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.

Re:Yeah, right.

[drinkypoo]

'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.

Re:Yeah, right.

[blowdart]

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?)

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?

[Lithdren]

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.

Re:Quick Release?

[Tony Hoyle]

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.

Re:Quick Release?

[Timesprout]

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

Re:Quick Release?

[FuzzyMan45]

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.

Re:Quick Release?

[AArmadillo]

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

Re:Quick Release?

[VertigoAce]

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.

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?

[TheGavster]

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.

Re:Quick Release?

[Columcille]

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.

Re:Quick Release?

[fithmo]

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.

Re:Quick Release?

[Vicissidude]

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.

Re:Quick Release?

[poolmeister]

"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!

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.

Re:WinXP

[empaler]

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

Fixes For Vista Already?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Better late than never.

Sweet deal!

[PingSpike]

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!

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.

Boy, now THERE'S a surprise!

[mmell]

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!

Bah

[matr0x_x]

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

Re:Bah

[Ruie]

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.

"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.

Re:"Quality of Life" == DRM

[Tony Hoyle]

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

Ha ha ha ha

[Junior J. Junior III]

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

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?

Re:vista 2.0?

[Adambomb]

Shh, they're having fun.

Re:Quality of Life and the environment

[praxis]

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.

Do they mean "User Experience"?

[SeaFox]

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.

Re:Quality of Life and the environment

[Tony Hoyle]

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.

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...

Re:Well, kudos actually...

[falcon5768]

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.

Re:Well, kudos actually...

[mcrbids]

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.

Don't believe the FUD

[PCM2]

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.)

Windows 2003 to XP Conversion Pack

[Shawn is an Asshole]

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.

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.