Possible Last-Minute Problems With Vista SP2

crazyeyes writes "It looks like Microsoft is facing problems with Windows Vista SP2. The final Service Pack for Vista and Server 2008 (before Windows 7 comes out) has been delayed. The folks who broke the launch details and dates of previous Service Packs for XP and Vista have Microsoft's latest internal schedule. Can Microsoft get it out before Windows 7? According to the new schedule, just barely."

Comments

They have to..

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Windows 7 is Vista SP3.

Re:They have to..

[GF678]

Why do people keep referring to Win 7 as a service pack for Vista?

With that logic I could say XP is a service pack of 2000.

Operating systems don't need to be evolutionary, and in many cases it better they aren't. Incremental improvements from a (questionable) proven base are better than making too different and new.

I think people keep forgetting history when it comes to MS operating systems.

Re:They have to..

[zonky]

It's more of a "R2" style release.

Re:They have to..

[jmorris42]

> Also known as Windows 1.0 SP86.

No, service packs are a free download. Windows 7 is Vista SE. Remember Win98SE? It was a service pack but they needed some cash and made people buy it as a version upgrade. Looks like history is about to repeat with Vista except this time they also have to change the name because Vista has gained such a horrible brand identity. It's now the Edsel of Operating Systems. Like the Edsel, Vista probably doesn't deserve all of the rap it has got but reality and PR aren't on the same planet with each other.

The big takeaway from all of the Windows 7 reviews though is that if you hate Vista you will probably hate Windows 7.

They are saying you can run Windows 7 on a netbook. Ya, like you could run Vista on one. Yes it installs and sorta runs but XP runs better.

Windows 7 toned down the security nags a bit and added some nice chrome to the taskbar. Haven't even heard Microsoft itself claim any other major differences with Vista other than yet another IE rev that is currently so broke it might not make the cut. Bugfixes and a couple of minor UI tweaks do not a major version make. We are firmly in point release territory at best, service pack sounds closer to what they are going to ship. They are going to call it a new version because they need a fresh hit of revenue.

Re:They have to..

[dgatwood]

By that definition, Mac OS X v10.5 and Mac OS X Public Beta are the same OS (printer drivers notwithstanding). You remember Public Beta---the version that didn't even have an Apple menu....

A well written OS should generally work with the same drivers as previous versions with few exceptions. Every now and then it isn't possible, but for the most part, it is not only possible, but also desirable.... Using driver compatibility as a metric is a really bad way to judge whether something is the same OS or not....

Re:They have to..

[ProfessionalCookie]

Now diff your list (7 and Vista) vs Windows 7 and XP. Finally count the things that were promised for Vista and compare this number to the-above. And then you'll see why Windows 7 is a service pack.

Re:They have to..

[The Great Pretender]

A bit like Tiger and Leopard?

Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[Anonymous Coward]

These silly Windows stories have pretty much negated their desired effect on people.

Ever since the lead up and release of Win2k Slashdot has been trying to manufacture the news fiction that "Windows total failure. Year of desktop Linux has arrived"

* Late service packs

* Stories of such and such company skipping a certain Windows version or service pack

* Hyping early bugs ever new has and then pretending they were never fixed

With Vista Slashdot went over the top with the Windows FUD and nothing came of it. Now everyone is:

* Trying out Win7 and raving about how good it is

* Finding out that Win7 is just Windows Vista with some UI and performance enhancements

Pretty much destroying any credibility Slashdot might have with exactly the people this site hoped to turn into Linux users with the Windows FUD.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[__aatgod8309]

Of course, if someone upgraded to Vista today, he/she would find that Vista still leaves far less unused RAM than XP, but that's one of the changes Windows 7 is supposed to be reverting.

Fixed for accuracy. Seriously, what is the issue people have with Vista making use of the memory you have?

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[evanspw]

That's utter bollocks. I have a workstation with 8GB of RAM running Vista64. No such thing happens. All open apps spring back to life pretty much instantly no matter how long they have been dormant.
There's something fucked up in your setup, or you're trolling.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[Johnno74]

1. Aero is pretty, but not useful

Huh? Why do you have such an issue with Aero? If it bugs you so much, turn it off...
Its mainly just bling. Unless you have crappy onboard graphics the performance cost of aero is negligible. I like the bling, and the preview on alt-tab or mouse hover on the taskbar is useful.

2. The performance sucks; it uses clock cycles and memory to automate things I don't care about

IMHO Vista doesn't have a performance problem. I've got an XP desktop at home that is loaded up with plenty of stuff like file indexing and other things that come out of the box with vista. Its performance is slightly better than vista when lightly loaded, and _heaps_ worse when heavily loaded (couple of users logged on, lots of memory-hungry apps open)
In situations where XP would have problems even responding well enough to even shut down Vista just keeps on chugging along. Performance degradation under load in vista is mugh more graceful than XP, no question.

3. Massive intrusive support for DRM and content protection (HDCP, etc)

Pop quiz. Can you point to just one thing that you can do with XP, but the DRM in vista blocks you? Things like HDCP suck a bit, but they weren't invented by microsoft, but they were required by the MPAA in order for vista to support high def output of "protected" content - something XP can't do at all. Vista will not stop you ripping a DVD or CD, playing a dodgy Xvid download or anything else you can do on XP.
Please don't use any references or quotes from Peter whatsisname from Auckland University or you'll just look as uninformed as him.

4. Windows Genuine Advantage is mandatory.

Yeah, kinda a pain, but only if you have pirated windows. If you have an OEM install then its "preactivated" via a key in the bios, but having to activate retail copies is a hassle, particuarly if you change hardware or rebuild. I'm not happy about this one either, but its hardly a dealbreaker.

People running Vista

[Enderandrew]

Most end-users running Vista are doing so because they aren't comfortable changing their OS, those who absolutely must have DirectX 10 and don't realize you can get it on XP with some hackery, or Microsoft fans who insist on running Microsoft's latest release.

I'm not sure any of those three groups will care that much about Vista SP2. The first is largely uneducated on technical matters. The second is only fixated on gaming, and the third will be Windows 7 early adopters.

Vista SP2 however is aimed largely at the first group, who bought their computer with Vista preinstalled, and likely won't jump to 7. Microsoft has to support those users for years to come.

Re:People running Vista

[Schuthrax]

How about XP fanboys? Or OSX fanboys? Or Windows Server 2008 fanboys? Or Windows for Workgroups fanboys? Or even, dare I say it, Windows ME fanboys?!

Honestly, I am most upset that I was forced to get Vista "for free" on my newest laptop and now I am stuck with it unless I want to pay even more M$ tax. Microsoft should do the world a favor and offer free upgrades to 7. Now *that* would shut a lot of people up.

Re:People running Vista

[khellendros1984]

I am a software engineer; I find inefficiency annoying. Vista does all sorts of anonymous crap in the background. I don't know what it's doing, and there's no easy way to find out. I don't see any concrete benefit to whatever it's doing, and it seems to do it all the time. I'm accustomed to a little more transparency in the operation of my computer. I guess that's part of the reason that Vista seems like nothing more than a big ball of annoyance to me. It's unnecessary; I can't seem to figure out what it does so much better than XP, except get money for Microsoft.

Re:Beating dead horses...

[guruevi]

Actually, people are considering stepping over to other platforms (finally) because

a) Apple has very much improved their interoperability and price points since the last major computer buying cycle (3-5 years ago, the Internet age with the G5 (greatest desktop ever but expensive) and P3-P4 (P3 was good but P4 was a disaster)). Now all those P4's are coming of age and a Mac will run your olden programs as well as new ones for both platforms.

b) Linux and even OpenOffice 3 has reached feature parity with what most Windows users are currently running (XP and Office 2000-2003) and has some of the nice things of Vista as well if you have the hardware (accelerated desktop and effects)

c) Vista is a disaster (whether it's PR or not we leave in the middle) and requires an overly expensive computer to run all it's features on. In the mean time, the economy is making people look for lower-end which has Ubuntu on netbooks, gOS on Wal-Mart's stuff or allows Apple to beat Dell in mid and high-end (good looking too) computers (especially business)

d) The geeks that most people ask about computer related stuff have some experience with either Mac/Linux and will likely recommend that as well. A few years ago, most geeks I know were still in Windows 2000-XP land whereas most (the same people) now run Linux.

e) 80% of all incoming students in the University I work at has an Apple machine and I've heard that other Universities are experiencing the same (one executive said in a meeting that within a few years we might all have to switch since all our students will want us to accept non-Microsoft digital formats too). Since students are considered the most tech-savvy in most households (where non-geeks live), most likely the parents are following their lead even if it's just to get iChat to work.

f) Whereas businesses used to be able to spend a lot in IT, now most businesses have tightened their belt, if not only in free-budget IT. CIO's and CFO's are actively looking for cheaper alternatives where before you could spend multiple thousands in server licensing without anybody asking. Also the current and incoming geek-class server admins have knowledge and experience with alternatives where before server admins were sometimes nothing but glorified accountants that worked on a really good spreadsheet in Excel once.

Re:Follow the money

[Blakey Rat]

I'm not sure whether you're just paranoid, or actually stupid. Vista is perfectly stable. Microsoft gets the same amount of money whether people buy Vista now, or Windows 7 in a few months. Do you have any kind of citation, or even an argument based in reality, to say this is a conspiracy?