Vista, Server 2008 could get their SP2s before Windows 7 kicks them out of the house
By Samuel Axon 
posted October 16th 2008 4:28PM
posted October 16th 2008 4:28PM
Maybe you're running a six-year old pirated copy of XP because you still don't trust Vista -- "I'm waiting on one more Service Pack, just to be extra sure," you say. If that's the case, you might have to come up with a new excuse soon: Mary Jo Foley over at ZDNet is reporting that a beta build of Vista Service Pack 2 is already in the hands of some software and hardware partners, and that Microsoft intends to deliver both Vista SP2 and Server 2008 SP2 before it launches Windows 7 -- err, 6.1, no wait, yeah let's go with 7 -- which it supposedly hopes to release June 3rd of next year. At present we know very little about SP2's features, but we're sure you have a few ideas.
no no no, xp sp3, vista sp1 gave me enough trouble, I will stay away from those... they are no service pack to me, they are DE-service packs.
SP2 made windows XP into what it is today...
i have installed xp sp3 on 2 computers (one laptop and one home-built) and vista sp1 on 3 computers (one tablet, and one laptop and one home-built). whats your problem?
De-Service packs....
lolerz
really where dou you get this stuff? no, really
Why can't they sell the Windows OS/ OSX installation on flash drives instead of optical DVD's?
Cause optical discs are dirt cheap and very cheap to mass produce.
Well flash is heading in that direction too. Maybe after Windows 7 we'll see them on flash drives.
Plus USB boot isn't usually enabled by default (or set to boot before the harddrive).. CDRom boot usually are the first priority.
DVD/CDs cost pennies to produce. The same can't be said about flash. They likely won't charge more for the OS, so that's lost capital. 4GB+ drives still cost like $10-20, versus a stack of 50 blank DVDs which cost $10-20. I've got a 100 spindle of TDKs from Costco for $15 ...
Demand goes up that much and prices will skyrocket.
It'll be a long time before supply can meet that kind of demand and keep prices less than a DVD.
I love how you act like people who haven't upgraded yet are crazy. Are there any compelling reasons to upgrade to Vista? XP works just fine for me and always has. Yes, most people don't have a problem with Vista and yes you can turn off all the ridiculous crap that's included, but I've seen nothing from Vista that would even come close to justifying the time and money spent, as well as the risk that some things may not work quite right.
Upgrading? Absolutely not. Buying a new machine and putting XP on it (unless you're a business with XP dependent apps)? Shoot yourself.
It really is that simple.
You share the same opinion of 99% of CIO's these days. Our CAD vendors said "LOL" when we asked them about Vista support. We're still on XP just like everybody else.
Until 6 years ago, my grandfather was still using a 4-86 @ 66 MHz to do the accounting he did on the side. He was reluctant to change, but got a new comp with XP. Now he can't believe he spent so long on that old machine.
Change happens! Go with the times...
Well Mark, you'll be happy to know that I run XP on a Quad-Core 2.5GHz with 4GB of RAM and a HD 3870. Productivity apps only though.
I triple-boot this thing with Vista for gaming and Linux for toying.
Your grandpa would have hated 98 vanilla and ME.
My brother decided to surprise his oldest son by buying him a new quad-core computer with 4 Gigs of ram that shipped with Vista. It runs slower than my brothers two year old XP dual core machine.
Now some will say that the OS (and applications that run on it) can't fully support four cores in a meaningful way yet, to which I reply "why the hell not?" That writing has been on the wall for YEARS and YEARS. If they did one thing right on Vista, it should have been to give it the ability to maximise available processing power. And MS products should have followed suit. It should also have moved us all into a fully 64-bit era, instead of dragging 32-bit out for years. They've shown a stunning lack of leadership in the industry.
By comparison, I had a little Amiga 3000 a LONG time ago, but I could render a 3D scene in the background (years before MS got multitasking) and use a word processor in the foreground without any apparent slow down or hiccups. I love my XP, but it still can't balance processing loads like that even now (and Vista nearly killed it - be gone foul demon).
I'm sticking with XP for now until Windows 7. MS has one last chance to redeem itself. Windows 7 had better rock or I am running away to Apple and I am never going back.
@frank
So install x64 on it.
Pas de problem.
@popfrogs
What backwards-ass CAD program are you talking about? Solidworks, MasterCAM and AutoCAD all work with Vista. Most for the past two versions.
Windows Vista is starting to seem more like Windows ME in the face of Windows 7 coming out and considering that Windows XP is still suitable for just about anything. If I were using windows Vista I'd be pretty pissed off (at least if I had purchased it in any form).
But you don't which is why you make ill advised comments that aren't supported by facts in tech blogs.
That's so original, did you just think of that whole Vista=Me thing?
Assuming that you're serious, how does Microsoft releasing an upgrade at some undisclosed point in the future mean that Vista owners have been ripped off? By the time Windows 7 comes out Vista will have been out for three years - how does that compare to OS X which is upgraded every year or so?
Vista is a great, solid OS and I'm happy to have it. I wouldn't go back to XP if you paid me and I'm looking forward to 7.
"Windows 7 -- err, 6.1, no wait, yeah let's go with 7"
Do you guys really need to be starting bad press about 7 already? We get it, MS has made their share of mistakes, but don't turn them into a joke.
Apparently you didn't read the earlier article about the Windows numbering system...
Agreed, cut it out with the "6.1 err 7" jokes. There's a reason why it carries the 6.1 revision, and we don't care if that's funny to you...
How many operating systems in a row will be called "X"?
You guys are Corny! You don't see me crying when Engadget makes fun of Apple, do you know why? Cause I'm not a sensitive little baby. Engadget makes fun of EVERYONE! Get over it.
Because they don't make fun of Apple?
I feel bad for the individuals who have been avoiding Vista due to their "IT Guy's" recommendation. Been using Vista since its Beta days, and have been very happy with it. Its been stable and I love having 8GB of RAM running x64 Ultimate. So far only had 1 program did not work well with Vista x64, and that was National Geographic TOPO for making topographical trail/hunting maps and uploading to a GPS. Other than that, my Vista experience has been great.
That being said, its not perfect. One thing I would like to see fixed/different in Vista is the folder view settings. Right now I am running a registry hack to get the view settings to stay the way I want them vs how Vista thinks they should be displayed.
Speaking as one of those "IT Guys" I'll explain why I recommend XP but have no problem installing Vista.
First: Whatever PC you are using will run faster with XP than Vista....Period (driver availability notwithstanding)
Second: Microsoft moved almost everything which means I have to re-learn how to find stuff so it's going to take me that much longer to fix any issue you encounter. Fine with me if you want to pay me more.
Third: Things that used to "just work" now either work differently or don't work at all because Microsoft is moving to a software as service model and these applications would eat into the lucrative subscription model they're looking to move to.
My wife's laptop came with Vista and it does everything she needs so I see no reason to upgrade to XP. My office workstation OTOH needs to get real work done and I can't spend 30 minutes figuring out where Microsoft moved something to get it done. At some point OEMs will stop developing drivers for XP and I won't have a choice but as long as I have drivers and work that needs to get done it's XP for me.
@Chad
O RLY?
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302527,00.asp
@Mark
ORLY to you
Please explain this then:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919183
Windows Vista Home Premium, Windows Vista Business, Windows Vista Enterprise, and Windows Vista Ultimate
• 1-gigahertz (GHz) 32-bit (x86) processor or 1-GHz 64-bit (x64) processor
• 1 GB of system memory
• Windows Aero-capable graphics card
Note This includes a DirectX 9-class graphics card that supports the following
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865
The minimum hardware requirements for Windows XP Home Edition are:
• Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
• At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)
• At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk
• CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive
So by your judgment... Vista can be installed on the requirements of XP and still get the same performance. Hmmm. Maybe I'll have to try that
@ Chad
I was 14 when I got Vista and I knew where nearly everything was on Vista within 20 mins of just digging around out of curiosity when I first got it. If you're a professional IT guy and it takes you 30 mins just to find one or two things, I don't think Vista's your problem....
@Precurse
I refer you to my first comment -Upgrade? No. New machine? Yes. You may also care to note that the stats of the ExtremeTech rig:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302498,00.asp
We PC uses call this 'a reasonably modern rig'. This is in contrast to the stats you published which seem to refer to CPU speeds that a Pentium II would find embarrassing. So, just in case the point may have eluded you, it's not actually 1998 anymore and although you might be strictly correct if we use Chad's definition of "any PC" you really would have to be a complete dickhead to use decade old hardware as a comparison.
@Precurse:
1. That wasnt his judgement, that was the findings discovered by a reputable review site that he agrees with.
2. Bringing up system requirements is one of the stupidest things you can bring up. Who cares. Those old PC's dont exist anymore. We are all going to be using dual core PC's (except netbooks) with enough ram to install the OS onto. If its been discovered that the performance gap has evaporated between Vista and XP, then why would you be foolish to even pick XP at this point in time for no gain (and with DX10 on Vista and a few tweaks like start menu search, front end enhancements, substantially better stability, and a 64 bit build that cant be touched, an actual loss).
3. @Chad: 30 minutes? Your just insulting yourself, especially after what Sora said.
Vista's failure is more a demonstration on the power of branding than any real technical reasons.
Vista's brand has been established as one of large change and incompatibilities. People won't even try it. They don't want any of this perceived uprooting of their existing system. In fact, Vista changes little. Lots of the changes are under-the-hood things you won't even notice.
Apple has a similar situation. Their brand is one of style over substance, when actually, OSX is quite an advanced operating system, as well as looking good. Still, people who want to do 'serious computing' won't consider it. Their branding issues aren't as severe, but show the power of branding nonetheless.
We're all prejudice.
I don't mind Vista. In fact, I think the quick search (when you hit start, you can type things in). For example if you want to add/remove programs, you don't have to go to Control Panel (and from there its hidden somewhere). Just hit start, type 'prog' and the option to remove programs is there. Vista makes a lot of tasks I have to do go a lot faster.
What I don't like about Vista is that it literally takes at least 2 GB to run what XP is able to with 512 MB. I also do not like that I have to run command prompt as an administrator WHILE I AM LOGGED IN AS A LOCAL ADMIN....
I have run into many people who say "I hate Vista" yet cannot formulate any real reason not to use it. Sure if you're machine won't support Vista or you don't like that it is a system hog I understand but I've run into so many people complaining about stuff like UAC which I then told them "you know you can turn that off." Funny the people that UAC was intended for is the people that complain about it the most...
@Sora
You will probably learn a few things as you get older:
1. Contrary to what you thought at the time, you didn't actually know it all at 14.
2. At a certain point you no longer have time to "dig around out of curiosity" in your OS and would prefer to just get things done.
@mark
I live in a real world not a controlled environment. Your response really only addressed gaming and that means DirectX10 which isn't even available for XP. I can't even speak to that as I've done no gaming on Vista. I can say that without doing some registry work and disabling a great number of services my customers will never need Vista is a pig with lipstick. Once you get weatherbug, realplayer, quicktime, etc. loaded (and you know people are going to) things go downhill fast. Let's see them do that same test with a few of those malware apps running in the background.
@rob
I agree with you. I have no problem using Vista I just prefer XP.....for now.
@KarlW:
I think that what gets under the skin of alot of the IT folk about MacOS X are the little things that Apple does that are different than MS, and since most admins are used to the MS software it seems foreign and annoying. For example, when you look at a folder explorer in XP/Vista, folders are arranged in alphabetical order first, then files. This is slightly different to OS X where folders and files are intermixed and arranged in alphabetical order. Neither is better or worse than the other, they're just different, but for somebody coming from the Microsoft side it can be frustrating because you're used to something different.
As for Vista branding, I totally agree. Vista's early reputation is alot worse than it's current performance. I also do think that many (including IT administrator) are afraid of upgrading because of the learning curve involved with learning the new menus and locations. It makes me wonder that people haven't been bitching and moaning more about Office 2007... heh.
Oh, and for anyone who wants to flame me: I dual boot OSX and Vista Business on my 24" iMac... :)
People are still using windows?? Wow.. what a waste of time. Hmm.. well if anyone wants my 5 copies at home that are sitting in my den collecting dust (what a waste of money), let me know.. they are yours.
il put them to good use
What are they? I'll take 'em. lol.
Yeah, I'll take em!
Wow ppl are still bashing Windows just because?
We got stacks of those rite here in Engadget.
I use windows vista and apart from how heavy it is, I really like the OS.
Maybe if u didn't cheap out on memory, you could have liked it. Shame...
Wow ppl are still bashing Windows just because?
We got stacks of those rite here in Engadget.
I use windows vista and apart from how heavy it is, I really like the OS.
Maybe if u didn't cheap out on memory, you could have liked it. Shame...
There's nothing wrong with Vista. Like John Kerry in '04 it was swift-boated into the ground. Microsoft's finding out much as he did you can't recover once the popular opinion of "you suck" is established.
While i have had problems with Vista, I had a lot more with XP.
Don't really see why anyone is waiting or downgrading Vista has a much nicer feature set, crashes less and is just a nicer place to be.
Mind you if SP2 is due in June 09 then I would think Windows 7 will certainly be waiting for 2010.
No offense but it sounds like you didnt update, or maintain your system as often as you should have, about a year after service pack2 for xp i never saw a crash i didnt cause out of my own tinkering, but im a real stickler for keeping everything tuned up,cleaned out and tweaked anyways. in any case i got vista W/SP1 on a new laptop. sadly they dont have drivers for xp or i would switch. for the first month it seemed ok but now its all fugly and crashes. even reformatted twice. even if it looks like it runs well go check the event logs for vista, on the pc's i have encountered running vista most-not all-but most of them are stuffed with errors. my latest laptop install is 2 months old it already logged 2652 errors relating to the software. so somethings not running right under that crap. and i agree with the other poster it does seem alot like the win ME failure again. i dont care for the size of the OS either, WTF is that about??
a microsoft employee says that 7 will be out before june 09 and midori will be ready in about 18 months
Well, I'm still running NT 5.1 (aka XP) on my cygwin desktop (the other one's Linux), and I don't _need_ an excuse. I have that system to do certain tasks that need Windows, and 5.1 works fine. Why would I upgrade to a new OS when that will cause software problems (bad enough), and will also yield poor performance, probably requiring a hardware upgrade (worse)?
When I get around to replacing or thoroughly rebuilding with modern components, then I'll consider what OS to install, but it looks like NT 6.1 (aka 7) will be out by then, so concerning myself with it now seems pointless.
Again, I don't need an excuse to stay, I'd need a reason to switch now. And I don't see a reason.