Microsoft not delivering Vista SP1 "anytime soon"
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted July 20th 2007 11:50AM
posted July 20th 2007 11:50AM
[Via ZDNet]
posted July 20th 2007 11:50AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Vista has DX10 and with my tweaking is 2.3% slower than XP. I don't know what resource hog people talk about. I don't have an immediate need for a service pack, I'm having no problems that googling can't fix.
How much slower is it without your tweaking?
How much slower was XP than 2k without "tweaking?" When was the last time you ran XP on a system slow enough that the tweaking was necessary?
The "resource hog" argument is MS hater FUD.
@Nobuyuki Idei
11%
Then I guess I won't be buying Vista "anytime soon".
All the more reason to just stick with XP.
I'd rather have a large microsoft sponsored driver pack (for all of my gear that still doesn't have Vista drivers) or a big software compatibility pack (which again, I realize is somewhat the responsibility of the software vendors).
Other than that, I've honestly had almost no problems with Vista. XP was 10 times buggier when it came out, and Windows 98 was 10 times buggier than that. I'd say Microsoft has come a long way.
Then again, this story just stinks of Flamebait, so here we go.
I love the "NOT" added to the picture.
Forget about Vista. I'm doing fine with XP SP2. I don't need all that silly animation and glass transparency BS. If I want to see an elegant, and fully operational OS, I just turn to my right and work on my Macs. They're a bit old, but still behave like the classy ladies they are.
My computer won't support all that but I don't consider Vista to be on par with XP at all. I find Vista so much easier to use and versatile than XP.
I heard a rumour saying that it will come out this week. Now here comes a bad news. And i also heard that the SP1 will be called Vienna.
The rumour: http://www.gadget9.com/2007/07/10/windows-vista-releasing-service-pack-1/
Highly doubt you will see anything this week when they just said "sorry, not happening."
SP1 is not Vienna though.
Vienna was windows 98 beta codename wasnt it?
My respect for whatever journalistic integrity Engadget possesses grows a little smaller with each visit.
Do the reactionary flame bait posts actually contribute to the corporate bottom line?
You do realize this is a blog, right? It's not a news site, though news is reported on it. If you think any blog should have "journalistic integrity," I think you should look up what a blog is.
I never understood the whole "Service Pack" once or twice in the life of an OS thing. Why not just make an "update" fixing whatever bugs you find as you find them. I know I'm gonna get flamed for this but, OSX has it right. I've never had to look for a "goodie bag" of updates which is what SPs are. If there's a bug, update whatever software it's in. ONLY. You don't have to wait until it's bundled with a bunch of other updates. So if just one of those bundled updates in a SP is bad or itself buggy, Too bad, wait for the next SP which will also be bundled. You never just get what you want. I don't get it. I'll stick with ol faithful, yes mac.
Funny you say that...
I've been having more problems on my mac reciently than my Vista box.
The 10.4.10 update has caused my machine to panic about every 10 minutes.
The answer for "why service pack?" is that it makes things easier across the board. The SP generally is just one all-encompassing QFE (or hotfix as it were) for the smaller patches released up until that point. Rather than downloading several smaller patches and rebooting, it's one large patch that is one reboot, and more elegantly incorporates the changes into the O/S than several small bandaids. Likewise, a SP also typically adds more than just fixes, but also can incorporate additions of features and options that were not originally released
Example - When Win2k was released, any changes to the IP stack required a reboot, after SP4 (if memory serves) you could apply the same changes, and while it still prompted for a reboot, you could say no, and the changes would still apply immediately.
Actually, Vista does update itself in response to problems. Mine updates almost too much. Coincidentally, it is updating right now. Most bug fixes are not held back until the SP.
SP once or twice in the life of an OS? Here's why: because Microsoft releases massive OS upgrades once every 3-5 years (95-98-XP-Vista) at $200-$350 a pop, whereas Apple releases Mac OS upgrades about three times in that same span at $80-$150 a pop. Apple basically makes you pay for the service pack with all the fancy new features that are integrated into the OS, with the primary cost coming whenever they release a new version. Microsoft has you eat the entire cost upfront, and gives you free service packs instead.
Math:
-3 OSX updates @ $125/each over 5 years=$375 over five years
-1 Windows update @ $300 each over 5 years=$300 over five years+free service packs
When you get down to economies of scale, Apple and Microsoft are doing the exact same thing.
You seem to be forgetting the Automatic Updates for Windows (XP and Vista) which I get at least once if not twice a week. Also if there's problems like Vista's slow copping of files issue a while back, MS releases a hot fix to solve the problem or lessen the effects.
I'm overall pleased with the rate problems are being solved in Vista, however a Service Pack idea is a bit flawed. But I can live with my Vista PC at the moment, so I'm good.
what do you think OS 10.1,10.2,10.3,10.4 are? they are one hundred and fifty dollar service packs
I see your points. BTW, I can't speak for Vista as I'm not a vista user. I guess the main difference for me is that a lot of the software I use happens to be apple software (mail, logic, FCP and Shake) therefor, it's logistically easier/faster to get the updates out. Though I can't agree that the full upgrades (10.1, 10.2, etc) are the same as service packs. I'm sorry but every time I upgraded from jag to panther or panther to tiger, I got huge upgrades. Not bug fixes, that's what the auto updates are for. These upGRADES added hundreds of new features and full running apps. And BTW you knew what you were getting and you didn't HAVE to upgrade to maintain compatibility again that's what the upDATES are for. I could still be running 10.1 if I wanted to and everything would work fine as long as I got the updates. I hope you understand I'm not a microsoft (no $$) hater, just pointing out my experiences.
10.4.10 . . .if you are getting panics its due to your 2WIRE Wireless gateway (others maybe as well). They are using an incorrect firmware version that was discontinued with 10.4.10.
You can either get a new router, or go back to .9 instead of the .10 update.
@Nobuyuki Idei
11%
Don't deliver the "service pack" every month with auto system updates. Why do we care if they ship a service pack? I know they add special features sometimes, but can't those be auto updates too?
Not an official SP, but check out www.thehotfix.net
The current "beta preview" (not public) has serious problems. Don't count on a public beta anytime soon, unless you want to deal with these problems.
Meh. I'd rather have them take their time and get it right. While I would like to see better backwards compat with some apps and there are still your occasional crashes (In my case its video related.) I expect things still get better with time.
Hell in a year to a year and a half's time most systems will easily run Vista, people will have upgraded their hardware, and things will be fine. People love to bitch about MS's latest and greatest but I hate to break it to you. Windows 95, Windows 2000, Windows XP all had their barrier to entry. Vista may be a bit, and I do mean a BIT, higher but its not dramatically higher. Like it or not XP's RAM requirments are in the 512MB range. Anyone who uses less then that is prob thrashign their page file or has one app open at a time. CPU necessity? I used a 1.3Ghz M on Vista. Ran fine. The catch is the video card and disk I/O speeds.)
What it boils down to it the video card. As people upgrade to video cards with greater then 128MB of VRAM and hardware manufacturers get their collective shit together all this will get ironed out.
Personally I welcome this delay. The reported fixes in SP1 were really meager at best. A delay suggests they are doing more with it. Personally I'm hoping for a refinement in the graphics subsystem and the amount of disk thrashing. These two things alone would allow older systems to better deal with Vista. My Thinkpad T41 with 32MB of VRAM would have ran is perfectly fine if it wasn't for the HD continuously getting the crap kicked out of it by the OS...even though I had 1GB of RAM it didn't make any difference. Vista was using it like a punching bag. On my MacBook Pro? The OS flies.
Umm I call bull. I used XP up until its release candidate and the OS was a hell of a lot less buggy then Vista. But to be fair the OS was basically Windows 2000 Consumer Pro edition. There is a reason why 2K and XP were considered point releases by MS. (Read: 2K is 5.0, XP is 5.1, Server 2003 is 5.2, and Vista is 6.0) Vista is a far more buggy mess then XP ever was because its basically a revamp of the underlying code which is based off of 5.2==Server 2003.
Ah so thats the excuse for not bothering to research the stories they copy from other sites.
"We're not journalists we're just bloggers who just happen to get paid for reporting things we find."
If I were in charge over at MS, I would release SP1 just to get those 'I never jump in until the first service pack is released' types to jump in.
--- CHAS
Vista outdated. Linux is free and has had beryl that does more cool things like spinning desktop cube, wobbly windows, and much more than vista will ever do. Looked like Vista took code from project looking glass by SUN which is open source and they chare you for it. Windows $99 to 299 for Vista and Linux is Free to download and use. NO BSOD!!!!
i work at circuit city and i cant believe how people come in and just bash vista for no reason. i use vista now and have no problems at all with it...i think the only reason why people dont like it is b/c they need to buy new software and they wont take the 15 minutes needed to learn how to use it....cheap basterds
So I guess this means my Gateway AMD-64 won't run with 4GB RAM installed "anytime soon."
Thank goodness for XP64. That "outdated" OS works like a charm with all 4GB.
And for anyone who's interested, here's a good thread for you to check out:
http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1292561&SiteID=17
Where can I get the problems of Vista list?
I'm also using Vista and haven't encountered any problem that gave me an headace.
Effing thieves, MS is, selling glass pearls to us stupid redskins.
I just don't see any compelling reason to upgrade to Vista. With XP it was stability and support for newer technologies. What does vista have? Glass? DX10?
IMHO XP SP2 was the best OS MSFT ever released! And the second best software behind the ultimate Excel. . . you can do anything with it!
I don't see why you need to spend all of that money for a minor update.
I've since switched to the Mac. It does what I want to do and I don't have problems with it, nor do I have to "tweak" it to get it working right. I can't say that I am missing Vista.
And as for the $125 "service pack" updates . . . that's ridiculous. You don't have to upgrade to continue to get support, you can remain on the older version and upgrade with your hardware. Although with each new version they do add lots of new features. Just check out www.apple.com/macosx
I have used Microsoft software for years at home, and I have to at work. First thing I done was bought and installed Vista - yeah, bit pricey, bur h*ll, if I wrote the OS, I want paid for it.
Firstly, I liked the Aero stuff - quite nice, navigation through explorer is a bit sluggish and another learning curve (but I can change it to the old style)
Secondly, Vista is far more secure - UAC (User Account Control); annoying, yes. But at least you know that you are controlling critical changes.
Thirdly, DX10, although you'll need the GPU to run it. I am a programmer and DX10 rocks!
However, Vista needs this service pack - I do not know how the beta testers didn't find problems, or 'why' Microsoft would release an OS that has so many annoyances (never learn, do they)
I am not arguing the OS war, I use Vista for DX10, games and .NET programming. I dualboot with Linux for my programming stuff) and I use an iBook for my video editing and Flash stuff - all of them are VERY VERY good at what they are designed to do.