Leaked Vista Service Pack 1 analyzed

The leak of the first service pack for Windows Vista, imaginatively named SP1, means that we get to hear about the improvements before it gets a real release. APCMag reviewed a leaked copy of the software, and found that it's pretty much your standard service pack fare: a bunch of bug fixes and noticeable performance tweaks. The only new feature is an option to create a recovery disk, along with a crapload of new install packages for Vista's components, with no readily apparent changes. So, what's Microsoft waiting for? Get it out the door already!

[jk @ Aug 13th 2007 5:19AM]

Sorry for my obliviousness... but... SP1 = Download? It's not like it comes with the newer editions of Vista.... yah?

[DAZA @ Aug 13th 2007 5:36AM]

Right now it is a pre-Beta build and not the official thing by any means. As development progresses it will only get faster and more reliable. When the time is ready to release it, you will be able to download it through Windows Update and all new PCs will be pre-installed with Vista SP1. Retail and OEM CDs will also be 'slipstreamed' with SP1 so you get the service pack with your new Vista install.

[jk @ Aug 13th 2007 7:04AM]

Thanks :)

[Long @ Aug 13th 2007 12:38PM]

Tony is correct on some parts. I saw on a blog about an update that Microsoft had called "vista performance update." It is not on Window's Update and you have to manually install it by searching the internet and downloading the file.

Here is a quote from a blog from a person that works at MS:

"We just released two update packages which improve the performance and compatibility of Vista. As far as I can tell, they aren't on Windows Update yet so you'll have to go get them manually. The most significant in my mind is improvement for file copies from the Vista shell. Anyone who has tried to copy even a small amount of data in Vista knows how painfully slow it can be. "

It doesn't make any sense to have to download it manually. It should be available on Window's Update as a file that one might want to update.

Also Window's Update for Vista stinks. The primary security files will be downloaded for you, but the secondary fixes that might affect your computer is a one line information that says the number of the update K9844565 rather than any useful information like this affects which program. You have to double click the information link, it pops up a window that gives you the information. It should just have a summary near to where you click the check box so that you can read it and see if you want to download it.

[Singh @ Aug 13th 2007 5:29AM]

Anyone think this is really the one? or just a fake one.... Heard the news long ago that it was going to release within a week http://www.gadget9.com/2007/07/10/windows-vista-releasing-service-pack-1/

[Julian Bond @ Aug 13th 2007 5:37AM]

If this was Linux with a decent package manager we would have incrementally upgraded with all the component parts of SP1 already. Why do we have to wait for an official package?

And while we're on that topic, why doesn't Microsoft roll all it's products into Windows Update? Why is there a completely separate mechanism for upgrading MSN Messenger for instance?

[Pc_Madness @ Aug 13th 2007 5:44AM]

Errm.. do they give you a new version of a distribution in bits and pieces? No, because its simpler for them to release it all in one go.

And isn't Windows Live Messenger supported over Microsoft Update now? They did a test of it a while back if you were using the beta build.

[dom.rout @ Aug 13th 2007 6:11AM]

You do get the new distro in bits an pieces if you upgrade within ubuntu, for example. Dist-Upgrade just downloads all the changed packages in the new version....

[Tony @ Aug 13th 2007 8:18AM]

You Linux dudes just love to f'ing complain about anything MS. First you say there are too many SP or updates, now there are not enough. Go crawl backup under your rock.

[Julian Bond @ Aug 13th 2007 8:41AM]

Tony: I use XP each and every day. But I'm not above looking for the good bits in other environments that can be ported across.

So why do we have to wait for a packaged SP1 to get at the updates? And why do so many of MS' packages have their own upgrade process instead of being rolled into Windows update?

And mostly when did Microsoft forget the mantra (that they invented) of "Ship Early, Ship often"

[Kip Granson @ Aug 13th 2007 9:33AM]

Microsoft update (not WINDOWS Update) does exactly this. It updates a large number of their programs, including even a fair amount of their server side components. Also, if you don't want to use windows update, you can use the technet download and grab whichever patches you want. Granted, the linux stuff deals with things that aren't just that distro's packages, so with your Ubuntu install you can get updates to OpenOffice and such, but that's more the nature of linux right? And if you didn't distribute the packages in that manner, you'd have to rely on the users to compile their own binaries, and I sure don't know many people that can or even want to do that on a regular basis.

[Julian Bond @ Aug 13th 2007 12:00PM]

Wishing I hadn't mentioned Linux. Because really Linux, Linux distros, binaries vs source code, package managers, updates of non-core linux programs have nothing to do with it.

It's a simple observation. Why does it take a big hefty SP1 release to make a large number of small updates? And why isn't Microsoft's software update processes more seamless?

Case in point, "Microsoft update (not WINDOWS Update)" But go to the Windows Update page and it says "Welcome to Microsoft Update". And under Select by product, I've got some of the Microsoft software I have installed but not all.

All software sucks, some software sucks more than others. And even Microsoft isn't perfect and could do better.

[Alex @ Aug 14th 2007 6:07AM]

The latest beta of Live Messenger is updated through the update system, actually. I had an update through it on 29th June.

Office is also updated through it. I doubt that all products are updated that way (yet), but that covers the vast majority that people use.

[Ziokendo @ Aug 13th 2007 5:50AM]

My guess is that huge delays in releasing SP1 are mainly due to 2 reasons:
1# PR. Microsoft can't release a major service pack so close to the vista release. It will lower further the credibility of their uber-bugged product.
2# Once released the SP, maybe MS will need to supply all the vendors with new oem packages, and replace most of the media in the big retail chains ... so maybe there's a simple stock-cycling reason.

Just speculations, of course. Maybe they're developing and adding new features to that SP1

[ssuk @ Aug 13th 2007 6:33AM]

Or maybe, just maybe... They haven't finished it yet.

[Mickey Jones @ Aug 13th 2007 8:09AM]

nah, they started working on the SP1 even before they started work on Vista. SP1 is the real OS. Vista itself is just a 'commercially available beta'.

[cannonfodder @ Aug 13th 2007 6:55AM]

do you think maybe it needed to be vetted by the movie industry first to make sure the encrypted drm hadn't been effected!

AACS DRM tentacles reach far into operating systems

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/aacs-tentacles.ars

QUOTE: ""The biggest trick the devil ever pulled was in getting folks to blame someone other than Hollywood for video DRM." —not Keyser Söze

Peter Gutmann, author of a well-known and fascinating paper describing the tradeoffs of Microsoft's content protection system in Windows Vista, is on the hunt again. Last year, his paper "Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection" painted a grim picture of the lengths Microsoft went to in order to gain full compliance with AACS, the next-gen copy control system for Blu-ray and HD DVD (and they did go far). Now Gutmann is reiterating his claims but also reportedly digging deep in his attacks on Microsoft. While Microsoft deserves some of the blame, the bigger story here is the technical nightmare created by AACS and how its tentacles are reaching into the consumer technology we all use daily. It's a shame that this is getting lost in the mix, but after discussing the issue with a journalist this weekend, I decided to delve a little more into it here.

Gutmann's presentation at this year's USENIX Security Symposium in Boston has been profiled at Network World. Gutmann's thesis is fairly basic and unchanged from last year: Microsoft spent way too many resources appeasing Hollywood when it should have been making Windows Vista better. Gutmann is essentially correct; any time a consumer electronics manufacturer or other technology company has to waste time with DRM, that company is wasting resources that could be better spent elsewhere if DRM wasn't a sad fact of life. Let no one doubt that. All of this attention focused on Microsoft is missing the bigger story, however. "

[pigfister @ Aug 13th 2007 6:57AM]

and a bit more:

"imeline flaws adding up

Most of what breaks the "HD experience" on PCs right now stems from AACS's demands on technology, starting with the requisite HDMI/HDCP support on video cards and displays. HDMI/HDCP are two key parts of the "secure path" for video, but the two technologies have still not penetrated the PC market in any substantial way. (I'm quite surprised that monitor and video card manufacturers were so late implementing HDCP, given that this aspect of AACS has been known about for some time.)

Regardless, note that hardware-level support for AACS (via HDMI/HDCP) has nothing to do with Microsoft or Apple, but both companies will have to grapple with balancing the AACS requirements with providing users with a simple playback environment. Thankfully, Hollywood has backed off the Image Constraint Token for now, the biggest snag in the HDCP plan, likely because of the slow adoption of HDCP itself. Hollywood holds the cards here: it's the studios' content licensing practices at work, and it's their call when to start enforcing technical requirements for full HD display. So, while the HDCP issues may seem only theoretical for now, those days are numbered. "

[boe @ Aug 13th 2007 8:20AM]

I would imagine the delay is that the performance tweaks still don't make network transfers nearly as fast as Windows XP - as mentioned above, the DRM check slows the file copies and transfers way too much. I have tested with identical machines hardware wise copying large directories and large files to Windows 2003 R2 x64 SP2 servers. The XP SP2 machines running on Core2 processors with 2 GIGs of memory can copy up to 8 times faster than identical machines running Vista Ultimate with all the patches and latest controller and nic drivers even with indexing turned off, the firewall turned off, antivirus turned off, and any third part TSRs turned off even though the XP machine has all of those left on. With the SP, performance goes to a whopping 1/5th speed of XP.

While home users might not notice the slow down even though disk to disk copies are also much slower in vista, any business that does a fair amount of file transfers would be reluctant to slow down their workstations this much.

[whathefah? @ Aug 13th 2007 3:10PM]

Pure FUD, plain and simple. DRM is not implemented on file transfers. My Vista boxes transfer files just as quickly as the XP sp2 boxes.

8 times faster.... should have said 800 times, would have been more believable.

[boe @ Aug 13th 2007 5:00PM]

Gee, I guess those thousands of posts and controlled tests with identical machines by all those posters must be wrong. MS must be wrong for admitting an issue 5 months after vista came out and denying the issue the initial 5 months of release. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Chris.L @ Aug 13th 2007 9:44AM]

I called MS back in April for some tech support with Vista, the guy told me that they were expecting to release the first service pack within 2 weeks (from when I called) so that little **** lied...or he just didn't know anything...

[Dale @ Aug 13th 2007 12:21PM]

I'm with the "why does it all have to come in one giant download" camp. I use a PC for work and a Mac for play, and I much prefer the incremental updates of Mac OS X. Much less demanding of my internet connection, much less margin for error.

To anyone using Vista, does it really offer anything significant that XP doesn't? I'll be dual booting when I get my next Mac, and I can't figure out if Vista is worth the extra green other than for future proofing.

[Kip Granson @ Aug 13th 2007 3:38PM]

Dale,
Honestly, when i first started playing with Vista (ultimate) I didn't like it at all. I had a hard time getting used to the UI and thought it had a lot of unnecessary overhead involved, but me being me, I kinda enjoy the flashy bits of the UI and I needed to force myself to use it because I have to support MS stuff on a day to day basis. Then I upgraded my media center pc to vista and got an xbox 360. The way that things seamlessly work together really impressed me. It's definitely not perfect. The file copying is annoying, although it has gotten better i think.

I guess my opinion is, you might as well boot into vista considering at some point you're gonna have to dump xp for vista if you want to stick with windows. You could always get yourself a copy of Parallels and run vista in the VM instead of dual booting.. then you can dual boot into xp :-).

[Eric @ Aug 13th 2007 12:38PM]

Maybe they are trying not to spook IT departments that are still trying to figure out what to do about Vista. At my work they don't intend to support Vista until Fall 2008!

[Donoho @ Aug 15th 2007 2:14PM]

What do you think is the difference between a movie review of a downloaded movie before it's commercially released and a review of a service pack before it's released? (Besides the SP being free)

Has the reviewer substantiated the process of downloading leaked software?