Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Upgrades

Windows 7 Not Getting A Second Service Pack 441

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the mark-shuttleworth-becomes-filthy-rich dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Windows 7 was expected to have Service Pack 2 issued roughly 3 years from its introduction (late 2009). People, including myself, have been asking 'Where is it?' and the answer apparently is, 'It isn't, and will never be' which lends itself to the giant pain of installing Windows 7, then Service Pack 1, and hundreds of smaller hotfix patches. Why Microsoft? No go to Service Pack 2 for Windows 7!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 7 Not Getting A Second Service Pack

Comments Filter:
  • by ctk76 (531418) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:39PM (#41753613)
    NT4 - 6 2000 - 4 XP - 3 Vista - 2 7 - 1 8 - 0???
    • by CheshireDragon (1183095) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:41PM (#41753635) Homepage
      No, just seems like they are trying to phase out older OSes faster and keep people current.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:44PM (#41753705)

        No, just seems like they are trying to phase out older OSes faster and keep people current.

        Read: make more money

        • by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @03:46PM (#41756115)
          The make more money is probably not in more OS sales. It is more likely that moving people onto Win8 means people are more likely to purchase software through Microsoft's Store where they get a cut. That is way more money. It also explains why Win8 is so cheap - they're trying to move people into their Store (and get that cut of *all* the action as Apple does).
        • by ILongForDarkness (1134931) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @04:41PM (#41756865)

          They are charging something like $40 for a Xp, Vista,Win7 upgrade to Win 8 Pro. I think they are going the way of Apple, ~$30-40 upgrades every couple years. People are probably more likely to go "oh a little bit of eye candy, okay here's my $40" than a $200 complete generational shift every 5 years and having the whole "Will I still want to use this computer for a long enough timeframe to make it worth it?" kind of discussion. Cheaper than a dinner and movie for one yep why not. Heck I'd pay the $40 to be sure to not have any malware (that doesn't come in the "box" ;)), licensing issues in the future and save me the 20 min spent looking for a good rip and crack code.

          • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @06:33PM (#41758481) Journal
            Except that price is only good until Jan 17th just as it was with Win 7, then it'll be right back to the $200. You see THIS is the bitch, you have MSFT trying to charge like its only putting out one and a half every decade but crank them out every 3 years, and its gonna fucking bomb HARD. if they had any sense they'd be selling features and offering the appstore to Win 7 for free, instead like the media cartels they are gonna try to hang onto the old business practices while trying to glom on to the next wave, retarded.
            • by default luser (529332) on Thursday October 25, 2012 @11:16AM (#41765077) Journal

              Be careful when you highlight the high cost of Windows. They charge a lot more than Apple, but you get a lot more:

              Average support lifecycle for recent Apple OS releases (bugfixes and security patches): 2-3 years. The latest OS to be abandoned is Leopard (after 2 years). Snow Leopard is expected to be abandoned soon (it's in Extended Support now), and Apple has made no commitment to how long they will continue to support it.

              When you pay more for the Microsoft OS, you get a commitment to long support lifecycles, AND you know exactly how long your OS will be supported:

              Mainstream Windows 7 Support (bugfixes + security fixes) = until 2015

              Extended Windows 7 Support (security fixes) = until 2020.

              So what Microsoft is giving you here is a CHOICE - you can choose to use your Windows install for a decade after release, and have no fear of your system being exploited by an unpatched vulnerability. In the Apple world your only "choice" is to keep upgrading, and that's not much help if your hardware is suddenly unsupported.

              So, in this perspective the $200 cost of a full-on Windows 8 license is a pretty good deal (and if you want less freedom you can always buy the OEM version for $100). And for the big picture the $40 upgrade price is an absolute STEAL: for your $40 you will get bug fixes until 2018 and exploit fixes until 2023 (by that time even Mountain Lion will be long-since forgotten).

      • ...keep people current.

        Ka-ching!

      • my older hardware isnt going to like windows 8. windows 7 runs fine though.

        Will microsoft make drivers for the hardware intel no longer makes drivers for beyond windows 7?

        • by composer777 (175489) * on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:53PM (#41753843)

          From what I understand, the driver model for 7 and 8 are the same, and if anything 8 seems to run faster on older hardware (probably due to removing aero, among other things). This isn't like the upgrade from XP to Vista, where a ton of stuff broke. I still won't use it, because I think creating two separate UI's for the Desktop was a horrible design choice and I need to get work done. They could have been elegant, and created a generic font/icon/UI scaling engine that would allow the OS to work on displays of any arbitrary resolution, but I suppose they thought ratcheting the Xbox 360's UI on top of Windows was the quick and dirty way to get it done. I actually just bought an upgrade to Ultimate Edition for my laptop, if that says anything about what I think of Windows 8.

          • Aero isn't gone (Score:5, Informative)

            by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @02:08PM (#41754841)

            Glass is gone, not Aero.

            Aero is the desktop composition engine that uses the GPU to do all kinds of rendering shit. This is present in 8 and in fact faster/more capable than ever. Glass (Aero Glass) is the shiny UI in Windows 7, that is gone in Windows 8, replaced with an uglied up flat, square, UI.

            So basically there is an even better desktop composition engine, that is used to composite something that looks like Windows 3.1 :).

            In terms of drivers, yes older drivers seem quite compatible. My pro sound card works no problems with the 7 drivers and pro audio cards have some of the most finicky drivers out there.

            • by hairyfeet (841228)
              Actually as someone that used Win 3.11 I resent that remark, Win 3.11 looked nice. Windows 8 is AOL 96 [obamapacman.com] complete with ugly green background that nobody liked even then, thanks ever so.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by hairyfeet (841228)
            JUST FYI to all those out there who don't know THE FASTER IS A LIE, its a bad hack they bolted on that will cause more problems than they fix. Look up "Win 8 Hybrid boot" to see what I mean their "speed boost" is nothing but a hacked together hybrid of hibernate and sleep that keeps the OS state no matter how you shut down so clean reboots are a thing of the past, in fact you'll have to drop down to CLI and turn the damned thing off to force a clean boot on Windows 8...just stupid.
        • by mabhatter654 (561290) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:03PM (#41754007)

          Microsoft doesn't make drivers, they repackage and sign what vendors send them.

          I wouldn't give up on a service pack just yet. I would expect it after Windows 8 is released and any cross-version bugs are found. THEN it will be the last one.

        • my older hardware isnt going to like windows 8. windows 7 runs fine though

          When I wanted to test the developer preview of Win8, my only available computer was a single core Celeron from 2006 with 2Gig of RAM. It ran surprisingly well. For all the things that I disliked about Windows 8, the speed of the OS was not one of them.

          Your Windows 7 machine will cope alright with 8. But I think that if you are happy with Windows 7 then you might as well stay with that. (Although being a $40 upgrade, I suppose that it is not a major investment to try the new user interface)

        • by brentrad (1013501)
          Windows 8 64 bit runs faster on my aging AMD Athlon64 X2 dual core 5400+ with 2 GB RAM than Windows 7 does. Been running the RTM version for a couple months now, and since I just got a legit Windows 8 Pro key from my work's MSDN account, I plan on getting rid of my Windows 7 install. Didn't use the Start Menu much, so I don't really miss it - you can replicate most of the functionality of it by putting some icons and shortcuts on your desktop. You can install several free apps to log directly into the de
      • by jellomizer (103300) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:48PM (#41753757)

        It could also be more benign. The fact that most of us have high speed internet connections and can update the system when the updates are made and tested. The Service Pack Concept is a throwback to them good old days where we would get a CD or Disk in the mail and run the upgrade. Because trying to get it online every week would be a major job.

        • by tlhIngan (30335) <(ten.frow) (ta) (todhsals)> on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:53PM (#41753829)

          It could also be more benign. The fact that most of us have high speed internet connections and can update the system when the updates are made and tested. The Service Pack Concept is a throwback to them good old days where we would get a CD or Disk in the mail and run the upgrade. Because trying to get it online every week would be a major job.

          Until you have to install a new version on blank hardware. One of the really big annoyances with Windows is the initial install. Install Windows 7 (no SP). Now run Windows Update for the next 10 hours downloading and installing updates.

          The SP is basically a roll up of fixes so you can install all 500 or so in one go, or when slipstreamed onto the disc, during install. Which turns the Windows Update hassles from huge mess down to something much more managable.

          And no, you don't need to get them every week. Once every few months or once a year is quite enough to ensure you aren't spending hours installing updates.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:01PM (#41753973)

            The way that Apple handles this makes sense.

            There are no reinstall discs. There is a recovery partition and something called "internet recovery". If you use internet recovery, it just downloads the current version of the OS and installs it. No further updates required.

            • by mlts (1038732) * on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:57PM (#41754703)

              What would be a nice thing would be something that would be a combination of the two:

              You boot a USB flash drive [1] which can get on the Internet and download signed updates to the OS. It then makes a temporary directory and slipstreams the updated packages in (perhaps keeping that directory on the USB media for faster subsequent reinstalls.)

              Result -- one has an up to date install of the OS, but without having to transfer the bulk of it through an Internet connection, a lot of them being metered and expensive for bandwidth.

              [1]: Ideally a USB flash drive which could take the updated partitions and slipstreamed directory, copy them to a directory, then mark it read-only so malware cannot tamper with the drive in the future.

              • by toddestan (632714) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @11:28PM (#41760851)

                Hell, if they just had an option that automatically does something like check for updates, download and install all available updates, reboot, repeat until there are no more updates that would be a huge improvement. That way I could just start it and let it do its thing overnight and I wouldn't have to babysit the damn thing for hours.

          • by f3rret (1776822) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:19PM (#41754211)

            It could also be more benign. The fact that most of us have high speed internet connections and can update the system when the updates are made and tested. The Service Pack Concept is a throwback to them good old days where we would get a CD or Disk in the mail and run the upgrade. Because trying to get it online every week would be a major job.

            Until you have to install a new version on blank hardware. One of the really big annoyances with Windows is the initial install. Install Windows 7 (no SP). Now run Windows Update for the next 10 hours downloading and installing updates.

            The SP is basically a roll up of fixes so you can install all 500 or so in one go, or when slipstreamed onto the disc, during install. Which turns the Windows Update hassles from huge mess down to something much more managable.

            And no, you don't need to get them every week. Once every few months or once a year is quite enough to ensure you aren't spending hours installing updates.

            Problem being that Windows Update is a complete retard. I recently had to install Windows 7 from a DVD and when I first installed it I had to run windows update and I had to go through like one or two cycles up updates before it wanted to push service pack 1 to me, then there was like 10 rounds of downloading, installing and rebooting after the SP had been installed.

          • by kimvette (919543) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:34PM (#41754415) Homepage Journal

            Now run Windows Update for the next 10 hours downloading and installing updates.

            . . . and contrary to the claim of some, both Windows and Windows Server still require many reboots while doing this, unless you streamline them into the install - which in itself is a major pain in the ass when it's hundreds of individual updates. APUP (autopatcher) is a partial solution but it stagnated for a long while and I'm not sure I trust it on production systems now.

          • That is my single biggest complaint with WIndows.. On my Linux systems, I run "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade" or "yum update" I run it once.

            With my windows 7 SP1 disks, (thankfully I have a local WSUS server) Install 28 updates. Reboot. install 73 updates, reboot, install 4 updates (hey, almost done) reboot, install 12 more updates (wait, what?!) reboot. Notice something in the non-critical list, add that, then 4 more updates.

            Then, I get to go either look for the newest version of everything,

          • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @07:15PM (#41758979) Journal
            Let old Hairy fix that problem right up...blam! [wsusoffline.net] there ya go, no charge. hell I'll even be nice and take care of the third party stuff most folks want...slam! [ninite.com]. Just use these two and go make you a sammich while they run, totally unattended, no muss, no fuss, and with WSUS Offline you can even have it apply the updates for MS Office and .NET while its at it. I keep WSUS on a network drive at the shop, it has every SP and update for every version of Windows from XP - Win 7 X64, while I'm installing the OS I just tell WSUS to drop the latest patches and SP along with .NET into a folder labeled for that OS and its ready to run by the time I hear the Windows chime, couldn't be simpler. you can even have it put the updates onto a thumbstick or DVD if you need to do it somewhere where else, easy peasy friend.
        • by NJRoadfan (1254248) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:53PM (#41753841)
          Service Packs also include hotfixes that don't appear on Windows Update. You have to request them from Microsoft if you have that specific issue. One notable hotfix that dogged XP users was the UAA patch that enabled HD Audio sound cards to work. It wasn't available for download from Microsoft, you had to get it from the vendor who made the hardware.... it was later made part of XP SP3.
        • I haven't run anything newer than XP.

          Would there be a lot of reboots in the patches to Windows 7?

          I know this was something they were working to reduce, given the frustrations of multiple sequential reboots associated with small patches. The nice thing about a service pack is that (presumably) it would involve a single reboot at the end to complete the installation.

      • They aren't cutting support for Windows 7; they're just not aggregating updates into a single download. There hasn't been a Service Pack for Windows XP in 4 years, but the OS is still supported and will be for another two years. Service Packs are a relic from an age where the internet was not as pervasive, windows update was in its infancy, and it was easier to install a single offline update. Now, everyone is connected to the internet, and the difference between installing 80 updates online and a single se
      • by Guru80 (1579277)
        I assure you it is much less about keeping people current than it is about getting you to spend more money on a newer version sooner so they make money faster.
      • So I have no reason to upgrade to Win8 when I can just continue with Win7 until the dust has settled with Win9 or Win10.

        MS has lost its sway in convincing me to spend hard money on an OS. It used to be we almost had to upgrade hardware every year or two. Those days are long gone. The earliest I upgrade is 3-4 years.

      • by dickens (31040)

        Since I've been migrating everything I can to OS-agnostic cloud apps for 7 years now they're making it easier than ever to "just say no" to Windows and use something else.

      • by RCL (891376)
        Microsoft jumps on the bandwagon and follows Google and Mozilla in downplaying software versions. I bet they will be releasing new Windows often, very often... until people stop paying attentions to incremental differences and distinction between web-based services and locally run software is lost - which is already happening.
      • by hairyfeet (841228)

        No, just seems like they are trying to phase out older OSes faster and raise their stock price FTFY.

        God what I wouldn't give to be locked in a room for an hour with Steve Ballmer, as I would give him the lecture from hell.

        WTF are you doing man? The trend is for PCs to last LONGER, yet you are trying to make your fucking money by sending the clock back to 1993? WHAT THE FUCK? God a fucking chimp could make money with Windows, and you are pissing it away? Sell fucking features you retard! I shouldn't need to

    • Even better - NT 3.5.1 had like 12 service packs.

    • by AVryhof (142320)

      The next step is SAAS....

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jd2112 (1535857)

      NT4 - 6 2000 - 4 XP - 3 Vista - 2 7 - 1 8 - 0???

      Never deploy a Microsoft OS until at least the first service pack release.

    • by man_of_mr_e (217855) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:23PM (#41754275)

      To be honest, NT4, 2000, and XP *NEEDED* all those service packs. This was before the great Security turnaround in 2003 that delayed the release of WIndows Server 2003, and resulted in the massive XP SP2 release.

      Since then, Windows has had far less need of service pack because the code tends to be more solid.

      SP1 is almost always a necessity though. The initial release of the OS tends to have enough niggly bugs that get fixed in SP1. I would argue that Vista SP2 was not really a service pack, but rather just a hotfix rollup. There were no new features introduced in SP2 (as it should be).

      7 was pretty damn solid out of the gate though, still 7 SP1 had almost 1000 hotfixes and security patches (though a good portion of them related to specifically server functionality).

      Windows 7 and Windows 8 have been pretty solid out of the gate. I don't see why MS wouldn't supply hotfix rollups for 7, but does it really need SP2? Only those people that want MS to provide Windows 8 features on 7 think so.

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:39PM (#41753617)

    Duh. People won't willingly switch to Windows 8, so this is just another way to push them there.

    Having barely used Windows for the last few years I'd almost forgotten the horror of Windows Update compared to apt-get or yum update.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Joce640k (829181)

      Yep. This is the sort of decision made by marketers, not engineers.

      Welfare of existing users isn't high on the list of marketing priorities.

      • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by OldGunner (2576825) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:56PM (#41753903)
        Yet MS still faces the challenge of all the businesses who are still using Win XP. My employer has tens of thousands of systems running XP, and is just now trickling out Win 7 systems. It would take a year of hard work to internally certify Win 8 -- and for what benefit? Prematurely killing off Win 7 could be a horrendous mistake.
      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

        by gander666 (723553) * on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:20PM (#41754225) Homepage

        I am in marketing and product management, and I can state that this is not true. Often it is engineering who wants to cut or discontinue support for older products.

        It is far more common that I have to force them to support a reasonable life cycle after the launch of a new version (reasonable being 3 or 5 years).

        FWIW, Microsoft publishes their PLC, and is quite good at giving you runway to plan for end of support.

        • Engineering wants to cut support for older products because they had to make compromises, hacks or were compelled to ship before it was ready to meet a deadline. As a result a product is released is difficult to maintain and they want to scrap it and focus on the next product that hasn't yet been ruined by marketing and product management. Naively they assume that they'll actually be able to do a proper job THIS time by getting ahead of the ball, until the deadline approaches, then the cycle repeats. This p

          • Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by gander666 (723553) * on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @02:18PM (#41754915) Homepage
            Hmmm. Not in my experience. Engineering is given a specification for a product. They respond with what they think is a project plan with all uncertainties accounted for. Building a flux capacitor (or whatever tricky widget) that they thought would be a 2 week process becomes 8 months. They start backpedaling on their commitment, and finally product management accedes to their "reduced" spec (note: engineers these days seem to love tossing the term Minimum Viable Product around. It doesn't mean a minimally functional product done quickly), and the product is launched. Engineering can be counted on 2 or three cycles of fixes (bugs, fixing production glitches in manufacturing, whatever) then they move on to the next big thing, and can't wait to tell support/mfg engineering that it is their problem.

            Of course, senior management often gets in the middle of this and applies pressure through both the marketing/product management organization and the engineering management.

            Lather, rinse, repeat.
    • Indeed. This looks like a deliberate strategy not to repeat the Vista fiasco. I expect Windows 7 to be made unavailable through most channels very quickly after Windows 8 release.

      • I would not expect that to happen. Microsoft hasn't managed to be a persistent parasite on the technology world by being that incredibly stupid. They're just stupid enough for most of the planet to hate them and very nearly cause even the government of the United States to break them up, but not quite stupid enough to destroy themselves. Win8 is going to launch, it will be our favorite joke for a few years, then Win9 (which will no doubt have to be rebranded to avoid the stigma of Win8) will be released wit

    • by dittbub (2425592)
      who would switch to windows 8 over this. "OMG all these updates I only have to do once! I'm so bad I'm switching to windows 8!"
      • How about people that set up many PCs daily or weekly? Sure, home users aren't overtly affected by it but businesses are. Even automating it (IE: WSUS) still makes it a pain in the ass. "You would have had your new PC yesterday, but it's still updating Windows"

        • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by NFN_NLN (633283) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:06PM (#41754041)

          How about people that set up many PCs daily or weekly? Sure, home users aren't overtly affected by it but businesses are. Even automating it (IE: WSUS) still makes it a pain in the ass. "You would have had your new PC yesterday, but it's still updating Windows"

          Anyone that installs multiple PCs and doesn't have a slipstream version deserves their punishment.

          It's like digging a canal with spoons.

    • by imbaczek (690596)
      it was a horror on XP. nowadays i don't even notice it apart from the occasional "reboot me" window.
    • by jamesl (106902)

      The horror of having your computer OS updated automagically in the dead of night while you sleep. I don't know how people have lived with it this long.

      • by f3rret (1776822)

        The horror of having your computer OS updated automagically in the dead of night while you sleep. I don't know how people have lived with it this long.

        What about people like me who like to turn off their computer while they sleep to conserve power? My computer likes to download updates and request a reboot while I'm in the middle of something important.

      • by SirGarlon (845873)
        What about people like me who turn off their computers at night so they're not connected to the Net and therefore not exposed to remote exploit when not in active use?
  • Does Microsoft think it can just withhold updates and people will upgrade like lemmings to the Entity Formerly Known as Metro?

    This is only going to accelerate the migration to Ipads, Android tablets, a bit of Linux, et alia.

  • by phorm (591458) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:48PM (#41753755) Journal

    When service-packs were slow in coming for previous windows OS's, weren't there some "unofficial" bundles that basically did the same thing?

    • by Nimey (114278)

      Those might be okay for individuals. I wouldn't trust the packager not to toss a trojan in there, but whatever.

      You'd be stupid to try using them in a business/IT setting.

  • by JDG1980 (2438906) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:50PM (#41753787)

    This is disappointing, but not surprising. Microsoft knows that most experienced Windows users don't want any part of Windows 8. But they are convinced that Windows 8 is a vital part of their business strategy going forward. So they are doing whatever they can to bribe, force, or coerce users to switch to Windows 8. They don't want Windows 7 to become the new XP, even though they profited handsomely for many years from XP licenses. The power user/business desktop just isn't cool enough for Steve Ballmer, Steven Sinofsky, and the other myopic decision-makers at MS these days.

  • Annoying, but ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Splat (9175) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:56PM (#41753897)

    DISM supports offline patching of .WIM Images:

    http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/2012/01/31/offline-wim-patching-with-dism-a-more-automated-method/ [myitforum.com]

    If you're just installing Windows 7 from CD on a large install, you're doing it wrong. Deploy a patched WIM.

  • by bragr (1612015) * on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @12:56PM (#41753901)
    I usually use Linux, but occasionally I spin up a Win 7 vm when I need it. If you install using a SP1 disk, there are around 100 updates that need to be installed afterward. In my experience, this is comparable to the amount of updates needed after grabbing the latest Ubuntu LTS or a few month old Fedora release (Although Windows update can be slower that Apt or Yum). Sure its not super convenient, but if you are installing Windows enough for it to be a problem, then you aren't doing your deployments correctly. You should really look into WSUS and WAIK for updating and deploying windows, respectively. They are both Microsoft products, but there are also numerous 3rd party tools of variable quality. A proper WAIK install can actually do the patching process during the install, so that when the computer logs in for the first time, it is fully patched.
  • They want you to think of Windows 8 as a replacement that is so good they need not have a sp2 for 7. They also want to give the impression they're stopping support for 7 so anyone who wants customer service will have to upgrade, which in the end all lends itself to profile.
  • Sinofsky (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AdmV0rl0n (98366) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:02PM (#41753983) Homepage Journal

    Has decided that its out with the old and in with the new. Anyone opposing him is binned or sidelined. To underline the drive involved in Windows 8 - Windows 7 will quite quickly face a lock. If they can force you onto 8 thats where they will do so.

    If he doesn't do this, the moment they will get on 8 will be minimised and he will look a private and public failure. And Mr Sinofsky doesn't like to be a failure.

    It may questionably be good for windows users long term - as this might mean that the eco system has the earthquake required to shunt a billion trillion manhours of ecostructure from old win to new win.

    Personally I think metro/notro is very poor. And it would take more than Sinofsky being a knob and a shitty UI to persuade people in the real world. Thus, looks rocky to me.

    Its a shame, because to be blunt, 8 has some good engineering as does server 2012, utterly ruined by Sinofsky's insane LSD based unwindows, no windows allowed, ported from zune, but still broken beta UI. To rub your nose in it, they broke the old UI as well, and denied you the start bar and old desktop even if you like it. From now on its notro for you. Unless you go get classic shell and give sinofsky the finger.

    The problem is I think he'd like the finger, so lets not.

    I'll get my coat.

    • by devent (1627873)

      What are the "good" engineering in Windows 8? You still can't delete opened/used files, you still can't open a file in multiple applications at the same time, chkfsk takes hours (compare that with fsck with takes seconds on 1.5TB RAID that I have). You still don't have a package manager, you still don't have anything useful in Windows pre-installed (like Python, Bash, Git, ssh, or a text editor (no notepad is a joke not a text editor)! No LVM support, no support for ext2/3/4 or btfs, no LUKS encryption. You

  • So instead of one big update they are releasing lots of small ones. As long as holes get patched in time I don't see how this affects end users. It's just a different patching schedule, a development-time decision which has little to do with the quality of the product.

  • by Sfing_ter (99478) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:25PM (#41754311) Homepage Journal

    You can make your own, I have been using this since version 2 - it allows you to make a DVD or you can just copy to a usb key.
    http://www.h-online.com/security/features/Offline-Update-746179.html [h-online.com]

    • by Sfing_ter (99478)

      Also... after testing Win8 you will realize that Win8 is SP2 for Win7. Except for WinFS we will never see WinFS.

  • by kheldan (1460303) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:30PM (#41754371) Journal
    Microsoft wants to shove Windows 8 (The Playskool OS) down everyone's throat, so they'll phase out Windows 7 as soon as they think they can get away with doing so. Step 1 in that process is not issuing a Service Pack 2.
  • by quacking duck (607555) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:31PM (#41754385)

    Special security updates aside, whenever Apple updates the OS e.g. 10.7.2 to 10.7.3, it's essentially a service pack. Normally there's a combo updater that rolls up all updates for that major release so you could go from 10.x.0 to 10.x.4 (example only).

    There are times when Apple's monolithic updates are a drawback, especially for traditional enterprise IT who might need to exclude certain updates, but here they have a clear advantage over Windows' hundreds of individual patches (sometimes requiring 2 or 3 Windows Update runs and restarts to get them all).

  • by Nimey (114278) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @01:31PM (#41754387) Homepage Journal

    Microsoft hasn't done one of those since Windows 2000, but at one time they had a roll-up patch for 2K SP4 that incorporated all the updates released between the SP and the roll-up. I wish they'd re-institute the practice because it saves us desktop-support types a lot of time.

    Maybe make a yearly roll-up so that I shouldn't have to install more than a few dozen updates at the most when I put our image on the computers. I've rolled my own image, but it's a bit of a pain to install updates.

  • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Wednesday October 24, 2012 @02:08PM (#41754831)

    Why Microsoft? No go to Service Pack 2 for Windows 7!"

    From the TFA:

    Service packs are a pain for Microsoft, because they divert engineers’ time and budget from building new versions of Windows. In this case, the anticipation for Windows 7’s SP2 comes around the same time as the launch of Windows 8, out later this week. Also, by ending SPs, Microsoft could be pushing customers towards the completely new Windows 8.

    So bend over and lube up people. :-)

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Working...