Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Vista Service Pack Due Second Half of 2007

Posted by Zonk on from the patchity-patch dept.

HuckleCom tipped us to an article on the Dark Reading site, stating that plans are already in the works for the first Windows Vista service pack. The pack is slated for release sometime in late 2007, and will target security improvements and Quality of Life issues that may spring up between January and the pack's release date. Microsoft is already looking for volunteers to help them test it. According to the email sent to Technology Adoption Program members, in order to get in on the ground floor IT shops will have to 'deploy pre-release builds into production environments and report back on the results.' As the article observes, Microsoft may be asking for a lot from their customers. Candidate releases of XP service packs had extremely deleterious effects when initially rolled out. There is no firm word for when in the year this pack will be released.

137 comments

  1. Yeah, right. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'deploy pre-release builds into production environments and report back on the results.

    That would be funny, if it weren't coming from Microsoft.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Yeah, right. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny
      'deploy pre-release builds into production environments and report back on the results.
      That would be funny, if it weren't coming from Microsoft.

      That would be funny, if that weren't the terms under which we were all already running Windows XP.

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Yeah, right. by blowdart · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except it's nothing new; that's what the TAP programme is. I've been involved with the SQL 2005 TAP, where they supported a live rollout of the beta code for a large project; and throughout we had direct access to parts of the SQL team. TAP doesn't mean the software is thrown at you and you flounder with it, it's a carefully organised rollout and feedback process. We also did the same with BizTalk 2004, and MS ended up flying some of the BizTalk team over to help fix bugs at a customer site (of course the customer was the one who choose to use BizTalk 2004; meh, what can you do?)

    3. Re:Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, service pack fixes you.

  2. Quick Release? by Lithdren · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems to me they're releasing a Service Pack pretty quick for an OS.

    "I think i'll wait till they relase SP1 for Vista before I upgrade"

    better wait for SP2!

    1. Re:Quick Release? by Vicissidude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems to me they're releasing a Service Pack pretty quick for an OS. "I think i'll wait till they relase SP1 for Vista before I upgrade" better wait for SP2!

      The fact that everyone waits for SP1 is the exact reason why they're releasing that first service pack so quickly.

    2. Re:Quick Release? by Lithdren · · Score: 5, Informative

      Excatly my point.

      How much could they possibly fix this quick in an OS as monolithic as Vista? not much is my guess. Its more of a combover for people who dont want to get burned like they did with XP when it first released.

      Its XP that really made people realize how horribly buggy software could be on release. How many corporate offices wont upgrade software to something untill after a particular period of proven reliabilty on the market now? My guess is quite a bit more since XP.

      And how many of those set the requiremnt to be after X number of major upgrades? A Service Pack would qualify to most people as fairly major.

    3. Re:Quick Release? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't Windows 2000 hit SP4 by late 2002?

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    4. Re:Quick Release? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would hope they fix some of the issues with vista.. although some are just plain UI inconsistencies.

      My pet hate being you can't put an icon in the taskbar for network devices any more, so you can't see visually whether you're locked onto wireless or wired (I switch between them a lot when moving around on the laptop). Disabling the wireless has gone from a right click to 3 dialogs and a UAC prompt.

      There's also a process that keeps scanning the files on the disk. Not windows search (disabled that, as it runs the HD at 100% when the machine is idle, stopping the powersaving from working) but another process that's part of svchost.exe - picks random files too.. never seen a pattern to it.

      There are a few API bugs that are just plain wierd too.. you can code around them but they're subtle enough to break non-obvious stuff.

    5. Re:Quick Release? by dan828 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think that they are releasing the service pack so fast because they decided they were shipping what they had to businesses in November because certain software assurance contracts where up for renewal then. They spent a few months polishing up what they had and shipped it. Obviously, it wasn't in the kind of shape that they wanted it in, so the early SP should get it in to the shape they had hoped for at RTM without having to delay again.

      And I'm using Vista as we speak, and though it's in better shape than XP at RTM, it certainly could use some work. It has a much better version of minesweeper by the way.

    6. Re:Quick Release? by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe they are just adopting a release early, release often strategy

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    7. Re:Quick Release? by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      Better minesweeper, 'eh? Can it play with triangular tiles (like xbomb)?

    8. Re:Quick Release? by FuzzyMan45 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Regarding the harddrive usage, i've disabled windows defender, auto defragging, windows update and it doesn't seem to make much of a difference either. When you disabled indexing, did you disable _all_ of the directories? There's a modify screen that you can remove like 5 directories. After doing this, it cut the HD usage a great deal but every once in a while it'll spike up and just think to itself for a while... i've never figured it out.

    9. Re:Quick Release? by AArmadillo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I just updated my Linux kernel last week, and there's already a new version this week!! OMG!!!!! What is this world coming to?

    10. Re:Quick Release? by VertigoAce · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, there's a very simple reason for Microsoft to release a service pack in the second half of 2007. That happens to be the exact same phrase used to describe the release of Longhorn server. In case you didn't know, Longhorn client (Vista) and Longhorn server are built from the same codebase. Vista SP1 is primarily the result of an extra year of development to the common OS components, plus any client patches that didn't make it in time for RTM.

      The point is that most of the work will have been done for the server release already. They may as well package up a new build of the client since it will inherit any improvements from the server.

    11. Re:Quick Release? by value_added · · Score: 1

      Its more of a combover for people who dont want to get burned like they did with XP when it first released.

      So ... it's for people who have lost most of their hair, but are intent on maintain a youthful image?

    12. Re:Quick Release? by AudioEfex · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The fact that everyone waits for SP1 is the exact reason why they're releasing that first service pack so quickly.

      And the exact reason even a "power user" like myself isn't even entertaining the idea of upgrading to Vista anytime soon. When I say "power user", I mean a consumer with above-average computer skills, but I'm not a professional. I fix friends PC's, but I don't build them. I can make just about any OS or program do what I want, but I don't write them. So my opinion comes from being a user who does understand both sides of the equation to a certain extent.

      As someone who does not operate systems in a business environment, I can't speak for the usefulness of Vista in those situations. However, for my personal use and the tasks I use computers for, I can't find a single compelling reason to move to Vista. Not a single positive, but many negatives; I'm still running some very useful hardware that is on USB1.1 and/or has to run on legacy mode on XP, and I have everything finally running perfectly as I want it - why in hell would I want to upgrade to an OS just to get all my old devices that are still perfectly good and useful to work all over again?

      There is just no reason I can see to disrupt my life with a new OS that is going to be even more of a system hog than XP is. I know the conventional wisdom is to think, "Gee, guess it's time to upgrade to a new PC," but since I have no other reason to do so that would just be silly. I burn DVDs - my system does that flawlessly (especially since I just got a new LG external burner that is a Godsend on sale for $75). I use BitTorrent. I browse the web and check e-mail. I edit video and audio. None of this is going to get any easier via Vista, and in fact as outlined above much of it will get more difficult.

      XP isn't going anywhere in my house. Hell, I still have a laptop running ME because it's the newest OS it can handle - but it still does the basic tasks I need just fine and it will continue to serve me for years to come (I've had it since 1997). Sure, the big PC gamers will have to upgrade eventually, but since I just play consoles these days (XBOX360 and Wii) that's not a reason for me.

      MS is throwing the same party for Vista it threw for XP - better, more secure, blah, blah...we've been here, done that, and learned our lessons. All that said, as a consumer the fact that the first SP is already in the works makes me distrust the product even more, and further solidifies my choice that Vista is going to remain on the horizon for me instead of in my home for a lot longer than MS would like.

      AE

    13. Re:Quick Release? by TheGavster · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I first tried Vista, it was running in a VM and there were serious problems with the Minesweep implementation, actually: It was difficult to distinguish the zero tiles from unexplored tiles, and there was significant lag. It ran much better when I moved to actual hardware, but you wouldn't think that emulation would cause that big a performance hit for something like that.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    14. Re:Quick Release? by Columcille · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hell, I still have a laptop running ME

      You lose your "power user" claims with that one - someone that voluntarily runs ME, the worst OS that has ever existed? I like XP and I plan to upgrade to Vista pretty quick because I've liked the pre-release versions, but I cringe any time I even hear about ME.

      --
      I love my sig.
    15. Re:Quick Release? by Columcille · · Score: 2, Informative

      Windows XP was released October 2001, XP SP1 in September, 2002. It sounds like Vista SP1 is going to be out faster than XP SP1 was, but not by a large margin.

      --
      I love my sig.
    16. Re:Quick Release? by evilkiksass · · Score: 0

      like linux? oh the negative karma /cringe

    17. Re:Quick Release? by AudioEfex · · Score: 1
      You lose your "power user" claims with that one - someone that voluntarily runs ME, the worst OS that has ever existed? I like XP and I plan to upgrade to Vista pretty quick because I've liked the pre-release versions, but I cringe any time I even hear about ME.

      I know that's a knee-jerk reaction, but I think you miss my entire point : I have an old laptop that runs ME because it is not capable of running XP. All I use it for is to type word processing documents, play music, and occasionally jack it into the internet to check email on the road (but rarely use it online). So, should I just throw it out because the laptop isn't capable of running anything better than ME, and I don't have the time to learn to deal with Linux on it since the laptop meets my needs as it stands right now?

      See, that's the point here, that if something isn't broke (yes, I know that in general as on OS ME is pretty weak, but IMHO it is still better than Win98 since this machine cannot run XP) why get rid of it? Besides, the laptop has sentimental value at this point (covered in old stickers), but again, that's irrelevant because it's still useful to me. The machine handles all the tasks I ask it to - and it's still got a beautiful LCD screen and even plays ROMs to boot.

      This relates exactly to the topic at hand - people upgrading to Vista, and when. The computer market has grown beyond the "I need the newest best because some PC mag, blog, tech head, etc. told me this was the bestest!" I know people who still use machines with Win98 - do your grandparents who only use a computer to send and check email really need any more? These aren't people who are going to be hacked because their OS is insecure - they literally only email grandkids on the thing.

      If Vista is going to work for you, more power to you! I honestly hope you enjoy it, and that it works out for you as you wish. For me, however, no application I use, or task I use my PC to complete, is going to be any better/faster/quicker if I upgrade to Vista. I just am not tempted in the least by "better! new! new!" unless it can do something for me just for the sake of being "cutting edge".

      I've got enough to do these days without installing OS's for fun if they aren't going to add any functionality that is useful for me. I don't collaborate on projects with people on other continents, all my media already runs great over my home network, and I don't need that fancy new holographic super-conductive whatever interface that you only get on the expensive editions of Vista. I'm sure it's a nice OS and all, but unless I can add a single checkmark in the "what will this do for me" column, I'm going to hold-off on Vista until I get a free copy from MS on a new system - and maybe not even then.

      AE

    18. Re:Quick Release? by AusIV · · Score: 1

      Doesn't anyone actually wait to hear how well something performs? I mean, if Product_X is getting great reviews, and it's something I'll use, I'm not going to wait until Product_X v2 is released (assuming the upgrade is free later). Likewise, if Product_X is getting horrible reviews, I'm not going to pick up Product_X v2 the day it's released.

    19. Re:Quick Release? by fithmo · · Score: 2, Informative
      How much could they possibly fix this quick in an OS as monolithic as Vista?

      Vista went in to RTM in November, so releasing SP1 mid 2007 will leave at 6 to 8 months for bug fixes. Considering how long Vista was in development, and (more importantly) knowing Microsoft, you can assume that there was a lot of polishing that got pushed aside in a rush to just finally get the damn thing out and over with.

      Additionally, since Longhorn Server is still under development - and releasing Beta 3 next month or so - there's probably still lots of work being done on the client/server relationship. Changes and bug fixes could be made to the server edition that will require slight changes to clients.

      So really it's fairly reasonable to think that there would be at least some changes worth making.

    20. Re:Quick Release? by pallmall1 · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Maybe they are just adopting a release early, release often strategy
      Maybe it's just because Microsoft is run by customer-fucking scumbags.
      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    21. Re:Quick Release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I know that's a knee-jerk reaction, but I think you miss my entire point : I have an old laptop that runs ME because it is not capable of running XP. All I use it for is to type word processing documents, play music, and occasionally jack it into the internet to check email on the road (but rarely use it online). So, should I just throw it out because the laptop isn't capable of running anything better than ME, and I don't have the time to learn to deal with Linux on it since the laptop meets my needs as it stands right now? If you have a machine that cannot run XP, don't even consider running a modern Linux on it. Seriously. The bloat is pretty bad nowadays. XP is lightweight by comparison. Yes, I'm aware of XFCE, but that still feels behind Win95.
    22. Re:Quick Release? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm going to hold-off on Vista until I get a free copy from MS on a new system - and maybe not even then. When you buy a new system with an MS OS (which is pretty much everywhere thanks to their monopoly or unethical methods or whatever on computer manufactures), your still paying to MS. It's never free.
    23. Re:Quick Release? by Vicissidude · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Windows is one of those products that people and businesses will migrate to regardless of horrible reviews, it's just a question of when. Businesses have been burned enough by bleeding edge software that they don't want the first version of any product, even those with great reviews. So, they'll think of migrating when the first update comes out, aka SP1. Presumably, most of the bugs will be worked out by then.

      In this case, Microsoft seems to know the psychology of their customers and has taken action to get to that first update ASAP, regardless of whether that's enough time for all the bugs to work out. That means more money for MS, but likely a bad SP1.

    24. Re:Quick Release? by poolmeister · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "windows defender, auto defragging"

      Is this for real?
      So instead of fixing Windows' security model, or reworking the flawed NTFS filesystem, they patch 'em up and give the patches catchy names!
      Profit!

      --
      CN=poolmeister.OU=lurkers.CN=slashdot
    25. Re:Quick Release? by Mythrix · · Score: 1

      They're adopting the "episodic content" strategy of gaming, much like Half-Life 2 and Sam&Max.

      The next service pack will feature new user roles, "Tech Support" and "AOL user", with their own sets of skills, also you will be able to reach locations earlier not available.

    26. Re:Quick Release? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Vista went in to RTM in November, so releasing SP1 mid 2007 will leave at 6 to 8 months for bug fixes. Considering how long Vista was in development, [...]

      When you're going to talk about code, it's not particularly reasonable to imply Vista was in development for an inordinate amount of time.

      While Vista the *product* has been "in development" for ~5 years, Vista the *codebase* has only been in development for ~2 years, after the "Longhorn Reboot" in mid-late 2004.

    27. Re:Quick Release? by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So instead of fixing Windows' security model, or reworking the flawed NTFS filesystem, they patch 'em up and give the patches catchy names!

      Windows Defender (and other anti-spyware products don't protext against "flaws" in the security model, they protect against flaws in the user.

      The fragmentation issue is _vastly_ overblown and defragging has no impact for 99% of people. It's there to soothe people who have had years of magazines telling them to "defrag" (which followed on from years of the same - actually applicable - advice about FAT[32]).

      "Defragging" is much like "fixing permissions" in recent versions of OS X - nothing more than a placebo almost every time it's applied.

    28. Re:Quick Release? by archen · · Score: 1

      Having started using vista, I'm thinking I'll be waiting until the next release of windows. I'm sure MS can fix much of this stuff, but the entire OS just feels like a train-wreck. Some like to equate this as the next evolutionary step in windows, but I'm thinking this feels a lot more like windows 95. I'll wait for the next "windows 98"

    29. Re:Quick Release? by projektsilence · · Score: 1

      That's why I'm waiting for SP2!!!! See how uber-smart I am..

    30. Re:Quick Release? by throx · · Score: 1

      Seems to me they're releasing a Service Pack pretty quick for an OS.
      Vista was code complete in September/October 06. Release DVDs were in developer's hands in November. They are planning a service pack in 2H'07. How is this "quick" in anyone's mind? You're waiting almost a YEAR for fixes and patches that didn't make release code, and don't pretend that development on a system stops at release.

      If Microsoft wasn't planning a service pack release, then you might be able to laugh at them. Laughing because they are continuing development and support of a released system - umm, what's funny again?
      --

      Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

    31. Re:Quick Release? by jan.blaha · · Score: 1

      Just for the record: yes, you are wrong. Release date of Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 was on June 26th 2003. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/260910.

    32. Re:Quick Release? by Kimos · · Score: 1

      When I first tried Vista, it was running in a VM and there were serious problems with the Minesweep implementation
      I know this is a serious comment, but it reads like a joke.
      The new MicroSoft OS has problems with their signature bundled puzzle game! Also, the calculator can only do multiplication on Thursdays!
    33. Re:Quick Release? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      OK.

      However, in response to the great-gandparent, that's still an average of more than one service pack a year from the time Windows 2000 was launched worldwide on February 17, 2000 to the time the last service pack (4) was released.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  3. WinXP by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm more interested in the next WinXP SP, as there are currently some 80 patches needed after a clean install of XP SP2. Yeah, I know all about all the goodies that help streamline installing them, but they are only patches to something Microsoft ought to be doing.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:WinXP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      dont worry, as the article says "will target security improvements and Quality of Life issues", hence switch to Vista.. helps you stand on your feet

    2. Re:WinXP by empaler · · Score: 2, Funny

      What the hell is Quality of Life issues anyway?
      I really have no idea. Maybe it is because I live in Europe.

    3. Re:WinXP by kfg · · Score: 1

      What the hell is Quality of Life . . .

      What you don't get a positive experience of after installing Vista.

      KFG

    4. Re:WinXP by AnnuitCoeptis · · Score: 1

      not gonna happen, your service pack 3 is called Vista

    5. Re:WinXP by minvaren · · Score: 1

      If we're seeing a service pack for Vista this quickly, while XP SP3 has taken 2+ years to release... I'd say there's an 90% chance Microsoft releases another "security rollup package" for XP and calls it done. They did it before with Win2k - anyone remember SP5?

      --
      Big! Strong! Wow! Tada-O!
  4. Fixes For Vista Already? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

    Better late than never.

    1. Re:Fixes For Vista Already? by ErGalvao · · Score: 1

      or maybe "Better quick than sorry"... =;c)

      --
      Er Galvão Abbott - IT Consultant and Developer
  5. Sweet deal! by PingSpike · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can beta test Microsoft's software for them and all I have to do is potentially hose my production servers? Sign me up! Sign me up yesterday!

    1. Re:Sweet deal! by 0racle · · Score: 1

      If you're running Vista as a server you're already stupid enough to run beta software on a production 'server.'

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Sweet deal! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 0

      Sign me up! Sign me up yesterday! You could use that new 'Time Machine' feature ... oh, wait ... wrong new OS. Sorry about that ... sorry about Vista too. :-(
    3. Re:Sweet deal! by hany · · Score: 1

      I can beta test Microsoft's software for them and all I have to do is potentially hose my production servers? Sign me up! Sign me up yesterday!

      Just to be precise: you forgot to mension that you are also paying for this upgrade, err priviledge. :)

      --
      hany
  6. Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Releasing a service pack so soon after release is basically an admission on Microsoft's part that Vista was rushed out incomplete. All this means is that anyone planning their upgrade schedule should really count the release of SP1 as if it were the initial release of Vista (ie. wait at least 6-12 months on from that point to allow issues to be resolved). Yet another reason not to switch to Vista in the forseeable future.

    --
    Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    1. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by Samalie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We all KNOW Vista is being rushed out incomplete. The problem really is twofold: that companies (and not just MicroSoft) rush out product before it is ready, requiring patches/etc, but for some unknown reason we all find the multitude of patches/etc acceptable. In some ways, the "dark days" of computing (pre-fast-internet) were the golden years. Either a company released a fully working product, and it thrived, or they released garbage, and the companies died in the process. Of course, there is no way that this process will change until we, the consumers, demand finished products at release. But somehow I dont think the sheeple out there will do that either. No matter how you look at it, the consumer loses now, and the consumers don't seem to care.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well that's one side of the coin. On the other side you've got other products that have been able to continue improving over the years and respond to changes in technology to extend their effective product lifetime - things that would otherwise have been provided as costly upgrades or "new versions" if it weren't for patching. Sometimes patches (and the fundamental expectation that they're free) can actually be a good way to get value for money from a product. Just not in this case.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    3. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by Samalie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but thats not Patching in the sence we're talking about here...adding new/upgraded functionality for free is a Good Thing(TM). Fixing something that was broken to begin with isn't.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Releasing a service pack so soon after release is basically an admission on Microsoft's part that Vista was rushed out incomplete.

      First people were whining that they weren't releasing software fast enough. Now they're whining that they're rushing it out. Which is it? Do you honestly think that any piece of software is released bug free? I hope not. Therefore why are you surprised to hear that Microsoft already has a release date for SP1?

    5. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People are whining that Microsoft promised a major step forward, spent the better part of a decade in development, pushing back the ETA over and over again, and now after all that time they've produced something which has lost virtually all of the features that once made it interesting and somehow they still haven't finished the product properly. So you're asking if people are whining because it took too long or because they rushed it - both. It's far later than originally planned, far smaller in ambition than originally stated, and still unfinished. In other words people are whining because Microsoft haven't made good on any of the promises surrounding Vista (in all its guises) for the last half-dozen years.

      I don't think anyone is surprised that they're releasing SP1 so soon. It's just disappointing that it's lived down to expectations.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    6. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but thats not Patching in the sence we're talking about here...adding new/upgraded functionality for free is a Good Thing(TM). Fixing something that was broken to begin with isn't. - Oh absolutely. I'm not suggesting SP1 is in any way a positive thing, I'm just pointing out that patching in general isn't inherently a bad thing, even if some do choose to abuse it.
      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    7. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If microsoft is slow releasing a service pack people bitch about being left out in the cold. If microsoft is fast about releasing a service pack people bitch about the quality of the product they have now. I don't get it, there seems to be a double standard. Oh, wait...this is slashdot after all.

    8. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, don't switch. It should really be called Windows for Idiots not Vista. They have removed features/configurability left and right. Aero sucks. A lot of OS windows (e.g. all Explorer windows) have an empty title bar (no icon on the left, no title string). Aero is quite sluggish even on my high-end machine (Core2 Duo 3GHz, Nvidia 7900GT, 8GB Ram). Lots of apps are not compatible. The font rendering is awful (MUCH worse than XP) if you don't use Cleartype. Graphics performance is much worse than XP for NVidia cards. The Unix subsystem SUA doesn't work well with the new account protection stuff (I gave up on it and and use Cygwin).

      Stick with XP, no reason to upgrade unless you need to develop software for Vista.

    9. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by xeromist · · Score: 1

      For some reason after reading your very well worded assessment of Vista I had the mental image of a turd covered in aero glass(vista, not your post). Just thought I'd share that.

      --
      This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
    10. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Of course, there is no way that this process will change until we, the consumers, demand finished products at release. But somehow I dont think the sheeple out there will do that either.

      "Finished products," as Asimov remarked very early in the Foundation series, are the obsession of the decadent mind. You'll find a similiar observation in Parkinson's Law.

      The modern OS distribution is always a work in progress. That is its fundamental strength and appeal. There is no loss to the consumer in a product that evolves and changes over time.

    11. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by pallmall1 · · Score: 1
      ...I had the mental image of a turd covered in aero glass(vista, not your post).
      And SP1 is the polish.
      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    12. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by suckmysav · · Score: 1

      "Patching" and "new features" (ie functionality) are totally different creatures.

      If you scrape your knee and "patch" it with a band-aid, you do not add any new functionality to your knee.

      A patch by definition does not add functionality.

      Patch
      1. A small piece of material affixed to another, larger piece to conceal, reinforce, or repair a worn area, hole, or tear.
      [...]
      8. Computer Science A piece of code added to software in order to fix a bug, especially as a temporary correction between two releases.

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/patch

      --
      "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
    13. Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release) by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 1

      Technically yes. But practically speaking any small change, update, addition, or fix will be referred to as a patch. And that's clearly what we're referring to here seeing as we're talking about service packs which do more than just fix bugs.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
  7. Maybe a bit off topic but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone have a guess when patching won't be neccessary? I was thinking about waiting to start a business until they get this whole software thing figured out. I'm not sure I like it when uncle mega corp can do anything they want to my computer any time they feel like it.

    They ultimate would be to hack windows update and send out a mass update to format everyone's drive or steal data if you want money.

  8. Boy, now THERE'S a surprise! by mmell · · Score: 2, Funny
    C'mon . . . everybody knows (or should) that any MicroSoft product should be considered "beta" until release of the next version (at which point, it becomes "obsolete").

    Superior marketing by design. Brilliant!

  9. Bah by matr0x_x · · Score: 3, Funny

    I hate seeing the words Vista and Security in the same sentence

    --
    LINUX ONLINE POKER: Linux Poker
    1. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I hate seeing the words Vista and Security in the same sentence."

      Then why did you write one?

    2. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike other OSes, Vista does not have good security.

    3. Re:Bah by Ruie · · Score: 4, Funny
      I hate seeing the words Vista and Security in the same sentence

      Nonsense. In security discussions Vista means a particular kind of a very large hole.

    4. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell is this flame bait??? Does anyone actually disagree with this given what we now know???

  10. Few Takers by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    I doubt they get any sane takers that are willing to risk *production* machines..

    what the hell are they thinking?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  11. Correct order by erica_ann · · Score: 1

    At least they did not release the service pack before the OS was released this time....

  12. "Quality of Life" == DRM by mpapet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously.

    I work in a small win32 shop and even we won't consider it for another couple of years.

    The alternative my PHB is actually considering deploying 2003 server as a desktop. If you are used to thinking that Microsoft is very good stuff and find Vista generally bad, this kind of bizarre thinking takes hold. It is safe to assume that vista adoption is a forgone conclusion.

    I make a decent wage babysitting Microsoft stuff. I specifically don't advocate any platform at work. That's my bosses decision. Though, if we switched to Linux I'm positive we'd do a whole lot less babysitting.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:"Quality of Life" == DRM by sconeu · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I wouldn't mind a 2K3 server desktop. Granted, I don't need the server functions... I wish they'd released a 2K3 Workstation version.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:"Quality of Life" == DRM by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      XP 64bit was basically that (although they'd shoved things like media player in there).

    3. Re:"Quality of Life" == DRM by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      There are many many guides to setting 2K3 as a workstation - DX, etc. Most of them even manage not to be "h4cdc0re k-r4d d00dz!" style. I used to do this on my laptop.

    4. Re:"Quality of Life" == DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly...

      What the fuck is wrong XP as a dekstop? Do you realize what a Win2k Server license costs in relation for the nearly the same functionality?

    5. Re:"Quality of Life" == DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is correct. XP x64 was based on Windows Server 2003 SP1. Additionally, they both use the same SP2 which is currently at the RC stage. So I have always thought of XP x64 as a workstation version of Server 2003.

    6. Re:"Quality of Life" == DRM by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      XP 64bit was basically that (although they'd shoved things like media player in there).

      Windows 2003 Server already has Media Player. I shit you not.

      Hey, seems perfectly rational to me. I mean the first thing I always do when I'm shipping a Linux server out to a customer is whack Mplayer and Xine on there with all the required codecs. Obviously I have to configure them to use AALib as the video output and the system bleeper for audio due to the lack of dedicated hardware, but they'll thank me one day!

  13. Ha ha ha ha by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And by "second half of 2007" they mean, fourth quarter 2011. I love MS Project:)

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  14. Quality of Life and the environment by Teun · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I've not yet seen Vista in the wild but read up about it.

    And I understand that even on a fast computer the CPU 'idles' at around 20%.
    I imagine this is not really fitting in with the Bush government's drive to lower power consumption by 20%.
    Yes I know the CPU is only a part of the power bill and Bush talked about cars but for the millions of systems that are going to be deployed just these DRM cycles might cost an extra power plant...

    Back to the subject of Vista SP1, is this Quality of Life maybe a backing out of the DRM scheme now it's basically cracked anyway?

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Quality of Life and the environment by praxis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really 20%?! My Athalon 64 3200+ is using about 3% CPU for the search indexer background process (not usually indexing depending on how I set my power profiles depending on my current needs, I run it when actively using the machine and plugged into a wall outlet) and not much else. Turning off the search indexer has my task manager toggle between 0% and 2% (when taskmgr updates). Are there occasional spikes when the indexer *is* running and fetches a chunck of data, sure, but that's not idleing at 20%, that's a process processing.

    2. Re:Quality of Life and the environment by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 3, Informative

      OTOH the resource monitor *does* take around 20%...

      Methinks the people who made the 20% claim forgot to look at what was actually producing it.

      Mine goes like:
      DWM 2% (that's aeroglass AFAIK)
      Task Manager 2% (you can discount that from normal running figures)

      Lots of random stuff making it up to between 5% and peaking at 10% (not really a problem.. XP would peak at around the same level).

      I'm not fan of vista by any means but CPU usage isn't its problem. *disk* usage... well that's a whole different story - until I switched off windows search the disk light was permanently on (*not* good for a laptop on battery). Still has the occasional burst of reading random files (something in svchost) that I need to track down/kill.

    3. Re:Quality of Life and the environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD started production of the K7 a decade back and people still can't fucking spell ATHLON.

  15. vista 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    before everyone freaks out about a service pack, how often do new versions of Ubuntu or Fedora come out? Is there that much of a difference just because one OS calls it a service pack and one calls it a version?

    1. Re:vista 2.0? by Adambomb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Shh, they're having fun.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    2. Re:vista 2.0? by jZnat · · Score: 1

      We expect new versions of Ubuntu every 6 months. We don't expect the same of Microsoft (especially after the long XP to Vista upgrade time), so when they're so quick to patch, it's funny. Or something like that...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    3. Re:vista 2.0? by loconet · · Score: 1

      Yes there is a difference.

      Release Early, Release Often is part of the core philosophy of Open Software (see C&B). It is how the model is designed to work naturally. Vista and all Windows versions before it do not have this model. If there is a release quickly after another, it is usually to fix a critical error. In this case, I am guessing SP1 will be used to add whatever didn't make marketing's 105th(?) deadline.

      --
      [alk]
  16. Everyone expected this by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Remember that release developments overlap with their testing and trialling for stability reasons.

    The first release was really just to get something out so that those who budgeted expenditure last year could still buy something.

    MS software is never usable before SP1.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  17. No real surprise by overshoot · · Score: 1
    For quite a while the rule has been, "don't upgrade until the first service pack." With that in mind, SP1 has been moving earlier and earlier to drive upgrades.

    I suppose that the day will come when SP1 arrives coincidentally with the official release -- or maybe even sooner.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:No real surprise by PingSpike · · Score: 1

      SP2 - "Its the new SP1!"

  18. SOX Compliance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm.... Wouldn't any publicly traded company be in immediate non-compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley, simply by installing vendor software in production which is specifically unreliable, pre-release code? And could any interstate bank do this without breaking all kinds of FFIEC rules? And wouldn't any IT audit team automatically reject any proposal to do this?

  19. Do they mean "User Experience"? by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Funny
    The pack is slated for release sometime in late 2007, and will target security improvements and Quality of Life issues that may spring up between January and the pack's release date.

    Quality of Life issues? I mean, I've heard Vista makes you a slave to DRM but I didn't think they meant that in a literal sense.

  20. S. Korea warns on Vista compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Not the last country to recommend to keep your hands off of Vista, I guess.


    BTW, no it's not the Korea you might have in mind, so don't flame.

  21. Vista Service Pak 1... by Helldesk+Hound · · Score: 1

    Service pak 1 - Vista as it should have been at initial release.

    Sounds like Vista is the new Win95a

    1. Re:Vista Service Pak 1... by KingPunk · · Score: 0

      well, they did say that Vista is supposed to be to XP, as what Win 95a was to Windows 3.11 (for Workstations)

      those who do not learn from the past, are surely bound to repeat it.
      ironically, three generations later?

  22. Well, kudos actually... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    #1) It is a good thing MS is taking updates seriously and scheduling them on a faster scale, it will also help to offset any found vulnerbilities in Vista RTM.

    #2) If MS said they were releasing one in 2 years, everyone here would be complaing that MS is slow, doesn't care about users or software quality. Catch 22 Slashdot issue uh?

    #3) At least MS won't be CHARGING for this as they have never done with previous service packs, that have in the past offered many updates and new features to the OS. This is something the Apple fans cannot claim, as Apple trickles out only security updates, and then charges for a real service pack update. This is easy math, compute XP Cost from 2001 with all the service packs, hell even add in the virus scanning software you had to buy, then compare this to your OSX prices in the same amount of time. So which company seems to be milking their customers? Also don't scream about all the new OSX features in each release, most are fixes or updates to the software included, or the famous spotlight, which MS also offers their desktop search for free to XP users.

    So SP1 in the first year, good for MS for once, actually giving customers attention instead of internal infighting...

    1. Re:Well, kudos actually... by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      They do not charge for service pack updates. The service packs are the z of x.y.z

      And if you yell, "but they're charging for minor releases then", remember, 2K = 5.0, XP = 5.1

    2. Re:Well, kudos actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's easy math is that it took 6 years to Microsoft to release their next OS.
      Very impressive, transforming this debacle into a good thing, you should have sold it to Microsoft's PR department.

      It's really quite disingeneous to compare OSX releases to service packs, tho, since each of them contained new features that finally made it into the Microsoft world with Vista (and if XP's desktop search was so good, why then did MS rewrite the thing and made it a major Vista selling point?)
      I may be true that going through all these releases is more expensive (I dont' know - what's the price of Ultimate again? - Apple is not in the habit of crippling its OSes). I guess at least that way one can choose (still running 10.3 here. Only thing that doesn't work is java 1.5, well, not for GUIs that is. Not as bad as missing DirectX 10, I assume.)

      Anyway, since cost is apparently the major sticking point with Apple for you, there's this thing called Linux. Works great. Free.

    3. Re:Well, kudos actually... by kindbud · · Score: 1

      This is easy math, compute XP Cost from 2001 with all the service packs, hell even add in the virus scanning software you had to buy, then compare this to your OSX prices in the same amount of time. So which company seems to be milking their customers?

      People who use OSX like it and the Apple way of computing, and seek it out. People who use Windows do so because some other app they need requires it. Big difference.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    4. Re:Well, kudos actually... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Apple don't charge for service packs, unless you consider the major OS upgrade from (say) 10.3 to 10.4 a service pack.

      If you're one of those 'easily confused by numbers' people, consider WinXP is WinNT 5.1, while Win2K is WinNT5.0 (according to internal versioning by Microsoft).

      That troll died out a few years back for lack of interest. Perhaps you'd consider not digging up the dead troll to flog it once more, eh?

    5. Re:Well, kudos actually... by falcon5768 · · Score: 2, Informative
      except that whole SP1 in Apples terms = 10.4.# and not 10.# like Wintrolls like the think it does.

      !0.5 is a major OS upgrade, not a service pack. Apple just upgrades and inmproves their OS at a much faster rate, not a hard thing to do when you dont support legacy hardware going back a decade, nor work with a huge range of gear by people who are like the one night wonders of the IT world.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    6. Re:Well, kudos actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who use OSX like it and the Apple way of computing, and seek it out.
      Not all people. Some people don't "like" OS X but use it because their job requires it.

      People who use Windows do so because some other app they need requires it.
      Not all people. Some people actually like Windows.

      People who say they like OS X or Windows are losers and need to reevaluate their values.

    7. Re:Well, kudos actually... by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apple just upgrades and inmproves their OS at a much faster rate, not a hard thing to do when you dont support legacy hardware going back a decade, nor work with a huge range of gear by people who are like the one night wonders of the IT world.

      I have a decade-old iMac (ruby) that runs the very latest version of Macintosh OSX. (10.4) What's that you say? Apple doesn't support legacy hardware?

      Well, try getting Vista to run on a Pentium 2 with 128 MB of RAM on a 10 GB HDD, which is what was state of the art when the Apple iMac came out.

      No, I didn't think so. Come back when you have some clue what you're talking about.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    8. Re:Well, kudos actually... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I have a decade-old iMac (ruby) that runs the very latest version of Macintosh OSX. (10.4) What's that you say? Apple doesn't support legacy hardware?

      Your "Ruby" iMac is no older than 8 years (and, incidentally, isn't actually "supported" by OS X, even though it will probably install). The 266Mhz models were introduced in January, 1999 (and had 32M RAM standard). To say they "run OS X 10.4" is little more than sophistry.

      Well, try getting Vista to run on a Pentium 2 with 128 MB of RAM on a 10 GB HDD, which is what was state of the art when the Apple iMac came out.

      A "state of the art" PC from the same era would be ca. 450Mhz P2 or P3 (and if you wanted to go high-end, would have multiple processors). I can assure you, from experience, it will run Vista *at least* as well as that old iMac runs OS X (and much better, once you allow for some cheap upgrades - which you need to do for the iMac anyway).

    9. Re:Well, kudos actually... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      I have a decade-old iMac (ruby) that runs the very latest version of Macintosh OSX.
      Well, considering that the "ruby" iMac was released in July 2000, it's hardly a "decade old".

      Well, try getting Vista to run on a Pentium 2 with 128 MB of RAM on a 10 GB HDD, which is what was state of the art when the Apple iMac came out.
      Yeah, but you can't run Tiger on the original iMac. You need an iMac DV or better, and one with a DVD drive at that. You probably could run Vista on an Athlon 1GHz system with 256MiB of memory, which was decently common when your iMac was released.

      Also note that you are probably below the minimum system requirements from Apple, which require 256MiB of memory - unless, of course, you have upgraded the memory on your iMac.

      Come back when you have some clue what you're talking about.
      That's ironic coming from someone who doesn't understand the age of his hardware.

      What's that you say? Apple doesn't support legacy hardware?
      No, they don't. Unless you consider all PowerPC Macs "legacy", there has been surprisingly little variation in Apple hardware since the iMac. XP has support for things like ISA (PCI is 13 years old!) and APM (ACPI is 10 years old!). Vista still supports Win16 applications (Win32 is 12+ years old!).

      You can't even run Classic on x86 Macs.
    10. Re:Well, kudos actually... by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      I have a decade-old iMac (ruby) that runs the very latest version of Macintosh OSX. (10.4) What's that you say? Apple doesn't support legacy hardware?
      Nope it doesnt, oh your ruby will run if you boost up its memory and such, I have even older iMacs running it, but check out Apples Website. ITS NOT SUPPORTED.

      Well, try getting Vista to run on a Pentium 2 with 128 MB of RAM on a 10 GB HDD, which is what was state of the art when the Apple iMac came out.
      Hardly, but to make you feel even more stupid, yeah Vista will run on it if you boosted up the ram and HD and got a decent GFX card and probably spoofed it, but again not supported though. But going back to the Apple not supporting legacy hardware thing, Apple does not support OS9 machines and hasn't since 2002. Up until recently Microsoft was still supporting 98 machines and still does outside of the US, this is on top of a number of networking OSs. Likewise Microsoft continues to support really legacy shit like BIOS, and weird propriatary PCI cards and stuff most would say to a fault. Likewise unlike Apple which has only a small swath of stuff that they have to worry will work with OS X, Microsoft has a huge number of off brands and one device wonders out there that they try to support, again many would say to a fault. And lastly there is a huge chunk of code Microsoft is forced to support out there in poorly designed but widely used programs that apple is VERY careful to keep a tight reign on its software developers to keep them from sloppy ways. A grat example of this is how often Vistas implementation of the Apple authorization box goes off because the software is calling system specific actions it shouldnt be even touching thanks to lazy coders.

      No, I didn't think so. Come back when you have some clue what you're talking about.
      Come back when you have the certs I do asshat.
      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    11. Re:Well, kudos actually... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      !0.5 is a major OS upgrade

      See here is the problem, people that study OS engineering and OS theory, even from the user functionality standpoint would argue that these are NOT major OS upgrades. Sure Apple tweaks stuff, adds in a few new features, but mainly updates the user client applications/functionality, which are not core OS issues.

      So sure iPhoto gets new features, and you get desktop search, and you get time machine that was in Windows 2003, but as you note, MS releases updates to their versions of these products as well as the SAME scale of OS tweaks and adjustments over the course years, and then rolls them into a SP all for free.

      For Microsot 4.0 to 5.0 on NT was a MAJOR upgrade, as the core of the OS we completely gone through. Additionally, XP especially consider SP2 and Windows 2003 were again Major OS upgrades, as they changes many aspects of the OS underlying technology, and as you note with the XP SP2, it was free update even though it incorporated many of the security and features from the Windows 2003 fork.

      Vista again is Major OS update, even though the user interface is the LEAST changed aspect of the OS. The core OS of Vista has a massive change in new ways of working with regard to core level features like memory management, caching, etc. And this doesn't even touch on the complete new Network, Video, Audio systems and even the new programming API models introduced that transcend development in the Win32/64 world.

      So I am not trying to be mean, nor a troll to Apple, but if you take the two product lines and features for price, Apple does bleed their customers for fairly minor OS updates that fall more in the category of what MS gives away for free. There are also economic reasons for this, Apple doesn't have the money Microsoft does for development, so MS can afford to supply these updates and OS application updates for free, where Apple needs to keep a more steady revenue stream based on the vast discrepancy in the market share of each product.

  23. Don't believe the FUD by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Informative
    I've not yet seen Vista in the wild but read up about it. And I understand that even on a fast computer the CPU 'idles' at around 20%.

    I'm not saying Vista is all that great or anything, but you heard wrong.
    (This is running on a 3.4GHz P4, single core, 2GB RAM, nVidia 6600, Aero Glass enabled.)

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Don't believe the FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's your Task Manager screenshot ... You are running 2 cores or HT.

    2. Re:Don't believe the FUD by AaronBrethorst · · Score: 1

      I'm seeing about the same. I have approximately the same machine as you, except that I'm using an Athlon 3200+. Idle sits around 6% while i'm playing music, running Thunderbird (yes, I use it as my IMAP client at home), Windows Live Messenger, and IE7. Not too shabby. Vista's actually been far snappier for me than XP SP2 ever was. It's a nice experience all around.

      --
      No, but I used to work for Microsoft.
  24. I might of missed something, but..... by 8127972 · · Score: 1

    ......Didn't we just talk about this THREE DAYS AGO?

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/23/005 2256

    I smell a dupe.....

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:I might of missed something, but..... by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      You must be new here. Current management philosophy is that an article isn't a dupe until it's been posted at least 4 times.

      err... that change in philosophy hasn't completely eliminated the problem. They may need to increase it to 10.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
  25. Re:I hope this is finally it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Apple hopes this is true... Linux users hope this is true. I'm sure IBM, Sun, and many others hope this is true. I even know some die-hard Microsoft fans who don't see any reason to upgrade because of all the obvious reasons.


    I wonder how Microsoft will deal with these new competitors? It's going to be fun watching their little propaganda machine spin up into high gear!

  26. who in their right mind by v1 · · Score: 1

    deploy pre-release builds into production environments

    are they completely mad? Their GM's unstable enough as it is.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  27. Yeah, I'll do that by geekoid · · Score: 0

    but only because I hate my company!

    Actually, I love were I work, but that sounded funnier.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  28. how many service pascks will vista have??? by mike3 · · Score: 1

    so will vista have couple like 10 15 service packs so now service packs are really like regular windows update bug fixes?? now it a PR thing not somthing that will actually improve the software??

  29. ARE THEY KIDDING US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I support small businesses in Boston, and I'm telling all my customers to avoid vista-pre-installed pc's like the plague for the next year (2 if they can get away with it). They expect IT support people to put their reputation and jobs on the line by putting pre-release builds and risk their customers' entire business with it? Does microsoft seriously expect the rest of the IT world to go down with it?

    Ilya Elbert
    http://www.computerrepairboston.com/

    1. Re:ARE THEY KIDDING US by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Isn't the Microsoft-IT world already based on the problematic software coming from Redmond?

      Compared the number of IT support teams in Microsoft shops, Apple shops, and OSS shops. I'm betting it's a ratio along the lines of 50 vs 5 vs 2.

  30. I guess I have to be the one who says it ... by Kittenman · · Score: 1
    Money making plan #56745-B

    1: Advise of availability of new OS.

    2: Listen to lots of people say that they won't upgrade to new OS until SP1 is available.

    3: Release new operating system. Some people buy it. Bank the cheques.

    4: Release SP1 shortly after. Everyone else who would buy it, buys it now.

    5: Profit !!

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  31. Re:I hope this is finally it! by pallmall1 · · Score: 1
    I wonder how Microsoft will deal with these new competitors?
    Legislation.
    --
    3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
  32. Windows 2003 to XP Conversion Pack by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You could always install the Windows 2003->XP Conversion Pack. It's supposed to make the 2003 install behave more like XP.

    The Vista Transformation Pack does a decent job (some visual glitches) of making XP look and act like Vista.

    --
    "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
  33. Sell the Aero Interface as an Upgrade to XP! by OverDrive33 · · Score: 1

    Sell the Aero interface as an upgrade to XP for $25 a pop, then keep working on Vista till it's ready!

    --
    Find Escorts, Strippers, Massage Parlours, Swingers
  34. And this is wrong, why? by DavidD_CA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So let me get this straight... Microsoft says they're going to release some patches to an operating system in about 5 or 6 months.

    And what's wrong with that?

    Would the community rather Microsoft not release any patches at all? Or not start working on them this early? Do you really think Microsoft is just going to give everyone a two-year vacation now that Vista has shipped? How responsible would that be?

    Typical Slashdot response though.

    --
    -David
  35. Clash of the titans by tsa · · Score: 1

    By the time Vista SP 1 comes out MS has had time to see the final version of Leopard. So I guess with SP 1 they will add some new, innovative features to Vista.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  36. There's Vista in production environments...? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    That's an even bigger WTF...

    --
    No sig today...
  37. Documentation please by heffrey · · Score: 0

    As a developer trying to make his application work well on Vista I would welcome some documentation rather than a service pack. I mean, how can these folk release an OS with a host of new APIs and then not document them. Even ignoring the anti-trust issues how can it make business sense not to tell ISVs how to code for Vista? The wealth of apps available on Windows is one thing that gives it a head start over Mac and Linux, but MS can't write them all themselves. Please, tell us how to do it!!!

  38. You don't need to tell MS that... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    Better late than never
    How do you think Vista survived development?
    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  39. Word Nazi - Disingenuous. by Petersko · · Score: 1

    "It's really quite disingeneous to compare OSX releases to service packs, tho..."

    I can't tell if you're THE anonymous coward that uses this word all the time, but I'll correct it anyway, and hope the repeat offender sees it.

    Did you mean to say "incorrect" or "unreasonable"? Because disingenous means "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity".