|
|
No Vista Service Pack this year?
Author: Tim SmalleyPublished: 23rd June 2007
The final version of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 may not be delivered by Microsoft until early 2008.
Information from sources cited by Microsoft Watch indicate that Vista SP1 will be released in 2008. This is later than the original timeframe at the start of the year.
I guess that legal problems relating to the Windows Vista search function are to blame and have potentially led to delays in the schedule.
Many high profile businesses, including Intel, have said they would wait for the first Service Pack before deploying Vista across their networks. This will undoubtedly hurt Microsoft's bottom line and could do for almost a year.
Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies Associates, told Microsoft Watch that "any delay in SP1 will delay commercial rollouts."
Kay went onto say that if Microsoft doesn't deliver SP1 until the first quarter of 2008, early rollouts won't start until the third quarter and mass deployments won't happen until 2009 - a year later than expected.
Of course, this is forgetting the large percentage of end users that don't want to install Vista until after the Service Pack has been deployed. Have you already installed Vista, or are you going to wait until after SP1 has launched? Tell us in the usual place.
Related articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (28)Stats: 0.081 seconds
Yes, some biz's wont roll out vista till SP1, but they didnt roll out XP till SP1 and good for them, it makes sense to let an OS mature, same with linux etc.
For home users the differences between no SP and SP1 wont effect anyone to any great extent and 90% of users will not even know what a "Service Pack" is anyway. Then again this users are the ones that buy a PC with an OS preloaded, use it till it breaks due to spyware and buys a new one (yay for cheep PCs!!) so they do not really matter at all :p
At least this has not effected the roll out of Server 2008 (sweet!) and i guess it will push back Fijji? till a bit later, maybe a 3 year gap not a 2 year one. Ah well.
Isn't the new Windows OS supposed to come in 2009? :)
Indeed it is due out late 2009. :)
XP SP3 not due out untill after SP1 for Vista, which sucks as i'd sure like to have see an SP3 for XP already.
I am currently using Vista x64 for about 2 months now as my main OS, ive found it to perform well, the only bug bear I have is the drivers, but that of cause is down to the hardware manufactures and not MS, though of cause with that in mind, there is unlikely to be huge development in vista drivers from hardware manufactures as most are waiting for SP1 to deploy.
So i can expect slow progress till we see some of the same functionality in the drivers for Vista as we do in XP, for example Nvidia's set of drivers where most the control pannel extras are missing.
So in my case, mostly everything works fine, but i would have liked to see SP1 rolled out earlyer for the developers to put more effort into improving the drivers functionality.
I guess one can only be patenient.
i not recommend vista at all for companys or home users at this time as Most of there software will probly not work on it and driver support is not so good at this time as well and for home users it be hit or miss if therer games that worked on XP will work on Vista even if thay do thay perform poorly in some cases you allso need 2gb of ram for Vista to work smooth (and probly an dual core cpu) {3gb if your an gamer}
its nice how thay did it but the reson why companys do not wish to use it untill SP1 is for the securty updates and there probly be Cost as well you need to put all there not so Bright workers on some training that costs money
My Vista runs fine as well, on 2Gbs, no problems with any games. Just depends on your luck and hardware config
Vista will run fine on 1GB. Obviously 2GB is preferred, but 1GB will still provide a smooth experience.
Most common software does work on Vista and there's more being updated all the time, and game support probably isn't much of an issue for most home users.
You also have to look at stability, the MTBF (or whatever the software equivalent is) is highly crucial for business who's requirements will be much higher than consumers. With the sheer variety of HW/SW configurations out there, all of the stability testing switches to IT departments who can't rely on MS figures or general comments of improved stability. The period between launch and SP1 gives them a nice time-frame in which to do this, while also benefiting from a significant chunk of improvements and bug fixes before deployment.
And there is also training and documentation/user support. The interface of Vista is much changed and although retains common elements there are huge swathes of documentation that will need re-writing and updating. I recently (Sept last year) updated my university's getting started document from 2000 to XP and even that was a pretty big change and a fair amount of work. Most of the people here are computer enthusiasts who will, probably, adapt to the change much more quickly and easily. Businesses have to support a whole range of user's which means documentation has to be up-to-date, relevant and ultimately correct. Again, the time between launch and SP1 gives them breathing space.
Just my two pence!
And as great as Vista is, I think there are a lot of businesses out there with computers that can handle XP reasonably well, but would require upgrades or new computers with a switch to Vista. That would cost a lot of money. Then they've got to get people retrained on a new OS (I know, I know... for tech geeks it isn't that hard, but you'd be amazed just how confused some people get when something changes, even when it something that makes finding 'xyz' easier!)
Businesses will pay attention to the amount of money deploying a new OS will cost them - and on all fronts, deployment of a new OS is like haemorrhaging money until it's all settled and everyone is familiar with it again.
I don't understand why most companies arn't runing something like damm small linux which is V fast on hardware a decade or more old and is very secure and easy to set up. Infact if I were running a large company consisting of standard office workers who need database, email and word processing software I would have them all using low spec passively cooled computers running DSL and spend all the money on big monitors and good keyboards
For me it just shows that MS just gave up. Also if they do this, people that got vista are SURE not going to change to the new OS, and XP users won't upgrade as they will see Windows 2009 is still immature just as Vista now. Oh and hardware manufacture won't develop drivers for Vista and wait, as they will think that some changed into the drivers system will be performed. In other words, its going to create this huge mess. They should release SP1 and SP2, and add new and good/interesting features, this will make everyone happy.
The thing with Win95 to Win98. Wasn't a big issue, as the people that had Win95, where computer enthusiast or new users. At the time, very few people had a computer at home, and the people that got Win95 didn't upgrade until they computer broke and got a new machine with Win2000 or WinXP. Doing this now, for the price they sell it, will not only make a big mess but make people very pissed. The only way MS can save their ass if they to this, is sell the new OS (full version) like maybe at 75-100$.
One issue with Linux is security issue, (yea yea you hared me right, but let me explain), if all companies switch to Linux, hackers will stop having fun with Windows OS (as they don't care about your pictures of your cat, and illegal downloaded music, which he can get himself). They will exploit Linux. Linux is secure because they are not enough hackers on it. For a hacker, hacking the impossible is, for them, winning a lot of prestige in their community. Now, the question, who will update the OS with security patches. Is Novel, redHat, ubuntu and others are ready to fix those issues?!? For sure the people that work on Linux on their free time won't spend much time on it, as they are not paid. So it will takes weeks even months to have it fixed. Back to Linux distributors/packagers, one can fix a security issue better then the others, and a big mess will be created. Here is an example, lets say their is 3 security issues found in Linux, you may have this:
- RedHat fixed somewhat the problem for all 3 issues
- Novel fixed security issue 1, 2 and can't figure 3
- ubuntu fixed 3
Which you will pick?
So it gets ridiculous and for sure they won't share their code between them, else their is no point in having so many Linux distributors/packagers, wtv you want to call them, it can be all be regrouped into one company.
That's just my view....
The kernel is worked on like this:
2.6.xx.yyy
xx is the branch, if it's odd, then it's an unstable testing branch, if it's even it's stable tested.
Testing occurs for at least 3 months before it's released.
My interest in this is professional and I will therefore wait until I see conspicuous signs of maturity - whatever that means for your application. That may or may not coincide with a service pack release.
Either way, I said when I first used Windows 2000 that it looked like it might end up being the best version of windows there would ever be. That was at a time when XP was very new - that's exactly how much of an early adopter I'm not. Unfortunately, everything I've seen since has suggested I was right.
I just wish "Pro" meant something.
Phil
That is so true. I was installing new counter systems for a nation wide shop last summer. Their old systems was running win95 with some sort of ODS based software. The GUI was text based with ASCII grapics. The screen showed what function each "F-key" had.
On the new system the GUI was exactly the same as the old one, except that the graphics were better. (Proper forms, borders and buttons instead of lots of I's and underscores.) It was pretty amazing (worrying?) to see how hard this little cosmetic change was for some people.
I wonder what a "Standard Office Worker" does, if anything?
Seriously, more people than you think do really need to run MS Office or something equally powerfull. Of course few of them use more than a tiny subset of the functionality, but that subset varies a lot so overall you can't get away with a low-end app instead.
So it is possible there will be a service pack by the end of the year, if the beta runs smoothly.