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."

Comments

Re:The wise user will wait

[Ralish]

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.

Re:The wise user will wait

[Z34107]

Well...

• I'm not sure how a bash interpreter is any more of a feature than a Windows command interpreter, especially after PowerShell. Bash can run bash scripts, cmd.exe can run batch files, and WSH lets you do VBScript and a bunch of other crazy stuff.
• NTFS has been journaled since forever, for certain values of forever approaching Windows NT.
• I'd rather use IE6 than Safari, but that's personal preference. I'd like to see how Safari held up to Windows 2000's browser.
• Is PDF reading really an OS feature? Either Acrobat Reader will come preinstalled, or you can download one of a million free viewers. I'll give you PDF saving, but it's a one-click feature in Office 2007 and OpenOffice.
• DVD playback is built into Vista and up. XP either had playback software preinstalled, or it came bundled with DVD drives. Or you downloaded a codec.
• Windows 7 runs on a Pentium 4 with 512 MB RAM and Intel graphics. Add "modern" Intel graphics to the mix or a $40 graphics card and you get Aero.
• XP's, Vista's, and 7's bootloader can boot other operating systems. On campus we have the XP bootloader giving you a choice between Ubuntu or XP.
• XP had indexed search as an update. Also IPv6.

However, I will give you:

• Rearranging taskbar icons. Control over their placement and grouping always bothered me.
• Multiple desktops. However, I'll see your desktops and raise you "my menu bar appears on the wrong monitor when I run applications on my secondary monitor."
• Pre-Vista large icons.
• Running everything as root pre-Vista.
• "Worse than Windows 2000" is probably a bit of a stretch. However, almost all of the first list are also present in Windows 2000, and I guarantee you 2000's system requirements are better.

I think we were trolled, however.