First Vista Service Pack Due Second Half of 2007

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.

Comments

Yeah, right.

[ScrewMaster]

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

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

Quick Release?

[Lithdren]

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!

Re:Quick Release?

[Vicissidude]

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.

Re:Quick Release?

[AudioEfex]

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

Re:Quick Release?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Quick Release?

[drsmithy]

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.

WinXP

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release)

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

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.

Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release)

[Samalie]

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.

Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release)

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

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.

Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release)

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

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.

Re:Vista SP1 (Read: Vista proper release)

[westlake]

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.

"Quality of Life" == DRM

[mpapet]

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.

vista 2.0?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Well, kudos actually...

[TheNetAvenger]

#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...

ARE THEY KIDDING US

[Anonymous Coward]

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/

And this is wrong, why?

[DavidD_CA]

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.