Microsoft readying Vista's first service pack beta for July release?

While those tantalizing Vienna rumors may have had your heart working overtime for a brief stint, the back-and-forth between Microsoft and Google may have really had users worried that a service pack delay was all but certain. Interestingly enough, "various unnamed sources" have purportedly stated that Microsoft is actually prepping Vista's very first service pack beta (aw, how cute) for a "mid-July release." To be precise, word on the street is pointing towards July 16th, but the final version of Vista SP1 isn't slated to land until "sometime in November." Additionally, it was suggested that this highly-anticipated update will focus "more on fixes and less on new features," but it's not like that's of any real shock. Of course, it wouldn't be unheard of for this proposed date to slip just a bit, but there's no harm in penciling in a reminder for next Monday just in case all goes well.

[Thanks, Arneh]

[Jason Nguyen @ Jul 9th 2007 1:54AM]

Vista is horrible. Hopefully this sp would put some life into it.

[Jumbie @ Jul 9th 2007 2:48AM]

Perhaps horrible for you but I quite like it.

I was gonna wait until SP1 before bothering to give it a shot, but I made a drive image, formatted and installed it and never bothered to look back.

It's not perfect but neither was XP.

[ssuk @ Jul 9th 2007 4:39AM]

Vista is a nice opperating system when you READ THE QUICK-START MANUAL AND HELP FILES when you first start using the OS. I was actually one to say the OS blew when I first used it, so I took it upon myself to READ the documentation with the OS and it actually turned out that XP is somewhat of a little puppy compared to the bulldog Vista is when you know how to use it properly.

[mtipper @ Jul 9th 2007 4:47AM]

If you need to read a manual, its doing something wrong.

[BobTurbo @ Jul 9th 2007 6:29AM]

Only losers read manuals.

[DAZA @ Jul 9th 2007 10:23AM]

Been using Vista for a few months now, very happy with it. To be honest I'm not sure what the service pack is there for, the only slight issue I have is with video drivers, performance is a little slower than it should be. nVIDIA need to get their asses into gear and start creating fast, stable drivers for Vista. I think Microsoft has done a hell of a job on it, this SP shouldn't have really come until mid next year.

[Rex @ Jul 9th 2007 11:27AM]

@ mtipper

Even Linux has manuals. Usually it has a lot more than Windows and many of them have to be read to get anywhere. That may have changed with some of the newer distributions.

[boe @ Jul 9th 2007 1:56AM]

I'm surprised they actually included a potential fix for slow file copies. After a day of testing it I discovered the extreme issues with file transfer latency and MS insisted I had configured it wrong, my equipment was faulty or my drivers with the issue. Only 3 months of continuosly mentioning it along with a few hundred thousand other people and they think there might be potential performance hit that shouldn't occur. WOW - they must have done some serious testing if it took nearly a full day for me to discover it (if you include the time for me to copy all my old data and install the new machine - otherwise it took me about an hour to discover it.

Well done MS - Balmer you are the BOMB, this along with WM6 BT stack issues, and Exchange 2007 - you name it issues, you are really exceeding all my expectations. I expect glitches with any new program or OS - be it MS, Mac, or Linux, but these are beyond glitches, these are items that shouldn't make it beyond alpha testing - they should be removed by beta 1 - let alone RC1 or RC2. MS you were amazing while you lasted but I think Steve Balmer is the Caligula of the Roman Empire.

[Furyan @ Jul 9th 2007 3:31AM]

What Exchange 2007 issues, we don't have any - run without a hitch.

[Andrew @ Jul 9th 2007 9:34AM]

YES copying files is slow with windows explorer. but i like vista over xp.

It is very pretty and all my hardware works. The wifi program is great and I have yet to get spyware. I turned off the UAC (the securty program) because it is annoying. I have premium and it is not a system hog. I even have all the effects turned on. Now my notebook is new but that is what vista is made for. So all in all a service pack would be nice but not a "beta" service pack. they need to fix things not risk making it worse. well thats my 2 cents.

[boe @ Jul 9th 2007 10:01AM]

Furyan - so you are telling me public folders work the way they should? Are you telling me that when you manage the exchange server, the ESM console includes full functionality that it did with Exchange 2003, 2000, 5.5? Can you even tell the size of the mailboxes from ESM let alone do the advanced functions? How many certificates do you use and of what type? Does WM6 let you select what folders to sync with Exchange 2007? Have you tried to uninstall Exchnage 2007? I'm guessing you aren't managing the 2007 server or you'd be a tad unhappy that you have to know a LOT of obscure dos commands (what they are calling a Powershell feature) to do all the things the ESM let you do before.

[Miguel @ Jul 9th 2007 12:03PM]

You know, I have read over and over on Engadget about the copy latency of Vista when using the Explorer shell, but I have to say: I have not had one problem. For example, I ripped a CD while my mother was logged on, thus forcing the resultant mp3's to be defaulted to her music folder instead of my own. So, I log off, log on to my settings, and just copy the files. 14 songs at about 5 megs each. How long did it take? 15 seconds. What am I doing wrong that I don't have this copy latency issue?

[boe @ Jul 9th 2007 12:12PM]

Miguel, you aren't doing anything wrong but what you aren't doing is doing a controlled comparison. Try using several identical machines hardware wise. Then install Vista on half, XP on the other half. Make sure each has all the patches from MS and all the latest drivers from the manufacturer's for each part.

Turn off any TSRs including firewalls, antivirus, explorer add ons including indexing.

Then try copying files to network servers, between hard drives on the same machines, and onto the same hard drive on each machine. Copy files of various sizes including Gigabyte files, and different quantities of files, as well as different groups simultaneously - now you have a real point of comparison between the two.

A person used to driving horse and buggies might get into a toyota tercel and think it is fast but a person who drives a BMW 3 series might get into that same tercel and think it lacks pickup - if you have a decent point of comparison, your view is very relative.

[MR @ Jul 9th 2007 1:58AM]

Microsoft is digging their own grave by not supporting older devices. I'm not sure if they're addressing this in the service pack but I doubt it.
I bought a Vista machine but ended up returning it simply because it doesn't support my old laser printer. Maybe I'll switch over to Vista when my printer dies but I guess that won't happen for, well, a few more years.

[kubism @ Jul 9th 2007 11:28AM]

maybe it will address the ' nvlddmkm has stopped working ' issue that came up and froze my screen as I was typing this out...

[Juaquin @ Jul 9th 2007 2:07AM]

That is NOT Microsoft's fault of problem. It's the printer's manufacturer's problem. HP didn't put out a Vista driver for my older printer - but I'm not going to blame that on Microsoft. In the end, it's up to the people who make the hardware to provide drivers to make it Vista compatible, not Microsoft's responsibility. I know some people like to hate on MS and Vista, but this isn't a good reason to do it.

[derek @ Jul 9th 2007 2:18AM]

@Juaquin
They shouldn't HAVE TO re-make all their printer drivers because Microsoft wouldn't let them work!!!!

[John @ Jul 9th 2007 2:41AM]

@derek
Microsoft isn't "not letting them work". There's no bit to flip and make Vista play nice with older drivers. Microsoft doesn't make the drivers, and it's not their responsibility to make sure that old hardware plays nice with their OS. I would guess that in this case, the printer manufacturers are hoping to sell more new model printers by leaving the old ones incompatible.

Finally, no, I'm not a Microsoft fanboy, fanboi, or god knows how else people are misspelling it these days. It's not Mac OS's responsibility to support old hardware either. If you want to get picky about UI and security though, I'll stay out of that.

[ssuk @ Jul 9th 2007 4:44AM]

Vista's new driver API doesn't allow older drivers because the XP Drive API has been around for a while now and could be open to exploitation sooner than the new Vista API.
Microsoft came under heavy fire over how unsecure XP was and they're making sure Vista is as secure as possible to re-gain trust in everyone. My printer isn't supported by this new API, which I was mad about but in the end, I'd rather have an air-tight OS than leave it up to chance the XP driver API doesn't get compromised.
But hey, Microsoft was kind enough to release an app to check your hardware and software can run on Vista before you upgrade, if you were fool-hearty enough to just install Vista and expect everything to work, despite all the warnings Microsoft gave out THEMSELVES, then it's your problem really.

[ssuk @ Jul 9th 2007 5:14AM]

MR: You can switch Aero off and go to a "Vista basic" theme which isn't such a fancy UI as Aero, the password part is only if you're on a USER account, you require to enter the administrator password to ensure you have the privalages to install an application or take an action which, if the user doesn't know what the hell he/she is doing could result in data-loss or something worse, if you're an admin, it'll just prompt you to warn you the implications of what may happen if this action is taken.
Vista also takes it a step further and although you've entered the password for the admin account, you aren't a 'true' admin unless you tick the 'Run Program as administrator" box in the application's properties or right click -> Run As Administrator.
And you're also forgetting that the Driver API from Windows 98 to 2000 changed, and 2000 had a hard time with 95/98 drivers, where as XP didn't for some strange reason, I found lots of problems with Win 2000 drivers with XP SP1/2 though.

[MR @ Jul 9th 2007 2:56AM]

It had not been a problem (printer drivers) switching from NT to XP so why changing it now?
Maybe Vista has a better security model but I just don't see it adding any other benefits over a well-maintained XP box. If anything. it's actually slower with the fancy UI that I don't need. It's half-ass job of mimicking OSX's way of requiring password for certain operations is just useless and laughable (and no, I'm not really a mac guy).

[Cullen D @ Jul 9th 2007 2:21AM]

Errr, need to correct you guys.
-First of all, look at the source on WinBeta -- it is to the Microsoft Director of Mis-Information's blog (Mary Jo Foley).
-Second of all, that is not an official announcement just her "sources"
-Third, try confirming this with Microsoft; they won't comment and Im pretty sure this is false information...

[michael @ Jul 9th 2007 2:41AM]

Does engadget sleep? It's almost 2 central, and this was just submitted. Keep up the good work.

[rx785guy @ Jul 9th 2007 2:53AM]

Is microsoft still including thew new kernel in sp1?

[mvn @ Jul 9th 2007 3:03AM]

Check out this comment from Microsoft UK sales Manager, from his comments it appears that the consumer will not see a service pack release only regular updates.

http://tech.uk.msn.com/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5373448

..."There are lots of myths floating around with people blogging to say they won’t be upgrading until a service pack one has been released; all doom and gloom,” admits Weeks. “But, the thing is with Vista, because of the Windows Update that’s built in, service packs have gone away.

“We will be releasing a service pack, but that’s aimed squarely at manufacturers; for the normal consumer the update will take care of things like the latest drivers and security patches and they needn’t worry about it.”......

[Paul @ Jul 9th 2007 4:24AM]

Hopefully MS fixes the memory management issues in Vista. I turned off AERO and turned on the Windows Classic theme, and explorer was still taking WAY too much memory from me. And that Superfetch needs to be fixed, it makes my computer run a lot slower, even after I let it run for a week to learn my computer use.

[Rich @ Jul 9th 2007 5:00AM]

I installed Vista. I found out that manufacturers' driver support for it sucked. I uninstalled it.

It's such a shame that the driver support was so bad. I actually liked the OS. But with constant blue screens (something I've never experienced under XP) I couldn't go on with it.

Hopefully by the time this service pack is rolled out, I'll be able to attempt to install Vista again.

[clem @ Jul 9th 2007 6:08AM]

Most people don't understand. If you want vista buy it with your new pc, DON'T upgrade it. When the manifactors make the pc they have xp in mind not vista.

Thats why most old pcs die when you add vista. I'm waitied for my pc to die with xp and got a new pc with vista.

It works great....I've had no problem at this moment in time real. I just disabled the application which would ask you permission everytime you run a program.

[duber @ Jul 9th 2007 8:35AM]

At first, I actually disliked Vista and was determined to NOT upgrade. Then, my girlfriend, who's primarily a gamer (well, she plays WoW and NWN2 most of the times :D ), she bought 3GB Ram and Vista Ultimate x64. After a month of solid running, I've changed my mind and since I'm more and more forced to upgrade to x64 system with heaps of Ram, I'll be dfinitely going for Vista x64 (Business).

As for the SP. I think it's a part of MS's strategy :) A lot of people are actually waiting for an SP, then MS announced: "Vista is perfect, there are no SPs in development" people were mad and either stayed with XP (which are great, btw) or if they switched, they went for OS X. Now, MS sees this was a mistake, so they rethought their strategy and offer an SP very soon :)

Anyways, I think it is time to stop the stupid, nonsense, OS X vs. Windows flamewars! Anyone who has some brain matter in their sculls would decide on their own whether they want/need to use OS X or Windows, whether the apps and the way they work suits better for OS X or Windows. The fanboy retards (be it on either side) are clearly insecure, unintelligent, uneducated and mainly immature individuals who just feel the desperate need to speak out loud their ass before they think about it for a second.

If you dislike MS or Windows, it's absolutely fine and you're free to choose Linux or OS X if it works better for you and vice versa. But, think about it for a second, is everybody really the very same like you?

I for one actually cannot use OS X and will NOT use it. It's 100% my decision and I'd never force anyone to believe in or do whatever I believe in or whatever I do! ;)

[VMK @ Jul 9th 2007 9:37AM]

I don't get it. A Service Pack is supposed to fix issues. What's the point of releasing a "beta" of it? Are the highly paid engineers at MS so "unskillful" that they don't have confidence in the fixes as well, that they have to beta release the fix? Ahem, will there ever be a non-service pack dependent software ever out of Redmond?

[Neal @ Jul 9th 2007 10:18AM]

Never done anything whatsoever with code have you? Let alone a project even approaching the magnitude of something like what goes into an O/S I would wager? Here's the problem:

There are so many people doing so many things to the code and it has so many interdepencancies, that a change in one, seemingly insignificant place, can affect a negative impact on some other place in the code. This can cause a domino effect bringing everything to a halt, or perhaps just the one small bug. Then it might be months before someone even finds the bug, because to reproduce it, you would have to have a specific printer using only one specific USB port on one manufacturer's chipset, when printing from Adobe Reader only, on Tuesday, on an even numbered date, odd numered month, during a leap year.

[VMK @ Jul 9th 2007 10:39AM]

Again, the same temptation to create excuses. If I am paying top dollar for the supposedly flagship software of the world's biggest company, I want to be spared the lectures. It's time. A company in business for over 25 years making excuses for lapses maybe ok to you, what with yr deep knowledge of how problem originate, but for me, I just want to be sure that I get a trouble-free software when I pay for it. Or perhaps, that itself is Utopia.

We consumers are expected to simply reward the techies for "their experiments"? Ever accept that argument from your doctor or your lawyer or your home builder, friend? You think software is the only thing that is complicated? Work with me on this one...

You are lying in an operation bed. Surgeon cuts you up, sews up some blown arteries and puts you back in shape, with some internal problems and stuff remaining unresolved. You go back to him for malpractice or medical negligence or whatever. He talks to you about billions of cells in your body, millions of whatever and the complications involved in a human body, and you are going like - "yeah these things can happen given the complications" and will happily withdraw your million dollar legal suits? Right, I thought so!

If docs and lawyers are required to own up to their responsibilities under threat of law suits, should we be very lenient toward software engineers because of the "complications involved in making so many lines of code work"?

[JBo @ Jul 9th 2007 10:54AM]

Seriously? You're comparing Doctors to Software Engineers? Doctor mistakes kill people. Mistakes in Windows annoy people.

When software does impact a life, the development process is very different. It is also more than twice as expensive and time consuming.

[Neal @ Jul 9th 2007 11:30AM]

As JBo said, get real. It's people, and sure it's an excuse, but that doesn't take away from it being a reason either. No one is perfect, let alone me, and I would also say I doubt you are either, so you may want to get off the high horse and come back down to earth. No one is making the mistakes on purpose, and to be quite honest, there is no way that any one person could know and understand all the code in something this large (or anything this large, be it software or just a construction porject), and guess what? Shit happens. People make mistakes everywhere and correct and own up to them.

I've seen surgeons miss things and people have died.

I have seen builders miss things and screw up houses (that's what the 1 year inspection and warranty is for when you buy a new home, ya know? They KNOW you will find defects and errors and you get to outline them for the builder to come fix - for free, kinda like a service pack, eh?)

If you want perfection, perhaps you should change professions and become a software dev, seems like you would never have to release a fix for anything, right?

[John @ Jul 9th 2007 1:23PM]

You have no right to be angry with a beta release when A) you aren't owed the software and B) you aren't forced to use the beta. You didn't wake up to find that they had pushed back an actual release in order to release a beta for testing, so stop crying and try and learn something about product development.

[John @ Jul 9th 2007 1:30PM]

Oh, also, with regards to your doctor analogy, surgeons don't really work in teams more than 5, and there is a defined protocol for the operations they perform. If there is no defined protocol, then it's 'experimental surgery' in which case you probably signed a waiver saying you wouldn't sue for just about anything. Compare this to an OS, where you have a team of dozens of engineers working on interdependent tasks, where not only are you working on what you know, but you have to think of all the weird things other people might end up doing with your work. While it's a given that thousands of people are going to try and break the security on any OS, it's pretty unlikely that even 1 person is going to try and undo what a surgeon did.

[Phil Lewis @ Jul 9th 2007 2:16PM]

Doctors mistakes can indeed kill, but software engineers mistakes can be no less profound. For example: A spacecraft crashes into Mars instead of landing on it. Were that a commercial aircraft the lives lost could have been tremendous.

[Irfan @ Jul 9th 2007 5:05PM]

airlines and spacecraft software is designed to work with an exact set of components. they can design and test it to run perfectly on a given set. its more complex im sure, but they can test it endlessly on the exact components it will have to work on, so when its ready, its ready. theyve already tested internally.

windows OS's cant test every single hardware variation that the software will encounter, hence glitches and beta testing... so millions of people can try it out on their systems knowing full well that that the code isn't complete and report the problems to help speed development.. and when its pretty compatible with most systems, its released.

the other option is to pay extra for a machine that has an OS that is specifically designed for the hardware running it, and every variation.. like a Mac. its stable because its fully controlled, and the cost will be higher as expected.

Computer software for surgeons is tested thoroughly and compatibility is limited to components the software developer hand picks. if you don't use the proper hardware, the software wont work with it. keeps things safe, and pricey.. but safe.

so if you want to run windows because you want a cheaper computer, then you will have to deal with glitches. if you want to go nearly glitch free pay more for a mac

[BrianC @ Jul 9th 2007 7:12PM]

I quite like Vista so far, having used that for almost 6 months now. Of course I always look forward to Service packs as they tends to improve stability and performance. And best of all, they are free. Apple, however, updates their OS so regularly and most often than not, they are paid-for upgrades.
As for people complaining about Vista not backward compatible with older devices, Apple is the worst. That's why there are software which only works with OS 10.4.x etc. See it is even down to the dot release version.

[bradwarren @ Jul 10th 2007 4:48AM]

For the person stating that the reason Vista isn't compatible with a particular printer is due to a security issue, and not MS's fault , that is complete and utter BS.

If a free OS like Linux can make a generic post script driver that works with virtually any printer, there is no reason a multi-billion dollar corporation can't get my grandma's HP printer to work.