Windows Vista / Server 2008 SP2 Beta out now to MSDN and TechNet subscribers

Windows Vista SP2 may not be hitting manufacturers 'til next April, but the beta is already scootin' about to MSDN and TechNet subscribers. Yep, as of this very moment in time, the Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 SP2 Beta is in the wild, and Microsoft is planning to making it publicly available via TechNet this Thursday. Check all the juicy details in the links below.

Read - Announcement
Read - More details / download schedule

[Lowest Ranked @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:28PM]

Got any blurry pics of it in the wild or a video of the unboxing?

[Technex @ Dec 2nd 2008 6:54PM]

Good news, SP1 was a good improvement and now SP2, really, really great news! Thanks!

[holycow @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:28PM]

The Read link for more details has a '.' at the end, so before anyone complains that 'The Page is Not Found.' here you go:
http://blogs.technet.com/windowsserver/default.aspx

[Darren @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:29PM]

Fixed, thanks!

[Thi mam(kris120890) @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:30PM]

I might look on torrents in the morning. Actuallly there migh not be much of a point. It doesn't seem to improve much.

[Neophytos @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:36PM]

They haven't abandoned windows mojave?

[sethmo @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:40PM]

I heard Windows Mojave was really Windows Vista. Any truth in that?

[iEye @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:40PM]

Ooh, "Mojave" sounds like something tasty one would enjoy at the local Starbucks...

While browsing on the iPhone + free WiFi...

[neodorian @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:41PM]

I've been running Mojave ever since I upgraded my PC a few months back. On a dinosaur it's no good but with a dual core and 2-4gb RAM it's a good OS. No crashes. No conflicts. Just a nicer UI and some nice new features like Media Center and the photo organizer/importer. Nothing groundbreaking but a nice update to the aging XP.


Yes I know it's so uncool to actually like Windows these days.

[sdemo @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:42PM]

dont drink THAT kool-aide... its got a virus ;)

[Thi mam(kris120890) @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:43PM]

Hate iEye and everyone will think you're cool.

[Dopefish @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:59PM]

Idiot.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/28/microsofts-mojave-experiment-promotes-vista-ashton-kutcher/

[A non eMous @ Dec 2nd 2008 8:51PM]

I agree that Vista was...shall we say frustrating...when I bought my laptop 1.5 years ago (pre SP1 and w/ 1gig memory, 2.0 GHz duo). I nearly ditched it for Ubuntu, but instead went the dual boot route. But after I upgraded the ram to 3 gigs, and after SP1 it's working great. It does everything I need, looks great, and I don't have any complaints. Sure it will be nice to see what will come with windows 7, but I feel Vista is now a very solid OS and should get a little more respect.

[Greg @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:59PM]

I have Vista Ultimate and I like it. Still..I was hoping for alot more then this. The copy paste speeds are still aweful, I was really hoping SP2 for vista would do for Vista what SP2 XP did for XP.

[jinjin @ Dec 3rd 2008 1:47PM]

so does that mean full of awe or awful as in terriBOLL

[Neophytos @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:43PM]

You can put lipstick on a pig...

[Thi mam(kris120890) @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:46PM]

Then we call it sarah Palin.

[Neophytos @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:50PM]

I'm pretty sure that's a hockey playing german shepherd.

[fieldcar @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:50PM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_95F5e-Ac

[Esat Dedezade @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:56PM]

Thats.. wow.. thats so original and crazy!

Did you make that up? That's so clever. I see what you did there; pigs are well known to be ugly creatures and lipstick is a form of makeup. Makeup is used amongst other things to make people look more attractive.

So what you are implying is that by putting lipstick (SP2) on a pig (Vista) the ugly (crap) Vista will be prettier (better).

However, the genius of your comment lies within the subtle sarcasm that you have oh so cleverly underlined the comment in. Thus your comment, although seemingly at first implying that Vista will be more attractive is in fact sarcastic, thus letting us all arrive to the conclusion that Vista is bad.

I literally have no words left in my possesion to describe the wit that has befallen my on this day, on this hour, at this time. I shall weep in remembrance of this occasion for many years to come...

... weep in awe...

[iEye @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:59PM]

...and then brand it a Nokia...

[Neophytos @ Dec 2nd 2008 5:59PM]

So you can't put lipstick on a pig?

[Thi mam(kris120890) @ Dec 2nd 2008 6:01PM]

Your comment was too long so I didn't read it but how did you pronounce your name.

[Esat Dedezade @ Dec 2nd 2008 6:08PM]

If you are referring to me than it is pronounced: ESU*T DehDeZahDeh

* as in the U in Umbrella

If you are not referring to me, then I apologise for wasting everyone's time.

For compensation for wasting your time, have some cake:

http://www.jason.mock.ws/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/testchmb_a_11_advanced00021.jpg

[Esat Dedezade @ Dec 2nd 2008 6:11PM]

Oh and off course you can put lipstick on a pig.

It would be easiest to do if the pig was sedated, otherwise I think it would not approve of the forced applying of makeup and may try to harm you. Having said that I have personally never seen an agitated pig and am thus totally ignorant of the danger that an angry pig would pose to my safety.

Can any one who has seen a pig in the above emotional state perhaps shed some light on this matter?

[Thi mam(kris120890) @ Dec 2nd 2008 6:15PM]

She tried running for vice prez and lost.

seriously I don't care I was just joking

[Sk8rman @ Dec 2nd 2008 6:17PM]

But you can't put a pig on lipstick!

[Esat Dedezade @ Dec 2nd 2008 6:22PM]

Once again, I believe that could be possible, but seeing as there is only one place the lipstick could go were a pig to be on top of it I would assume that it would be pretty pissed.

On that note I am going to go to bed and hopefully not dream about sodomizing farm animals with items of makeup.

There's a sentence I didn't think I'd ever say/type.

Goodnight everybody!

[james @ Dec 2nd 2008 6:00PM]

Uh, I've had this for a month

[Sk8rman @ Dec 2nd 2008 7:01PM]

Yeah sure...
And I suppose that you have genetically engineered flying lolcats too

[dale1v @ Dec 2nd 2008 6:02PM]

watch, even though they're making improvements, someone will still find something insignificant to complain about.

[Christian Walters @ Dec 2nd 2008 8:40PM]

WELCOME TO ENGADGET!

[kal326 @ Dec 2nd 2008 6:05PM]

Huh, might pull this down from MSDN on Thursday. I got a spare 32bit Vista Business box I can sacrifice to the beta gods.

[Julian @ Dec 2nd 2008 6:09PM]

Can anyone confirm the build number of this beta release? is it v.133 or newer?

[feffrey @ Dec 2nd 2008 6:20PM]

Technically this should be called Service pack 1 for Server 2008 since it does not have a service pack yet.
but of course server 2008 is built from Vista SP 1 so it works but it is kinda confusing.

[Lou @ Dec 2nd 2008 7:21PM]

windows 2008 was released with all the bug fixes that are in vista SP1. so technically, the new SP is SP2 for windows 2008 as well.

[kal326 @ Dec 2nd 2008 8:35PM]

No technically this would be called Windows Server 2008 R2. The shipping version of Windows Server 2008 shows SP1 in Control Panel> System

[Jordan @ Dec 3rd 2008 2:31AM]

actually windows server 2008 r2 is windows 7.

confusing, amirite?

[Chris Riccio @ Dec 2nd 2008 7:22PM]

These comments aggravate me to no end. People are so ignorant and uninformed when it comes to Vista its disgusting. I have never used a faster and more stable OS then Vista Ultimate x64. With current hardware (Quad-Core CPU's, 4GB+ RAM) Vista is an amazing OS. Get your heads out of your asses people.

[wrabbit @ Dec 2nd 2008 7:34PM]

And what about people with no current hardware? Do you really expect everyone to have a quad-core CPU, even though these have only really gone mainstream this year? And I'm sorry but nice looking interface with some glass effects shouldn't require 4gb of ram to run well. Check WindowBlinds to see how it's suppose to be done. As far as stable goes - half our office upgraded to Vista and I'm still seeing plenty of weirdness and/or bugs happening, it's less than XP but I wouldn't call Vista the beacon of stability. Besides, at least on XP it wasn't much of a hassle to resolve most of the issues if you knew what you were doing. With Vista every tiny things requires a stupid confirmation slowing doing any "debuggin" process and driving everyone insane (and no I can't just disable it because for the actual person working on a given PC it's probably best to leave those on).

Anyway, just had to vent a bit.

As for SP2, from what I read of it, it's actually adding several nice things (don't remember the details now, and too lazy to find the link) and if it actually delivers on its promises I may finally have a reason to upgrade.

[Andir3.0 @ Dec 2nd 2008 7:41PM]

"I have never used a faster and more stable OS then Vista Ultimate x64"

So this is your first ever computer? It's documented as slower. It does things slower than XP using more resources than XP. It may "feel" faster, but it's not.

[Brian @ Dec 2nd 2008 9:08PM]

@Andir

with SP1, gaming and items like photoshop were around the same on two identical PCs.

[Jon Doe. @ Dec 2nd 2008 9:09PM]

I'm sorry but this is BS. You don't need a quad core. Even a dual core @ 2Ghz is easily more then enough with Vista. Add about 3GB and a speedy HD and the system flies and that doesn't require a major investment. I saw this same BS when XP came out. Bitching and moaning that WAH! My Windows 98 system doesn't run it all that well. Wah. Look. When OS X came out it axed a whole hell of a lot of hardware. Vista is Microsoft's OS X, just less buggy out of the gate then 10.0 was.
Frankly my only real complaint about Vista is the disk thrashing. I understand the concept behind IO prioritizing. That is theory the reality is you need a hefty speedy HD to handle the thrashing that Vista does. It got better with SP1. My assumption is that it will be further refined with SP2 and even further with Win 7.

But this delusional idea that 3 year old hardware should be good for an OS designed to take advantage of current hardware is stupid. You don't like it. Continue to run XP. Nothings stopping you. Or run Linux. There are options out there other then bitching and complaining.

[Andir3.0 @ Dec 2nd 2008 11:01PM]

Wonder why I still read benchmarks concerning explicitly Vista SP1 as STILL being slower for most disk transfer tests then:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=6
And as far as gaming... I've seen many that simply say it's caught up to XP. I wouldn't say that's the fastest OS I've ever used if it's AS fast as the last.

[Smugone @ Dec 3rd 2008 7:19AM]

@Chris Riccio

The best OS I've ever used is Windows Micro2003 v0.8 Special Edition by eXPerience it's a hoot, give it a try built on Server 2003 RC2.

[Jack H @ Dec 2nd 2008 7:50PM]

people will always complain not because the software, but the hardware, and they just dont know it. I personally have had some horrific experiences with Vista, but this was a AMD, 1GB ram computer. Ive had some perfectly fine experiences with Vista on a Intel, 3GB ram. But, this is still Microsofts fault for trying to 1) say that a computer is Vista Capable, and 2) Not tell people that they need a pretty decent computer to run Vista smoothly, something that obviously wouldnt be a good move. Yet, such mistakes, along with the bugs and crashes all Windows systems have at one point or another (just amplified on a bad computer) have pushed OS X popularity up to almost 9%, form something like 3 or 4% just a couple of years ago, while Microsofts best OS ever, XP SP2 was the standard and OS X was dealing with the Tiger bugs.

Vista is a fail, because it is too heavy for the average computer to handle, something Windows 7 should, and unless Ballmer is Insane, will fix

[AndrewAmazed @ Dec 2nd 2008 10:33PM]

a average computer your say?
Do you know how fast technology advances?
I can easily get a $300(Dual Core, 3-4G Ram) computer to run Vista smoothly. What is average to you?

also @ wrabbit

You can turn the safety notifications off with 2? clicks of a button.

[Matt @ Dec 3rd 2008 8:34AM]

I'd say a lot of what pushed OSX popularity up was not the fact of the subpar issues with Windows versions, but due to the fact that there is an x86 version of OSX. That fact has to be considered, that and iPhone, and Macbook Pros. As for your issues of running Vista on a machine with (indecent specs) I ran Vista x64 Business on a 3200+ with 1gb dd1 pc3200. I had zero problems, with an 8800GT, I still played games beautifully, but a little laggy till I upgraded my memory. Now that machine has turned into my htpc with Server 2008 installed on the other.

I personally think a successful windows machine just requires a bit of registry tweaking and disabling of nonsense features (like sidebar). None the less... there were a lot of factors that caused the rise in Apple's share over the PC world, but not all the fault is put on Windows. Apple has had a good run in the last 4-5 years...

[Yu Gi Joe @ Dec 2nd 2008 8:34PM]

Actually, it's available RIGHT NOW on TechNet! Downloading x64 for the home system running Ultimate, then x86 for Enterprise on the notebook from work. Wish me luck!

[Ghen @ Dec 3rd 2008 7:31AM]

good luck. Betas often break things.