Vista SP1 Release May Be Near

Tokonamu sends a note about the release to a private testing group of a new build of Windows Vista SP1, possibly presaging the imminent release of the long-awaited service pack. Speculation about a Feb. 15 release date has been fueled by a report out of Taiwan, according to the article. Microsoft also issued a new build of Windows XP SP3 this week, but it's getting next to no publicity out of Redmond, what with XP being the main competition for Vista and all.

Comments

Re:I heard a rumor...

[BrentH]

I heard that SP1 will have a slimmed down Linux-kernel with Wine for improved backwards compatibility.

Re:Waiting for SP1 before implementation?

[westlake]

It still eats ungodly amounts of disk space, though.

When the 500 GB internal drive is $130 retail boxed who gives a damn about disk space?

Re:Too soon to hassle with Vista?

[nschubach]

A good indication of how Microsoft treats its customers is the fact that it has been more than 3 years since SP2 was released on 8/10/2004. Here is a quote from Paul Thurrott, who is over-the-top pro-Microsoft, and who often apologizes for Microsoft's abusiveness in a way that tries to make abusive behavior sound less destructive: ... the 100+ updates that Microsoft has shipped since SP2 can be a nightmare to deploy.

For those who use Linux, I will explain: Windows often becomes infected with malware. It sometimes becomes unstable on its own, too; Microsoft releases sloppy, unfinished software. So, it is often necessary to re-load Windows XP SP2. Once you have done that, it is at present necessary to re-load perhaps 100 Megabytes of bug fixes that have been released since SP2.

I have a friend who actually thinks the world would come to a standstill if MS closed its doors tomorrow. Here's the basic gist of the conversation.
"Hackers would create viruses and bring companies to their knees."
"When you got your last virus, did Microsoft give you a file to clean it?"
"No, Symantec did."
"So, how does that mean a lack of Microsoft will destroy a company?"
"Because all these updates that Microsoft puts out protect us. They are patching the vulnerabilities so they don't happen again. No operating system is secure. Microsoft happens to be the target 'cause they are the big guy. Without Microsoft, nobody would put out patches because nobody would be getting paid to put them out. Hackers would rule the Earth due to lack of updates. Viruses would destroy us."
"So, without Microsoft, it's not enough for Symantec to clean your files before you open them?"
"I have to pay for that service. Microsoft fixes the problem for free so I don't have to worry about it."

I kid you not.

He continues with things such as: "Companies don't want choices. They want a defined solution. You can't have more than one major OS because there would be too many applications and they would all read their own files and none other. Open standards won't work because they would be hacked." ... it continues on. I can't have a civilized conversation with the man because he insists that a world without a monopolizing company would be too confusing and nothing would work. He also insists that "hackers" will do everything in their power (and beyond apparently) to make his life a living hell. I've asked him if he tried other things. "Yeah, I tried Red Hat once. It was like 1997. It wasn't ready to replace Windows and there are no games today, so I won't be trying it again."

It's like talking to a brick wall.