Vista SP1 riding the torrents, breaking Ballmer's heart

For those of you who simply can't wait one more second to get your hands on one of the more hyped updates in recent memory, Vista SP1, you're in luck. According to a report (and our BitTorrent client, chugging along in the background), the new service pack has been leaked, then promptly made available for your forbidden downloading pleasure. Apparently, the full install doesn't provide you with an upgrade option, so make sure you backup necessary files (like those pictures of Mom, apple pie, etc.). PC World offers a highly detailed report on how many seeders and / or leechers were available at the time its article was written, but we'll spare you. Suffice to say, it's there for the taking.

[John @ Feb 7th 2008 10:11AM]

I can't see anyone at Microsoft getting that pissed... I mean, they want the update out, so presumably all that means is that this isn't the final release candidate.

[Ty @ Feb 7th 2008 12:58PM]

Aye.

Also: "...more hyped updates in recent history"

Is this a joke? Because uhh... http://www.engadget.com/search/?q=leopard

[Nate @ Feb 7th 2008 1:19PM]

Vista is a disaster of a release eclipsed only by Windows 98. Anyone who bought Vista knows that they paid for a beta. The disire to have a reasonably functioning product is no crime.

[Joseph @ Feb 7th 2008 1:39PM]

Nate: Are you sure you don't mean Windows ME?

[James Cameron @ Feb 7th 2008 1:45PM]

Yo Ho, Yo Ho, A Pirate's Life for Me! ARGH!!!!

[Jeebus @ Feb 7th 2008 2:31PM]

@Nate,

Been running Vista x64 for quite a while now, haven't had an issue. Not that big of an improvement over XP, but still better.
The biggest issue is really the lack of x64 support from some vendors, like Canon and Sony. Of all things, photo and video applications should be among the first adopters to 64-bit for its humongous memory space. But not so...

[jimmy @ Feb 7th 2008 4:25PM]

Everyone is missing the point. The reason to not publicly release the service pack is because manufacturers need time to work out the kinks with their software before it goes live to the public. as soon as it goes live, the blackhats can reverse engineer the security flaws from the fixes.

if it gets released early, then there is a time where systems are running w/o the service pack, pending fixes for third party software, and these systems are suseptible to attack.

nice try by microsoft but they should know better.. that crazy plan would never work.

[Daza @ Feb 8th 2008 5:20AM]

I have 2 desktops, 2 notebooks and 1 HTPC running Windows Vista Home Premium. If I had a single issue with Vista, I definitely wouldn't be using it. Only the notebooks actually came with Vista, had to get licenses for the desktop and the HTPC - not going out of my way to really get it but I could just have easily put Windows XP on them. I didn't, because Vista has caused absolutely no trouble for me whatsoever. Those who have trouble are either using very dated hardware, don't know how to turn UAC off or are using antique software that probably didn't even work that well on XP.

[E-Rock @ Feb 7th 2008 10:12AM]

Not that stealing is ok, but it was rather stupid of them to announce SP1 RTM and then tell you it would be a month and a half before you could download it.

[bondsbw @ Feb 7th 2008 10:28AM]

In the case of upgrading from Vista, is it really stealing if:

1) It costs nothing to begin with.
2) They will be releasing it for the masses in the near future.
3) They will push it on the masses a few months later.

[Bluestealth @ Feb 7th 2008 10:31AM]

They should have just not said anything, and told the public the final release date. Apparently they think SP1 RTM has too many problems to be trusted to their other costumers.

[John Bailey @ Feb 7th 2008 10:28AM]

How exactly does one steal something that is going to be free to anyone with the required software in a month or so? Its not as if Microsoft were intending to sell it.

[andyo @ Feb 7th 2008 10:36AM]

It's the full Windows Vista SP1 install, as it seems. It's not just the service pack, hence the comment from the Engadgets that it "doesn't provide you with an upgrade option, so make sure you backup necessary files".

[heyguy @ Feb 7th 2008 10:40AM]

Come on people, the announcements were for sysadmins so they will be prepared for the install. All this venom for MS (at least in this case) is unnecessary.

[bondsbw @ Feb 7th 2008 10:45AM]

Sysadmins? How do they prepare for SP1 if they don't know what it will break on their systems?

I say let users download it (not on Windows Update until March) and let the sysadmins actually *administer* their network by setting a policy that disallows the update until they are ready.

[mike @ Feb 7th 2008 1:41PM]

@bluestealth: Yes, people using vista while dressed up in costumes (ie, costumers) Should not be trusted with the service pack earlier than the official release date.

[Jeebus @ Feb 7th 2008 2:34PM]

@bondsbw

It's not stealing and neither is copying any software. It's copyright infringement, and in this case it probably still is.

[Mark @ Feb 8th 2008 11:10PM]

He probably thought that you had to pay for it becasue he confused Vista SP1 with an OS X service pack.

[Slawek @ Feb 7th 2008 10:13AM]

Vista SP1? Why?

(insert sarcastic comment here)

[ethana2 @ Mar 4th 2008 10:41PM]

Vista.
Because it's there.

Thank goodness for Dell.
....and Ubuntu Hardy, while still in alpha, is /awesome/.
The sad thing is, our 'alpha' is about the quality of microsoft's released software. ...but the KDE team doesn't use 'alpha', they just give stuff numbers ^_^ (and I really am just fine with that)

[Dr. Evil @ Feb 7th 2008 10:14AM]

Stealing a patch?

[System48 @ Feb 7th 2008 10:16AM]

I know, it's a sad day for the torrents.

[StrangeBum @ Feb 7th 2008 10:58AM]

You need to understand. It's not just eh SP1 patch. It is a torrent of Vista + SP1. Therefore, since it includes the actual Windows Vista OS, along with SP1, it is a crime. It's pirating.

I think that Engadget just wrote this up a bit sloppily as it was not all that easy to gather all the information from this post.

[Mr. Vage @ Feb 7th 2008 11:42AM]

Actually I'm not sure that it's really stealing if there are no keygens or cracks included. When you purchase software, you are not actually buying the software but instead a license to that software.

Of course if you get caught downloading the software, it would be pretty hard to prove that you never intended to use it without a legit license.

[TJ Johnson @ Feb 7th 2008 11:47AM]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole idea of CD keys and MGA so that downloading or acquiring an unauthenticated OS wouldn't (in theory) be an issue. I mean there's a reason why MS allows a 30-day trial period of Vista before you have to insert a key...so people can "try" it before they "buy" it.

[silicon @ Feb 7th 2008 10:18AM]

ya who knew that wanting to fix microsoft's broken operating system was a crime?

[FrankTheCrank @ Feb 7th 2008 10:21AM]

Ballmer's getting his sweat on right now. Screaming, throwing chairs...sweating profusely.

[Hax Or @ Feb 7th 2008 10:24AM]

Microsoft should realize that we pwn them, not the other way around.

Why fight your own users? Microsoft reminds me of the RIAA... they think they have this big fight against piracy, but actually they just... don't... get it.

Would they rather have us use a pirated copy of Windows or Apple OSX? Seriously.

[heyguy @ Feb 7th 2008 10:31AM]

What? No one has said anything about Microsoft fighting anybody. The service pack is leaked and people are downloading it. Microsoft hasn't said anything. FYI, this service pack is getting rid of the reduced functionality mode (which is good for pirates), so your spiel is even more inane.

[Hax Or @ Feb 7th 2008 10:46AM]

Try to follow along. If I'm confusing you, don't respond.

Pirating a Service Pack is what the story is about... what part don't you get? JK I don't care.

[heyguy @ Feb 26th 2008 4:27PM]

You aren't very smart.

[Hax Or @ Feb 7th 2008 12:00PM]

haha.. keep flaming me troll! I enjoy it.

[Dave @ Feb 7th 2008 10:37AM]

The problem is that people will blame Microsoft for when their downloaded copy of SP1 fucks up their system. Microsoft is not ready to support SP1 yet, but people will think they have a right to that support even though they are using an un-released patch.

[Kizorblade @ Feb 7th 2008 10:45AM]

They're either lawyers or idiots

[CosterMonger @ Feb 7th 2008 10:47AM]

@Dave

I am sure all the big boys who download will know what they are doing, and they will already have their system backup before they upgrade.

no reason for you to get that third zune tattoo.

[Dave @ Feb 7th 2008 10:54AM]

Of course techy people won't have any problems with it. You have to remember, there are ALOT of idiots out there. I am not trying to defend MS at all here, just posting some common sense.

[CosterMonger @ Feb 7th 2008 12:56PM]

sorry Dave your right :)

[David @ Feb 7th 2008 10:42AM]

It's not the patch; it's a full download of Vista SP1. Therefore, it's piracy.

[Kaiser @ Feb 7th 2008 10:48AM]

You will likely still need a legit key - in that case it may just be legal.

[rockintom @ Feb 7th 2008 11:19AM]

Uh... just because the key isn't included doesn't make it legal.

[Jon Doe. @ Feb 7th 2008 11:33AM]

Umm considering that the SP1 PATCH (What? you think an SP is a complete install of an OS?) is free who gives a shit.

[m-p{3} @ Feb 7th 2008 12:38PM]

I guess it's then illegal to use it without a license key on trial mode ?

[Jughead @ Feb 7th 2008 10:41AM]

Think how much bandwidth they're going to save now. They should be thanking people instead :)

[brian @ Feb 7th 2008 10:47AM]

To the The Pirate Bay!!!!

[brian @ Feb 7th 2008 11:28AM]

Whoops i mucked up that one.

[rob @ Feb 7th 2008 2:18PM]

can someone please describe in detail why vista sucks? i've been running home premium 32bit on a 3gb ram, T7500 processor, 256 nvidia graphics HP laptop for a month now, and i actually like it. i run mostly resource intensive DJ/audio production software on it and they run fantastic. of course, i had to spend a few hours uninstalling some crapware and researching online for optimal settings for running professional audio software, but i don't mind doing that since in the process i learned a little more about vista settings and how to tweak them.

it's really funny when i get shit from my Mac fanboy buddies when i tell them that i actually really like vista.

i've had no problems what so ever (except for a somewhat slow loading Network Connections admin panel which i think someone else mentioned). for the most part, i still feel like i'm using xp, except that over time i run across a little added feature here and there that makes my life easier (vs. using xp). i feel like vista is alot closer to the sweet spot of addressing the prosumer. tweaking any kind of settings is much easier. connecting to various networks is a snap. windows explorer features/functions work great. (for people that hate the frequent UAC pop up, you can turn that off. google it.)

prior to my new laptop, i ran XP for a few years on a 1GB, 3GHz desktop. like many people, was skeptical about getting a vista machine because i really liked XP. it worked really well for a long time for me. (i used Window Blinds which basically already gave me the "vista glass look" for several years, so the somewhat improved look of vista wasn't really a selling point for me.) but now that i've been using it for a month, i actually find that it's more stable than my xp desktop machine, with many pleasantly surprising little added features.

so i just don't see it. why people think vista sucks. i guess i could potentially see 2 camps of people thinking it sucks: (1) the really really techy types that can nit pick about something or another that really doesn't affect the average user at all and (2) the people that are so in love with the Mac OS cartoonish UI/eye candy that they will bash anything that doesn't "look" like the Mac OS.

so i guess the bottom line is, get a powerful enough computer to run vista. i laugh when people talk about installing vista on an older machine. why would you do that anyway? seems like if xp is running fine on your old machine, it's an awful lot of trouble to install a new OS that's been well documented to not run well on a slower/lower memory machine.

on a side note, i just got a free iPod classic recently and am setting up iTunes. one guestion. why the hell can't i simply monitor multiple folders for new music? to me, this is the most basic convenience feature a music player can offer. when i asked my Mac buddy, he was totally perplexed by the question... also, why does the same album show up multiple times on my ipod when browsing by album? bleh. think i'm going back to using the Zune. the iPod does look nice though. i'll give it that much.

peace all,

Robert

[Brassen @ Feb 7th 2008 10:49AM]

Any news on the XP SP3?

[DWells55 @ Feb 7th 2008 12:46PM]

The latest RC is stable for me and resolved the "tooltips hiding behind taskbar" issue that I was having on two SP2 machines, so I say it's worth a shot. However, all the machines I installed it on had it installed either immediately after or shortly after a fresh install of XP, so I can't speak for if it has any compatibility issues. It shouldn't though (from what I'm hearing).

[bluhound @ Feb 7th 2008 10:53AM]

The Pirate Bay now has the SP1 patch. Filesize is around 430MB. It can be updated on any versions of Vista.

[Jon Doe. @ Feb 7th 2008 10:57AM]

Bah...whatever. Anyone who is downloading a SP off of BT is savvy enough to fix their own problems if something goes wrong. That is the only concern that MS would care about.
I personally don't care. I've been running RC SP1 since December. As far as I know the feature set in the final release is set and the RC is solid. So whatever. I just need to figure out how to slip stream it. The original concept of dropping the file in a directory on the DVD won't occur until SP2. So I hope there is a method similar to XP's slipstreaming update.