Do you really think Microsoft would release Update 3 when the Technical Preview is around the corner? I clearly doubt that is going to happen looking at the conflicting Update 2 patches, some receiving the first patch without any hitches while handful of others facing BSOD. The Update 2 is yet to be finalized at the beginning of the weeks of releasing Windows 9 Technical Preview. There is no use for Windows 8.1 Update 3 in that regard. Just my little observation of things though.
Not sure this is a must . Installed all as offered by WU, means (the later revoked) update last patch tuesday (didn't uninstall), then 2993651 and yesterday 2993100 and 2979582, offered as 2975719 by WU with 460 KB. Machine is still running.
That Windows-9 is around the corner doesn't automatically mean that there is no need for a further support of Windows-8.1, especially as not every user will straight jump onto Windows-9. Just have a look around MDL and see how many are still refusing to move on from their older Windows-Version's. They just can't drop Windows-8 / 8.1 like that, especially with all the sold / still selling Hardware + OS - Bundles out there. Plenty Manufacturer's just don't care about Driver-Updates etc. for the next OS and not everyone is willing to buy every 12 month new hardware or simply not able to afford it.
You have some good point there. But, the updates are not going to be crucial updates like those leading to Windows 9 upgrade or setup. They aren't going to be like the Updates 1 and 2 which added important features to Windows 8 in preparation for Windows 9(not going to be much different from 8, although, separated based on hardware). If there is anything they are going to do for those who aren't willing to migrate it is going to be providing general cumulative updates we are familiar with on routine bases not the type of patches we saw in Updates 1 and 2. That is what I am trying to explain from an observable point of view.
Update3 will add features to win8.1, after that, win8.1 will be done, it will be feature-locked, then just security and hotfix patches.
Update 1,2,3.... windows 8.0, 8.1, 8.x and all the current fuss..... Since windows 8 M$ screwed it by naming different. Fact is that OS development is a continuous process. An OS gets signed and RTM'ed, it should have an integer version number. Then M$ provides updates via WU to maintain it. Then they announce end of support means end of releasing WUs for this particular version. From time to time they can release bundles, so called service packs. Things were right until windows 8. Why to confuse the customers??? When is an update an update? When a new OS? When a new kernel a new kernel? It is pure self-determined! Windows Vista had only 20% of the original RTM'ed code left until it got useable, but it is still called windows Vista! All those naming fuss distracts from the fact that M$ is still using an old NT kernel which is responsible for the poor performance of the OS and that will never change until they do what Apple did when they developed OS10, to completely develop something new. “Plenty Manufacturer's just don't care about Driver-Updates etc. for the next OS and not everyone is willing to buy every 12 month new hardware or simply not able to afford it." I think this is not the point a long time anymore. The periods when people have upgraded their hardware at PCs have become much longer. At desktop PCs there is no real tech progress anymore. The hardware performance is such powerful that it is sufficient for 5 years, at least. The first core I7 Nehalem, 6 Gigabyte of RAM is still sufficient. There was no real hardware development progress since then. Intel stagnates. If people want to have more speed, they exchange the sys HDD and replace it with a SSD and gamers buy a new GPU. Nobody needs a new CPU / mainboard and much less a new OS to have more performance. When Vista came out it were not the OEMs who made trouble when no driver for Vista came out. It was M$'ses fault by not supporting the OEMs with specifications of their new driver model and the high signing costs M$ demanded from them! So they just said: Why should we release drivers for that crappy Vista when we have no benefit at all? Such thing can only repeat when M$ acts the same way again. I had insider info the time when Vista should be RTM’ed. The entire RTM voting process was a farce. Actually nobody of the OEMs wanted to have Vista to be RTM’ed in that condition M$ had presented it to them…. It is still a miracle that it became gold (in other words money did it again)….
Yes Vista and win 8 belong to the ‚unsuccessful‘ OSes. But the reasons for it are IMHO different (besides of that the sales were / are low at both). Vista was suddenly very resource hungry, meant almost everybody was forced to upgrade hardware to run Vista. Vista introduced the x64 architecture to the general public. Vista had a major kernel update and a new driver organization / model / database. M$ screwed it with the Longhorn branch before and needed urgently money /success / a new OS. Vista could not perform what they wanted (dream scene) high resolution animated desktop. The ‘ultimate’ bonus. Then the rapid change: W8 suddenly had a plain and boring design, ugly tiles and a charms bar nobody used. W8 got integrated what others have already used to make more money, apps store. The so called modern UI includes all that what M$ needed to make money, to be one of the big again. Desktop work needs unified / simplified workflow and corporate use also. Result: People refused the new UI and want the start menu back. Windows Vista had tech problems, problems with cooperation of the OEMs and resource problems. Windows 8 has pure design problems, it has no tech problems, because there is nothing tech related improved at all. Vista’s tech changes are responsible for the success of windows 7. Whereas IMHO w8 has nothing that could be responsible for a success of w9 except reverting of all their mistakes. I think windows 8 is windows 8 regardless of dot x. People who found w8 crappy will wait for 9. New sockets, new certifications, both has nothing to do with the real hardware performance of the PC. Both are created to force people to ‘upgrade’. If one buys major brands for parts which play a major role at one’s PC then one is on the safe side. I mean where is a driver update really necessary to improve performance? Chipset and GPU, for the rest it is sufficient to have one OEM driver at all. One could live very well when running the last drivers that have been issued before the driver support for the OS has come to an end.
That's interesting speculation. But, I don't expect that to happen due to the reasons I spelled out in my previous post. There is Update 2 conflicting issues, Windows 9 is around the corner and the cost and time of providing the crucial patches.