News No Vista Service Pack this year?

I think releasing a new OS in 2009-2010 is a bad idea.
For me it just shows that MS just gave up. Also if they do this, people that got vista are SURE not going to change to the new OS, and XP users won't upgrade as they will see Windows 2009 is still immature just as Vista now. Oh and hardware manufacture won't develop drivers for Vista and wait, as they will think that some changed into the drivers system will be performed. In other words, its going to create this huge mess. They should release SP1 and SP2, and add new and good/interesting features, this will make everyone happy.

The thing with Win95 to Win98. Wasn't a big issue, as the people that had Win95, where computer enthusiast or new users. At the time, very few people had a computer at home, and the people that got Win95 didn't upgrade until they computer broke and got a new machine with Win2000 or WinXP. Doing this now, for the price they sell it, will not only make a big mess but make people very pissed. The only way MS can save their ass if they to this, is sell the new OS (full version) like maybe at 75-100$.

 

@Kipman725, companies already runs Linux servers for about everything... It's just that companies feel that Linux is not ready to be on desktop machines.

One issue with Linux is security issue, (yea yea you hared me right, but let me explain), if all companies switch to Linux, hackers will stop having fun with Windows OS (as they don't care about your pictures of your cat, and illegal downloaded music, which he can get himself). They will exploit Linux. Linux is secure because they are not enough hackers on it. For a hacker, hacking the impossible is, for them, winning a lot of prestige in their community. Now, the question, who will update the OS with security patches. Is Novel, redHat, ubuntu and others are ready to fix those issues?!? For sure the people that work on Linux on their free time won't spend much time on it, as they are not paid. So it will takes weeks even months to have it fixed. Back to Linux distributors/packagers, one can fix a security issue better then the others, and a big mess will be created. Here is an example, lets say their is 3 security issues found in Linux, you may have this:
- RedHat fixed somewhat the problem for all 3 issues
- Novel fixed security issue 1, 2 and can't figure 3
- ubuntu fixed 3

Which you will pick?
So it gets ridiculous and for sure they won't share their code between them, else their is no point in having so many Linux distributors/packagers, wtv you want to call them, it can be all be regrouped into one company.

That's just my view....

 

Actually, I can see coders for one distribution releasing to other developers information on how to fix the holes. Furthermore, I bet a serious patch would be out in a week, since Linux evelopers don't have lives

 

If the problem is in the Kernel then it will be fixed across all distributions when the kernels are upgraded, or you can patch the kernel at your leisure.

The kernel is worked on like this:

2.6.xx.yyy

xx is the branch, if it's odd, then it's an unstable testing branch, if it's even it's stable tested.

Testing occurs for at least 3 months before it's released.

 

Good point Miser lol

 

I think the real issue here is not about when they choose to release a service pack - they could do that any time they chose. It's not like there's some universally agreed minimum level of usefulness the thing has to have to be called a service pack.

My interest in this is professional and I will therefore wait until I see conspicuous signs of maturity - whatever that means for your application. That may or may not coincide with a service pack release.

Either way, I said when I first used Windows 2000 that it looked like it might end up being the best version of windows there would ever be. That was at a time when XP was very new - that's exactly how much of an early adopter I'm not. Unfortunately, everything I've seen since has suggested I was right.

I just wish "Pro" meant something.

Phil

 

That is so true. I was installing new counter systems for a nation wide shop last summer. Their old systems was running win95 with some sort of ODS based software. The GUI was text based with ASCII grapics. The screen showed what function each "F-key" had.

On the new system the GUI was exactly the same as the old one, except that the graphics were better. (Proper forms, borders and buttons instead of lots of I's and underscores.) It was pretty amazing (worrying?) to see how hard this little cosmetic change was for some people.

 

I wonder what a "Standard Office Worker" does, if anything?

Seriously, more people than you think do really need to run MS Office or something equally powerfull. Of course few of them use more than a tiny subset of the functionality, but that subset varies a lot so overall you can't get away with a low-end app instead.

 

Link

So it is possible there will be a service pack by the end of the year, if the beta runs smoothly.