Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Microsoft

Possible Last-Minute Problems With Vista SP2 328

Posted by kdawson from the racing-windows-7-out-the-door dept.
crazyeyes writes "It looks like Microsoft is facing problems with Windows Vista SP2. The final Service Pack for Vista and Server 2008 (before Windows 7 comes out) has been delayed. The folks who broke the launch details and dates of previous Service Packs for XP and Vista have Microsoft's latest internal schedule. Can Microsoft get it out before Windows 7? According to the new schedule, just barely."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Possible Last-Minute Problems With Vista SP2 More

Possible Last-Minute Problems With Vista SP2

Comments Filter:

  • They have to.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @07:43PM (#26538769)
    Since Windows 7 is Vista SP3.

    • Re:They have to.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tr3vin ( 1220548 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @07:48PM (#26538811)

      Since Windows 7 is Vista SP3.

      Also known as Windows 1.0 SP86.

      • Re:They have to.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <{jmorris} {at} {beau.org}> on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:41PM (#26539561)

        > Also known as Windows 1.0 SP86.

        No, service packs are a free download. Windows 7 is Vista SE. Remember Win98SE? It was a service pack but they needed some cash and made people buy it as a version upgrade. Looks like history is about to repeat with Vista except this time they also have to change the name because Vista has gained such a horrible brand identity. It's now the Edsel of Operating Systems. Like the Edsel, Vista probably doesn't deserve all of the rap it has got but reality and PR aren't on the same planet with each other.

        The big takeaway from all of the Windows 7 reviews though is that if you hate Vista you will probably hate Windows 7.

        They are saying you can run Windows 7 on a netbook. Ya, like you could run Vista on one. Yes it installs and sorta runs but XP runs better.

        Windows 7 toned down the security nags a bit and added some nice chrome to the taskbar. Haven't even heard Microsoft itself claim any other major differences with Vista other than yet another IE rev that is currently so broke it might not make the cut. Bugfixes and a couple of minor UI tweaks do not a major version make. We are firmly in point release territory at best, service pack sounds closer to what they are going to ship. They are going to call it a new version because they need a fresh hit of revenue.

        • Re:They have to.. (Score:5, Informative)

          by MrSteve007 ( 1000823 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @09:03PM (#26539837)
          Here's a list I came up with detailing some of the more visible differences in Windows 7. It entails quite a bit more than just a Service Pack:

          http://geekpi.com/?p=25 [geekpi.com]

          For users

          * New Interface: A greatly simplified toolbar, but only at first glance. The quick launch and taskbar now intermingles and can be greatly customized by the user.
          * New Taskbar: The taskbar now automatically hides icons as theyâ(TM)re added, into what I call an icon corral which can be selected to show the icons.
          * UAC simplification slider: You can define how and when you are prompted by the UAC, even shutting it off.
          * UAC definition by program: You can also exempt specific programs from UAC prompts.
          * Device Stage: A number of rumors have been circulating about this one. First and foremost, device manufactures DO NOT have to program this in order for it to work it is just an option for direct interaction. Access all the functions of your devices from one screen.
          * Homegroups: Its a situation that many of us face. We have a domain controlled work laptop. We come home and want to access our personal media (now managed by libraries) and printers. This solves those problems, while keeping company data safe. Default printers change automatically, depenting on what network you connect to.
          * Libraries in Explorer: expanded support for Libraries across networks and a changed browsing interface within explorer.
          * Math Input panel: It seems quite advanced, including input of hand/mouse written algebra and calculus.
          * Calculator: Adding separate programmer and statistics modes to the previous standard and scientific calculator options.
          * MS Paint: Welcome the ribbon.
          * Magnifier: built in application to magnify a specific area of the screen and zoom in. This is similar to the capability enabled in XP or Vista in with Microsoft Mouse software.
          * Gadgets across the desktop: Gadgets are no longer limited to the gadget toolbar.
          * Simplified network connection stack: Ability to peek into the network stack and select an available network without opening any windows.
          * Sticky windows (my definition): You can now drag windows to the top of the screen, which will automatically maximize the window. Also by dragging the window to the side of the screen, it will size the window to take the half of that side of the screen
          * Preview Desktop: To the right of the taskbar, there is now a preview desktop button.
          * Media Player Codec Expansion: Native support for AAC, H264, divx, xvid, AVCHD, flip video to the list of supported codecs.
          * StreamOn: Ability to push audio and video output to networked A/V devices (think radios, receivers, and TVs).
          * Display Color Calibration Wizard: A step-by-step interface to more closely calibrate proper gamma, brightness/contrast, and to eyeball proper color.
          * Simplified Sideshow support: I previously installed sideshow on my windows mobile phone, when I created a Bluetooth relationship with the phone (for PAN support), it automatically discovered its capabilities and shows this in the sideshow area and device stage. Remote bluetooth control of media player, via a win mobile phone.
          * New Backgrounds: Sure, absolutely not important, but an interesting re-take on the current Vista background theme.
          * Faster Boots: Parallel device initialization during boot â" faster boot times. Demo showed a 5-10 second faster cold boot over Vista.
          * Simple Shutdown: In later builds theyâ(TM)ve removed the confusing red, round button and replaced it with a simple, named â(TM)shut downâ(TM) button on the start menu, with the optional OS stops on a pull down menu on the right.

          For IT

          * Action Center: Thereâ(TM)s a good deal built into this function, but one of the most interesting features is a built in application that allows users record a walk thr

        • Re:They have to.. (Score:4, Informative)

          by neokushan ( 932374 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @09:05PM (#26539865)

          It's significantly faster than Vista, might not be huge changes under the hood, but the changes that are there are definitely for the better. It certainly feels like what a new OS should feel like.

        • They are saying you can run Windows 7 on a netbook. Ya, like you could run Vista on one. Yes it installs and sorta runs but XP runs better.

          My stock Eee 904 would like to disagree with you and your definition of "sorta runs." Is Seven numerically and meaningfully faster than XP? I don't know. I don't do benchmarks. What I do is use Seven in what could be considered real world testing, and I do know this: From where I type this, the experience of using Seven beats the experience of using XP. In fact, I

          • I agree, I've had no issues yet* and am running it on 2 machines (old athlon 3000+ 64 single core and a T5500 laptop). Performance is good, annoyances reduced, IMO better than much Vista.

            One thing that disturbs me is calling it "Seven", too close to that horror flic from a while back. ;D

    • Re:They have to.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GF678 ( 1453005 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:06PM (#26539045)

      Why do people keep referring to Win 7 as a service pack for Vista?

      With that logic I could say XP is a service pack of 2000.

      Operating systems don't need to be evolutionary, and in many cases it better they aren't. Incremental improvements from a (questionable) proven base are better than making too different and new.

      I think people keep forgetting history when it comes to MS operating systems.

      • Re:They have to.. (Score:5, Funny)

        by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:09PM (#26539087)

        We try.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:16PM (#26539227)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • I wish it would flame. Analogy time!

          In the surrounding support camps to the Mount Everest expeditions, they actually use fuel made of ... flaming shit! Problem is, from a low potential stored energy compounded by the thin air, it burns terribly messily, and basically trades warmth for respiratory damage into disease susceptibility for the climbers, who then have real trouble completing the climb.

          So, does 7 Flame? Or does it sizzle messily and leave half chewed partially upgraded versions of everything all o

        • If small changes are incremental, what are big changes called?

      • Re:They have to.. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by khellendros1984 ( 792761 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:18PM (#26539243) Journal
        I think you've missed the meaning of the word "evolutionary". It *is* a set of incremental improvements from some baseline.

        I would consider XP similar to a "service pack" to 2000. They're almost the same OS, in much the same way that Vista and 7 are almost the same. If 2 operating systems are designed to use the exact same drivers, they may as well be the same OS.

        • Re:They have to.. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @09:19PM (#26540027) Homepage Journal

          By that definition, Mac OS X v10.5 and Mac OS X Public Beta are the same OS (printer drivers notwithstanding). You remember Public Beta---the version that didn't even have an Apple menu....

          A well written OS should generally work with the same drivers as previous versions with few exceptions. Every now and then it isn't possible, but for the most part, it is not only possible, but also desirable.... Using driver compatibility as a metric is a really bad way to judge whether something is the same OS or not....

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by 644bd346996 ( 1012333 )

            OS X 10.5 is derived from the Public Beta in a series of incremental releases that were, with one exception, overpriced. None of the updates to OS X has come with new features that are worth the $130 that Apple charges, though at least Apple hasn't billed any of them as an all-new rewrite of the previous version. On the other hand, many users (particularly converts from Windows) may feel that the performance increases found in new releases of OS X are worth paying significant money for. (I personally feel t

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by samriel ( 1456543 )
        When you think about it, that 2000->XP logic works. By the same logic, Windows 7 is a service pack, and direct descendant, of the original Windows NT.

        If you were to look at the codebase, I would wager that Vista and Win7 are incredibly close. The majority of the overhaul is a) interface (to add a nice KDE-esque taskbar) and b) usability (How about an obvious add/remove programs panel?).

        In the same vein, there have only been two or three real Microsoft operating systems: MS-DOS, the Win1-3/9x codebas

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by beav007 ( 746004 )

          The majority of the overhaul is a) interface (to add a nice KDE-esque taskbar)

          I love this.

          Microsoft: where innovation means copying other peoples ideas...

        • I've seen Generations 24 and now you with 25 of that sig, but what is the point of faithfully copying the broken word at the end?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RMingin ( 985478 )

        XP *is* a service pack of 2000. Kind of a service pack of service packs, compiling all the fixes to date and adding a few new features. There's not a lot different. Windows 7 is an SP of Vista even moreso.

        If you want to argue that SPs don't introduce major changes, then XP SP2 was a different OS. That sucker brought more changes, both visible and behind the scenes, than 2000->XP did.

        • I disagree. Windows 2000 was good in some ways, but it was not a consumer OS. XP brought all the needed functionality and compatability that was needed to make it a consumer OS. Windows 2000's video drivers ran slower than XP's, so it was not as gamer friendly. Lots of older apps would not run in Win2K, but they will in XP because of the extra compatability layers.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by RMingin ( 985478 )

            I've never seen anything to confirm any video driver differences between 2K and XP. Since they're using the same drivers and the same directx, I'm skeptical.

            Further, 2K can do all the compat shim tricks XP can. They're all in slayerui.dll, just the tab isn't there on .exes by default.

            2K and XP are more alike than you imagine.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) *

        > With that logic I could say XP is a service pack of 2000.

        No, XP was a fairly major merge of the NT and 9X product lines. It had some pretty major teething problems because of it. Later service packs have corrected most of the problems, which is the big problem facing Microsoft. XP is finally a fairly stable operating system. If they could have fixed the 'everyone runs as root' problem inherited when they had to have backwards compatibility with Windows 9X it would have been really good.

        > Operati

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by petermgreen ( 876956 )

          No, XP was a fairly major merge of the NT and 9X product lines.
          From a marketing perspective yes , from a technical perspective no.

          They added marginally better support for dos and I belive some old badly behaved windows apps but it was just that marginally better still not much good.

          The important stuff like WDM (which allows drivers to be shared between the two lines and brought support for plug and play to the NT line) and directx was already there in 2K.

          IIRC they were planning to make 2K be the release th

      • Incremental improvements from a (questionable) proven base are better than making too different and new.

        Which is why the anthems of people are saying "Break backwards compatibility and make something that works." Essentially breaking backwards compatibility happens anyway, you might as well do it on purpose and with reason. Look at what Apple did from OS 9 until now. They have a somewhat structured, and semantic OS with stable and structured foundations...but they had to draw the line and axe compatibili

    • Re:They have to.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by zonky ( 1153039 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:14PM (#26539181)
      It's more of a "R2" style release.

    • Yet people cheer at Windows 7 like it wasn't so.

    • Which brings to question- what in the world will Vista SP2/SP3 fix? If they fix those things won't they just end up with Windows 7? If that's the case, what does a Windows 7 license offer over Vista?

      I think a lot of Vista licensees are getting hammered, not only for buying a crappy OS but because they're going to get charged to have it fixed.

      The only honorable thing to do would be to offer Windows 7 upgrades to Vista licensees at Media only cost. I don't think we stand a chance.

  • Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @07:46PM (#26538797)

    These silly Windows stories have pretty much negated their desired effect on people.

    Ever since the lead up and release of Win2k Slashdot has been trying to manufacture the news fiction that "Windows total failure. Year of desktop Linux has arrived"

    * Late service packs

    * Stories of such and such company skipping a certain Windows version or service pack

    * Hyping early bugs ever new has and then pretending they were never fixed

    With Vista Slashdot went over the top with the Windows FUD and nothing came of it. Now everyone is:

    * Trying out Win7 and raving about how good it is

    * Finding out that Win7 is just Windows Vista with some UI and performance enhancements

    Pretty much destroying any credibility Slashdot might have with exactly the people this site hoped to turn into Linux users with the Windows FUD.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by fred fleenblat ( 463628 )

      Churro?

    • The person who puts these articles up can often be found posting this type of piece to incite furor. If you've ever wondered why an article was posted, chances are, you're wondering about a kdawson post.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by khellendros1984 ( 792761 )
      I had 4 problems with Vista.
      1. Aero is pretty, but not useful
      2. The performance sucks; it uses clock cycles and memory to automate things I don't care about
      3. Massive intrusive support for DRM and content protection (HDCP, etc)
      4. Windows Genuine Advantage is mandatory.

      They cleaned up the UI. It's sleeker, while maintaining some of Aero's glitz. The performance has improved, although not as much as I'd like. The DRM and WGA are still there. Half of the things I disliked about Vista were improved.

      I still di
      • 1. you can disable it. There are other things that are nice, the menu imho is much better. And the restructuring of the profiles/home folder is much closer to how *nix is. I would say it's actually a little better, now that the subdirectory structures are all under the home folder in windows. 2. You can disable them (search, defender etc. I do). 3. Honestly most of this isn't active unless trying to play content that you can't play on Linux as it stands, so the point is kind of moot. 4. This part sucks.

      • Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Johnno74 ( 252399 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @10:32PM (#26540743)

        1. Aero is pretty, but not useful

        Huh? Why do you have such an issue with Aero? If it bugs you so much, turn it off...
        Its mainly just bling. Unless you have crappy onboard graphics the performance cost of aero is negligible. I like the bling, and the preview on alt-tab or mouse hover on the taskbar is useful.

        2. The performance sucks; it uses clock cycles and memory to automate things I don't care about

        IMHO Vista doesn't have a performance problem. I've got an XP desktop at home that is loaded up with plenty of stuff like file indexing and other things that come out of the box with vista. Its performance is slightly better than vista when lightly loaded, and _heaps_ worse when heavily loaded (couple of users logged on, lots of memory-hungry apps open)
        In situations where XP would have problems even responding well enough to even shut down Vista just keeps on chugging along. Performance degradation under load in vista is mugh more graceful than XP, no question.

        3. Massive intrusive support for DRM and content protection (HDCP, etc)

        Pop quiz. Can you point to just one thing that you can do with XP, but the DRM in vista blocks you? Things like HDCP suck a bit, but they weren't invented by microsoft, but they were required by the MPAA in order for vista to support high def output of "protected" content - something XP can't do at all. Vista will not stop you ripping a DVD or CD, playing a dodgy Xvid download or anything else you can do on XP.
        Please don't use any references or quotes from Peter whatsisname from Auckland University or you'll just look as uninformed as him.

        4. Windows Genuine Advantage is mandatory.

        Yeah, kinda a pain, but only if you have pirated windows. If you have an OEM install then its "preactivated" via a key in the bios, but having to activate retail copies is a hassle, particuarly if you change hardware or rebuild. I'm not happy about this one either, but its hardly a dealbreaker.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TrancePhreak ( 576593 )
        How is the support for HDCP intrusive? It's only enabled while playing a file that requests that kind of DRM.

        If you want to see real intrusive DRM, get a Macbook with just a vga port and try to play protected iTunes videos...

    • * Trying out Win7 and raving about how good it is
      * Finding out that Win7 is just Windows Vista with some UI and performance enhancements

      Um, that's why Windows Vista sucked. The performance was poor and the UI changes were... questionable (overly excited UAC, anyone?). I've tried Vista since installing 7, and while yes, a lot of what people like was there, it wasn't as well done. Now it's finally usable - it's just a shame that 7 wasn't released as Vista SP2...

    • I have no significant experience with either Vista or Windows 7, but in the last 12 months I bought two computers with adapted and language-localized versions linux preinstalled by default and supported by online repositories at the manufacturers. I didn't have to go to some obscure store either, I got them at main outlets, an asus eee at a big german electronics store, a dell mini at dell.com. I could have bought similar linux-based systems at about 4 other sources/manufacturers (acer, lenovo, etc.).

      Today

  • Follow the money (Score:4, Interesting)

    by carp3_noct3m ( 1185697 ) <slashdot@NoSpAm.warriors-shade.net> on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @07:52PM (#26538849)
    Microsoft doesn't want to release it soon, even if they could. The reason: less stable vista = more reason to upgrade to windows 7 (read: more money for Microsoft). That may not be the actuality, but I bet a handful of people think that way there. On a side note, Ive been running Windows 7 beta for a week now (I decided to be ahead of the curve for all future OS releases due to the nature of my job) and am overall very impressed (I know, shoot me and throw overboard into /. shark waters) Its faster (especially restart times!) and overall more polished. Now, it should of been windows vista in the first place, but its too late to go back in time with my machine (lost a watchyamacallit and a thingymajiger) I really suggest if you havent to at least throw up a VM of it sometime.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What version of Earth do you live on where Vista isn't stable?

    • Re:Follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @11:54PM (#26541491)

      I'm not sure whether you're just paranoid, or actually stupid. Vista is perfectly stable. Microsoft gets the same amount of money whether people buy Vista now, or Windows 7 in a few months. Do you have any kind of citation, or even an argument based in reality, to say this is a conspiracy?

  • People running Vista (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <enderandrew@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @07:52PM (#26538857) Homepage Journal

    Most end-users running Vista are doing so because they aren't comfortable changing their OS, those who absolutely must have DirectX 10 and don't realize you can get it on XP with some hackery, or Microsoft fans who insist on running Microsoft's latest release.

    I'm not sure any of those three groups will care that much about Vista SP2. The first is largely uneducated on technical matters. The second is only fixated on gaming, and the third will be Windows 7 early adopters.

    Vista SP2 however is aimed largely at the first group, who bought their computer with Vista preinstalled, and likely won't jump to 7. Microsoft has to support those users for years to come.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Scutter ( 18425 )

      Most end-users running Vista are doing so because they aren't comfortable changing their OS, those who absolutely must have DirectX 10 and don't realize you can get it on XP with some hackery, or Microsoft fans who insist on running Microsoft's latest release.

      Where do you get your data from? Evreyone I know that runs Vista runs it because they like it. The only people I know that bitch about Vista are Linux fanboys.

      • Re:People running Vista (Score:4, Informative)

        by dylan_- ( 1661 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:10PM (#26539109) Homepage

        Where do you get your data from?

        Probably from real life.

        Evreyone I know that runs Vista runs it because they like it.

        Everyone I know that runs Vista runs it because it came on the new computer they bought.

        The only people I know that bitch about Vista are Linux fanboys.

        The only people I know that bitch about Vista are those that run it on the new computers they bought.

        • I know people running it because it came on their new computer, because they wanted to try it out (like me), or because it was better than XP at some of the functions they wanted (encryption & overcoming user stupidity ie administrator access).

          No one I know that uses Vista actually complains that much because, in the end, it's just an operating system. Far more user-friendly than anything but maybe MacOS, more versatile in terms of driver support and applications, and as stable these days as anything o

          • You can run as a non-administrator in XP, and use "Run As" to elevate privileges. It isn't as much of a pain as UAC in Vista.

            Vista isn't better in that regard.

            Vista isn't faster than XP, because in real world performance, you need almost twice the system to get the same performance.

            Lastly, and this really annoys me, the UI is far less efficient. I need to jump through extra steps to perform the same tasks. Even if Vista was quick and responsive on a low-end machine (which isn't the case), the UI design h

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Schuthrax ( 682718 )

        How about XP fanboys? Or OSX fanboys? Or Windows Server 2008 fanboys? Or Windows for Workgroups fanboys? Or even, dare I say it, Windows ME fanboys?!

        Honestly, I am most upset that I was forced to get Vista "for free" on my newest laptop and now I am stuck with it unless I want to pay even more M$ tax. Microsoft should do the world a favor and offer free upgrades to 7. Now *that* would shut a lot of people up.

      • We're both relying on anecdotal evidence here, but I have yet to meet a single person that likes Vista.

        Please explain to me the advantages Vista has, and for every advantage Vista has, I'll offer five major regressions.

        I don't automatically hate Microsoft or Microsoft products. I'm not a fanboy. I keep a Windows partition, and I work primarily as a SysAdmin on Windows boxes.

        Vista however is a terrible, terrible OS, and even the people I talk to who run Vista, do so for the above three reasons I stipulated

        • "I don't automatically hate Microsoft or Microsoft products. I'm not a fanboy. I keep a Windows partition, and I work primarily as a SysAdmin on Windows boxes."
          Vista has:
          Much improved ability to run as non-admin. (life saver!)
          IE in a sandbox (again, life saver)
          Compositing in the video drivers instead of cpu
          A much better start menu
          The ability to recover from crashed video drivers
          Legally supports Blu-Ray / other media.
          Vista's Media Center abilities are far better than Windows MCE.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Enderandrew ( 866215 )

            I'm heading out the door, and I will respond with regressions, however for your supposed improvements:

            XP allows you to run as a non-admin, and it is easier in XP. You can still elevate permissions, in a far less annoying fashion. Vista's UAC is a failure, and that is why it is greatly improved in Windows 7.

            If you are surfing the web in IE, you fail. If you insist on running IE, you can run IE without permissions with IE7 in XP.

            2000 supported transparency, but they didn't activate it. I'm running the Vis

      • The only people I know that bitch about Vista are Linux fanboys.

        I've been supporting Windows since the 3.1 days and although I plink around with linux I am by no means a 'fanboy'.

        Vista is a bloated, useless, smelly turd of an OS and will go the way of Windows ME as soon as 7 is released.

        I have not seen one business or serious user adopt Vista. In fact a sizable portion of my jobs were removing Vista to install XP when Vista first rolled out of it's dark and smelly cave.

        I use Vista for the same purpose I use Sarah Palin, an instant intelligence test. If you accept eith

    • Crap.

      I got vista on a new laptop when it first came out, and yes pre-SP1 it was pretty dire. I nearly downgraded to XP, but held out for SP1. As soon as the final bits were released I formatted and re-installed with SP1 and there was a _world_ of difference. Now I'm perfectly happy with Vista, and I'm planning on upgrading my XP desktop at home to the 7 beta this weekend.
      I don't try and ram vista down everyone's throat, but it does annoy me when I hear such uninformed vista bashing.
      Vista isn't perfect (a

      • You can get DX10 effects on a DX10 video card in XP by running DX10 libraries, and games in DX10 mode. That sure seems like DX10 to me.

        How is Vista an improvement over XP?

        Vista is slower, has a broken driver model, UAC is broken, configuration dialogs have been relocated for no apparent reason, the start menu is a disaster in usability, and simple tasks have now been changed to multi-step processes that take more time.

        Computers are supposed to enable us. GUIs are supposed to make life simpler and more eff

  • All of them? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:09PM (#26539103)

    Could it be that the last minute problems of Vista SP2 are just ... well, Vista ?

  • Windows 7 will also slip.

  • Really, how many people really care about SP2?

  • What "Last Minute Problems"? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jon.Laslow ( 809215 ) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:21PM (#26539293) Homepage Journal
    TFA doesn't actually mention any problems, and most people on the non-public SP2 Beta news groups (disclaimer: I'm an SP2 technical tester) are reporting this beta is very stable. I haven't had any serious issues with it, and I've yet to see any proof of a 'show-stopper' that would cause such a delay.

    Now give me a minute to get my flame-resistant suit on so I can safely watch my karma burn.

  • because many users are asking for that Windows XP downgrade and willing to pay more money to get it.

    Plus more and more file sharing networks are downloading Windows XP ISO images at new records for downloads to get rid of Vista and replace it with a pirated version of XP because they cannot buy a copy of XP except from certain vendors.

    Not only that but a lot of people are waiting for ReactOS [reactos.org] to enter Beta testing and get closer to a 1.0 release version. So they can have a free and open source Windows alternative that runs native Windows XP drivers and software.

    Heck some people even want to use AROS, HaikuOS, or some other FOSS alternative to Windows just to get away from Vista. Even, gasp, Linux! Plus more and more Macs are being sold and converted from PC users.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and I'm wearing Milkbone underware." -- Norm, from _Cheers_

Close