Windows 7 SP1 Beta Coming Soon

If the Windows 7 client SP1 consists of a combination of updates already distributed to Windows 7 clients, how can they call it a beta?

Is this a convenience thing? So that when you load Win7 on a new computer you don't spend the next 2 hours watching it download updates?

I want them to restore the Windows Vista power management menu: Power Saver, Balanced, High Performance.
Biggest annoyance with Windows 7 so far.

No more having to download the individual updates/hotfixes through Windows Update. Now, all you will need is the SP1 update.

I see how this might be useful for people who use the original DVDs because they don't have to install every single update.
But I download a updated version from the Internet, one without cracks and type in my own key.

It would have been better if they just released monthly DVD images for burning.
And I don't see how this would promote piracy because pirates don't need these in order to release their versions.
Actually it would be better because the majority of users who want it free would get this disk image from Microsoft instead of the cracked version and use a random key, get caught and buy it. Those that don't buy probably never will anyway.

This is the first time i can honestly say, whats the point? win7 runs smooth as heck, i've never had a crash.

I totally agree with this lol.




The SP1 title tends to bring more businesses and users to hop on board with the new OS. Lots of people for instance didn't switch to XP or Vista till after the SP1 release. Some even waited for an SP2. =)

seems redundant unless you have to at some point reinstall which for me will probably be never. Win 7 is the smoothest best running Windows OS to date imho

Same with my windows Vista. Not 1 crash, and i keep it unpatched.

I'm running windows 7 and i have every one of those you listed...

Not really interested that much since it doesn't add very much for the consumers using Windows 7. It's pretty much an upgrade for Windows Server R2 2008 with bug fixes for Windows 7. I expect as with previous Windows releases this is a sign of stability and product maturity for business, education, and corporate level IT departments that will help force their hand into the new environment.

So for someone who already has all the hotfixes and updates, is there any benefit to SP1?

You understand that those are all still there, right?



Check the forums for a pic.

This is great, it is what I have been waiting for. After the full SP1 is out for at least a week, I will move to Windows 7. My thanks to all the real world Win 7 testers out there

Mainly for the big corporations who does updates once in a blue moon or once every SP release. Besides, most corps generally won't change their OS to a new one until the 1st SP is released, so they'll have less bugs to deal with up on installation.

Yeah, but where in Vista, it took me 1 click to choose between the 3, in W7, it takes 3 or 4.

I am fully aware that it is there. The problem is, my clients rarely are.

It is annoying to those who know computers, but for the computer illiterate, they go around running 'balanced' or 'power saver' on their desktops, not knowing that it is killing their performance, and on laptops, people are chewing through battery life, or don't know that they can get better performance from their new dual core rig because the obvious option of 'high performance' is not presented to them.

The options are 'there' but they are not 'visible'. It is an unnecessary extra few annoying clicks and it hurts the computing experience for those who are not in 'the know'.

Beta because. . . remember Windows Vista SP1 still have a problem.

Personally, having tested them both side by side, I must admit I'm underwhelmed by Win7 compared with Vista SP2 - reminds me a lot of Xp vs. 2000.

Now don't get me wrong: Vista RTM was pure horse dung (the installer alone is horrendous, in its "You want to delete partition 2? Let's trash partition 5 instead!" way).

It's just that SP1 fixed many problems, and SP2 fixed even more - with all fixes and updates applied (the platform update and recent GPU drivers), Vista performs as smoothly as Win7, if not smoother. You can also revert it to XP-like themes and services running, which has a rather drastic effect on RAM use.

On the other hand, Win7 feels like 'Vista SP2 + lipstick' - it's not BAD, and I recommend getting it if you need a Windows version, but those of you who got Vista (I went Linux when they started writing 'XP or better' on software boxes), don't feel so shafted and keep your money.

The thing that makes me dislike Win7 is that, as said by several people in previous comments, advanced settings in Win7 are even better hidden than in Vista.

...BUT, on the matter of service packs: those require testing because they include hotfixes that didn't go through the full MS regression testing process, and that may cause problems when used in conjunction with other fixes/updates. And, since a SP isn't a 2 Mb fix, it's rather long to test - and even requires in-the-field testing.

Of course, previous SPs changed the trend quite a lot: if 2000 saw SPs that did contain only fixes and very limited updates, XP SP2 was actually an almost all new OS (SP1 and SP3 contained fixes and slight platform upgrades only), and SP1 is actually "what Vista RTM should have been".

totally useless

In terms of Win7, calling this a SP is useless. If your computer is up to date, you will gain nothing.

Thanks alot.

how many people missed the part about XP downgrade rights going away? Regardless if it is a "waste of time" to bundle the updates it means they can finally let that POS of an OS XP DIE. DIE XP DIE!.

I hate people that are stuck in the past, and it is even worse when it is tech related.

Some people cant just afford it

@fatedtodie: XP wasn't a POS; it was a good OS with solid foundations, unfortunately Marketing defined several of its default settings. A well-set XP (post-SP2) is actually fast, stable, reactive with a rather small footprint.

Too bad it was set by default to be slow, unstable, fat, insecure and ugly, and with artificial limitations to what hardware it can support (there is EAP support in it, but MS said: we don't want it to work on more than 4 Gb and waste a good chunk of it above 3 Gb, so it will not - eventhough it could).

Well I guess it's a good sign when SP1 is just a roll-up of updates and nothing to fix anything major.

shouldnt it just be called a update rollup for 7 then? I know they are trying to bundle the service pack with the 2008 R2 to make it simpler but isnt 2008 R2 only 64bit? So it doesnt make sense to bundle them together since you will have to create 64bit and 32bit versions for 7. They should just call 7's an update rollup since thats all it is and 2008 R2 SP1 a separate download. My guess is that you guys are right about the SP1 just sounding better to Corporations waiting to upgrade.

Yeah, because all businesses will just miraculously upgrade from something that works just for "new" and "shiny", especially in this economic climate... Don't be daft.

apparently you don't know really what a service pack supposed to be

go win 7 go

WOW, sign me up as a Beta SP tester! LOL
You couldn't pay me enough to do that.
These service packs are always a train wreak. They always seem to fix a few issues and cause a couple more.

A personal anecdote:
I had a client who had Vista pre-installed on her system. It was so messed up with factory software and viruses that I had to give it a complete dump. Started over from scratch using a Vista install DVD (best windows install disk concept, everything on a single disk, sans x64).
It took HOURS to go from Vista sans SP to SP2... And it was still slow, and glitchy. I think had I just told them to bite the bullet and get a nice fresh copy of W7, things would have turned out a lot better. Sure, I can slipstream it now... But is it worth the effort? Not so sure. I still wouldn't put Vista on a netbook, where I would absolutely put W7 on a netbook.