Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vista SP1 Coming In Q1 2008

Posted by kdawson on from the quicker-than-XP's dept.

Many readers sent in word of Microsoft's announcement of the schedule for Vista SP1. The Beskerming blog has a good summary. Up to 15,000 people will get access to a beta of SP1 by the end of September; general release is targeted (not promised in stone) for early 2008. The service pack is said to improve performance and stability, not to add features.

11 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Me'thinks by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's pretty clear now that Vista should not have even been released until Q1 of 2008.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Me'thinks by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the problem with Vista though. It was released, it was buggy, and it was still pushed down our throats. It's hard to walk into most retailers and buy a computer isn't Vista. The only way I'm aware to get a windows machine without vista is to shop at Dell, and choose the Business category. It isn't so much the problem that they released it before it was ready, but the fact that the old version isn't on most store shelves anymore.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Me'thinks by Ajehals · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's pretty clear now that Vista should not have even been released until Q1 of 2008. Or Microsoft feels that by releasing a service Pack they will boost confidence in an OS that currently (rightly or wrongly) doesn't inspire confidence. There are quite a few people out there who are claiming that they are waiting until SP1/SP2 before jumping, not to mention that XP gained a huge amount of stability with SP1 and even more with SP2(after the initial release issues...).

      Personally - I'll stick with Debian.
    3. Re:Me'thinks by geobeck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now how am I going to hold people off? My excuse has always been "not until SP1 comes out."

      Go with "Not until it's secure" or "Not until it runs on your legacy hardware."

      Or just mention something about snowballs in that hot place where Billy G gets his ideas.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  2. Windows XP SP3 by GenP · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dammit, screw Vista, where's my SP3 for Windows XP?

  3. The real beginning of Vista by CellBlock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd bet the release of SP1 ends up being good for everyone. People that already have Vista will have (at least some of) their performance issues sorted out. Then, since Vista won't be as broken as it has been, more copies should sell, leading to better development for it. As much as people say they'll never move off of XP, people said that about 98. It's not that nobody upgrades to the new versions of Windows anymore; they're just (rightfully) a bit more cautious about it now.

    1. Re:The real beginning of Vista by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As much as people say they'll never move off of XP, people said that about 98.

      and those people were 100% correct in their decision and did not move off 98 until there was an acceptable replacement. Windows ME was a giant pile of steaming Bovine Feces. I have never meat ONE person that though ME was useful for ANYTHING. Everyone waited for XP to come along to fix it. windows 2000 was for corporations and not for home use so you never really saw it at home. XP was the first time they merged the home and corperate OS lines.

      Vista is looking very much like the steaming turd that ME was to many people.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  4. Re:ehhh by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...if a Windows box has to be insecure in order to be useful, then so be it.

    I have no modpoints (and I already posted in this thread), or you'd get your wish granted.

    If any computer system, no matter what manufacturer, needs to be made insecure and/or instable to be useable, the system is broken and should get a serious redesign before being released onto the public. Simple as that.

    It's not so much that Vista was insecure. More often than not, the user is the attack vector, not a security hole of the system. That won't change, no matter how tightly or troublesome you make the access controls. As long as there are users who can be tricked into clicking and installing, there is a security problem. As long as users don't understand why some "normal" software should NOT require administrator privileges to install (and if the system requires administrator privileges to install normal office software, see the paragraph above), and they simply click "allow" on even the most fundamentally obvious fishy request, there is no security.

    As long as users are dumber than the computers they use, UAC is only a nuisance. Not a security feature.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Re:Rule of three by baldass_newbie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With XP, it wasn't really until SP2 that it seemed secure and stable enough.

    Oh, really? I wish you could have put a 'YMMV' after that.
    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
  6. Re:Memory by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    BULLSHIT!

    I'm running 8 gigs of ram and vista 64. I've rendered things in softimage XSI that required more than 4gigs of ram. The problem is.. VISTA has already decided to cache 4 gigs of ram (FOR GOD KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK)... and then XSI's renderer (mentalray) says "I need more ram" Then the whole system starts to swap like mad because i dont have any available ram.

    THANKS TO VISTA 64 !!! and its fucking ridiculous memory management. Why does it need to cache 4 gigs of ram? What the fuck is the point of having 8 gigs, if Vista is going to cache 4 fucking gigs of it!? Might as well run XP32bit.

    I dont think MS really has their memory management figured out at all. It may cache for intelligent reasons, but it doesnt work. It causes the system to use the swap file and come to a crawl because it gobbles up all of your memory.

    I've litterally been in photoshop, and have seen windows say 0 free for ram because Vista has cached 4gigs out of my total 8. I NEED those gigs... and Vista doesnt release them. It eats up ram like a mother fucker.

    I was just thinking of going to XP64.. but the driver support is non existant on that platform.

  7. Re:Memory by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I understand what you're trying to say, but from a purely performance-oriented view this seems a piss-poor way to do things. I installed extra RAM in my computer so I could run more applications and work with larger data sets more efficiently, not so the OS can sit on it "until I need it" - which takes time that could have been used by the application I actually want to be using. That, and given Window's historically bad memory management, means I don't want Windows occupying all my PC's resources.

    So are you also upset if your CPU usage isn't near 100%? After all, what's the point of paying for that fast processor if you aren't going to use it's full potential?
    =Smidge=