Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software IT

First Vista Service Pack Due Second Half of 2007 137

Posted by Zonk
from the patchity-patch dept.
HuckleCom tipped us to an article on the Dark Reading site, stating that plans are already in the works for the first Windows Vista service pack. The pack is slated for release sometime in late 2007, and will target security improvements and Quality of Life issues that may spring up between January and the pack's release date. Microsoft is already looking for volunteers to help them test it. According to the email sent to Technology Adoption Program members, in order to get in on the ground floor IT shops will have to 'deploy pre-release builds into production environments and report back on the results.' As the article observes, Microsoft may be asking for a lot from their customers. Candidate releases of XP service packs had extremely deleterious effects when initially rolled out. There is no firm word for when in the year this pack will be released.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Vista Service Pack Due Second Half of 2007

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @06:43PM (#17759676)
    'deploy pre-release builds into production environments and report back on the results.

    That would be funny, if it weren't coming from Microsoft.
    • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday January 25, 2007 @07:26PM (#17760218) Homepage Journal
      'deploy pre-release builds into production environments and report back on the results.
      That would be funny, if it weren't coming from Microsoft.

      That would be funny, if that weren't the terms under which we were all already running Windows XP.

      There, fixed that for you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by blowdart (31458)
      Except it's nothing new; that's what the TAP programme [microsoft.com] is. I've been involved with the SQL 2005 TAP, where they supported a live rollout of the beta code for a large project; and throughout we had direct access to parts of the SQL team. TAP doesn't mean the software is thrown at you and you flounder with it, it's a carefully organised rollout and feedback process. We also did the same with BizTalk 2004, and MS ended up flying some of the BizTalk team over to help fix bugs at a customer site (of course the c
  • Quick Release? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lithdren (605362) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @06:46PM (#17759720)
    Seems to me they're releasing a Service Pack pretty quick for an OS.

    "I think i'll wait till they relase SP1 for Vista before I upgrade"

    better wait for SP2!
    • Re:Quick Release? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Vicissidude (878310) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @06:56PM (#17759854)
      Seems to me they're releasing a Service Pack pretty quick for an OS. "I think i'll wait till they relase SP1 for Vista before I upgrade" better wait for SP2!

      The fact that everyone waits for SP1 is the exact reason why they're releasing that first service pack so quickly.
      • Re:Quick Release? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Lithdren (605362) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @07:05PM (#17759974)
        Excatly my point.

        How much could they possibly fix this quick in an OS as monolithic as Vista? not much is my guess. Its more of a combover for people who dont want to get burned like they did with XP when it first released.

        Its XP that really made people realize how horribly buggy software could be on release. How many corporate offices wont upgrade software to something untill after a particular period of proven reliabilty on the market now? My guess is quite a bit more since XP.

        And how many of those set the requiremnt to be after X number of major upgrades? A Service Pack would qualify to most people as fairly major.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Tony Hoyle (11698)
          I would hope they fix some of the issues with vista.. although some are just plain UI inconsistencies.

          My pet hate being you can't put an icon in the taskbar for network devices any more, so you can't see visually whether you're locked onto wireless or wired (I switch between them a lot when moving around on the laptop). Disabling the wireless has gone from a right click to 3 dialogs and a UAC prompt.

          There's also a process that keeps scanning the files on the disk. Not windows search (disabled that, as it
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by FuzzyMan45 (451645)
            Regarding the harddrive usage, i've disabled windows defender, auto defragging, windows update and it doesn't seem to make much of a difference either. When you disabled indexing, did you disable _all_ of the directories? There's a modify screen that you can remove like 5 directories. After doing this, it cut the HD usage a great deal but every once in a while it'll spike up and just think to itself for a while... i've never figured it out.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by poolmeister (872753)
              "windows defender, auto defragging"

              Is this for real?
              So instead of fixing Windows' security model, or reworking the flawed NTFS filesystem, they patch 'em up and give the patches catchy names!
              Profit!
              • Re:Quick Release? (Score:4, Insightful)

                by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy@@@gmail...com> on Friday January 26, 2007 @07:21AM (#17766410)

                So instead of fixing Windows' security model, or reworking the flawed NTFS filesystem, they patch 'em up and give the patches catchy names!

                Windows Defender (and other anti-spyware products don't protext against "flaws" in the security model, they protect against flaws in the user.

                The fragmentation issue is _vastly_ overblown and defragging has no impact for 99% of people. It's there to soothe people who have had years of magazines telling them to "defrag" (which followed on from years of the same - actually applicable - advice about FAT[32]).

                "Defragging" is much like "fixing permissions" in recent versions of OS X - nothing more than a placebo almost every time it's applied.

        • Re:Quick Release? (Score:5, Informative)

          by VertigoAce (257771) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @07:48PM (#17760538)
          Actually, there's a very simple reason for Microsoft to release a service pack in the second half of 2007. That happens to be the exact same phrase used to describe the release of Longhorn server. In case you didn't know, Longhorn client (Vista) and Longhorn server are built from the same codebase. Vista SP1 is primarily the result of an extra year of development to the common OS components, plus any client patches that didn't make it in time for RTM.

          The point is that most of the work will have been done for the server release already. They may as well package up a new build of the client since it will inherit any improvements from the server.
        • Its more of a combover for people who dont want to get burned like they did with XP when it first released.

          So ... it's for people who have lost most of their hair, but are intent on maintain a youthful image?
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by fithmo (854772)

          How much could they possibly fix this quick in an OS as monolithic as Vista?

          Vista went in to RTM in November, so releasing SP1 mid 2007 will leave at 6 to 8 months for bug fixes. Considering how long Vista was in development, and (more importantly) knowing Microsoft, you can assume that there was a lot of polishing that got pushed aside in a rush to just finally get the damn thing out and over with.

          Additionally, since Longhorn Server is still under development - and releasing Beta 3 next month or so - the

          • by drsmithy (35869)

            Vista went in to RTM in November, so releasing SP1 mid 2007 will leave at 6 to 8 months for bug fixes. Considering how long Vista was in development, [...]

            When you're going to talk about code, it's not particularly reasonable to imply Vista was in development for an inordinate amount of time.

            While Vista the *product* has been "in development" for ~5 years, Vista the *codebase* has only been in development for ~2 years, after the "Longhorn Reboot" in mid-late 2004.

      • by dan828 (753380)
        Actually, I think that they are releasing the service pack so fast because they decided they were shipping what they had to businesses in November because certain software assurance contracts where up for renewal then. They spent a few months polishing up what they had and shipped it. Obviously, it wasn't in the kind of shape that they wanted it in, so the early SP should get it in to the shape they had hoped for at RTM without having to delay again.

        And I'm using Vista as we speak, and though it's in bet
        • by Al Dimond (792444)
          Better minesweeper, 'eh? Can it play with triangular tiles (like xbomb)?
        • Re:Quick Release? (Score:4, Informative)

          by TheGavster (774657) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @08:28PM (#17761146) Homepage
          When I first tried Vista, it was running in a VM and there were serious problems with the Minesweep implementation, actually: It was difficult to distinguish the zero tiles from unexplored tiles, and there was significant lag. It ran much better when I moved to actual hardware, but you wouldn't think that emulation would cause that big a performance hit for something like that.
          • by Kimos (859729)

            When I first tried Vista, it was running in a VM and there were serious problems with the Minesweep implementation
            I know this is a serious comment, but it reads like a joke.
            The new MicroSoft OS has problems with their signature bundled puzzle game! Also, the calculator can only do multiplication on Thursdays!
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AudioEfex (637163)
        The fact that everyone waits for SP1 is the exact reason why they're releasing that first service pack so quickly.

        And the exact reason even a "power user" like myself isn't even entertaining the idea of upgrading to Vista anytime soon. When I say "power user", I mean a consumer with above-average computer skills, but I'm not a professional. I fix friends PC's, but I don't build them. I can make just about any OS or program do what I want, but I don't write them. So my opinion comes from being a user w

        • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

          by Columcille (88542) *
          Hell, I still have a laptop running ME

          You lose your "power user" claims with that one - someone that voluntarily runs ME, the worst OS that has ever existed? I like XP and I plan to upgrade to Vista pretty quick because I've liked the pre-release versions, but I cringe any time I even hear about ME.
          • by AudioEfex (637163)
            You lose your "power user" claims with that one - someone that voluntarily runs ME, the worst OS that has ever existed? I like XP and I plan to upgrade to Vista pretty quick because I've liked the pre-release versions, but I cringe any time I even hear about ME.

            I know that's a knee-jerk reaction, but I think you miss my entire point : I have an old laptop that runs ME because it is not capable of running XP. All I use it for is to type word processing documents, play music, and occasionally jack it into

            • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              I'm going to hold-off on Vista until I get a free copy from MS on a new system - and maybe not even then.
              When you buy a new system with an MS OS (which is pretty much everywhere thanks to their monopoly or unethical methods or whatever on computer manufactures), your still paying to MS. It's never free.
      • by AusIV (950840)
        Doesn't anyone actually wait to hear how well something performs? I mean, if Product_X is getting great reviews, and it's something I'll use, I'm not going to wait until Product_X v2 is released (assuming the upgrade is free later). Likewise, if Product_X is getting horrible reviews, I'm not going to pick up Product_X v2 the day it's released.
        • Re:Quick Release? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Vicissidude (878310) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @11:29PM (#17763194)
          Windows is one of those products that people and businesses will migrate to regardless of horrible reviews, it's just a question of when. Businesses have been burned enough by bleeding edge software that they don't want the first version of any product, even those with great reviews. So, they'll think of migrating when the first update comes out, aka SP1. Presumably, most of the bugs will be worked out by then.

          In this case, Microsoft seems to know the psychology of their customers and has taken action to get to that first update ASAP, regardless of whether that's enough time for all the bugs to work out. That means more money for MS, but likely a bad SP1.
    • Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't Windows 2000 hit SP4 by late 2002?
    • Remember that release developments overlap with their testing and trialling for stability reasons.

      The first release was really just to get something out so that those who budgeted expenditure last year could still buy something.

      MS software is never usable before SP1.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Timesprout (579035)
      Maybe they are just adopting a release early, release often strategy
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by AArmadillo (660847)
      I just updated my Linux kernel last week, and there's already a new version this week!! OMG!!!!! What is this world coming to?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Columcille (88542) *
      Windows XP was released October 2001, XP SP1 in September, 2002. It sounds like Vista SP1 is going to be out faster than XP SP1 was, but not by a large margin.
    • by archen (447353)
      Having started using vista, I'm thinking I'll be waiting until the next release of windows. I'm sure MS can fix much of this stuff, but the entire OS just feels like a train-wreck. Some like to equate this as the next evolutionary step in windows, but I'm thinking this feels a lot more like windows 95. I'll wait for the next "windows 98"
    • by throx (42621)

      Seems to me they're releasing a Service Pack pretty quick for an OS.

      Vista was code complete in September/October 06. Release DVDs were in developer's hands in November. They are planning a service pack in 2H'07. How is this "quick" in anyone's mind? You're waiting almost a YEAR for fixes and patches that didn't make release code, and don't pretend that development on a system stops at release.

      If Microsoft wasn't planning a service pack release, then you might be able to laugh at them. Laughing because

  • WinXP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Archangel Michael (180766) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @06:46PM (#17759724) Journal
    I'm more interested in the next WinXP SP, as there are currently some 80 patches needed after a clean install of XP SP2. Yeah, I know all about all the goodies that help streamline installing them, but they are only patches to something Microsoft ought to be doing.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      dont worry, as the article says "will target security improvements and Quality of Life issues", hence switch to Vista.. helps you stand on your feet
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by empaler (130732)
        What the hell is Quality of Life issues anyway?
        I really have no idea. Maybe it is because I live in Europe.
        • by kfg (145172)
          What the hell is Quality of Life . . .

          What you don't get a positive experience of after installing Vista.

          KFG
    • not gonna happen, your service pack 3 is called Vista
    • by minvaren (854254)
      If we're seeing a service pack for Vista this quickly, while XP SP3 has taken 2+ years to release... I'd say there's an 90% chance Microsoft releases another "security rollup package" for XP and calls it done. They did it before with Win2k - anyone remember SP5?
  • Better late than never.
  • Sweet deal! (Score:5, Funny)

    by PingSpike (947548) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @06:51PM (#17759786)
    I can beta test Microsoft's software for them and all I have to do is potentially hose my production servers? Sign me up! Sign me up yesterday!
    • by 0racle (667029)
      If you're running Vista as a server you're already stupid enough to run beta software on a production 'server.'
    • by hany (3601)

      I can beta test Microsoft's software for them and all I have to do is potentially hose my production servers? Sign me up! Sign me up yesterday!

      Just to be precise: you forgot to mension that you are also paying for this upgrade, err priviledge. :)

  • by LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @06:52PM (#17759804) Homepage
    Releasing a service pack so soon after release is basically an admission on Microsoft's part that Vista was rushed out incomplete. All this means is that anyone planning their upgrade schedule should really count the release of SP1 as if it were the initial release of Vista (ie. wait at least 6-12 months on from that point to allow issues to be resolved). Yet another reason not to switch to Vista in the forseeable future.
    • by Samalie (1016193) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @06:59PM (#17759904)
      We all KNOW Vista is being rushed out incomplete. The problem really is twofold: that companies (and not just MicroSoft) rush out product before it is ready, requiring patches/etc, but for some unknown reason we all find the multitude of patches/etc acceptable. In some ways, the "dark days" of computing (pre-fast-internet) were the golden years. Either a company released a fully working product, and it thrived, or they released garbage, and the companies died in the process. Of course, there is no way that this process will change until we, the consumers, demand finished products at release. But somehow I dont think the sheeple out there will do that either. No matter how you look at it, the consumer loses now, and the consumers don't seem to care.
      • by LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @07:07PM (#17759994) Homepage
        Well that's one side of the coin. On the other side you've got other products that have been able to continue improving over the years and respond to changes in technology to extend their effective product lifetime - things that would otherwise have been provided as costly upgrades or "new versions" if it weren't for patching. Sometimes patches (and the fundamental expectation that they're free) can actually be a good way to get value for money from a product. Just not in this case.
        • by Samalie (1016193)
          Yeah, but thats not Patching in the sence we're talking about here...adding new/upgraded functionality for free is a Good Thing(TM). Fixing something that was broken to begin with isn't.
          • Yeah, but thats not Patching in the sence we're talking about here...adding new/upgraded functionality for free is a Good Thing(TM). Fixing something that was broken to begin with isn't.
            - Oh absolutely. I'm not suggesting SP1 is in any way a positive thing, I'm just pointing out that patching in general isn't inherently a bad thing, even if some do choose to abuse it.
            • by suckmysav (763172)
              "Patching" and "new features" (ie functionality) are totally different creatures.

              If you scrape your knee and "patch" it with a band-aid, you do not add any new functionality to your knee.

              A patch by definition does not add functionality.

              Patch
              1. A small piece of material affixed to another, larger piece to conceal, reinforce, or repair a worn area, hole, or tear.
              [...]
              8. Computer Science A piece of code added to software in order to fix a bug, especially as a temporary correction between two releases.

              http://ww [thefreedictionary.com]
              • Technically yes. But practically speaking any small change, update, addition, or fix will be referred to as a patch. And that's clearly what we're referring to here seeing as we're talking about service packs which do more than just fix bugs.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by westlake (615356)
        Of course, there is no way that this process will change until we, the consumers, demand finished products at release. But somehow I dont think the sheeple out there will do that either.

        "Finished products," as Asimov remarked very early in the Foundation series, are the obsession of the decadent mind. You'll find a similiar observation in Parkinson's Law.

        The modern OS distribution is always a work in progress. That is its fundamental strength and appeal. There is no loss to the consumer in a product tha

  • C'mon . . . everybody knows (or should) that any MicroSoft product should be considered "beta" until release of the next version (at which point, it becomes "obsolete").

    Superior marketing by design. Brilliant!

  • Bah (Score:3, Funny)

    by matr0x_x (919985) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @06:54PM (#17759836) Homepage
    I hate seeing the words Vista and Security in the same sentence
  • I doubt they get any sane takers that are willing to risk *production* machines..

    what the hell are they thinking?
  • At least they did not release the service pack before the OS was released this time....
  • by mpapet (761907) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @06:59PM (#17759902) Homepage
    Seriously.

    I work in a small win32 shop and even we won't consider it for another couple of years.

    The alternative my PHB is actually considering deploying 2003 server as a desktop. If you are used to thinking that Microsoft is very good stuff and find Vista generally bad, this kind of bizarre thinking takes hold. It is safe to assume that vista adoption is a forgone conclusion.

    I make a decent wage babysitting Microsoft stuff. I specifically don't advocate any platform at work. That's my bosses decision. Though, if we switched to Linux I'm positive we'd do a whole lot less babysitting.
  • Ha ha ha ha (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @07:04PM (#17759956) Homepage
    And by "second half of 2007" they mean, fourth quarter 2011. I love MS Project:)
  • vista 2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25, 2007 @07:18PM (#17760112)
    before everyone freaks out about a service pack, how often do new versions of Ubuntu or Fedora come out? Is there that much of a difference just because one OS calls it a service pack and one calls it a version?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Adambomb (118938) *
      Shh, they're having fun.
    • by jZnat (793348) *
      We expect new versions of Ubuntu every 6 months. We don't expect the same of Microsoft (especially after the long XP to Vista upgrade time), so when they're so quick to patch, it's funny. Or something like that...
    • by loconet (415875)
      Yes there is a difference.

      Release Early, Release Often is part of the core philosophy of Open Software (see C&B). It is how the model is designed to work naturally. Vista and all Windows versions before it do not have this model. If there is a release quickly after another, it is usually to fix a critical error. In this case, I am guessing SP1 will be used to add whatever didn't make marketing's 105th(?) deadline.
  • For quite a while the rule has been, "don't upgrade until the first service pack." With that in mind, SP1 has been moving earlier and earlier to drive upgrades.

    I suppose that the day will come when SP1 arrives coincidentally with the official release -- or maybe even sooner.

  • by SeaFox (739806) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @07:29PM (#17760266)
    The pack is slated for release sometime in late 2007, and will target security improvements and Quality of Life issues that may spring up between January and the pack's release date.

    Quality of Life issues? I mean, I've heard Vista makes you a slave to DRM but I didn't think they meant that in a literal sense.

  • Service pak 1 - Vista as it should have been at initial release.

    Sounds like Vista is the new Win95a
  • by TheNetAvenger (624455) on Thursday January 25, 2007 @07:46PM (#17760504)
    #1) It is a good thing MS is taking updates seriously and scheduling them on a faster scale, it will also help to offset any found vulnerbilities in Vista RTM.

    #2) If MS said they were releasing one in 2 years, everyone here would be complaing that MS is slow, doesn't care about users or software quality. Catch 22 Slashdot issue uh?

    #3) At least MS won't be CHARGING for this as they have never done with previous service packs, that have in the past offered many updates and new features to the OS. This is something the Apple fans cannot claim, as Apple trickles out only security updates, and then charges for a real service pack update. This is easy math, compute XP Cost from 2001 with all the service packs, hell even add in the virus scanning software you had to buy, then compare this to your OSX prices in the same amount of time. So which company seems to be milking their customers? Also don't scream about all the new OSX features in each release, most are fixes or updates to the software included, or the famous spotlight, which MS also offers their desktop search for free to XP users.

    So SP1 in the first year, good for MS for once, actually giving customers attention instead of internal infighting...
    • by sqlrob (173498)
      They do not charge for service pack updates. The service packs are the z of x.y.z

      And if you yell, "but they're charging for minor releases then", remember, 2K = 5.0, XP = 5.1
    • by kindbud (90044)
      This is easy math, compute XP Cost from 2001 with all the service packs, hell even add in the virus scanning software you had to buy, then compare this to your OSX prices in the same amount of time. So which company seems to be milking their customers?

      People who use OSX like it and the Apple way of computing, and seek it out. People who use Windows do so because some other app they need requires it. Big difference.
    • Apple don't charge for service packs, unless you consider the major OS upgrade from (say) 10.3 to 10.4 a service pack.

      If you're one of those 'easily confused by numbers' people, consider WinXP is WinNT 5.1, while Win2K is WinNT5.0 (according to internal versioning by Microsoft).

      That troll died out a few years back for lack of interest. Perhaps you'd consider not digging up the dead troll to flog it once more, eh?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by falcon5768 (629591)
      except that whole SP1 in Apples terms = 10.4.# and not 10.# like Wintrolls like the think it does.

      !0.5 is a major OS upgrade, not a service pack. Apple just upgrades and inmproves their OS at a much faster rate, not a hard thing to do when you dont support legacy hardware going back a decade, nor work with a huge range of gear by people who are like the one night wonders of the IT world.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mcrbids (148650)
        Apple just upgrades and inmproves their OS at a much faster rate, not a hard thing to do when you dont support legacy hardware going back a decade, nor work with a huge range of gear by people who are like the one night wonders of the IT world.

        I have a decade-old iMac (ruby) that runs the very latest version of Macintosh OSX. (10.4) What's that you say? Apple doesn't support legacy hardware?

        Well, try getting Vista to run on a Pentium 2 with 128 MB of RAM on a 10 GB HDD, which is what was state of the art wh
        • by drsmithy (35869)

          I have a decade-old iMac (ruby) that runs the very latest version of Macintosh OSX. (10.4) What's that you say? Apple doesn't support legacy hardware?

          Your "Ruby" iMac is no older than 8 years (and, incidentally, isn't actually "supported" by OS X, even though it will probably install). The 266Mhz models were introduced in January, 1999 (and had 32M RAM standard). To say they "run OS X 10.4" is little more than sophistry.

          Well, try getting Vista to run on a Pentium 2 with 128 MB of RAM on a 10 GB HDD, w

        • I have a decade-old iMac (ruby) that runs the very latest version of Macintosh OSX.

          Well, considering that the "ruby" iMac was released in July 2000, it's hardly a "decade old".

          Well, try getting Vista to run on a Pentium 2 with 128 MB of RAM on a 10 GB HDD, which is what was state of the art when the Apple iMac came out.

          Yeah, but you can't run Tiger on the original iMac. You need an iMac DV or better, and one with a DVD drive at that. You probably could run Vista on an Athlon 1GHz system with 256MiB of mem

        • I have a decade-old iMac (ruby) that runs the very latest version of Macintosh OSX. (10.4) What's that you say? Apple doesn't support legacy hardware?

          Nope it doesnt, oh your ruby will run if you boost up its memory and such, I have even older iMacs running it, but check out Apples Website. ITS NOT SUPPORTED.

          Well, try getting Vista to run on a Pentium 2 with 128 MB of RAM on a 10 GB HDD, which is what was state of the art when the Apple iMac came out.

          Hardly, but to make you feel even more stupid, yeah Vis

      • !0.5 is a major OS upgrade

        See here is the problem, people that study OS engineering and OS theory, even from the user functionality standpoint would argue that these are NOT major OS upgrades. Sure Apple tweaks stuff, adds in a few new features, but mainly updates the user client applications/functionality, which are not core OS issues.

        So sure iPhoto gets new features, and you get desktop search, and you get time machine that was in Windows 2003, but as you note, MS releases updates to their versions of the
  • ......Didn't we just talk about this THREE DAYS AGO?

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/23/005 2256 [slashdot.org]

    I smell a dupe.....
    • by KillerBob (217953)
      You must be new here. Current management philosophy is that an article isn't a dupe until it's been posted at least 4 times.

      err... that change in philosophy hasn't completely eliminated the problem. They may need to increase it to 10.
  • deploy pre-release builds into production environments

    are they completely mad? Their GM's unstable enough as it is.
  • but only because I hate my company!

    Actually, I love were I work, but that sounded funnier.
  • so will vista have couple like 10 15 service packs so now service packs are really like regular windows update bug fixes?? now it a PR thing not somthing that will actually improve the software??
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I support small businesses in Boston, and I'm telling all my customers to avoid vista-pre-installed pc's like the plague for the next year (2 if they can get away with it). They expect IT support people to put their reputation and jobs on the line by putting pre-release builds and risk their customers' entire business with it? Does microsoft seriously expect the rest of the IT world to go down with it?

    Ilya Elbert
    http://www.computerrepairboston.com/ [computerrepairboston.com]
    • by Yvan256 (722131)
      Isn't the Microsoft-IT world already based on the problematic software coming from Redmond?

      Compared the number of IT support teams in Microsoft shops, Apple shops, and OSS shops. I'm betting it's a ratio along the lines of 50 vs 5 vs 2.

  • Money making plan #56745-B

    1: Advise of availability of new OS.

    2: Listen to lots of people say that they won't upgrade to new OS until SP1 is available.

    3: Release new operating system. Some people buy it. Bank the cheques.

    4: Release SP1 shortly after. Everyone else who would buy it, buys it now.

    5: Profit !!

  • Sell the Aero interface as an upgrade to XP for $25 a pop, then keep working on Vista till it's ready!
  • by DavidD_CA (750156) on Friday January 26, 2007 @01:51AM (#17764628) Homepage
    So let me get this straight... Microsoft says they're going to release some patches to an operating system in about 5 or 6 months.

    And what's wrong with that?

    Would the community rather Microsoft not release any patches at all? Or not start working on them this early? Do you really think Microsoft is just going to give everyone a two-year vacation now that Vista has shipped? How responsible would that be?

    Typical Slashdot response though.
  • By the time Vista SP 1 comes out MS has had time to see the final version of Leopard. So I guess with SP 1 they will add some new, innovative features to Vista.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: #44 Zebras are colored with dark stripes on a light background.

Working...