Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software Microsoft Technology

Windows Vista Service Pack 2 Released 334

Posted by Soulskill
from the how-much-beta-does-one-really-need dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has finally released the final build of Service Pack 2 for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. 'There are a few significant additions that are included in SP2: Windows Search 4.0, Bluetooth 2.1 Feature Pack, the ability to record data on to Blu-Ray media natively in Vista, Windows Connect Now (WCN) is now in the Wi-Fi Configuration, and exFAT file system supports UTC timestamps. The service pack contains about 800 hotfixes.' A list of other notable changes is available on TechNet. SP2 isn't included in Automatic Update yet, but it will be 'during the coming months.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Vista Service Pack 2 Released

Comments Filter:
  • I like some of these fixes on this spreadsheet:
    • The Fc.exe command does not work correctly in Windows Vista or in Windows Server 2008 when the command compares files that differ at every 128th byte of a character string
    • The Fc.exe command does not work correctly in Windows Vista or in Windows Server 2008 when the two files that you are comparing have the TAB or SPACE character around the 128th byte in a character string

    I can almost imagine the developer sitting at his desk getting an e-mail from their issue management system that there's a problem with Fc.exe (file compare) ... only to have him realize that his for loop that iterates over the buffer that reads the files should have the while conditions of <= 128 and not simply < 128!

    This is forgivable, I code some pretty stupid errors sometimes.

    What isn't forgivable is that one of the columns on this bug spreadsheet is "Publicly Available" which implies to me that there is a list I'm not seeing of fixed bugs which would be annoying and probably even non-fixed bugs they purposefully suppress from public knowledge which is alarming!

    • Oh off-by-one errors. I encounter them a whole helluva lot less than I used to (in my own code), but the odd mistake creeps in every now and then. I think anyone who claims they never make them, or that a professional company should never make them, is either lying or deluded. It's far too easy to make them unless you're doing really simplistic coding and only ever working with arrays.
    • by ledow (319597) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:20AM (#28108561) Homepage

      "What isn't forgivable is that one of the columns on this bug spreadsheet is "Publicly Available" which implies to me that there is a list I'm not seeing of fixed bugs which would be annoying and probably even non-fixed bugs they purposefully suppress from public knowledge which is alarming!"

      Hello. Closed source software. I damn well *expect* there to be thousands, if not more, bugs that are not and will never be fixed in Windows until someone "finds" them and posts about them publically, security related or not. I doubt even the militarised versions of Windows have *everything* they know about fixed - it's easier to just say "don't do this" or not include a certain tool/utility/feature than it is to fix it and document it.

      Why on Earth would you ever find this alarming, or unforgivable? It's the whole point of closed-source software, so that you *never* know what's going on with the code and (hopefully) never see it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by eldavojohn (898314) *

        Hello. Closed source software. I damn well *expect* there to be thousands, if not more, bugs that are not and will never be fixed in Windows until someone "finds" them and posts about them publically, security related or not. I doubt even the militarised versions of Windows have *everything* they know about fixed - it's easier to just say "don't do this" or not include a certain tool/utility/feature than it is to fix it and document it.

        Why on Earth would you ever find this alarming, or unforgivable? It's the whole point of closed-source software, so that you *never* know what's going on with the code and (hopefully) never see it.

        I disagree.

        You could (should) offer a closed source product and still be honest about all the bugs that exist in it to your paying customers. Granted, I'm not distributing my web applications on a scale that Vista is being distributed on but you know seeing these 700 fixes listed out does alarm me. I mean, that really serious bug? The one that puts your Windows 2008 server at risk? Could still be at large without you ever knowing about it.

        From Microsoft's end, how do they handle multiple bug r

      • by caffeinemessiah (918089) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:48AM (#28108863) Journal
        Expect a whole bunch more to be added to that great spreadsheet in the sky. Then again, I find it pretty funny that DRM, which is quite likely to introduce bug and crippling functionality, is packaged as an "experience update". From TFA (bold mine):

        Operating system experience updates

        * SP2 improves Windows Media Center (WMC) in the area of content protection for TV.

        • by ArcCoyote (634356) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @12:06PM (#28110803)

          Look before you FUD. I know WMC-fu, have contributed to DVRMSToolbox, and follow WMC stuff pretty closely.

          The content protection thing actually IS an improvement. It's not more DRM, it's less, or rather, it fixes what's there. While it doesn't remove DRM completely, it does fix where WMC would copy protect when CGMS-A flags (Macrovision analog output protection, like for cable PPV) are accidentally encoded into DTV signals. That buggy behavior, on the part of Microsoft and the broadcasters, was why American Gladiators got flagged as protected months ago. There was a big stink about it, although I can't really understand why anyone would care about "pituitary retards banging their F#@$ing skulls together and congratulating YOU on living in the land of freedom!"

          I believe legacy code for the broadcast flag was also removed, so ATSC/ClearQAM can't possibly be set as protected now.

          Unrelated, but a DRM relaxation is coming for CableCARD, in that non-premium digital cable will no longer be protected. HOWEVER:
            - This is a Windows 7 thing, and requires a firmware update to the tuner, an installed copy of Duke Nukem Forever, and who knows what else?
            - It's totally up to the cableco to decide what is and isn't "premium", so chances are stuff like Discovery HD/SciFi HD/ESPN HD will stay locked down. Only the stuff that is already on ClearQAM will be opened up.

          Not that CableCARD was ever worthwhile. For what you can and can't do with it, you might as well rent a DVR from the cableco if you really need that much TV.

      • by Unoriginal_Nickname (1248894) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:48AM (#28108873)

        It's the whole point of closed-source software, so that you *never* know what's going on with the code and (hopefully) never see it.

        The industry rule of thumb for a software developer is about 10 lines of code per hour, on average, over the lifetime of the project. According to Microsoft, Windows XP has about 40 million SLOC.

        Without business staff, PMs and SDETs, that's 4 million man-hours. That's 1923 full time man-years. Assuming Microsoft pays their SDEs $80,000 on average, those 40 million lines of code cost them $153,840,000.

        Why can't the point of closed-source be to put food on the table? If all software is free, what are software developers going to do for a living? Buy an air nailer and become a roofer?

        • Dude, you're forgetting about copy/paste - not everyone like using good OO developing practices damnit... we like to inflate our code quantity by duplicating functions everywhere we can.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by citylivin (1250770)

          "Why can't the point of closed-source be to put food on the table? If all software is free, what are software developers going to do for a living? Buy an air nailer and become a roofer?"

          You do realize that most software developers work for companies designing custom solutions right? Most software developers do not work on for profit apps, but rather build apps, or tools, to enhance a companies business processes and generate money or sales. The point here is that the software is not, by itself, earning most

      • by Abcd1234 (188840)

        It's the whole point of closed-source software, so that you *never* know what's going on with the code

        Really? That's the whole point of closed-source software? Gee, and here I thought it was to make money based on the idea that software, like books, movies, and so forth, is property that is owned by the creator and can be controlled and sold at their discretion.

      • by Animaether (411575) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @10:39AM (#28109515) Journal

        "I damn well *expect* there to be thousands, if not more, bugs that are not and will never be fixed in Windows until someone "finds" them and posts about them publically, security related or not"

        Hell, I expect there to be thousands, if not more, bugs that are not and will never be fixed in open source software, until somebody -other than those actually responsible for the code- submit a patch.
        I'm looking at you, silly little Thunderbird bug #92165 from 2001/Jul/24.

      • Didn't you see the OpenSSH article go through over a week ago? Disclosing significant security issues that existed in OpenSSH since its existence and weren't even announced until months after they were found and fixed?

        Open source also has lots of bugs in it. And many of them aren't fixed until they are posted about in a public forum.

        You have an actual point here about open source. It's just Stallman's point restated, but still, it's valid. But you do a really rotten job of stating it and explaining how open

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cdrguru (88047)

          This "value" is non-existant to 99% of the "users" in the world and I seriously wish it would stop being touted as some advantage to open source.

          Fact is, for anything "open source" to escape the dungen of nerddom, it has to be being used by a lot of people that do not read code, are not programmers and have no hope of ever looking at the source. And, more importantly, no desire to ever do so. They want something that "just works". Period.

          Paying someone to look at the source for you isn't really a viable

  • by Dystopian Rebel (714995) * on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:03AM (#28108395) Journal

    is Windows 7 RC1.

  • by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:04AM (#28108399) Homepage Journal

    Isn't that coming out in October?

  • by Nefron (633596) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:09AM (#28108443)

    SP2 removes the limit of 10 half open outbound TCP connections. By default, SP2 has no limit on the number of half open outbound TCP connections.

    I can't believe MS finally (almost) admitted they made a mistake. It may have taken almost as long, in technological terms, as it took the Catholic Church to admit it's mistakes with Galileo, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

    • by Jugalator (259273)

      Before this change, I could "torrent from Windows" at over 10 Mbps on my connection. You must have been doing it wrong. :S

      This is only *half open* outbound TCP connection. At *worst', it will cause a torrent to pick up speed slightly slower, but it won't cap the maximum speed or anything.

      • by anss123 (985305)
        A limit on TCP connections is actually a bit of a good thing as many home routers crap out if you open too many. Hopefully it's less of a problem today then when I bought my router 3-4 years back.
        • by RulerOf (975607)

          home routers crap out if you open too many. Hopefully it's less of a problem today

          I tell you sir, it's still a problem. The $30 NAT routers of today are just as big of a hunk of crap as they were 4 years ago, they just increased the profit margins with the lower manufacturing costs that economy of scale has brought to the industry.

          Personally, I threw a second NIC in my server, installed VMWare Server, and now run Smoothwall [smoothwall.org] as a guest, routing for my network. I probably would have done this years ago but it took a lot for me to break my love/hate relationship with DD-WRT and it's GPL

          • by TheLink (130905)
            It also makes it easier to swap from smoothwall to something else :).

            I do something like that, but I don't use smoothwall. FWIW tc's HTB does work quite well in controlling bandwidth.

            The main disadvantage I find is, my PC server+modem+etc uses about 100 watts. Whereas an el-cheapo NAT router will use a lot less.

            Oh well...
            • by RulerOf (975607)

              PC server+modem+etc uses about 100 watts.

              That was a barrier for me too, but having discovered I really do want to leave the server on 100% of the time, after discovering that running a VM didn't tank the box down (1.75G Ram 2.8GHz P4 Box with Server 2008) and got good performance, which I didn't think would happen (heh), it made sense.

              Until I can run everything I need 100% of the time on something like a Sheeva plug, or get a really cheap but capable laptop that'll make a good server (and won't tempt me to use as a laptop), reasonably low-power S

    • by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:53AM (#28108935) Homepage

      as it took the Catholic Church to admit it's mistakes with Galileo

      Obviously someone watched Angels and Demons last night...

    • by Krneki (1192201)
      It was implemented for security reasons, as a way to limit the DoS attack made by compromised PC.
    • by rwyoder (759998)

      I can't believe MS finally (almost) admitted they made a mistake. It may have taken almost as long, in technological terms, as it took the Catholic Church to admit it's mistakes with Galileo, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

      I can't believe you would compare MS to the Catholic Church!
      One is a marketing company, and the other is a religion...oh wait...nevermind. :-(

    • by Ralish (775196) <ralish@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @12:01PM (#28110723)
      I'm not sure it was a mistake, at least not in Microsoft's view, once you consider the reason why it was implemented and the (probable) reason why they've removed the limitation.

      The reason why it was implemented according to various sources was to limit the damage of all those infected Windows machines spamming networks looking for new vulnerable hosts to infect, and also, slow down the rate at which they would cause bedlam. By enforcing such a limit, the aim was to impede an infected machines ability to propogate the infection; of course, we're primarily talking the nasty to catastrophic Windows worms we've seen in the past from gaping truck-sized security holes in critical system components.

      However, if you look at Vista, you'll note that contrary to what some people would like you to believe, the exploitability of the OS has gone down drastically versus XP, in particular, with regards to worms. This is of course due to several reasons: better OS security architecture, defence-in-depth (DEP/ASLR/etc...), properly enforced user permissions, the list goes on. Take the most recent Conficker worm as an example. Vista infections will almost certainly be a lot lower, for one, the exploit path that uses the MS08-067 [microsoft.com] vulnerability that forms its primary exploit vector can not be exploited anonymously on Vista and newer machines. The vulnerable code is still present unless patched, but it requires valid user credentials.

      At a guess, I'd say Microsoft came to the conclusion that the TCP limit was no longer necessary on Vista, as the improved security of the OS made the need for such connection limitations redundant. On the other hand, I'll be surprised if they ever remove it on XP, because no matter how much you patch it, it is fundamentally more insecure by its architecture than Vista. And if they don't remove the limitation on XP, I'd argue that's quite telling as to the motivation and reasoning behind removing it on Vista only.
  • Windows Search 4.0?! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:10AM (#28108455) Homepage Journal
    Windows Search 4.0?! I HATE that POS. I've made a very deliberate attempt to NOT download this off of windows update, and now if I want to be up to date with my system, I HAVE to install it? Assholes.
    • by GF678 (1453005) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:17AM (#28108519)

      The thing is, you don't actually notice any real difference in how the indexing works with WS4, it's all back-end. It's suppose to be more efficient that the search/indexing code that came with Vista. I know it can be annoying when installed in XP, but since its predecessor was already integrated into Vista it should be an improvement.

      If you still hate it, disable the Indexing service.

      • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:24AM (#28108631) Homepage Journal

        The thing is, you don't actually notice any real difference in how the indexing works with WS4, it's all back-end.

        I can't speak to what it's like on Vista, but on XP two things are true:

        1. Indexing beats your system up, and the indexer is NOT good about letting you have it back.
        2. Search can find files with a filesystem search, OR it can find indexed files, but NOT both at once. So if you have a directory which is not yet indexed, you MUST leave your computer idle for a time if you want to be able to search it.
        • I can't speak to what it's like on Vista, but on XP two things are true: Indexing beats your system up, and the indexer is NOT good about letting you have it back.

          I have Vista SP1 installed for playing games the hard drive was thrashing so much it was actually causing stutter in my fps games sometimes until I turned the indexer and the superfetch services off (I actually had to turn off superfetch twice as it ignored me the first time). I don't seem to remember ever having to deal with that sort of issu

          • by MadKeithV (102058)

            Incidentally, I find it sort of funny and sort of annoying that there are so many Vista defenders out there, when my own experience is that, yeah it runs well enough, but only after turn off all the crap like this and the graphical effects, and even then it's a little slow for a brand new OS on a brand new computer.

            Vista Home Basic 64 is a pre-configured Vista with all the crap turned off.

          • by Colonel Korn (1258968) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @10:14AM (#28109209)

            I can't speak to what it's like on Vista, but on XP two things are true:

            Indexing beats your system up, and the indexer is NOT good about letting you have it back.

            I have Vista SP1 installed for playing games the hard drive was thrashing so much it was actually causing stutter in my fps games sometimes until I turned the indexer and the superfetch services off (I actually had to turn off superfetch twice as it ignored me the first time). I don't seem to remember ever having to deal with that sort of issue on XP, so my guess is vista is probably worse for this sort of thing. It would be nice if SP2 alleviated this, but I'm not holding my breath. Incidentally, I find it sort of funny and sort of annoying that there are so many Vista defenders out there, when my own experience is that, yeah it runs well enough, but only after turn off all the crap like this and the graphical effects, and even then it's a little slow for a brand new OS on a brand new computer. On the other hand, with any fresh linux install I also go around removing a lot of the default desktop packages that I don't want, only it seems a lot easier and more transparent in linux, but maybe I'm just used to the linux way and not the windows way.

            The funny thing is that Vista is slow on a fresh install, but the hard drive thrashing stops after you've used it for a day and it's populated superfetch and the index. It's fine to turn it off if you don't want to do indexed searches and don't want instant load on a few programs at the expense of a day of slowness, but it's also fine to leave them on, because they absolutely stop slowing anything down after that time.

        • One thing we found, was a reg hack that will only load WS4.0 when outlook 2007 is open, and it will only index your mailbox. Our user complaints have dropped to a small fraction since we implemented that fix system wide. Basically, we only use it on our XP machines to do the instant search in outlook, nothing else. Give it a try..
        • Indexing Service (Score:3, Informative)

          by RulerOf (975607)
          The Indexing Service and Windows Search are not the same thing. I never used Windows Search under XP because I had gone out of my way to learn how to configure the Indexing Service (which is a huge pain in the ass) so that Start > Search would give me indexed results. I never experienced the Indexing Service pwning my machine as you say, though, and I indexed 3+ TB worth of stuff with it.

          You have to do heavy configuration in Vista with Windows Search to have it search outside your profile, but once yo
          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            The Indexing Service and Windows Search are not the same thing.

            That's true, but that truth does nothing to contradict anything I said.

            Windows Search 4.0 is an indexed search. It must index your system to provide search results. And one thing it does not let you do is search for anything non-indexed. The process to perform a non-indexed search from the GUI in XP after Windows Search 4.0 is installed includes clicking a link in the Windows Search sidebar, which brings up the classic Search Companion (or the classic/advanced search, if you have so configured Windows) in a

        • XP suffers greatly from the lack of I/O prioritization. Indexing under Vista (and later) doesn't have the same wallop, since the indexer is a low-priority item that properly yields to other applications attempting to use a hard drive.
      • by Sandbags (964742) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:51AM (#28108905) Journal

        I run Vista. index is enabled by default, but one of the first tweaks i did was switch it off, and Windows Search can be uninstalled/hidden.

        The indexer runs as a "background" serivce, which is a new type and is supposed only get CPU cycles when the machine is idle. unfortunately, this only works for the FIRST instance of a background process, and there are many cases where more than one can conflict under Vista, and then indexing begins chewing up resources. I had it kick off in the middle of playing games when the CPU was over 80%.

        WS4 will NOT be enabled on my machine. I keep the index service, pre-fetch, and several other services forcibally disabled on my machine. When I'm looking for something, it;s either an e-mail, which google or xobni instantly find for me without M$'s help, or it's a file I've properly store and can find myself in 3-4 clicks, or it;s a media item already indexed by iTunes... I don't search my personal machine for random crap, and anything I've ever needed to find on my own machine was ALREADY indexed by somethiung else.... It's a complete waste of resources, a waste of disk space for the index database, and every time you run a major patch, it fucking re-indexes, which for my 400+GB of stuff, takes as long as defragging.

        This is not to mention that is also searches inside files, and stores that data in a database in a predetermined location. I have data in docs on my system I'd just as much prefer NOT be in a non--encrypted central repository... contacts, SSNs, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, all go in that database that is VERY easy for a hacker to lift...

        If there's a way to uninstall WS4 after SP2, not just disabling it, I will.

        • by RulerOf (975607)

          If there's a way to uninstall WS4 after SP2, not just disabling it, I will.

          FWIW, there's no real advantage to going Rambo on system services that you feel have wronged you in the past.... Disabling them really is enough ;)

    • by icepick72 (834363)

      I dunno, in any previous version of Windows search it seems I cannot find anything. For example by the default settings it won't see files in directories that aren't indexed. And even when Advanced search is told to search all files on disk and subfolders despite index, it still can't seem to match a simple filename half of the time.
      Having said that I haven't tried Search 4.0 yet, am hoping it's better but maybe it's worse.
      So I thought they were assholes before Search 4.0 to be specific.

      • by anss123 (985305)
        IME I've had better luck searching from the command prompt. Not tried Search 4.0 yet either though.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Necroman (61604)

      I actually love it for work. The amount I search email and documents, it does a great job. You have to remember that it isn't just a plain txt file search, but it indexes doc and your outlook information. Being able to type in my last name and get a list of 68000 items in 1-2 seconds is pretty sweet.

      I've tried Google Desktop as well, but just wasn't as much of a fan. I had a harder time getting it to index properly and do what I wanted. WS4 gives you some pretty fine grain control over what and where i

  • Wireless streaming (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Saba (308071) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:11AM (#28108459)

    I wonder if they have fixed the throttling bug where if you're streaming media over a wireless link, Vista throttles the connection down so much that it causes buffer underruns and severe clipping. I can't listen to FLACs in VLC unless I set buffering to at least 20 seconds.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Blakey Rat (99501)

      What makes you think that's a bug in the OS, and not just typical wifi packet loss issues? Streaming multimedia is *not* one of the things that wifi is good for-- if you're really having troubles with this, I'd recommend running cable.

      Or at the very least trying it with a different OS to determine whether it's Vista or your wifi link at fault. Of course that would involve critical thinking instead of just knee-jerking every single computer problem to be Microsoft's fault...

  • I used to work at a company that had a glacial workstation OS upgrade cycle. It took them nearly 4 years into XP's lifecycle to consider XP (they were still deploying Win2K), and XPSP2 changed so many of the inner workings of the OS that the deployment was delayed until mid-2006.

    I just wonder if the changes in Vista SP2 will sideline similarly glacial Vista deployments or be a blessing, allowing people to skip Vista for Windows 7.
    • by Lumpy (12016)

      Many companies do this on purpose. Comcast did not go to XP until 2005/2006 simply because of problems with the custom and vertical apps. And Many of the important servers that generate $10,000 an hour by inserting Advertisements into channels eve still run NT4.

      Honestly, when your gear makes you a lot of money, it's ragingly stupid to upgrade the OS until you know it's not going to cost you money with downtime or errors. Like a client of mine that HAD TO HAVE Vista on everything when it came out. We up

    • The government agency I am contracted to is just now in the final testing phases for rolling out Windows XP to the desktop.

      Yes, XP. They had a Vista pilot last year but due to legacy app issues decided to scrap it and start the process over again with XP.

  • SP2 in A.U. (Score:4, Informative)

    by l3v1 (787564) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:17AM (#28108527)
    SP2 isn't included in Automatic Update yet

    Well, maybe it isn't, but my Vista Home Premium at work "complained" this morning it had a new update, which was SP2, I let it download and play with it, now it's installed and it seems to work ok up to now.
    • Re:SP2 in A.U. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sandbags (964742) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:54AM (#28108953) Journal

      It's being "phased" out. Your machine was one of the lucky 1% that got the update now. My home machine did not have it automatically, but doing a "check for updates now" populated it. I'm waiting a few days to install it however until 1)I get around to making another image backup and 2) other people try it and fail first...

  • So uhh, what was the 300MB+ item in Windows Updates this morning that I installed? I'm sure it said service pack 2.
  • This will make 7 Vista SP3, then.

  • I thought it would still take another RC...

  • Vista SP2 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mandark1967 (630856) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @09:49AM (#28108891) Homepage Journal

    I'm hoping that SP2 doesn't break the functionality of my HTPC like Windows 7 did. I tried Windows 7 x64 RC on my HTPC for about a week or so, but my sound card (X-Fi Extreme Audio PCI-Express x1 slot) developed some major problems that caused MCE to crash and WMP to crash.

    I went back to Vista on it. I'm happy enough with the Media Center in Vista that I doubt I'll use Windows 7 on this box in the future, even though the UI of Windows 7 Media Center seems to be a little less "cluttered". My biggest complaint about Vista is the format of the recordings you make. I cannot seem to easily manipulate the resulting recordings very well at all, and I have to rely on MCEBuddy to convert the recorded shows to a format (H264) I can then use on other systems and OSes. ( I know, I know...DRM can suck my salty balls)

    From a usability standpoint though, Windows 7 seems superior to Vista in the installation process, as well as the Desktop UI. I am surprised that they don't just convert the installed Vista base to Windows 7 for the simplicity of support. (well maybe not "surprised". it "is" MS, afterall)

  • sp2 on auto updates (Score:2, Informative)

    by GooDieZ (802156)

    i just booted vista on my dual boot laptop, and instantly i got prompted to install sp2 from auto-update...

    dont care about vista, or any windows, i just never bothered to remove it completley... sigh... damn vendors with preinstalled win$shit

  • I don't use Vista myself but I know someone who does. He had to back out SP2 because it reduced Powerpoint to a crawl. It looked to me like there was excessive HD activity.
  • Apparently Server 2008 shipped with its SP1 built-in. 2008 SP2 auto-downloaded yesterday.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by VGPowerlord (621254)

      Microsoft decided to have unified service packs for OSes using the same core.

      That is to say, for Vista and Server 2008. This also means that, yes, Windows Server 2008 was SP1 at launch [msdn.com].

  • It Just Works (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigdady92 (635263) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 @10:39AM (#28109523) Homepage
    <b>TLDR: I hated Vista. Loved XP. Use Linux. Installed 64bit Vista. Vista Crashed and burned. Reinstalled with SP2. It just Works.</b>

    I've been a longtime XP user. I use Ubuntu and RHEL at work. I use linux and unix. I hated Vista with a passion, thought it was a PIA and had so much config problems. I then bought a new PC (quad core 6GB ram, blah blah) so I figured I'd put Vista on it. First time worked ok. I updated my bios, it blew away my Raid 1. Got irritated and stopped screwing with it. Then SP2 came along in the last few weeks and I reinstalled my OS and installed SP2 over it.

    It just works. Works perfectly. So simple to install Vista and simple to install the SP2. 2 reboots and I had everything working. Fixed the RAID issue, fixed the bluetooth issue, fixed some other quirks that drove me batshiz crazy.

    I gotta say that I used to hate vista with the passion of a 1000 firey suns. Now I'm like "Well it's not too bad, what's the problem with it again?"
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by citylivin (1250770)

      Thats the exact same shit people said about XP. Its unbelievable how much people forget. Win2k was the best OS ever when XP dropped. Everyone _EVERYONE_ swore up and down that they would never install XP and its "cartoon" interface. 7 years later and I'm the only one still running win2k. I just upgraded my home PC to XP last year.

      My point is that its always the same. People will eventually have to upgrade to vista for one reason or another. This does not mean that the initial problems are solved necessarily

When all else fails, read the instructions.

Working...