Windows Vista SP2 RC may be in the hands of testers as we speak
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted Jan 30th 2009 3:03PM
posted Jan 30th 2009 3:03PM
Sure, the big hubbub's been Windows 7 (give us some time and we'll figure out how to install it on a toaster!) but Microsoft is betting that quite a few folks will be stranded in Vistaland (Vista Town? Vista Village? The dreaded Vista Flats?) for some time to come, and they'll need provisions -- like blankets, candles, water, and service packs. According to Tech Arp, Windows Vista SP2 RC is meeting testers sometime this week as an escrow build, which means that the public could see this thing as soon as early Q2 this year. You've been warned...[Via Computerworld]
I heard it has build number 7000?
The "mojave experiment" is going on worldwide
After the whole Mojave thing, I really wouldn't put it past them.....
I can just see it now....
Dear Everyone,
So we haven't been totally honest with you. This version of Windows 7 you've all been testing isn't actually our newest OS, we've been keeping that under wraps for now. Instead, you've all been testing the latest beta of our operating system, Windows Vista with the newest service pack, SP2. Thanks for playing!
Enjoy!
Steve
I was totally thinking the same thing about Vista SP2 and Windows 7 being the Mojave Project on a much larger scale. I've been thinking this ever since reports came out showing that XP handled some benchmarking tests better than both Vista and 7 and when another report showed that 7 might have the same multiple flavors of the OS that Vista has. But then how are they getting 7 to run so good without all the RAM?
I also have been thinking for some time that a good price point for Windows 7 would be like $20. Seriously, if you're upgrading from one version of Vista to the comparable version of 7, then one Jackson should cover you. Sure I'd expect them to charge a whole lot more for an upgrade from XP or a prior OS as well as full versions of 7 but let's face it the buyers of Vista have already paid for the development of 7 since they obviously didn't spend a whole lot developing Vista (or Vista with SP1 for that matter).
"I've been thinking this ever since reports came out showing that XP handled some benchmarking tests better than both Vista and 7"
That would be the test where Randal LOL Kennedy used different rigs to test the operating systems wouldn't it?
As for the Mojave experiment, it just confirmed what we always knew: People are stupid and gullible and will, in a sheep like fashion, believe anything they're told until they actually use the damn thing.
we will see
WHATS Vista?
If Microsoft did that there would be some serious questions - not from the tech community but from the market regulators. To showcase a product that is supposedly a new version (and therefore a new line of revenue from upgrades and new licenses) and then to say "hey, it was just a service pack" (and therefore not a new line of revenue) would be misleading the market.
That would be pretty cool.
I'm actually running the beta of Vista SP2 on my laptop computer and have been now fir quite sometime. The build number is 6002.
There are people without toasters that have Vista?
there may be. however, there may also be people with churros and conquistador clown shoes with vista. in the real world -highly doubtful.
Well... Toaster is the term they use as a sample to show off all the cool driver functionality.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/foundation/toastersamp.mspx
Install it on a cylon!
OneLove: According to you, it's "soooooooooooooo 2008!" ... idiot.
"The dreaded Vista Flats"
Amusing, since the first time I installed Ultimate I had to upgrade from Business using their recommended Flat Install process...
Who let the iEye Assclown in, i told everyone to be quiet and lock the door behind them!
OS X is so limited... your just a loser.
iEye...(stupid user name BTW),
the biggest selling point of all the new Mac's is.......wait for it.......... it can run Windows!!
Yeah...Let's buy an over priced computer so I can run boot camp...turd!!
And before you say anything else YOU think is witty... I use both Windows AND Mac (as well as Linux) but I do not waste my time talking smack on forums....in other words....GROW UP!!
I've only used Vista for a total of maybe 45 minutes, but I downloaded the Windows 7 beta, and it kind of seems to me like Windows 7 should be called "Vista SP2". Am I wrong? It's pretty solid, but it just seems like they fixed Vista and changed some UI again.
and how often does a service pack actually make significant UI changes?
It doesn't, so get over it.
7 != Vista SP2
It's like saying XP was a service pack for 2000.
Don't be an asshole about it.
Anywho, how often does a "brand new" operating system do basically what the last one was supposed to do, but with a fatter taskbar.
All the time.....Every windows release does everything the previous version does (with a few exceptions) and adds more.
I would be interested in getting a copy of this just to see if they actually fixed the issue that they said they would not in the bug reports about "Safely Remove Devices". In the CPA beta of SP2 certain none removable devices such as built in Wireless Network Cards and Graphics adapters would show up in the list of device that could be removed. They did not show up in the list in SP1 nor the original RTM. The issue has been reported with several Lenovo laptops, but Microsoft insists there is nothing wrong.
I didn't see this fix in the list of hotfixes for SP2 beta either. Luckily this is not an issue in SP1 or Windows 7 on the same hardware, wtf Microsoft?
Indeed. This was one feature I loved seeing in 7, that I can't wait to see in Vista. Little things go such a long way.
That's an issue that's been happening all the way back to XP. It's due to bad IDE controller drivers, not necessarily a flaw in Windows.
I have the RC Candidate installed and it just completely improves vista to the point of excellence. Of course some minor bugs are still present but overall the whole feeling of the software is improved and quicker. Vista does have a sour image on the genral public
but a lot of the negatiitiy will be put to rest with this release.
And after being a beta tester for windows 7 and noticing the improvement I CAN HONESTLY SAY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME that microsoft is on to some amazing times ahead.
Have they changed things compared to the beta?
yeah.... I'll wait and see just how close to reality that is. Yes, Vista is generally stable. No, Vista is by no means quick and responsive. RC2 makes it so - great. Right now, I am at the point where I would/will buy Windows 7 when it comes out just to replace the annoyance of Vista.
my vista x64 ultimate runs just fine on my desktop w/8gb of ram :P
Yeah, I got it too, on the 28th, so it's not coming, testers have had it for a few days.
But I agree, I'm much more interested in testing 7. I'm just using SP2 on my 2008 workstation at work. At home I have a Macbook with 7 in bootcamp.
Luckily I don't have Vista but I don't think I'll mind installing 7.
Vista is soooooooooooooo 2008!
Don't you have to install 7 from vista sp1? Installing from XP or other OS's may ruin ur PC, That's what I heard
Ummm.. Hello? Del boca Vista?
You think you can keep me out of Del Boca Vista?!
George: Hey, hey, how was Florida?
Morty: Well, we just bought a new place down there.
Estelle: I know, we were looking at the brochure.
Morty: What?
Helen: Why, you thinking of moving?
Frank: Not really.
Morty: Because if you are, you shouldn't. There's nothing available in that
development.
Frank: Are you telling me there's not one condo available in all of Del Boca
Vista?
Morty: That's right. They went like hotcakes.
Frank: How'd you get yours?
Morty: Got lucky.
Frank: Are you trying to keep us out of Del Boca Vista?!
here's the rest of the episode:
http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheShowerhead.htm
I don't get it. Why is it with horses, when they have a broken leg, they just put the poor thing down. Is it humane to keep patching up Vista so it keeps hobbling along? At least with Windows Millennium Bill had the good sense to put a DNR on its drivers license. Not a single service pack was released for that dud - it just seems cruel to keep the hopes up of Vista dupes.
Could you give me a personal example of "hobbling along"? I'm genuinely curious where this all comes from. I waited forever to upgrade because of all this hate I was reading about but when I installed it my computer ran just as well as before and gained a bit of stablility, a nicer interface and a nice media center.
@neodorian
I completely agree with you. True, I have a rather nice computer (AMD X2 5200+ w/ 8 GB of DDR2 800), but 64 bit Vista is very nice. Call me shallow but I like the UI with Aero a lot, and the 64 bit support with backwards compatibility for 32 programs works very well.
I was supremely annoyed by UAC, but it is rather simple to turn off now. While this makes Vista less secure, it is still more secure than XP.
As for games, I have not really seen a decrease in performance and its nice being able to run in DX10 mode without having to download some hacked files for windows XP.
Overall, I cant really say I have had any problems with Vista... I think 90% of the people who rip on Vista either have not tried it since SP1 (which fixed a lot of issues), with the latest drivers (many companies have finally gotten on the ball and have nice Vista drivers), or have not tried Vista at all.
I feel that Vista got a bad reputation due to bad 3rd party drivers at launch, some rather annoying bugs in the release version, and the fact that they hyped up the release then delivered a product that was sub-par many people's expectations, not to mention the whole "Vista Capable" debacle.
Oh, and I forgot to add this, but basically, if you have not bought Vista yet, I would not bother. I managed to get a nice cheap copy through school ($15 for Vista Ultimate), but with w7 only a year or so away, if you have lasted this long on XP, why bother upgrading twice?
SP1 has been running solid for me since I finally upgraded 4 months ago. Maybe that's why I never saw the issues everyone else seems to have. I put 7 on my low-end Thinkpad and it runs just as well but it's still a dual-core 2.4 and 2gb so maybe I need to try it on something even older to notice a difference. I'm wondering what SP2 is going to fix as I haven't seen any crashes or slowdown and that is even using it on a single computer that is my primary desktop and powers my home theater simultaneously.
In what world is that considered low-end?
I've been running Vista since release and I never saw the bugs everyone was complaining about...
Discounting 3rd party vendors, there was never a day when Vista wasn't superior to XP.
The sheeple can bite me. =)
Vista has sold like 60 million copies world wide, with a minority downgrading to XP (those that actually know how to), so I'm guessing they don't want a ton of angry customers.
Uh... try 250 million at least.
I hated XP. The blue screens, the freezes, the overall old-ness of the OS. When Vista came out I was thrilled to have something new to play with. Big changes, a totally new UI, even the bugs were fun because they were new and exciting. Windows 7 isn't winning me over though, since it is basically a polished version of Vista. I don't even know if I'll jump to 7 when it launches. Vista works fine for me now, why spend the money on what is looking to be nothing more than a service pack? Heck, the biggest feature everyone is talking about now is the superbar, and I hate the thing.
Oh well, I'll enjoy my time in the Vista Mountains.
"even the bugs were fun because they were new and exciting"
WTH!? That's like saying you enjoyed that new sandwich someone handed you with the mold on it. It was fun and exciting trying to eat around the problem area.
You case with XP is some kind of an exception, not a general rule. In the past 7 years, I swear I never had a BSOD on XP, not once!
Wow Matt, what have you been doing with your PC? I've been using XP for over 7 years now and it's solid as a rock. It doesn't get much better than SP3. I've never EVER had a BSOD on XP. I used Vista for about a month and hated it. It's a horrible resource hog and it's networking stability is a joke. I'm now using 7 and it's a God send. So much better than Vista and solid as a rock for a beta. Hell in the state it's in now it could go to production right now and still be better than Vista. It's lightening quick, uses very little resources, and is a worthy successor to XP (unlike the joke that is Vista). Vista is a joke, it's this generation's ME. It's days are numbered.
> I hated XP. The blue screens, the freezes
'Dear Penthouse Letters...'
You must be pretty lucky, since I've used XP for ages, and Ive had over 300 bluescreens and I'm not even kidding.
I do alot of video/game/art work and such, and play a ton of games, I have XP installed on several machines (or did, when they were all running) and it died practically all the time.
Right now I'm running vista 64-bit and it's crashed plenty, and at school on the new Dell XPS's I got a bluescreen dumping the physical memory and lost an hour of work. At home, Vista overall sucks... I have to spend 20 minutes to hack around to play my old games (homeworld, homeworld cataclysm & homeworld 2) and stuff like that (cataclysm ran at 5FPS before i started messing with it!) Overall an annoying experience.
I'm unable to use ubuntu right now, because there's no driver for my wireless usb thing I'm using while im living at my current location, but that will change soon.
Windows 7 looks much faster an stable... I dunno if I'll buy it though. It'll all depend on the backwards compatibility for me, because vista failed horribly in that respect for me.
My computer is a quad core Q6600 w/ 8gb ram, nVidia 9800GTX with a 700 watt power supply running at 32 degrees celcius.. no problems with the hardware, and the other day my firefox couldn't even play a standard resolution video in fullscreen at 1920x1200 on my 24" monitor without choking and gagging. On my freaking quad-core! It took me 30 mins to fix the stupid problem.. Things like this are counter productive and should be fixed FAR before the product goes to market. Service packs won't cut it anymore... You can't bake half a cake, sell it as a full cake to a customer and tell them to pick up the other half next tuesday.
-Jaredu
I'm sorry, was Windows Millennium actually an OS? I thought it was just another service pack for Windows 98 that sucked and that we had to pay for.
I think you are totally clueless:
1. Windows ME was a separate release, not a service pack.
2. Windows 98 did NOT suck, it was a pretty decent consumer OS for it's time.
Actually Leo I'm thinking you're a bit clueless not to be able to spot the sarcasm in my post regarding WinME being a SP for Win98. I used Win98 and you can rave about it all you want but I was not too impressed. The first OS I would have even considered raving about was Win2000.
While Win98 wasn't GREAT it was a decent OS and 98 SE was pretty good. Although I think we can all agree WinME was crap and Windows XP was basically a prettier Windows 2000.
I'm with Dave on this one. I could not stand to use Windows until 2000 came out. 3.1/95/NT4/98/ME were all terrible.
PSA: Windows 7 is the follow-up to XP
Vista is in a different Window's family (the same one as good ole ME)
I don't find it fair to hate on 7 for being like vista when it's NOT.
Windows 7 takes the stability of XP and adds a little Vista flavor to it, and a new taskbar (which is pretty sweet)
"Are you telling me there's not one condo available in all of Del Boca Vista?"
What the hell are you talking about?
7 is based off the Vista kernal. A kernal which is totally different than XP.
It's "kernel".
You are right. My mistake. Kernaaaaaal!
KERNAL is the version of Vista for the commodore 64
Vista minus
http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-41263-108.html
equals 7
O NOES!
Now hackers will have access to all my sensitive data I keep on my beta install partition!
/facepalm
you sir are an idiot
Someone's a little behind here, as it's now Friday and this build was released to testers earlier in the week. I downloaded, but didn't install, it.
Matt Ferens I have got to believe that you had some weird install of XP going on to get those BSOD all the time on XP. I personally have like 10 computers networked at home and when they all were running XP times were good and I'm not sure if I ever remember even one BSOD. It wasn't until after I introduced a few new machines into the setup that were running Vista that I had both BSOD (on some of the Vista machines) and networking issues galore. I have got to believe that 99% of the public has had a similar experience as me and not the BSOD on XP experience that you speak of.
You want me to think your single experience is more valid than any other single user's experience. I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
I didn't mean that XP died every ten minutes. It is a fact that Vista has blue-screened on me. It is also the truth that XP blue-screened far more times per year than Vista has. I'm in no way saying XP is unstable. I'm saying that in my experience, Vista is more stable, easy to install, and overall well-rounded than XP.
My original post was meant to say that since Vista was such a big jump forward from XP, I was excited and motivated to get it as soon as it launched. However, since 7 is not such a big jump at all, I'm not motivated and may end up waiting.
Finally, I HIGHLY doubt that 99% of the public has had a worse experience in Vista when compared to XP. A friend of mine switched to Mac because of his experience with XP. After Vista launched, he told me that had Vista come out a year earlier, he would still be a PC user. Any arguement of XP vs Vista is totally user-experience biased. I had some nasty times with XP right before I switched to Vista, so that probably taints the other years of happy times, but in any case, that is my experience, and that is what forms my opinion.
BSOD = cheap hardware parts... pick a good seller and you'll be ok. Ive never had a single BSOD since Ive installed XP. A few cracked softwares crashing on me of course but if you are legit, no problem at all. On the other hand, My G5 softwares are constantly crashing on me... every single day I use it.
we will see
Vista Ville?
Vile Vista?
This time, maybe SP2 will allow my Dell XPS PC to boot up in less than 90 seconds?
Wow!
Sounds like you need a new computer or at least to format it. I boot vista x64 in less than 20 seconds on my desktop and vista 32 bit in about 30 seconds on my xps 1330.
Hey all the guys at the top of these comments need to get a life. If you have any idea how hard programming is i would say that microsoft it doin really well with windows vista and 7. They are doing really really well because every time you guys come around and do all this stupid stuff tellin how bad their doin, that probably makes them a little pissed because you guys think that they can write this stuff in like 2 days. If they release the sp2 then thats gonna be a big improvement for vista. Personally i love vista and i wouldnt have any other platform unless it was OSX with an apple computer, but other than that their doin great. but i guess you guys are pessimest's only looking at whats wrong with vista and 7. I have a dell with a hp printer and i run about 7 games on it and it never has failed to keep moving. vista is way better than xp.
programing is not THAT hard... takes a while to learn but come on an OS that uses 800mb of ram doing nothing is a complete joke... Word 97 only required 16mb ram and windows was running in 8mb or less back then if you think computers have gotten 100x more complex since then you are off your rocker
there may be a broader range of HW but each indivudual PC has a limited set of HW meaning even today a modern OS could take as little as 24mb or so quite reasonably even with a snazzy looking interface
DOWN WITH BAD PROGRAMMING!!!
Yes, programming an operating system is that hard and it only gets worse when you factor in the legacy windows API that is a nightmare; if you're familiar with that API then you know that there are more than a few bugs in it that are at this point unfixable since people even program with them at this point rather than programming around them. If you think programming is not that hard, then your experience is most likely with web development where you make a pretty GUI with XHTML rather than doing data transformations. There is EASY programming, but that in no way means that programming is easy; just because after ECE 101 you can build a NAND gate doesn't mean that speculative execution is simple to implement, and just because you can one line "hello world" in PHP doesn't mean that you'll be writing a C compiler using VLIW for an Itanium chip by the end of the week.
Site is a re-link to Goatse.cx
I'm not actually sure that it is, but it seems a good way to get this fuckface banned.
I can't wait to Vista behind us and bring on Windows 7 because it's going to be the real Vista!
Are they giving us back the old windows XP start menu in vista(not the dumb classic 9x one)?
"Takes another crown" ?? The performance differences evidenced in benchmarking dont really represent a revolution in end user experience. If it werent for the differences in media center and tablet input, Its hard to justify forking out for something you can do with your vista disc and vlite ;)
Yes I've already seen it. It's called Windows 7
Holy Sheep Shit my friends let me remind you summer is here and their is much better things in life then spending a whole 30 minutes on your lap _ick . the sun is up now for 11 hours here and will be for 14 hours very soon. the snow is almost gone.
7 will be here in blum for the winter of 11, GET OUT SIDE AND ENJOY LIFE!