Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Announces Windows 7 SP1
CWmike writes "Microsoft has announced service packs for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2, but declined to set a release date or a schedule for getting a beta in users' hands. A company spokesman said Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1) will primarily contain 'minor updates,' including patches and hotfixes that will have been delivered earlier via the Windows Update service, rather than new features. One of the latter: an updated Remote Desktop client designed to work with RemoteFX, the new remote-access platform set to debut in SP1 for Windows Server 2008 R2. Windows Server 2008 R2 will also be upgraded to SP1, Microsoft said, presumably at the same time as Windows 7 since the two operating systems share a single code base. Besides RemoteFX — which Microsoft explained Wednesday in an entry on the Windows virtualization team's blog — Server 2008 R2 will also include a feature dubbed 'Dynamic Memory,' which lets IT staff adjust guest virtual machines' memory on the fly. Microsoft did not spell out a timetable for the service packs, saying only that it would provide more information as release milestones approach."
Yes, a bit like how when Windows 7 was released, MS dropped support for Windows Vista, or how when 2008 R2 was released, they dropped support for 2008? Seriously, do you anti-MS zealots even bother to consider if the statements you make have any basis in reality? MS is only now even beginning to retire Windows 2000 support, XP is still supported for years to come, and Vista is currently placed as supported until 2017 and Server 2008 a little longer. If Windows 7 doesn't get at least two Service Packs in the decade or so of support it will get, I'll erase my system and install Gentoo.
The notion that you are somehow forced to upgrade because Microsoft continually releases new Windows versions is absurd to the extreme. You are forced to upgrade if you want to remain on the bleeding edge, and you are eventually forced to upgrade if you don't want to be obsolete. The same is true of all software as well as hardware. I've yet to find a Linux distribution that supports all releases for eternity; perhaps you are aware of one? Typically, MS supports their software for some of the longest timeframes of any IT company, which is part of the reason for their success. Red Hat also have excellent support lifecycles, as does Sun for Solaris, but they all do eventually end, and support lifecycles that exceed a decade are generally considered generous.
I don't buy into the notion that Slashdot is infested with full-time trolls, who intentionally spread FUD for kicks, or that they are paid to do so. Rather, I think people are just stupid, and posts like this just boggle my mind.
That's his point. You aren't pushed into paying to upgrade, your old version will be supported for a while yet. Your "why buy x when you can buy x + 1" argument is a strawman, because that argument assumes that our theoretical user is looking to buy anyway. If he is, then he doesn't mind that there's a newer version, as he's going to buy anyway. If he's not, and he already has Windows, then he can continue to use it for a while longer yet, because support isn't disappearing overnight.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Some linux distributions just continuously update their packages without any specific releases like Ubuntu does. For example gentoo and arch (?), etc.
It's true that Linux distributions don't have support for as long as windows does however I get the feeling the these huge distribution upgrades such as XP -> Windows 7 cost IT departments more time then just staying up to date with the latest version of whatever Linux distribution you're using.
Think about it. If you're continuously doing updates to your systems it's business as usual. If you have to roll out the latest windows to over 2000 desktops every 10 years that's going to cost you a lot of downtime and productivity loss.
Why? Well first it's a bigger change then continuous improvements. Maybe on Linux some menu that the user has gotten used to has changed but it's not a big deal because it's just a small change. Going from one version of windows to another is a massive change sometimes, for example xp to vista or win 7. Users don't like huge changes they balk at them and throw their hands in the air yelling that they can't work any more.
Another reason is that if you got to convert 2000 desktops to the latest OS, a lot of the business apps are probably going to have problems. Constant rolling updates have the some problem however you don't get 10+ apps not working all at the same time.
Why is a defense needed? Windows has been playing catchup in features for that entire time period.
The only feature it's been playing "catchup" at is the display system. For pretty much everything else, OS X only hit parity with Windows *2000* at about 10.4/10.5.
Wow, you live in a different world than me then because all the friends and family I know that got Vista asked me to give them XP back :/
Maybe you only know people who never owned a computer before Vista?
People hated it because change for nothing more than the sake of change pisses people off, and thats what Vista was to 99.99999999999999999999999% of the world if you exclude Microsoft.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Think about it. If you're continuously doing updates to your systems it's business as usual. If you have to roll out the latest windows to over 2000 desktops every 10 years that's going to cost you a lot of downtime and productivity loss.
I had to undo a bunch of moderation to chime in here. You're only experiencing down time and "productivity loss" if you don't know what you're doing. It doesn't matter if you're rolling out to 2 desktops or 2000 desktops. You create one image and then push it out. Most people do it over the weekend. Most people wait until they have a stable image before rolling it out.
Now if you have IT guys straight out of college with no real world experience you might run into some problems. But as long as you have a realistic time window for your OS rollout, it is a pretty painless process. If you wanted to get really aggressive and take chances, you could just image the base OS image with hardware drivers and rely on something like Systems Center or even Group Policy (if you're really masochistic and like rolling your own packages) to install all of your apps.
Another reason is that if you got to convert 2000 desktops to the latest OS, a lot of the business apps are probably going to have problems. Constant rolling updates have the some problem however you don't get 10+ apps not working all at the same time
Given your hypothetical "every 10 years" desktop OS refresh, if you can't plan 10 years ahead to get your business apps ready for the OS that you're going to be 'forced' to roll out then you have no business managing systems (Windows or otherwise).
To give you an idea of how I'm moving my users from XP to Win7, right now there are two workstations in the organization running Win7. Between those two workstations are 98% of the applications that the organization uses (the other apps are on Terminal Servers). Most of the apps work, a couple don't. As departments find room in their budgets for new workstations, we roll out Win7 if they aren't using apps with compatability problems. Over the course of the next two years, all of the workstations will be running Win7.
It isn't like I'm going to wake up one morning and decide, "I know... I'll go roll out Win7 today." Like any IT project, there is a process to follow.
Windows path: 300+107+196 = $603, if I'm adding correctly.
You're not. The first number should be about $50, because that's roughly what the OEM version of Windows comparable to the version of OS X that comes with a Mac is.
Further, you should be using Home Premium, not Ultimate, if you want more honest feature comparison.
Well...
However, I will give you:
I think we were trolled, however.
DATABASE WOW WOW