Skip to main content

Microsoft to Deliver Vista SP2 Before Windows 7

Rumors that Microsoft is planning to release SP2 for Vista prior to releasing Windows 7 does not at all seem unrealistic – seeing as Microsoft itself has confirmed that SP2 is indeed in the works. No comment was made of exact time lines, however.

Some rumors indicate that Microsoft may have already shipped beta versions of SP2 to select hardware and software partners along with early builds of Windows 7. Microsoft has created a place holder Knowledge Base Article on October 2 related to the forthcoming SP2 betas, piquing the interests of anyone who has taken notice.

There haven’t been any reports from testers mentioning any of the features due out in Vista SP2 or Windows Server 2008 SP2/R2 – however, Mary Jo Foley over at ZDNet blogs claims sources have provided the following information:

« “Microsoft’s goal is to deliver both SP2 releases before it delivers Windows 7 in order to lessen confusion among users as to whether to deploy Vista and Windows Server 2008 — or to wait for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 (a k a Windows 7 Server). Currently, Microsoft is believed to be attempting to RTM Windows 7 in the second half of 2009. The Softies have said Windows Server 2008 R2 is on track for 2010.” »

« “Because Microsoft is trying to keep Windows client and server code in lock-step, Windows Server 2008 was built around the Vista SP1 codebase. That’s why the first standalone service pack for Server 2008 is being called SP2. As many customers still are reticent to deploy a new OS until the first standalone SP goes out, Microsoft also is pushing to get SP2 for server out there to convince these users to consider upgrading. “ »

According to a spokesperson for the Vista team: “Microsoft is working on a second Windows Vista server pack (Windows Vista SP2) and will share more details in the coming months.” A spokesperson for the Server team says “The comment (above) serves for Windows Server as well; Microsoft is not commenting further on the timing/release plans for WS08 SP2 at this time, but will share more details in the coming months.”

Some of us are already aware that Microsoft is to release a public Beta 1 of Windows 7 in mid-December of this year. There has been no mention of Beta 1 for Server 2008 however, but we could speculate that it is to take place either around the same time or shortly there-after.

Some people may be looking forward to the release of a second service pack for the Vista platform while others might turn a blind eye as they stick with Windows XP and wait to see what Windows “7” brings to the plate. 61 percent of consumers, according to Gartner survey data, are skipping Windows Vista all together – a lot of these people are comparing the release of Vista to the release of Windows ME. Technology aside, it’s the timing, and no need for it right now – seems to be a general consensus among those wanting to skip.

An even larger portion are starting to think that Windows 7 will not be much different from Vista – clearly showing a lack of faith in Microsoft lately. At Gartner Symposium ITxpo that took place in Orlando – Microsoft Steve Ballmer spoke via Q&A with Gartner analysts Neil MacDonald and David Mitchell Smith.

Ballmer first defended Vista like he had at last year’s Gartner show, claiming, “The adoption rate of Vista is two times faster than XP at two years in.” He had also noted that there were compatibility issues as well. “We had great success with security and starting to see a ramp with adoption.”

Ballmer was also asked why Windows 7 is considered a major release instead of just the second revision of Vista. His reply was: “It’s not a minor because it’s a lot more work than a minor release. It’s a major release.” He also noted that Windows 7 will improve the operating system shell. “Windows 7 will be Vista, but a lot better,” and “If people want to wait, they can.”

  • caskachan
    SP SP SP SP SP

    this is laughable.... so many service packs, gott alove multi os development, you coudl say they are multitasking HA!

    serioulsy, vista shoulve have come out as 64bit only
    Reply
  • i believe windows 7 is...

    but yeah all current OS's should be 64-bit only... make developers start doing things that will further the advancement of their product
    Reply
  • hemelskonijn
    I so hope there will be a cleaned out version of windows 7 when it releases.
    I am using windows server 2008 (240 day trial)on my desktop atm and it runs way better than any version of vista even when i clean them out.
    I want, make that i NEED performance over toys and if they keep up there hogging semi impressive over bloathed eye candy releases i am afraid that my desktop will be stuck at running windows server os's for a long time to come.
    Reply
  • hemelskonijn
    oops
    Reply
  • blackened144
    61 percent of consumers, according to Gartner survey data, are skipping Windows Vista all together – a lot of these people are comparing the release of Vista to the release of Windows ME.
    I think 61% of consumers would be more happy with Mojave.
    Reply
  • blackened144
    DOH!
    Reply
  • lol blackened144...

    Mojave is the bomb diggity...
    have you checked out mojaveexperiment.com and installed the silverlight version? It's pretty neat to navigate through the videos in a cloud like they have..

    If you havent, check it out
    Reply
  • In the time WinXP has been introduced to today there haven't really been enough technologic advancements to justify a new OS.

    - DDR2 ram,now DDR3 Ram,
    - the introduction of SSD
    - A couple of top ranking video cards from ATI and Nvidia that nowadays are in the budget market, being replaced by even better ones in SLI (sort of Raid) configuration.
    - The dual and quad core cpu

    All of these work perfectly fine under XP.

    Another invention not 100% compatible with xp would be Hybrid drives.
    They work, but even under Vista in most cases there's no real benefit of having one over a standard HD,or SSD.

    The only thing that changed dramatically is the usage of RAM, resources etc. Vista needs more than the standard 2GB; and you're literally wasting around 20% of ram trying to fit 4GB in your 32-bit system.

    XP runs fine with 2GB.

    Also, people where slow to understand XP was a slightly heavier but better OS than Win98 ever was. The last service packs of Win98 se made Windows 98 a very stable, responsive, and fast OS!
    XP around it's SP1 and SP2 got most of the trouble away and functions as a rocksolid OS. Really, programs crash now and then, but never XP. Not in 5 years (unless infected).
    Vista probably will become interesting to the public after the release of SP2.

    I've been using Vista and XP simultaneously, and I have to say that their SP1 did a lot of good to it.
    However, I still find Vista totally counterproductive, battery and resource hog, compared to Vista.

    I have little faith Windows 7 will be better.
    But there is!
    A big issue might be, 32 bit programs designed for Win98 worked fine under xp, and if you're lucky might work under Vista.
    I fear lots of them will have no compatibility with Windows 7.

    I also fear that Microsoft will fill the Windows 7 with useless tasks and automated programs for 'increased security' which by itself is a trap full of holes. Often I think, doesn't Windows 3.11 with it's simplistic structure offer way more security than latest Vista?
    It seems we have more security issues today than we ever had!
    Why? because of certain tasks the user doesn't really care about being there doing background tasks, and the so many DLL's that according to MS need access to the internet at all times!

    Some firewalls even don't stop these files.. I mean,what the heck?
    Who ever said any other file then internet explorer needs connection to the internet?
    Update service? Worked fine under Ie. Why do there need to be so many checkups, and system scans?
    Windows defender last time complained in Vista because it hadn't done a scan in 3 days!
    WTF??? "A security issue, windows is no longer safe!" Lick my ass MS!

    I scan my XP system about once every 2 months, and even that is a lot!
    On top of a bloodhound heuristic scan (live monitoring) my pc needs a virus scan every 3 days in order to be 'safe'?
    FUCK THAT!

    There where days I scanned my pc once every 6 months,and kept the virus scanner off all the time. Have only been infected once, and virus scanner solved the problem after browsing and stumbling on a dodgy site.

    It's ok if Vista implies all these advanced every day scanning in their ultimate, or professional edition. But in the home edition people can be happy if their system gets a quickscan every month, because that's more than enough!
    Not everyone out there is surfing dodgy and illegal sites, and not everyone goes on porn sites every day. So why the hell bother forcing a computer to scan 3-daily?
    SHIT!
    Motherfucker MS...

    Go to hell!
    Reply
  • captaincharisma
    64-bit is still not that enticing to the majority sense the only ones going over 2GB of ram are the hardcore gamers and going 64-bit only gives if any a small performance boost. when i built my new system due to funds i was only able to get 2GB of ram and said why bother installing 64-bit vistya when the drivers are still a mess and find out some of my programs don't work well

    if you think 2-3 service packs are bad try looking up windows NT 4 that had a total of 6 service packs with 2 versions of SP6
    Reply
  • hemelskonijn
    kami3k: or you just illustrated captaincharisma's point.

    Its more than enough reason not to go to vista and btw 2gigs is more than enough for playing games to (unless its overbloathed bugware).

    Reply