News No Vista Service Pack this year?

[Tim S]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/06...ck_this_year/1

The final version of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 may not be delivered by Microsoft until early on in 2008.

[oddball walking]

Why am I not surprised.

[Bindibadgi]

XP SP3? Oh wait...

[knowyourenemy]

SP1, Barack Obama... SP1, Barack Obama...

[Buzzons]

Not really a big deal, it was more than a year to SP1 on XP IIRC, and then more than another year for SP2 .. so what is the huge thing about it.

Yes, some biz's wont roll out vista till SP1, but they didnt roll out XP till SP1 and good for them, it makes sense to let an OS mature, same with linux etc.

For home users the differences between no SP and SP1 wont effect anyone to any great extent and 90% of users will not even know what a "Service Pack" is anyway. Then again this users are the ones that buy a PC with an OS preloaded, use it till it breaks due to spyware and buys a new one (yay for cheep PCs!!) so they do not really matter at all

At least this has not effected the roll out of Server 2008 (sweet!) and i guess it will push back Fijji? till a bit later, maybe a 3 year gap not a 2 year one. Ah well.

[DarkLord7854]

Kay went onto say that if Microsoft doesn't deliver SP1 until the first quarter of 2008, early rollouts won't start until the third quarter and mass deployments won't happen until 2009 - a year later than expected.

Isn't the new Windows OS supposed to come in 2009?

[Delphium]

Originally Posted by DarkLord7854

Isn't the new Windows OS supposed to come in 2009?

Indeed it is due out late 2009.

XP SP3 not due out untill after SP1 for Vista, which sucks as i'd sure like to have see an SP3 for XP already.

I am currently using Vista x64 for about 2 months now as my main OS, ive found it to perform well, the only bug bear I have is the drivers, but that of cause is down to the hardware manufactures and not MS, though of cause with that in mind, there is unlikely to be huge development in vista drivers from hardware manufactures as most are waiting for SP1 to deploy.
So i can expect slow progress till we see some of the same functionality in the drivers for Vista as we do in XP, for example Nvidia's set of drivers where most the control pannel extras are missing.

So in my case, mostly everything works fine, but i would have liked to see SP1 rolled out earlyer for the developers to put more effort into improving the drivers functionality.

I guess one can only be patenient.

[DarkLord7854]

I find it lame how companies always say 'Oh we're waiting for blah blah to come out" just because they can't be arsed to use a near-functional product and want any excuse to not get started on something new, even if they have loads of customers waiting on them for their product -.-

[DXR_13KE]

this is load of BS... i want my SP and i want it soon, i don't care about google, i want that search function in the OS and not on a bloated peace of 3rd party software.

[Bladestorm]

It would be nice if vista SP1 were to be out by the time I get vista, but my buying the OS will likely only happen once there are a couple decent DX10 games I want to play on it, since it will also mean buying a new graphics card.

[leexgx]

Originally Posted by DarkLord7854

I find it lame how companies always say 'Oh we're waiting for blah blah to come out" just because they can't be arsed to use a near-functional product and want any excuse to not get started on something new, even if they have loads of customers waiting on them for their product -.-

i not recommend vista at all for companys or home users at this time as Most of there software will probly not work on it and driver support is not so good at this time as well and for home users it be hit or miss if therer games that worked on XP will work on Vista even if thay do thay perform poorly in some cases you allso need 2gb of ram for Vista to work smooth (and probly an dual core cpu) {3gb if your an gamer}

its nice how thay did it but the reson why companys do not wish to use it untill SP1 is for the securty updates and there probly be Cost as well you need to put all there not so Bright workers on some training that costs money

[DarkLord7854]

Actually I got Vista Ultimate to run extremely well on an old P4 2.3Ghz with 768Mbs of RAM on a 30Gbs HD.

My Vista runs fine as well, on 2Gbs, no problems with any games. Just depends on your luck and hardware config

[Woodstock]

the laptop i ordered comes with vista, but how long it remains on is another question

[TheVoice]

Originally Posted by leexgx

i not recommend vista at all for companys or home users at this time as Most of there software will probly not work on it and driver support is not so good at this time as well and for home users it be hit or miss if therer games that worked on XP will work on Vista even if thay do thay perform poorly in some cases you allso need 2gb of ram for Vista to work smooth (and probly an dual core cpu) {3gb if your an gamer}

Vista will run fine on 1GB. Obviously 2GB is preferred, but 1GB will still provide a smooth experience.
Most common software does work on Vista and there's more being updated all the time, and game support probably isn't much of an issue for most home users.

[chrisuk]

This has gotta be a pretty big problem for Microsoft. There is no doubt that the low business take-up of Vista at the moment will be hurting there bottom line. As has been said most companies will be waiting for SP1 before deployment. Now, in all honesty, if Vista was in a deployable state now, then it would have been - but clearly there must be a number of factors preventing this. I'm rather of the opinion that the "wait until SP1" is more of a cover/catch-all position for companies who are just struggling to bring legacy software to the platform. There is an awful lot of old code out there and while Vista isn't a fundamental change I would be surprised if IT departments weren't struggling.

You also have to look at stability, the MTBF (or whatever the software equivalent is) is highly crucial for business who's requirements will be much higher than consumers. With the sheer variety of HW/SW configurations out there, all of the stability testing switches to IT departments who can't rely on MS figures or general comments of improved stability. The period between launch and SP1 gives them a nice time-frame in which to do this, while also benefiting from a significant chunk of improvements and bug fixes before deployment.

And there is also training and documentation/user support. The interface of Vista is much changed and although retains common elements there are huge swathes of documentation that will need re-writing and updating. I recently (Sept last year) updated my university's getting started document from 2000 to XP and even that was a pretty big change and a fair amount of work. Most of the people here are computer enthusiasts who will, probably, adapt to the change much more quickly and easily. Businesses have to support a whole range of user's which means documentation has to be up-to-date, relevant and ultimately correct. Again, the time between launch and SP1 gives them breathing space.

Just my two pence!

[z3rb]

I actually just upgraded to Vista today, so it's not such a huge deal for me.

[kliend]

I've been using vista for a while and been loving every second of it. Graphics drivers are still not quite up to snuff, and I'm fine with that. They will be. And 4gb will be in the mail for me by the end of the week for vista just to gobble up.

[pendragon]

i'm still taking the wait-and-see approach with Vista for now.. I'm sure i'll upgrade eventually .. but at the moment, XP does the job... I guess I'd be more inclined to upgrade if either 1) sp1 gets released or 2) hardware driver support is perfected ....

[Paradigm Shifter]

Makes me wonder how many delays the next incarnation of Windows will have - I could see quite a few companies deciding to hold off of Vista all together if the next Windows comes too quickly after Vista SP1. It'll mean that their operating costs are lower than if they have to deploy two new OSes within a couple of years of each other.

And as great as Vista is, I think there are a lot of businesses out there with computers that can handle XP reasonably well, but would require upgrades or new computers with a switch to Vista. That would cost a lot of money. Then they've got to get people retrained on a new OS (I know, I know... for tech geeks it isn't that hard, but you'd be amazed just how confused some people get when something changes, even when it something that makes finding 'xyz' easier!)

Businesses will pay attention to the amount of money deploying a new OS will cost them - and on all fronts, deployment of a new OS is like haemorrhaging money until it's all settled and everyone is familiar with it again.

[Kipman725]

says something about a product if they plan a major update before release that mainly consists of bug fixes and security patches.

I don't understand why most companies arn't runing something like damm small linux which is V fast on hardware a decade or more old and is very secure and easy to set up. Infact if I were running a large company consisting of standard office workers who need database, email and word processing software I would have them all using low spec passively cooled computers running DSL and spend all the money on big monitors and good keyboards