Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Upgrades Windows IT

Vista SP1 Release May Be Near 231

Posted by kdawson
from the not-before-time dept.
Tokonamu sends a note about the release to a private testing group of a new build of Windows Vista SP1, possibly presaging the imminent release of the long-awaited service pack. Speculation about a Feb. 15 release date has been fueled by a report out of Taiwan, according to the article. Microsoft also issued a new build of Windows XP SP3 this week, but it's getting next to no publicity out of Redmond, what with XP being the main competition for Vista and all.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vista SP1 Release May Be Near

Comments Filter:
  • 3 reboots (Score:5, Interesting)

    by baadger (764884) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @07:59AM (#22199582)
    At the moment installing SP1 RC's requires three seperate trips to Windows Update, and three reboots.

    My guess is MS will push out the pre-requisite updates for SP1 this coming February Patch Tuesday, and SP1 a week or two later.
    • Re:3 reboots (Score:4, Insightful)

      by badpazzword (991691) <badpazzword@gm a i l . com> on Sunday January 27, 2008 @08:20AM (#22199660)
      Hey! Adding features [computerworld.com] and improving performance [thedailywtf.com] are non trivial tasks, mind you!
  • by coolhaus (186994) <coolhaus AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday January 27, 2008 @08:00AM (#22199586)
    I heard a rumor that Vista SP1, in a spectacularly clever and devious bid to fix all Vista issues, silently installs XP in the background.
  • Well woopdeedoo (Score:2, Insightful)

    I always wonder why Microsoft gets so much publicity for point version upgrades. I mean, the other day I got an update from Ubuntu. So what?

    If Microsoft have waited this long for a full update, then something is seriously screwed in Redmond. Something is even more screwed with the rest of us for finding the service pack upgrade so fascinating.
    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @08:11AM (#22199632) Journal

      There was a story about the new linux kernel, and that was a point upgrade.

      You also get patches/upgrades from MS outside service packs.

      So this is in a way like a Linux distro that announces a new point release, which ARE reported on slashdot.

      Hate vista or love it. Use it or leave it, but it is a news worthy item when it receives an upgrade. For better or worse this is going to affect a lot of people who read this site.

      Oh and OSX has had nothing but point upgrades since it release back in the dark ages, each one of those point releases has been discussed to death.

      I don't use vista yet, but am a PC gamer so sooner or later I might have to take the plunge, news on Vista therefor intrests me, if this SP1 is really good, it might hasten the move to Vista and make game companies more inclined to make directx10 only games. Or not, but I want to know when I should start to look into pirating Vista (Pay for MS software? What an odd concept.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        You say: There was a story about the new linux kernel, and that was a point upgrade.

        It is often worth it. This is because, a point release of linux is a major step forward. They have completely new capabilities for each point release. A major revision would usually be complete re-write.

        You say: So this is in a way like a Linux distro that announces a new point release, which ARE reported on slashdot. ... Oh and OSX has had nothing but point upgrades since it release back in the dark ages, each one of those
        • 7.04 to 7.10 - Ubuntu introduced Compiz as standard (like DirectX 9 to 10), and so on.

          I don't think that's a good example of a point release. 7.04 and 7.10 are two different releases (Feisty and Gutsy).

          A better example would be LTS 6.06.2 which was released recently, and as far as I understand (I might be wrong) it's LTS 6.06 with patches already rolled into it.
      • by ta bu shi da yu (687699) * on Sunday January 27, 2008 @08:56AM (#22199776) Homepage
        Actually, this article isn't about an actual service pack upgrade, this is about speculation about the possibility of a service pack being released by Microsoft.

        All the other stories you mention are actual upgrades.

        If SP1 brings out new features, then I'll take back what I say. But as far as I can tell so far, it's just going to be a bunch of fixes. Incidently, I never saw why point releases for OS X were so special either - at least in terms of news.

        Just my $0.02 - which I should point out is not a troll. Way to go mods of my parent comment.
      • There was a story about the new linux kernel, and that was a point upgrade.
        News for nerds. Stuff that matters.
        You are worthy to have a look under the hood: http://lxr.free-electrons.com/ [free-electrons.com]
        Such ain't the case elsewhere.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 27, 2008 @09:19AM (#22199894)
        >Hate vista or love it. Use it or leave it, but it is a
        >news worthy item when it receives an upgrade. For better
        >or worse this is going to affect a lot of people who read this site.

        You know what the funny/strange part for me was?
        When I read the headline here were the first things in order that
        came to my mind:

        1) It's the first service pack, now folks will be willing to buy it.
        2) I wonder if they managed to screw something up/didn't fix it in
        their service pack i.e. audio vs. network speed?
        3) I wonder if they will force it down people's throats without asking
        the vista users?

        I don't know if you're a microsoft OS user or not, so you might be blind
        to how disturbing the first thought is --- an OS is so crappy you have to
        wait for them to clean up their OS before it's safe to go in the water.
        There have been some clunkers with the Linux kernel (the last one that I remember
        was something like version 2.2 aka the brown paper bag version), but its so rare
        (that was 8 years ago folks) that I have no problem upgrading my kernel as soon
        it's in Debian testing's repository.

        The second point? Well, it *used* to be that a service pack really did fix bugs,
        but based on the rc released a few months ago it looks like Vista's sp1 will be nothing
        more than cosmetic changes, or rather that's my "impression" now of how
        much quality comes out of Redmond.

        The third point? In the past couple of years there have been incidents of Microsoft slipping things
        to be installed without asking the user that have seemed more like "spyware" than "bugfixes".
        The one in particular that I think I'm remembering correctly is windows media player.

        I used to be one of those folks who hated, hated, hated Microsoft for being the evil empire.
        At some point though I realized that Heinlein's razor applies to Microsoft:

        They're not evil. They're just greedy stupid.

        One day I realized that Microsoft is just obsolete and irrelevant to my world. I still read
        the postings here in slashdot, but really for the +5 funny comments on the next blunder
        Microsoft has committed. For entertaining humor, Microsoft is still useful.

        --Johnny wishes you best of luck with Vista
        • by KillerBob (217953)

          2) I wonder if they managed to screw something up/didn't fix it in
          their service pack i.e. audio vs. network speed?

          Well... I'm glad I'm in sales now instead of tech. support (I used to be), in light of one of the "features" they implemented. I'm running Vista Ultimate (MSDN) on my HTPC/Media Center, and downloaded/installed SP1. Now... that system has 3GB of memory, but it has shared video. It's in a small form factor case the size of a toaster, and I simply can't afford the added heat buildup for a high end

      • by TheNetAvenger (624455) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @05:42PM (#22202866)
        don't use vista yet, but am a PC gamer so sooner or later I might have to take the plunge, news on Vista therefor intrests me, if this SP1 is really good, it might hasten the move to Vista and make game companies more inclined to make directx10 only games. Or not, but I want to know when I should start to look into pirating Vista (Pay for MS software? What an odd concept.)


        If you have the chance now to start playing with Vista, now would be the time to do so. Even without SP1, with the latest drivers from ATI and NVidia June/Sept07 & Newer, Vista is clocking framerates above XP on 99% of the systems out there.

        The margin of FPS increase with Vista also grows if you LEAVE AERO/GLASS on and are running games inside a Window, or you run more than one game at a time (i.e. two MMO accounts/games).

        Remember the brutal reviews of gaming on Vista was in the Jan07/Feb07 timeline when ATI and NVidia admits their drivers still sucked being complete rewrites, and even then on average Vista was only clocking 10-20% behind XP, which was like 5-10FPS in high FPS games. (The poor quality of Video drivers from ATI and NVidia also is the area that POed MS the most, as NVidia and ATI had plenty of time and access to MS resources to ensure the drivers would be top notch, and instead NVidia and ATI went alone in the final development.)

        The video subsystem in Vista (despite all the DX10 info) has the potential to run circles around XP and other OSes, as it can not only meet XP draw to screen and render performance, it can suck RAM from the system and virtualize it for GPU operations, and Vista also does pre-emptive scheduling of the GPU, so when multiple games/applications are asking for use of the GPU, the OS manages this without application level yeilding/cooperation. So not only can you run Games in the Aero 3D view (dual 3D apps), but you can also run multiple 3D applications at the same time with minimal frame loss in each application as Vista is multi-tasking them to the GPU smoothly and keeping them from being VRAM starved. Even in a single 3D application/game, the Vista model of multi-scheduling the GPU can improve performance if the game isn't well optimized and shoves the GPU too hard to render crap and starves other parts of the game. Vista tries to step in to ensure that all calls are being processed more equally if it will improve game performance.

        As for DirectX10, you will NOT see any great Frame Rates in DX10 games until a game is truly DX10 only. As the DX10 games now that are on the market are DX9 games with DX10 textures and some shadow and lighting added to them, and also try to push up the density of graphics, destroying the FPS gains of DX10.

        A solid DX10 dedicated engine with NO DX9 underpinnings has a significant margin of performance gain as well as onscreen quality and consistency between GPU models/vendors. Look at XBox 360 dedicated games that are using the XNA and jumping off from a solid DX10 level engine, they blow cross platform games away in terms of FPS and quality.

        The same is true of DX10 in Vista, and having a hybrind DX9/DX10 engine/game makes for a great DX9 game, and can give you some DX10 tastes and visuals, but is nothing like a sole DX10 game. DX10 unlike DX9 doesn't build off the previous versions of DirectX, so where you see 8.1/9.0 DX games that run well in both contexts, this is counterintuitive to building a real DX10 game. Sadly the game companies are looking at the market and the FUD about Vista, and are scared that games will be afraid of a DX10 only game project that requires Vista.

        (PS And DX10 does truly require Vista, as the games expect the OS to manage VRAM virtualization, pre-empting the GPU - especially when using the GPU for both physics and visuals, and with the DX10 libraries on XP, these things don't exist, and the game will starve itself expecting the OS/Vista to handle these DX10 aspects. (There are many other aspects like this, but the VRAM virtualization and the pre-emptive GPU scheduler in Vista are the
        • That was very informative. Thank you. I have really no intention of switching my primary desktop BACK to Windows, but I was curious about the new "gamer oriented" aspects of Vista which tend to get glossed over often times.
    • by STrinity (723872)

      I always wonder why Microsoft gets so much publicity for point version upgrades. I mean, the other day I got an update from Ubuntu. So what?
      Because if every Ubuntu user went out and killed a Windows user, it'd reduce Microsoft's customer base by one tenth of one percent.
  • by Viceroy Potatohead (954845) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @08:12AM (#22199634) Homepage
    For the first several months of Vista, it seemed there were a lot of people justifying its poor uptake by suggesting most IT people would wait until SP1 before adoption. After all, everybody knows it takes a bit of time to work out the kinks in a new OS. I'm pretty sceptical, but it'll be interesting to see if the apologists were right.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mabhatter654 (561290)
      the problem is that the changes they're talking about making would turn IT staff OFF from buying the OS. IT staff don't want the OS because the new permission system breaks stuff that worked well in XP SP2 and Windows software vendors are VERY lazy about updates compared to Mac vendors. I have apps at work that were "Vista certified" in DECEMBER 07! My staff can't upgrade until our key software is supported and Microsoft has really dropped the ball on motivating ISVs to get a move on.

      It'd be just like th
  • XP SP3 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Yvanhoe (564877)
    Speculations about SP3 breaking XP starts in 3... 2... 1...
  • by xeno (2667) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @08:17AM (#22199648)
    I was surprised when Microsoft announced that Windows 7 (successor to Vista) will probably be out in about 16 months. Seems like they're stealing their own whimpery thunder re Vista. The release of SP1 for Vista is surely a relief for those who already adopted it, but what about the masses who were waiting for SP1 --- the proverbial "We'll wait for the bugs to be worked out" crowd?

    All those folks (including my own org) are now looking at VistaSP1 vs W7 and wondering about the wisdom of adopting Vista at all. If W7 comes out mid-next year, and there's a W7SP1 about a year later... That means right now that Vista offers barely more than a two-year period of stable operation for an entire platform change. With XP still chugging along merrily (with better stability and lower HW expense/requirements) I really don't see the value for any but the smallest organization.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by baadger (764884)
      Despite what has been 'leaked' about Windows 7 I don't think we'll see it until 2010, when support for 2000 and XP has completely dropped (Although promptly after XP SP3 is out we probably going to see a slow fade where MS evaluate whether they are going to port their new apps (like IE8) back to XP anyway).

      By 2010, people using XP will have no real choice but to move on, at which point they'll be looking at the then, hopefully, stable, fast reliable Vista vs the new 'bleeding edge' Windows 7 RTM. What do yo
    • by gollito (980620) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @08:32AM (#22199708) Homepage

      With XP still chugging along merrily (with better stability and lower HW expense/requirements) I really don't see the value for any but the smallest organization.

      That is a huge misconception about Vista. The thing that requires the beefy HW is Aero with all it's fancy stuff. Turn it off, and the hardware resources are minimal. I had it running on my Latitude X300 and it ran just fine. The system always felt responsive and peppy. Features to love about Vista include: Firewall profiles, quick standby times (and more important coming out of standby EVERYTIME), great power management, quick search in the start menu (one button hot key to bring up search window (AKA the Windows button)), etc.
      Sure it has its quirks but in my experience the good far out weighs the bad.
      • by Fallingcow (213461) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @09:27AM (#22199948) Homepage
        It still eats ungodly amounts of disk space, though.

        I would love to know how they managed to waste so many MB. Instead of an easter egg flight sim on the level of the one in Excel, did they put in all of MS Flight Simulator X?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by EvilIdler (21087)
          Seriously, yeah, what IS in all that data? It's just an OS.
          No devtools or office tools, beyond a calculator and a crappy
          text editor with font support. Or have they included actual
          useful software which let you do more than manage your files
          and play (some of) your music/movies?

          I'm probably getting a laptop soon, and it looks like I'll
          have to get a Vista refund no matter what model I pick from
          the ones I like. I'll be running XP for a few games and
          Ubuntu to get my job done.
          • by Your.Master (1088569) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @04:52PM (#22202568)
            I can pretty much guarantee you that no, the dozen or so gigabytes of Vista (x64 Ultimate, all options installed) install do not get loaded into RAM at runtime or loaded at every boot, just a subsection. Let's take a look in C:\Windows, shall we?

            A large part of it is actually backwards-compatibility dlls that will never get called if you use modern software, and are necessary to run certain older software while improving Vista overall (yes, there are some improvements in Vista) -- C:\Windows\assembly + C:\Windows\AppPatch + C:\Windows\inf + some other. Not everything in inf or assembly is necessarily compat, but it comes out to a couple gigs. System32 takes a bit under 3.5 gigabytes, and that's the meat of the OS. Media centre is another half gigabyte (150 MB in ehome, the rest scattered -- much of it is tutorial sample video). Couple hundred megs of log files, I don't know why. 330 MB on .NET stuff. I don't know what "SoftwareDistribution" does, but it does 75 MB worth of it. Speech engine is a couple hundred megabytes. There is 200 MB in SUA (subsystem for Unix based applications -- yes dear, you can compile some *nix stuff on here, so long as it doesn't rely on case sensitivity). 32-bit compatibility layer for 64 bit Windows takes about 1 Gigabyte. Wallpapers and Dreamscene from Ultimate extras are 200 MB. And finally, 6.6 GB of winsxs, which is the brutal hack meant to allay dll hell, where a bunch of cloned copies of dlls of various versions sit, again for compatibility.

            Most of the rest is fairly insignificant, but adds up (stuff like 60 MB of prefetch data is about the upper limit of what I completely ignored, except of course I didn't ignore the prefetch one, did I?).

            Notably, a very large proportion of this is backwards compatibility cruft. Do note that if you don't use old software, none of this will be loaded and really won't take up your RAM (if on the other hand you DO use old software, then it will use some tiny portion of this).
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Fallingcow (213461)
              Notably, a very large proportion of this is backwards compatibility cruft. Do note that if you don't use old software, none of this will be loaded and really won't take up your RAM (if on the other hand you DO use old software, then it will use some tiny portion of this).

              Wine is, what, MAYBE 20 MB installed? Granted, it doesn't run every Window program, but it does cover most of the API and run a huge number of them. Let's say it takes ten times that for horribly inefficient MS coders to do the same thing
      • by blind biker (1066130) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @12:32PM (#22200902) Journal
        I explained recently to a friend of mine, that Vista's main features are aimed at DRM, doing, that is, the job for the media companies, and not for the user.

        No matter how you spin it, the code that tracks and filters the media streams in Vista, does eat resources. The MP3 playing vs. network performance crap is a consequence.

        That said, I am glad you DIDN'T NOTICE any performance degradation with Vista. However, such degradation is real and it is measurable.

        • by ashridah (72567) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @02:40PM (#22201690)
          Oh, FFS. I really wish people would stop claiming that the audio/video VS network performance issues was a DRM issue. It's just simply not true [technet.com], no matter which way you try to spin it.
          • by willfe (6537)
            Heh, so it's just plain broken, without even the excuse of "it's for DRM, suckers!" to help explain it? That's neat.
        • by Johnno74 (252399) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @05:07PM (#22202670)
          Congratulations, your friend is now less informed than they were before they talked to you. Before at least they knew they didn't know.

          Have you even used vista? Yes there is a whole lot of extra crap in there, same as any microsoft OS release. Remember when XP came out? You are free to turn it off if you don't want it, or don't accept the performance overhead.

          Myth: There no "code that tracks and filters the media streams in Vista". That is complete bollox. It was started by some asshat at auckland uni who should have known better. If you had done any research on this you'd know how comprehensively his original paper has been debunked. I'm not going to give you any links, because you probably are in denial and wouldn't check them. If you care, find them yourself.

          Fact: The DRM stuff in vista affects capibilities that are new to vista. It doesn't affect anything that was already there in XP. Nothing you already have is crippled. I have been using vista for a year now, and it seriously pissed me off at the start. I turned off a lot of the new vista features, like aero and readyboost. Now I've got used to the changes, I don't mind vista at all, there is some very good new stuff there. And not once have I ever had a problem with any "DRM". Stuff like DVD Decrypter, AnyDVD, BitTorrent, Daemon Tools all work 100%. Truth is I could count on one hand the number of apps that I use that have had compatibility problems. The most serious I can think of is AirSnort.

          Seriously, stop spreading this FUD. It does the whole IT community no good. You are an assclown for perpetuating myths like this to non-it people, and you are showing your ignorance by parroting this stuff on a place like /.
      • by Braino420 (896819)

        The thing that requires the beefy HW is Aero with all it's fancy stuff. Turn it off, and the hardware resources are minimal.

        And by doing so you take away the one and only difference that most users see between XP and Vista.

        Firewall profiles, quick standby times (and more important coming out of standby EVERYTIME), great power management, quick search in the start menu

        Oh ya, firewall profiles are all the rage nowadays.. give me a break.

      • I'm sorry, but that's just not so. I don't run Aero, and it runs like crap. Sound performance in particular reaches levels I haven't seen since I had a 386.
    • by noidentity (188756) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @10:11AM (#22200136)

      I was surprised when Microsoft announced that Windows 7 (successor to Vista) will probably be out in about 16 months. Seems like they're stealing their own whimpery thunder re Vista.

      That's a classic Microsoft strategy: announce a release just around the corner, so customers won't buy a competitors product. Looks like they're doing a good job choking the company who made Vista.

      • no, but the date is just close enough that any major change roll-out to something like Mac or Linux would take longer for IT staff than just "waiting around" for MS to ship Windows 7 which should sync with new hardware purchases. It's carrot-stick. XP SP3 is a carrot to the old users, but after this XP users get the stick... The windows 7 "leaks" are the Carrot to keep people bit by Vista in the fold.
      • by Dion (10186)
        Yes, it's commonly quoted as: "Wait for us, we're the leader!"
    • Microsoft is NOT planning to release Windows 7 in 2009 ! Contrary to all that is being said on the net, it clearly looks like Microsoft is NOT planning to release Windows 7 in 2009. Q. What is the expected timeline for the availability of Windows 7? A. We are currently in the planning stages for Windows 7 and expect it will take approximately 3 more years to develop. The specific release date will be determined once the company meets its quality bar for release. All this smoke of Windows 7, being releas
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I was surprised when Microsoft announced that Windows 7 (successor to Vista) will probably be out in about 16 months.

      If Vista was any indication, Microsoft announcing that Windows 7 will be out in 16 months means that delays will push back the Windows 7 release to about 2013, at which point it will have half the initially promised feature set and require at least a 40-core processor to work properly. Meanwhile, the Linux kernel will be at version 2.6.557 and Apple will be making advertisements about people downgrading to Vista and releasing Mac OS X "Serval". Hurd will still be in development.

    • by Britz (170620)
      Windows XP SP3 will be out later this year, so we can expect XP to "still be chugging along merrily" for quite some time.
    • Nobody is waiting 16 months for a software upgrade. Vista won't support any security updates unless you upgrade. It will be the platform for all future updates, and Windows Update will nag you silly until you install it. If you think anyone is considering waiting for 16 months, you're mistaken.

      Also, 16 months is a long time in a fast-changing computer industry. Nobody is putting off releasing software, migrating systems, or so on until Windows 7 comes around. While they do that, their whole business wi
      • by xeno (2667)
        It will be the platform for all future updates, and Windows Update will nag you silly until you install it.

        Huh... That's odd. I haven't seen a Windows Update nag since I installed Ubuntu last year and put Windows in VM, where it belongs.

        Nobody is putting off releasing software, migrating systems, or so on until Windows 7 comes around. While they do that, their whole business will suffer. [...] 3-5 months, maybe. 16 months- you're out of your mind.

        Read it and weep, Hot Stuff: Consumers are buying what's sh
  • So what's in it? (Score:2, Informative)

    by MacarooMac (1222684)
    I've consulted with the Wiki gods, who inform me that Vista SP1 [wikipedia.org] will contain the following:

    Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) is currently in development and is planned for release alongside Windows Server 2008 in the first quarter of 2008. The first beta of Windows Vista Service Pack 1, build 16659, was released on September 24, 2007 and was tested by TechBeta participants in the Windows Vista SP1 Beta Program as well as TechNet and MSDN subscribers.

    On December 12, 2007, Microsoft released Windows Vist

    • Vista SP1 is essentially an upgrade to a non-server version of Windows 2008. After the upgrade, the build number is updated from 6000 to 6001, just like Windows 2008 has. Vista SP1 can be called Windows 2008 Professional by analogy with Windows 2000.
  • Wait (Score:5, Funny)

    by eclectro (227083) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @08:34AM (#22199718)
    Vista SP1 is about to be released on the heels of the just released Linux kernel 2.6.24 [slashdot.org]. Coincidence? I think not.
  • by SirKron (112214) <brian.kronberg@g ... minus physicist> on Sunday January 27, 2008 @08:47AM (#22199748)
    I am running RC1 of SP1 and it has made significant improvements on my x64 laptop. One of the major fixes is the removal of occurances when Vista looks for a domain controller to update user information on a side panel of the window. That fix alone has increased the performance and useability of Vista.

    For those of you looking to install RC1 be warned it takes about 2 hours to install and you must remove it prior to installing SP1.
  • Reality check (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 27, 2008 @09:10AM (#22199850)
    I've never really been a believer in conspiracy theories, but this is getting silly.

    Slashdot, not at least through posting Twitter-blogs, has informed us thoroughly how deep shit MS is in. Nobody wants their products anymore, everybody and their parents (literally) are switching to Mac or Linux (we can't really agree on which, but that doesn't matter). Vista is such a big P.O.S. and sales failure that we suspect it's not really running on any PC at all, people claiming otherwise being astroturfers. And MS are obviously well down the road to bankruptcy.

    But surfing outside our informed group here, websites talk about recent fantastic record results and outlooks for Microsoft, among other things fueled by strong Windows growth. People talk about faster adoption rate and less problems with Vista than XP, over 100 million users, MS being rated as one of the most respected companies, and other shit like that.

    Where are these people living, and where do they get there information from. Aren't they reading Slashdot??

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DoktorSeven (628331)
      Microsoft's just doing what they do best. No, not technology -- marketing. They create their own buzz and news that everything's awesomely great in Microsoftland to convince people who don't look any deeper to find the real truth.

      • by westlake (615356)
        Microsoft's just doing what they do best. No, not technology -- marketing. They create their own buzz and news that everything's awesomely great in Microsoftland to convince people who don't look any deeper to find the real truth.

        What truth?

        Microsoft has done spectacularly well in its first and second quarters

        This is a thirty year old company showing 15% growth in a mature market.

        Debt free and with $20 billion in cash.

        In these OS Platform Stats [w3schools.com], Vista is approaching the desktop market share of OSX and Li

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by WK2 (1072560)

      Slashdot ... has informed us thoroughly how deep shit MS is in. Nobody wants their products anymore, everybody and their parents (literally) are switching to Mac or Linux ... Vista is such a big P.O.S. and sales failure that we suspect it's not really running on any PC at all... And MS are obviously well down the road to bankruptcy.

      Some people are just optimistic.

    • by urbanriot (924981)
      Outside of Slashdot, and a pro-*nix community, Vista adoption is higher than you might think. OEM sales are driving Vista and Office 2007 sales. In fact, for lower tier OEM's, obtaining Office 2003 is next to impossible unless you or your client is with the Open Value Program and utilize their downgrade rights. And despite our, and the educated user's strong dislike for Vista, just as many people are interested in seeing this flashy new operating system. After SP1 is released growth will increase considerab
      • Vista may be used but it isn't liked. For anyone who didn't get it on new (expensive and over-powered) hardware Vista is unusable and even when it is usable its nothing more then an over-bloated XP pack with some DRM and a fancy skin thrown on. If you Google Windows Vista, the 9th result is BadVista which is a site run by the FSF that has links to 3rd party news stories about how Vista is failing. The other top 8 results are what you would expect, MS's website, Wikipedia, a few PC websites and a blog about
    • by cbart387 (1192883)

      But surfing outside our informed group here, websites talk about recent fantastic record results and outlooks for Microsoft, among other things fueled by strong Windows growth. People talk about faster adoption rate and less problems with Vista than XP, over 100 million users, MS being rated as one of the most respected companies, and other shit like that.

      Isn't it possible that you have it backwards and slashdot users are the ones who have the proverbial head in the clouds. Slashdot does have a predisposition to be anti-Microsoft so I tend to take most Microsoft news here with a grain of salt. The opposite holds for *nix-like news, it's usually in a flattering light so you have to take that with a grain of salt as well. I think you're correct about slashdot readers being well informed but the information is not always balanced.

      I have two friends (compute

      • by tompaulco (629533)
        Also don't understimate the DirectX 10 factor that Vista has to draw the PC gamers.
        DirectX 10 certainly has my attention. But I don't know if the improvements of DirectX 10 will be enough to offset the inefficiencies of the operating system. I have not installed Vista because I enjoy MS Flight Simulator and I have heard from people who have compared XP and Vista that the frame rates are much lower on Vista.
        • by cbart387 (1192883)
          My friends have not had the issues you described but they have a pretty beefy setup (particularly their Ram & video cards which seems to be the bottleneck for games). I think it depends on the system. I know mine wouldn't hold up very well but then again mine will still be kicking after theirs has been retired due to using Linux distros. :)
        • by SScorpio (595836)
          Running most games in DirectX 9 in XP and Vista and you will get a difference of around 2-3fps in game. Enabling all of the eyecandy in DirectX 10 will bring most systems to their knees. This is mostly and issue that current videos cards aren't very efficient at DirectX 10 gaming. Most games are playing fine under Vista; however, some games like The Witcher have major crashing issues under Vista that I haven't been able to resolve. Vista 64 is supposed to fix the issues by enabling more RAM to be used b
    • Re:Reality check (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mabhatter654 (561290) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @10:53AM (#22200332)
      From a single user perspective Vista is nice. I had to buy a new laptop at work and choose Vista simply because we can't live in the past.

      Vista is a nightmare for IT people though. From the go, Microsoft was lazy about releasing the management tools as anything but Beta because they want to sell companies Server 2008 for the "full experience".... 18 months AFTER Vista is released??? The number of programs broken for an enterprise is a show stopper bug as well, even including Microsoft programs for the first 6 months or so. There is software my company uses that was "certified" for Vista in December! 2007! a full year after Vista was released for corporate use. Microsoft went straight to the consumers with this release, and screwed over corporate users.

      It's not been a PROFESSIONAL roll-out... and the people that read/post to Slashdot are the one that have to make the MS stuff ACTUALLY WORK. We're the ones that have to explain to the bosses with their new shiny Vista Ultimate notebooks their new machine can't run half the companies most important software... the stuff they use to get their precious numbers from. Most Slashdotters have a special hatred of Microsoft because while supporting it's software pays our bills, it's not Professional work... it's grunt work times 10 making up for things Windows should have done right the first time!
      • Actually, MS dropped the ball for corporate on a number of software products in the last calendar year.

        Office 2007 corporate deployment was a bitch as well.

        Group Policy --- Nope.

        Script --- Yes, but a be-atch.

        SMS --- See script.

        The was the one that gave me the most headaches during the year.

        Virtual Server too is a pain. An Active-X for Pete's sake? Luckily you can get VMRCPlus. Yuk.

        I refuse to support Vista until I've given an SP1 system 'time to bed'. Probably after the first few patches. And no half arsed
      • I had to buy a new laptop at work and choose Vista simply because we can't live in the past.

        ME was the future at one point, too. Did you feel compelled to rush out and buy that one?

        • by cnettel (836611)
          No, it was released after Windows 2000 and certainly inferior for any work task. It was never supported as an enterprise network client (worse than 98 in that aspect) and the plans for Whistler were quite clear. The repeat with Windows 7 "soon" would be a similarity, but it's more like XP coming soon after 2000. The development on Windows has been focused on the server release for the past 14 months or so. Vista added very little for a corporate customer before, but it at least might make sense now. As I un
    • by Cromac (610264)

      People talk about faster adoption rate and less problems with Vista than XP
      Talk about needing a reality check. Where did you read that? Microsoft.com? Ever other source cites slower adoption of Vista than XP and slower than expected sales. Even on non technical sites the overwhelming opinion is that Vista is a train wreck.
  • by Provocateur (133110) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @09:35AM (#22199984) Homepage
    the next Ubuntu release!

    They can also call it Hasta La Vista to avoid lawsuits.
  • If the competition for Vista is XP, there would be some incentive for microsoft to break parts of XP with service pack 3. Perhaps we should approach SP3 with caution.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Don't hate me because I am beautiful, have lots of women under my control and use Vista!
  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Sunday January 27, 2008 @11:34AM (#22200556) Homepage Journal

    So, will this be a "real" service pack, or is it aimed at all the companies that said they wouldn't switch to Vista until SP1 came out?

    • by RonnyJ (651856)
      Vista SP1 and the as-yet unreleased Windows Server 2008 share a common codebase, so I'd certainly hope it's a 'tech release'.

      For what it's worth, my experience with the 'release candidate' of Vista SP1 has been very favourable.

  • by rueger (210566) on Sunday January 27, 2008 @12:01PM (#22200730) Homepage
    The vast majority of of people walk in to Staples or Best Buy and buy a computer. That computer includes Vista. They use it.

    They don't "upgrade" to Vista, they don't decide to buy a Mac, they sure don't try out Ubuntu, they use Vista because that's what came on their new laptop.

    Microsoft doesn't need exponential sales of Vista, they don't need the whole world to change overnight. All that they need is to wait as millions of people eventually upgrade their systems. As long as Dell or Best Buy will sell them a laptop for $599 (compared to Apple, whose offerings start at about $1000) that's what people will buy, and Microsoft can watch the adoption continue apace. Widespread use of Vista is pretty much inevitable.

    My PC is still running Windows 2000. Its fine, mostly, except for some apps that actually insist on XP. Still, I have conceded that at some point I will upgrade and have "acquired" a copy of XP from one of the usual sources. I don't need it today, but acknowledge that one day soon I'll take a day or two off and upgrade.

    In fact my first experience with Vista was in the last month [community-media.com], helping a girlfriend set up her new HP laptop. Based on the problems that we ran into I'd be wary of encouraging people to buy Vista yet, but I also accepted that if she was buying a system that's what she would get so I was prepared for a steep learning curve. If anything Vista reminds me a lot of OS X - very pretty but very frustrating if you don't want to do exactly what Redmond or Cupertino want you to do.
  • Surely from the you-can't-polish-a-turd department.

If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer

Working...