Microsoft Announces Windows 7 SP1 355
CWmike writes "Microsoft has announced service packs for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2, but declined to set a release date or a schedule for getting a beta in users' hands. A company spokesman said Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1) will primarily contain 'minor updates,' including patches and hotfixes that will have been delivered earlier via the Windows Update service, rather than new features. One of the latter: an updated Remote Desktop client designed to work with RemoteFX, the new remote-access platform set to debut in SP1 for Windows Server 2008 R2. Windows Server 2008 R2 will also be upgraded to SP1, Microsoft said, presumably at the same time as Windows 7 since the two operating systems share a single code base. Besides RemoteFX — which Microsoft explained Wednesday in an entry on the Windows virtualization team's blog — Server 2008 R2 will also include a feature dubbed 'Dynamic Memory,' which lets IT staff adjust guest virtual machines' memory on the fly. Microsoft did not spell out a timetable for the service packs, saying only that it would provide more information as release milestones approach."
Re:They call that a service pack? (Score:4, Insightful)
The "Dynamic Memory" thing sounds cool, but it sounds like specific to servers, i.e. for Hyper-V. This is also really too early to know exactly what the SP will or won't contain; everybody knew there would be one and it's easy to make an approximate timeline for it, but SP1 rarely contains any major new features anyhow. They can still add additional minor improvements like parallelizing more of the core code or something - you probably wouldn't notice specifically, but the system would be faster on a multi-core machine than it was before. It takes a lot of testing to be sure something like that doesn't cause a problem, though.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Or we could be like Mac and get the annual upgrade tax for even more minor features.
Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard from 2001 - 2009
The same release window as Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7. Each copy of OSX runs $129, with some upgrades only being $19. When upgrading from 10, 10.1 to 10.2 Jaguar, Apple required all users to pay $129. Safe to say, if you owned an Apple from 2001 - 2009 and purchased all the OS updates, vs a PC and purchased all the updates, you'd have paid less for Windows.
The upgrade paths for Apple have been far more expensive, for far less features. I don't think anyone can defend Apple's upgrades from 10.0 - 10.6 vs the changes between Windows XP and Windows 7, including their server line 2003 - 2008 for backend control.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, a bit like how when Windows 7 was released, MS dropped support for Windows Vista, or how when 2008 R2 was released, they dropped support for 2008? Seriously, do you anti-MS zealots even bother to consider if the statements you make have any basis in reality? MS is only now even beginning to retire Windows 2000 support, XP is still supported for years to come, and Vista is currently placed as supported until 2017 and Server 2008 a little longer. If Windows 7 doesn't get at least two Service Packs in the decade or so of support it will get, I'll erase my system and install Gentoo.
The notion that you are somehow forced to upgrade because Microsoft continually releases new Windows versions is absurd to the extreme. You are forced to upgrade if you want to remain on the bleeding edge, and you are eventually forced to upgrade if you don't want to be obsolete. The same is true of all software as well as hardware. I've yet to find a Linux distribution that supports all releases for eternity; perhaps you are aware of one? Typically, MS supports their software for some of the longest timeframes of any IT company, which is part of the reason for their success. Red Hat also have excellent support lifecycles, as does Sun for Solaris, but they all do eventually end, and support lifecycles that exceed a decade are generally considered generous.
I don't buy into the notion that Slashdot is infested with full-time trolls, who intentionally spread FUD for kicks, or that they are paid to do so. Rather, I think people are just stupid, and posts like this just boggle my mind.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is a defense needed? Windows has been playing catchup in features for that entire time period.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:4, Insightful)
Some linux distributions just continuously update their packages without any specific releases like Ubuntu does. For example gentoo and arch (?), etc.
It's true that Linux distributions don't have support for as long as windows does however I get the feeling the these huge distribution upgrades such as XP -> Windows 7 cost IT departments more time then just staying up to date with the latest version of whatever Linux distribution you're using.
Think about it. If you're continuously doing updates to your systems it's business as usual. If you have to roll out the latest windows to over 2000 desktops every 10 years that's going to cost you a lot of downtime and productivity loss.
Why? Well first it's a bigger change then continuous improvements. Maybe on Linux some menu that the user has gotten used to has changed but it's not a big deal because it's just a small change. Going from one version of windows to another is a massive change sometimes, for example xp to vista or win 7. Users don't like huge changes they balk at them and throw their hands in the air yelling that they can't work any more.
Another reason is that if you got to convert 2000 desktops to the latest OS, a lot of the business apps are probably going to have problems. Constant rolling updates have the some problem however you don't get 10+ apps not working all at the same time.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:1, Insightful)
excellent :) (Score:1, Insightful)
In the past couple of months I've moved back to a home build PC from 2.5 years in the Mac world. I was probably right to be unhappy with where MS was going around Vista time, but now I'm with Windows 7, I can't remember why I left. There's really nothing that I miss from the Mac - Win7 is stable, fast, fairly intuitive, and seems to support anything I throw at it, via XP via VPC for really old stuff and Cygwin for a few Unix-built bits and pieces (though that is better run on the Linux server / a VM, and certainly not on OS X, where many things didn't quite work - it was like FreeBSD all over again). What's more, I actually have a fast reasonably-priced machine which I can upgrade as I want, rather than a single closed box with a million wires sticking out of the back for peripherals. Service Packs invite slipstreamed DVDs which make installation simpler - with MS Update and everything being online, they are not essential for most, but they're still welcome.
Thank you, MS. You are still an impossible choice on the server, and your licensing sucks, but you've actually got a fairly fucking fit-for-purpose product for the desktop. You're building for customers now, rather than to scratch an itch or needlessly upsell, and I hope this post-Vista turnaround doesn't wither.
Re:I'm old enough to remember... (Score:3, Insightful)
I blame the internet. Software in those days could have lots of bugs but without an easy way to complain about (and exploit) them nothing got done immediately. Now with the internet spammers jump in with exploits and users hit the forums.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Forced WAT? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is a defense needed? Windows has been playing catchup in features for that entire time period.
The only feature it's been playing "catchup" at is the display system. For pretty much everything else, OS X only hit parity with Windows *2000* at about 10.4/10.5.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, you live in a different world than me then because all the friends and family I know that got Vista asked me to give them XP back :/
Maybe you only know people who never owned a computer before Vista?
People hated it because change for nothing more than the sake of change pisses people off, and thats what Vista was to 99.99999999999999999999999% of the world if you exclude Microsoft.
I think I know what this is about (Score:1, Insightful)
How much you want to bet they're conveniently releasing SP1 after recently pushing out the update that breaks many of the activation cracks for Windows 7 to simply force existing users to apply the update? In order to apply any future updates, users would probably be required to install SP1 which would no doubt include the update. I think the timing is far too coincidental to not be a business decision.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it. If you're continuously doing updates to your systems it's business as usual. If you have to roll out the latest windows to over 2000 desktops every 10 years that's going to cost you a lot of downtime and productivity loss.
I had to undo a bunch of moderation to chime in here. You're only experiencing down time and "productivity loss" if you don't know what you're doing. It doesn't matter if you're rolling out to 2 desktops or 2000 desktops. You create one image and then push it out. Most people do it over the weekend. Most people wait until they have a stable image before rolling it out.
Now if you have IT guys straight out of college with no real world experience you might run into some problems. But as long as you have a realistic time window for your OS rollout, it is a pretty painless process. If you wanted to get really aggressive and take chances, you could just image the base OS image with hardware drivers and rely on something like Systems Center or even Group Policy (if you're really masochistic and like rolling your own packages) to install all of your apps.
Another reason is that if you got to convert 2000 desktops to the latest OS, a lot of the business apps are probably going to have problems. Constant rolling updates have the some problem however you don't get 10+ apps not working all at the same time
Given your hypothetical "every 10 years" desktop OS refresh, if you can't plan 10 years ahead to get your business apps ready for the OS that you're going to be 'forced' to roll out then you have no business managing systems (Windows or otherwise).
To give you an idea of how I'm moving my users from XP to Win7, right now there are two workstations in the organization running Win7. Between those two workstations are 98% of the applications that the organization uses (the other apps are on Terminal Servers). Most of the apps work, a couple don't. As departments find room in their budgets for new workstations, we roll out Win7 if they aren't using apps with compatability problems. Over the course of the next two years, all of the workstations will be running Win7.
It isn't like I'm going to wake up one morning and decide, "I know... I'll go roll out Win7 today." Like any IT project, there is a process to follow.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Broken driver compatibility, unavoidable, but few people really understood that and Microsoft could have been much clearer. Broken print/file sharing with XP peers (broken in the "takes more than 2 minutes to set up and requires any research whatsoever to get working properly" sense, which given that between XP machines it really did work that way actually counts). An irritating, intrusive, meddlesome and often cloying UI that continually found ways to spit new and perplexing pointless dialogs and options. A disappointingly implemented and generally underwhelming security model (though they some credit for at least doing something in that regard). Hardware requirements which can only be charitably described as "uncalled for" matched with actual performance that is, again, charitably described as "not great".
Vista was just a revisit to the days of ME. Almost there, but not quite. The problem isn't that Vista has good stuff and people knock it unfairly, the problem is that Vista has good stuff and it still sucks, just not for the big glaring reasons people tend to look for. Again, see Windows ME.
Re:Let the Games Begin... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how losing due to reputation has anything to with a victory that decimates your forces.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows path: 300+107+196 = $603, if I'm adding correctly.
You're not. The first number should be about $50, because that's roughly what the OEM version of Windows comparable to the version of OS X that comes with a Mac is.
Further, you should be using Home Premium, not Ultimate, if you want more honest feature comparison.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:2, Insightful)
You do realize that Windows 7, for all intents and purposes, is really Vista SP3 with some big tweaks, mostly cosmetic, and some loosening up of the security layer. Most of your bitches are about things that Microsoft simply patched up and released as a new OS.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you. I see no significant difference between the two. Frankly, Vista was just a little ahead of its time. 7 is successful because:
1) Most of heavy lifting and architectural changes to the driver subsystem were done for Vista, so device manufacturers had many years to get their damn drivers working, rather than the relatively short time they had to get drivers out for Vista.
2) They've had some extra time to iterate over UAC and other UI tweaks several times until they were less annoying. I turned UAC off in Vista and I've turned it off in 7 (albeit without the need for registry tweaking this time around).
3) RAM is super cheap now, and a much larger percentage of the market has systems with >1GB of RAM and Aero-capable GPUs. Result: better user experience all around.
4) Due to the above reasons, the reception was bound to be much better this time even if they had done nothing but put lipstick on Vista and called it 7 -- oh wait, that's essentially what they did.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:1, Insightful)
Perception is the first part of usability.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Well...
However, I will give you:
I think we were trolled, however.
Re:The wise user will wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe Windows has just added the ability to shuffle taskbar icons, but Mac OS X still doesn't have a taskbar. Indexed search was available since 1996, and was part of Windows 2000. IPV6 support is still not useful, unfortunately. Running as a limited user was available even in NT, it just wasn't the default.
Large icons - now you're really scrambling. They are useful on high DPI screens, and were introduced in Vista exactly because those type of screens were going to become more popular.
Multiple desktops are available. I think you mean Virtual Desktops. Also, the Windows bootloader has always supported booting other operating systems, although Microsoft has chosen to make this very complicated.
You keep harping on obscure features that are not included in the OS, and choose to ignore that they are available as a free download, in many cases directly from Microsoft. Also, wordpad opens
"Worse than windows 2000" is simply an inflammatory opinion, but regarding evidence to the contrary, you certainly haven't provided anything useful. Your examples were both chosen with bias and irrelevant. If you want a counter example, how about Active Directory support in Mac OS? how about enterprise features in general?