released to MSDN and TechNet.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, I know. But a Release Candidate is not a released version.
> >>>>>>> It is essentially a late-stage beta version, and is still very
> >>>>>>> risky to use.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The machine I'm running (testing) it on has had zero problems for
> >>>>>> several day.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Glad to hear it. But that does not make it safe it run, and proves
> >>>>> nothing. It's a still a test version, not a released one, and
> >>>>> there is always increased risk when you run a test version.
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
"VanguardLH" <VanguardLH@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:O5LOENDPIHA.4688@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Gordon" wrote in message news:fjk1rk$4vm$1@news.mixmin.net...
>> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ep4UWX1OIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Just wondering if any of you had downloaded and installed the new SP3.
>>> I
>>> have heard so much good news about it that I would like to hear some
>>> first
>>> hand comments.
>>
>> It is STILL only available to the OFFICIAL beta testers. No-one here
>> should be discussing it, as I believe that the beta testers agree to an
>> NDA before becoming accepted. they also have their own private newsgroups
>> for discussing this. Anyone who is NOT an official beta tester has either
>> got it "illegally" or from a very dubious source.
>
>
> Oh really? So if I get it from Microsoft's Windows Update site and am not
> an official beta tester than the Windows Update site is an illegal source?
> All it takes is to add one registry entry to get the WU site to offer the
> SP3 update. I don't need to be an authorized beta tester. I don't have
> to pay big bucks for an MSDN subscription. I just go to the WU site to
> get it.
>
> I've got SP3 installed but under a VM in VMWare Server. So far, which is
> all of 2 days, it's been okay. No crashes but then no real need for it,
> either. I don't need NAP (network access protection; see
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/bb545879.aspx) since this is my
> home PC so I don't have to concern myself with running host that are not
> fully updated and which present a security risk and want to run those with
> restricted network permissions. I don't need to concern myself with a
> roll-up of previous updates which are already available from the WU site.
> And if I was having problems with hotfixes that weren't available via the
> WU site then I would've gotten those separately to fix those problems.
>
> Most users asking for the availability of SP-3 haven't a clue why they
> would need it. Most will never notice the claimed 10% performance
> increase after applying SP-3. I don't even bother overclocking my video
> card because a 10% faster result is nearly meaningless in real-world use
> and at the cost of greater heat, increased instability, and reduced time
> to failure. XP is already faster than Vista. Another 10% faster is
> irrelevant. By the way, the way the 10% increase was measure was to run
> through a script to run a series of real-world applications to see how
> long it took for all of them to complete. That doesn't mean YOU will be
> executing the same sequence of actions so who knows if you'll see any of
> that 10% increase. SP-3 isn't going to speed up your games, and your word
> processor is sitting so extremely idle waiting between your keystrokes
> that 10% faster is meaningless. Remember that delivering a service pack
> that delivers a "measurable" speed boost simply means that, thank God, it
> didn't make it SLOWER!
>
> Yeah, installing SP-3 has been interesting to see that it didn't
> destabilize my host but it has been uninteresting in its effect (as there
> are no real changes for users to experience; i.e., no ooh-aah reactions).
> Remember that I'm testing it in a VM. That is for a clean install of the
> OS, not with all the applications that gets installed later to make actual
> use of the OS but garbage up the pristine OS.
>
> For the question "When will SP-3 become available?", the better response
> is "Detail why to you need it?" I can get it but don't have a good reason
> to deploy it into my working OS until it gets released.

So if I overclock my video card, memory/cpu and get SP-3 I'll get a 30%
increase!!

Woot
:-)

Not that I have tried the beta or will, but when it comes official I may
have to tweak this old box out.
:-P

--
Tip
www.gotips.net
 
"Tip" <gotip1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xUJ7j.1692$sf.204@trndny04...
> So if I overclock my video card, memory/cpu and get SP-3 I'll get a
> 30% increase!!


Right up to when the hardware dies.
 
What happens if you encounter a problem? Do you have a way to report the
problem and get a fix?


"Tom [Pepper] Willett" <tom@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote in message
news:OIvY6F3OIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It is also available from MSDN and Tech-Net for subscribers, quite legal.
>
> I'm testing on a computer as we speak.
>
>
> "Gordon" <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:fjk1rk$4vm$1@news.mixmin.net...
> : "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
> : news:ep4UWX1OIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> : > Hi:
> : >
> : > Just wondering if any of you had downloaded and installed the new
> SP3.
> I
> : > have heard so much good news about it that I would like to hear some
> first
> : > hand comments.
> : >
> : > Thanks
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
> : It is STILL only available to the OFFICIAL beta testers. No-one here
> should
> : be discussing it, as I believe that the beta testers agree to an NDA
> before
> : becoming accepted. they also have their own private newsgroups for
> : discussing this. Anyone who is NOT an official beta tester has either
> got
> it
> : "illegally" or from a very dubious source.
 
We'll uninstall it and wait for the next version.

"Sam Hobbs" <samuel@social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote in message
news:%23E0FLlJPIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
: What happens if you encounter a problem? Do you have a way to report the
: problem and get a fix?
:
:
: "Tom [Pepper] Willett" <tom@youreadaisyifyoudo.com> wrote in message
: news:OIvY6F3OIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
: > It is also available from MSDN and Tech-Net for subscribers, quite
legal.
: >
: > I'm testing on a computer as we speak.
: >
: >
: > "Gordon" <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
: > news:fjk1rk$4vm$1@news.mixmin.net...
: > : "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message
: > : news:ep4UWX1OIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
: > : > Hi:
: > : >
: > : > Just wondering if any of you had downloaded and installed the new
: > SP3.
: > I
: > : > have heard so much good news about it that I would like to hear some
: > first
: > : > hand comments.
: > : >
: > : > Thanks
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: > : It is STILL only available to the OFFICIAL beta testers. No-one here
: > should
: > : be discussing it, as I believe that the beta testers agree to an NDA
: > before
: > : becoming accepted. they also have their own private newsgroups for
: > : discussing this. Anyone who is NOT an official beta tester has either
: > got
: > it
: > : "illegally" or from a very dubious source.
:
:
:
 
Back
Top