Slashdot Mirror
TechNet Users Revolt Over Vista SP1 Unavailability
I Don't Believe in
Imaginary Property writes "There's a growing revolt among Microsoft TechNet & MSDN subscribers
who are frustrated that they can't yet get Vista SP1 and test their software on
it. This can't be good news for anyone hoping that SP1 will have better
compatibility. While SP1 has been released to manufacturing, and pirate copies are easy to
find, Microsoft is withholding it from subscribers until early March.
According to the article, some frustrated users are upset enough that they plan
to abandon TechNet entirely and turn to piracy." Update: 02/12 17:37
GMT by KD : Sean0michael
writes, "Aaccording to the Technet blog, they have pushed up the date to before the end
of February, though no exact date is mentioned."
I don't know if I'm just special or not, but if you go to Connect(.microsoft.com) and download the enabler for Service Pack 1 Refresh 2 and, well, enable it, you can get Windows Vista Service Pack 1 RTM. Microsoft has confirmed (I am pretty sure) that Refresh 2 == RTM: http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/02/07/microsoft-confirms-vista-sp1-rc-refresh-2-rcr2-is-rtm-release/.
:)
I'm not even a technet subscriber or anything... just a beta tester.
My company is most likely in our last year of MSDN participation, but it has nothing to do with SP1.
The relationship between devs and MS has been deteriorating for some time. Off the top of my head I might point to the closing off of the IE development team from communication w/independents that occurred some time ago.
I am too jaded to sit here and detail all the problems that have been developing, so I will leave that to others. Needless to say it took quite some time before my partners were willing to consider looking away from MS as they have been developing with the Windows product line since 3.1.
This definitely seems like molehill territory if SP1R2 is the same as the SP1 RTM. The developers themselves do seem to have one legitimate greivance amongst the whole thing: If they received the details at exactly the same time as the populace, what value does their TechNet or MSDN subscriptions truely have in the long run?
I'm not saying NONE i'm just saying less than they expected.
Not that big a deal though, cancel your technet or msdn if this really sets your face on fire.
Ice Cream has no bones.
This is a great example of a trend that has been building steam for several years now. The fact that pirate networks are more often than not, the easiest way to get what you need, whether you are a paying customer or not. Who cares if its a minor update. The fact is, the distribution chains of the data thieves, the pirates, the "underground", are more complete than legitimate commercial enterprises. Pirate networks can provide the product you want, when the company you PAY cannot.
The disk i/o is teh worst part of Vista more than anything.
:-)
Not only is free being a rip off but customers are actually paying more to upgrade to XP. I would do so if I could get drivers for my notebook.
It works and I suppose thats the most important thing. The new GUI can also be fustrating too until a month or so to get used to it.
The new sp1 caused numerous blue screens on my notebook when I tried a rc so I think I will skip this sp out and wait for sp1.1.
http://saveie6.com/
Maybe this is just a biased view(I certainly haven't seen it all); but it seems like the techies responsible for field work on MS stuff just have more pain and less fun than the *nix techies do. These guys are drinking, and paying for, the kool-aid and they can't even get a RTM copy ahead of the press flacks and pirates. Over in *nix land, you can play with pre-alpha or later any time you want. These are the people who advocate for, plan, install, and support MS's stuff on the corporate level. They are the people whose fairly cheap labor helps prop up all the TCO "get the facts" and MS won't even give them the release in time to help them do their jobs. This is not exactly "catch the devs on IRC channel foo on bar.org" territory.
I can understand why MS plays hard and mean on licensing, format lock-in, and the like. That is just good(if unpleasant) business. I don't understand this, though. It would cost them basically nothing to throw the people who eat their shit 9 to 5 a bone. And they don't. Why?
Using Microsoft software has always been somewhat of an abusive relationship, we're all used to that.
However, this time around with Vista, it just seems like they just don't give a shit anymore. Really slow, incompatible stuff this time. They've always been really good about backwards compatibility (Sure we can all find half a million examples of stuff that didn't work with each new OS release), but this time I just look at the whole thing with a boggled "What are they doing and why?" expression.
And now this stuff with Vista SP1. I was really shocked when I logged into my MSDN account and SP1 wasn't there.
It's like they don't want Vista to actually be successful. Like they are actively trying to fail this time. And their numbers about 100 million sold are really a smoke and mirrors tactic. Yes, I've bought a copy of Vista, as it came with my newest computer. Stayed on for about an hour and then I went down the challenging, but more rewarding path of the XP x64 edition, Vista just seemed to crawl. (Plus all the BestBuy crapware pre-installed made the decision pretty easy)
So, anyone have a good tinfoil hat theory about what the hell they are up to this time? This is probably the most crucial time in nearly 2 decades for them to release a near-perfect OS - They are getting percentage points eaten by Linux and OSX constantly. People are sick of their shit, and this time they screw the pooch, TWICE. I don't get it. Is it just Bill Gates leaving the ship, or has Google sucked up all the good developers, or something else? Do they want it to fail, and fail soon, so that they can back out of their *IAA DRM agreements?
This is almost seeming too well planned for mere incompetence. Which leaves actual maliciousness. But then, why??
I'm frustrated that XP SP3 hasn't been released yet. That's what we really need.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
In the Action Pack, we only received Vista Business, but we could upgrade it to Ultimate for $150.
Now to obtain (or retain) the Action Pack you have to take online assessments. I have had my Action Pack for several years now, and I felt rather insulted.
You see, Microsoft is fighting terror^H^H^H^H^H^H piracy by forcing these assessments on Action Pack subscribers. This move is intended to "keep the Action Pack out of the hands of people who shouldn't have it." In other words, people who pay $300 per year and let their friends use five licenses of Office and Windows XP. But what Microsoft does not understand is that making MAPS more difficult to obtain just increases the likelihood that the software will be pirated.
I am really too busy installing its software in Virtual PC or on a real workstation, testing, and learning how to use the software so I can sell to and support my customers. Too busy to read all the marketing horse shit they shove down my throat. Let me tell you how sick and damned tired I was of reading their Truth About Linux (or whatever the hell it was called) materials. I was done with that after the first brochure.
But overall, Microsoft is just pushing us away: the system builders, the techs, the developers. We all slaved away to get Microsoft where it is today, and it needs us no more.
Wanna hear something really stupid? How about that a system builder is not allowed to give a customer a copy of the OEM installation CD of Office 2007. Nope. We are supposed to provide the customer with a way of restoring the installation. Microsoft's recommendation: Ghost, or something similar. What? So if my customer's Office 2007 installation blows up and has to be reinstalled, they get to lose ALL of their data in favor of a Ghost restore.
More hoops. Maybe this is what they want all along, but with the exception of Windows XP and Vista, I no longer sell OEM software with my machines. Server 2003? Retail. Office 2007? Retail. Why? Because it is less of a heartache and wallet-ache when the times comes.
Need to upgrade your server hardware? Copy the installation to a new machine? Bzzzt! Nope, technically the SBS 2003 install and 75 CALs are locked to the original hardware.
Bought Office 2003 Basic Edition and want to upgrade to Professional? Just install the Professional upgrade? Bzzzt! Sorry, this just isn't your day. Basic Edition, as an OEM only edition, does not qualify for the upgrade to Office Professional. However, every version of Office back to 95, even the Works Suites, DO qualify.
Wowsers. Really, Microsoft does not need us anymore. Really. If I wanted to screw your sister I would become your best pal. But now I am screwing your sister I no longer need you as a friend, so piss off.
Well ehhrmmm actually I'm migrating my customers to Ubuntu. Guess what. Most of them are even happy with it. The first and most important feedback being 'My machine is much more responsive and faster now'. Of cause no big deal once you loose the virus scanner/personal firewall and the adware/spyware scanners running in the background. Now I believe I might be a trend setter, but whats important here is the acceptability by my customers. Clearly they are fed up to take such a step. Some one tell the Gates boy.
I've yet to see Vista come up as a net negative for me, after install. Copying files is an atrocity, there's no doubt about it, but the minor upgrades to damn near everything else means Vista is a definite improvement over XP, at least for the ways in which I use it. I can understand other people have different problems. I also understand and accept that people like to bitch about things for twice the amount of time it would take to find their workarounds. Yes, this is a new OS, and yes, you will have to learn how to do things differently. Anyone expecting otherwise is a fool or a moron. And compared to its competition, the question is simple: can you be a hardcore gamer on any other OS than Windows? Not unless you want to spend half your time configuring Cedega or Wine to do your bidding. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the only question that needs answered. Other people, however, are different, and want different things. They prioritize things differently, and I can accept that. To some, the change in work flow and the requirement on a decent video card and processor may seem like something that should be prosecuted by the World Court as a Crime against Humanity. To me, I expected the former and my computer always has a decent video card and processor, so the bumped up graphics doesn't show any noticeable signs of slowdown at all over XP. After a certain tipping point, you just can't tell which one is faster, though you know it has to be XP as it doesn't have nearly the eye candy or nearly the bloat. There may be a few operations Vista does faster, but again, after a certain point, you don't even notice. Unless you're trying to copy files across your network. In that case, make your time. All your base are belong to slow copy speeds.