Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Bug Upgrades IT Technology

Microsoft Announces Windows 7 SP1 355

Posted by timothy
from the software-evolves dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Announces Windows 7 SP1

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 18, 2010 @10:47PM (#31532210)
    It's a well-known fact that all first service-packs are buggy. Best to wait until the first service-pack-service-pack is released.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 0123456 (636235)

      The problem is that with Microsoft's new biannual upgrade tax, Windows 8 will be released instead of Windows 7 SP2. So if you intend to always wait for SP2 you'll never be able to use Windows again.

      Ah, OK, I guess that's not such a bad thing after all.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jazz-Masta (240659)

        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

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by theurge14 (820596)

          Why is a defense needed? Windows has been playing catchup in features for that entire time period.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by bigstrat2003 (1058574) *
            That depends on what you want, now doesn't it? I think that having one menu bar makes for an atrociously unusable GUI, and I like to play games... so for my money, Mac OS has never been ahead. For others', maybe it has. Either way, you can't really make an objective statement on it.
          • by drsmithy (35869) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (yhtimsrd)> on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:54PM (#31532704)

            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: (Score:2, Informative)

              by Zarel (900479)

              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.

              [citation needed]

              A bash command line (and Unixlike filesystem structure), a web browser that's actually standards-compliant (and was the first to pass Acid2), Exposé, a journaled filesystem, built-in support for reading and saving PDFs, built-in support for playing DVDs, and lower system requirements are all things OS X has had since before 10.4, and Windows 7 still doesn't have.

              Windows didn't get the ability to rearrange taskbar icons until Windows 7 (8 years after OS X). Windows didn't get built-in

              • by Z34107 (925136) on Friday March 19, 2010 @02:44AM (#31533538)

                Well...

                • I'm not sure how a bash interpreter is any more of a feature than a Windows command interpreter, especially after PowerShell. Bash can run bash scripts, cmd.exe can run batch files, and WSH lets you do VBScript and a bunch of other crazy stuff.
                • NTFS has been journaled since forever, for certain values of forever approaching Windows NT.
                • I'd rather use IE6 than Safari, but that's personal preference. I'd like to see how Safari held up to Windows 2000's browser.
                • Is PDF reading really an OS feature? Either Acrobat Reader will come preinstalled, or you can download one of a million free viewers. I'll give you PDF saving, but it's a one-click feature in Office 2007 and OpenOffice.
                • DVD playback is built into Vista and up. XP either had playback software preinstalled, or it came bundled with DVD drives. Or you downloaded a codec.
                • Windows 7 runs on a Pentium 4 with 512 MB RAM and Intel graphics. Add "modern" Intel graphics to the mix or a $40 graphics card and you get Aero.
                • XP's, Vista's, and 7's bootloader can boot other operating systems. On campus we have the XP bootloader giving you a choice between Ubuntu or XP.
                • XP had indexed search as an update. Also IPv6.

                However, I will give you:

                • Rearranging taskbar icons. Control over their placement and grouping always bothered me.
                • Multiple desktops. However, I'll see your desktops and raise you "my menu bar appears on the wrong monitor when I run applications on my secondary monitor."
                • Pre-Vista large icons.
                • Running everything as root pre-Vista.
                • "Worse than Windows 2000" is probably a bit of a stretch. However, almost all of the first list are also present in Windows 2000, and I guarantee you 2000's system requirements are better.

                I think we were trolled, however.

              • by drsmithy (35869) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (yhtimsrd)> on Friday March 19, 2010 @03:32AM (#31533670)

                A bash command line (and Unixlike filesystem structure)

                Matter of taste. Powershell is available if you want it.

                a web browser that's actually standards-compliant (and was the first to pass Acid2)

                Is irrelevant to anyone that isn't a WWW nerd.

                Exposé,

                Flashy eyecandy (that's really just an improved tile/untile) of little practical value over the Taskbar and Alt+TAB. I was wowed by Expose when it first arrived, but after using it for a while decided it was little more than another example of form over function.

                a journaled filesystem

                Windows NT had that way back in 1993. Not to mention other neat features that have arrived since like per-file compression and encryption, and transactional operations.

                built-in support for reading and saving PDFs, built-in support for playing DVDs,

                Congrats, you got a couple.

                and lower system requirements

                Not in any meaningful sense. OS X is slow on anything less than a multicore CPU with 2GB RAM and a dog on anything less than a G5 with 1GB - and that's the _current_ versions (for each architecture, respectively), which are faster than their predecessors. OS X is _not_ a platform you want to be using as an example of good performance and low system requirements. People sneer at Vista because you couldn't run it on a bottom of the barrel $500 PC (though $200 on a decent video card and more RAM was all it took to remedy that) back in 2007, but it took several *years* after OS X was released before you could buy _any_ system that ran it remotely well.

                Windows didn't get the ability to rearrange taskbar icons until Windows 7 (8 years after OS X).

                This is only marginally more significant than the 48x48 icons below. The Dock is not a Taskbar, and is atrociously bad at pretending to be one (hence the reason they tried working around its flaws with Expose).

                Windows didn't get built-in indexed search until Windows Vista (4 years after OS X).

                Windows 2000 had the search indexing service (albeit not enabled by default).

                Windows didn't get IPv6 support until Windows Vista (4 years after OS X).

                XP had IPv6 support (though it needed to be explicitly enabled). As did Windows Server 2003.

                Windows ran everything as root by default until Windows Vista (6 years after OS X).

                A configuration semantic (and one applicable only to certain configurations, at that) is not a "feature". Windows NT was multiuser from day 1, back in 1993.

                Windows didn't get icons larger than 48x48 until Windows Vista (6 years after OS X).

                Wow, that's some serious scratching. Ok, you can have that one, too.

                Examples of features introduced since 10.4 that Windows still doesn't have include multiple desktops, and a bootloader that supports operating systems from more than one vendor.

                Multiple desktops I'll also give, though I've never found them particularly useful (and I get the distinct impression they're something of a red-headed stepchild in OS X). You can boot multiple OSes from the Windows bootloader.

                I'll admit the earlier versions of Mac OS X were somewhat flawed, but "worse than Windows 2000" is a pretty serious accusation, and one that requires evidence.

                For pretty much anything low level (scheduling, multithreading, locking, memory management, etc), OS X has been playing catchup. Even today, it doesn't have anything equivalent to ReadyBoost or SuperFetch.

                I feel compelled to point out that OS X being roughly on par with Windows 2000 in the 10.5 timeframe is to be expected. There's only so fast development can proceed, and OS X would have had about as much development time from its baseline (NeXTSTEP) by then as Windows 2000 had from its (NT 3.1). OS X and Windows development is basically proceeding at the same pace (OS X is probably a bit quicker, though it damn well should be given its smaller scope, and Apple's much smaller

        • by onefriedrice (1171917) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:12PM (#31532406)

          The same release window as Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7.

          On the other hand, Vista provided negative value to users, and many paid hundreds for the privilege. Maybe that evens it out.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by WMD_88 (843388)

          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.

          No Apple-sold computer that can run 10.0 can also run 10.6 - or 10.5, for that matter (at least officially). You wouldn't have bought all the updates, as you would have either gotten a new one on a new machine, or you stopped when your hardware was no longer supported.
          In any case, Apple didn't force you to buy all the updates. I skipped 10.5 myself

          • In any case, Apple didn't force you to buy all the updates. I skipped 10.5 myself.

            I know, I just said if you bought all the updates it would cost more. Chances are people don't have the same PCs from 2001 either.

            Microsoft didn't force their updates on anyone either.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by BitZtream (692029)

            Not true.

            10.0 - 10.3 Ran on PPC only, 10.6 will not.

            Only 4 and 5 will run on both processor architectures but all versions have dropped support for older hardware as they came along.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Sarten-X (1102295)

          Alright. I'll play your game. Let's calculate this:

          Windows path: 300 [amazon.com]+107 [amazon.com]+196 [amazon.com] = $603, if I'm adding correctly.

          OS X path: 129 [wikipedia.org]+ 0 [wikipedia.org]+129 [apple.com] (at most - some users could upgrade for $20)+20 [apple.com]+129 [apple.com]+X+29 [apple.com] = 436+X, if I'm adding correctly.

          I couldn't find a reliable price for Leopard, but as long as it was under $167, it looks like OS X is the cheaper route if you want to have all the features available. Yes, you could go with a cheaper version of Vista or 7, but you could also skip some OS X versions without much loss.

          • That is stupid. You're not counting hardware. As already mentioned, the path from 10.0 to 10.6 (or what ever it is, I hate macs) wont even run on the same architecture, so somewhere along that line you are plopping down a grand on a brand new machine, where as it is entirely possible to run 7 AND vista on a box that is 10 years old.
          • by KarmaMB84 (743001)
            Full retail copy of XP Pro? People bought those?
          • by kybred (795293)

            OS X path: 129 + 0 +129 (at most - some users could upgrade for $20)+20 +129 +X+29 = 436+X, if I'm adding correctly.

            Don't forget, if you have multiple Macs you can get the family packs. That saves a bunch!

            And if I add memory or swap the hard drive I don't have to call Apple for permission to continue using their OS!

          • by drsmithy (35869) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (yhtimsrd)> on Friday March 19, 2010 @12:49AM (#31533010)

            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.

        • by pizzach (1011925)

          Ignoring that it is very possible to skip upgrades on Mac OS X, these price point debates are just made by people to support what they like working with. If people cared about price that much, no one would ever buy Windows Ultimate edition and Linux would be ruler of the earth. But rather, the atmosphere of things is more like this....

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-L-0s-7-Z0&feature=PlayList&p=8DF58E9C3BB72043&index=0 [youtube.com]

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by vertinox (846076)

          The upgrade paths for Apple have been far more expensive, for far less features.

          Recently I bought $29 Snow Leopard and a blank hard drive to upgrade a Macbook simultaneously and discovered that it never asked to see either the previous partition or an old install CD like the MS upgrades do. I even hard the Leopard CD out ready to show it.

          Though it did say "DON'T STEAL" on the Snow Leopard Box.

          So in theory... If you're hardware can run it... Its only $29.

          Anways... Every OS X upgrade see the main improvement

      • by Ralish (775196) <ralish&gmail,com> on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:11PM (#31532396)

        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.

        • by 0123456 (636235)

          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?

          Why would anyone buy Vista now that Windows 7 is out? And why would anyone buy Windows 7 after Windows 8 is out? Assuming it's actually an improvement and not Vista ME.

          You don't have to be a troll to feel that being pushed into paying to upgrade Windows every two years is a seriously retrograde step after XP's long lifespan. Fortunately I only use Windows for games and video editing these days so all my other PCs run free operating systems without the biannual Microsoft tax.

          • by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:35PM (#31532568)
            That's his point. You aren't pushed into paying to upgrade, your old version will be supported for a while yet. Your "why buy x when you can buy x + 1" argument is a strawman, because that argument assumes that our theoretical user is looking to buy anyway. If he is, then he doesn't mind that there's a newer version, as he's going to buy anyway. If he's not, and he already has Windows, then he can continue to use it for a while longer yet, because support isn't disappearing overnight.
            • by 0123456 (636235)

              Your "why buy x when you can buy x + 1" argument is a strawman, because that argument assumes that our theoretical user is looking to buy anyway.

              Maybe you could try reading the actual thread, which was about (as you might understand if you even looked at the title of this message) sensible users waiting for SP2 to fix SP1 bugs before buying a new version of Windows. If Windows 8 is released to bring in the biannual Windows tax before Windows 7 SP2, then why would such a user buy Windows 7 instead of Windows 8, unless Windows 8 sucks ass?

              • by 0123456 (636235)

                And I would add that while I was half-joking in my original response, this is actually a serious issue. My old gaming PC is seriously outdated now and I have thought about getting a replacement... but then I think, well, if I buy it now with Windows 7, then Windows 8 will probably be out sometime next year, so why bother when I could wait for that instead? But then I'd have to wait for Windows 8 SP1 before it would be worth using, and by that point I wouldn't have to wait long for Windows 9... so why bother

                • by AmigaMMC (1103025)

                  Consequently Microsoft's biannual Windows tax plans are one of the main issues preventing me from buying a new Windows PC.

                  Just because you decided to feel that way, which has no comparison to reality. I don't have a need for SP1 on my 2 Windows 7 machines and therefore I'm happy to be using 7, which really is the best incarnation of Windows so far. Just because you needed to wait for a Service Pack on XP and Vista to make them usable it doesn't mean it's the same for 7. I run a lot of intense applications and my 2+ years old custom built machine is filled to the max with HW (even have 4 RAID HD inside and another 6 externals),

                • by Ralish (775196)

                  Games primarily depend on the DirectX API, less so the specific version of Windows (provided it supports the required DirectX API level, as does your hardware). DirectX 11 is the latest, and was officially backported to Vista as a free update. Typically, Microsoft has always backported newer DirectX versions to older versions of Windows for as long as they are supported and it is technically feasible. DirectX 10 wasn't backported to XP, but there are legitimate reasons for this, the graphics stack underwent

        • WTF are you smoking? You're 5 years late in your claims.

          http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx [microsoft.com]
          http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;%5Bln%5D;lifesupsps [microsoft.com]

          • by Jazz-Masta (240659) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:46PM (#31532654)

            You referenced lifecycle and service pack support availability. Mainstream support for XP ended last year, while extended support ends in 2014. Both support cycles offer security updates, but non-essential hotfixes are only available to companies who have support contracts.

            The first link details when they stop selling various licences of the software (not support)
            The second link details when support for services packs end AFTER the introduction on new service packs.

            To reiterate, XP has extended support until 2014. Windows 2000 support just recently ended.

            Apple stops releasing security updates shortly after new releases, while Ubuntu LTS is 3 years for Desktop and 5 years for server...

            XP is 13 years.

          • by BitZtream (692029)

            You do realize the information on those pages is clearly inaccurate and out of date ... right?

        • by LingNoi (1066278) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:38PM (#31532594)

          I've yet to find a Linux distribution that supports all releases for eternity; perhaps you are aware of one?

          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.

          • by dave562 (969951) on Friday March 19, 2010 @12:35AM (#31532912) Journal

            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.

        • by BitZtream (692029)

          The forced upgrade comes because users depend on so much other MS software. You upgrade one thing and instantly just about everything else needs an upgrade or it won't work. Since MS integrates so tightly with its own code and rarely ever takes any consideration to forward/backward compat for interop between applications within the system it seems like the force upgrades. You can't just upgrade Word, you upgrade office, and then CRM, and then SBM (or whatever its called this year).

          Of course, the same is

          • by drsmithy (35869)

            The forced upgrade comes because users depend on so much other MS software. You upgrade one thing and instantly just about everything else needs an upgrade or it won't work. Since MS integrates so tightly with its own code and rarely ever takes any consideration to forward/backward compat for interop between applications within the system it seems like the force upgrades. You can't just upgrade Word, you upgrade office, and then CRM, and then SBM (or whatever its called this year).

            This is pretty much comp

        • I can't speak for the rest but I dislike Windows for the little annoyances which I don't seem to be able to get rid of. For example my wife's copy of WindowsXP pops up this window saying that her copy of windows is vulnerable because we don't have antivirus. I know this system is not vulnerable and I would like to inhibit the warning but I don't know how. As an experienced windows user you probably know a trick for this so I would be interested in any advice you can give me on this. To be frank the warning

          • Um, both of those can be disabled in about 15 seconds. I no longer have any XP boxes to give a walkthrough, but the monitoring antivirus is part of the security center and cleaning up the desktop runs by default every 60 days and can be disabled from the display properties. If you really cant find them and have actually ever tried, then its time to turn in your geek card.
          • by rts008 (812749)

            I know this system is not vulnerable and I would like to inhibit the warning but I don't know how.

            'Start'>'Control Panel'> 'Security Center'(I think that is the name-it's a shield shaped icon) >
            When that SC panel opens, on the left 'side bar' is a link: 'change how Windows notifies me' and uncheck the Anti Virus warning> apply/OK----end of pop up!!!
            (it's been a while-so the exact wording may be off)

            Another one is the window which offers to help me clean up the desktop, usually every couple of minutes. It would be nice if I could make that one go away and not come back.

            Right click 'Start' >'properties' > uncheck 'hide unused shortcuts/icons' > 'OK'/'Apply'---end of nagging
            (yes, I know it sounds like I did not understand, but this setting controls the de

          • by Fluffeh (1273756)

            I can't speak for the rest but I dislike Windows for the little annoyances which I don't seem to be able to get rid of...........

            You really should learn to google:

            Search Terms: disable windows antivirus warnings
            Top Result - Howto: Disable Windows Security Center Balloon Warning [aeonity.com]

            Search Terms: disable windows desktop cleanup
            Top result - HOW TO: Disable the Automatic Desktop Cleanup Feature in Windows XP [microsoft.com]

    • Gartner [softpedia.com] says Windows 7 breaks the rule - they're obviously getting better after 35 years of developing the SAME FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM. I'll give them a break and say it's been since July 1993 for the NT codebase, so that's 17 years of practice to get a first release right.

    • ... with this release of Windows I feel no need for a Service Pack. I used the RC from July 2009 until a few weeks ago and I can pretty much say Windows 7 is solid under all aspects... finally.
  • by zmaragdus (1686342) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @10:50PM (#31532240)

    Alright. So who wants to put down bets on how many service packs are eventually released for 7?

  • by tpstigers (1075021) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:03PM (#31532336)
    Windows 7 is the best product MS has released in years. While this may be considered a pyrrhic victory (ME, anyone?), the fact remains that Windows 7 is a solid product. And, I daresay, a reasonably priced one. Do we have to continue this tired process of Microsoft bashing? It's gotten rather tiresome.
    • by glwtta (532858) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:35PM (#31532572) Homepage
      Windows 7 is the best product MS has released in years. While this may be considered a pyrrhic victory (ME, anyone?), the fact remains that Windows 7 is a solid product.

      Just because I'm bored: a Pyrrhic victory is one that comes at too high a price. An example would be if Windows 7 was an excellent product, but the development effort bankrupted Microsoft. Here you just mean that the praise may be disingenuous.

      (I like being an asshole about language, alright?)
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I agree with everything except "reasonably priced".

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Killjoy_NL (719667)

        I payed 17 euros per license for my 2 systems at home, for this price its worth it to run it legally.

    • ...pyrrhic victory...

      That word. I do not think it means what you think it means [wikipedia.org].

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MrMista_B (891430)

      Hmm? Are you trolling? Windows 7 /is/ regarded as the best MS product in years. At the time you posted this, there wasn't any Microsoft bashing whatsoever in any comment to this article.

      So I don't know what you're preemptively responding to, but it makes me suspect you're astroturfing.

    • by syousef (465911)

      Windows 7 is the best product MS has released in years. While this may be considered a pyrrhic victory (ME, anyone?), the fact remains that Windows 7 is a solid product. And, I daresay, a reasonably priced one. Do we have to continue this tired process of Microsoft bashing? It's gotten rather tiresome.

      It is BECAUSE Windows 7 is the only decent product MS has released in years and because of all the pain that the rest of the software they released in all those years that you will continue to see some well deserved MS bashing for some time to come. They took a lot of money for sub-standard product, have engaged in some very shady behaviour, and a lot of people aren't happy with them. If you're tired of it and don't want to know, you're very welcome to quit reading the comments.

  • In a bold move, martin-boundary has announced the new second service pack for Windows 7, but declined to set a release date or a schedule for getting a beta in users' hands. In a press conference from his mother's basement at 11am on 18 March 2010, martin-boundary stated:

    "Like, there will totally be a Windows 7 SP2 sometime! I guarantee it, like, for sure you know? It'll contain some fixes for SP1."

    Microsoft stock dipped on the news, and CEO Steve Ballmer was privately heard saying "Foiled again! Everyt

  • by AaronMK (1375465) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @11:38PM (#31532600)
    Hopefully this will not try to shove KB971033, the one that periodically phones home to verify that your copy is "genuine", onto unsuspecting users who thought they dodged it in the normal updates. However, if this is a lump collection of all previous "patches and hotfixes", I fear the worst.
    • Hopefully this will not try to shove KB971033, the one that periodically phones home to verify that your copy is "genuine", onto unsuspecting users who thought they dodged it in the normal updates. However, if this is a lump collection of all previous "patches and hotfixes", I fear the worst.

      Face it: If you use Windows, Microsoft is going to have their way with you. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not.

  • USB 3.0 support? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SpryGuy (206254) on Friday March 19, 2010 @01:06AM (#31533108)

    Win7 was released without built in USB 3.0 support ... will it be added with SP1?

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself. -- A.H. Weiler

Working...