Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 7 Not Getting A Second Service Pack

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the mark-shuttleworth-becomes-filthy-rich dept.

Windows 441

An anonymous reader writes "Windows 7 was expected to have Service Pack 2 issued roughly 3 years from its introduction (late 2009). People, including myself, have been asking 'Where is it?' and the answer apparently is, 'It isn't, and will never be' which lends itself to the giant pain of installing Windows 7, then Service Pack 1, and hundreds of smaller hotfix patches. Why Microsoft? No go to Service Pack 2 for Windows 7!"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

to continue the trend? (5, Funny)

ctk76 (531418) | about 2 years ago | (#41753613)

NT4 - 6 2000 - 4 XP - 3 Vista - 2 7 - 1 8 - 0???

Re:to continue the trend? (4, Insightful)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 2 years ago | (#41753635)

No, just seems like they are trying to phase out older OSes faster and keep people current.

Re:to continue the trend? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753705)

No, just seems like they are trying to phase out older OSes faster and keep people current.

Read: make more money

Re:to continue the trend? (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 2 years ago | (#41753715)

...keep people current.

Ka-ching!

Re:to continue the trend? (2)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about 2 years ago | (#41753749)

my older hardware isnt going to like windows 8. windows 7 runs fine though.

Will microsoft make drivers for the hardware intel no longer makes drivers for beyond windows 7?

Re:to continue the trend? (4, Insightful)

composer777 (175489) | about 2 years ago | (#41753843)

From what I understand, the driver model for 7 and 8 are the same, and if anything 8 seems to run faster on older hardware (probably due to removing aero, among other things). This isn't like the upgrade from XP to Vista, where a ton of stuff broke. I still won't use it, because I think creating two separate UI's for the Desktop was a horrible design choice and I need to get work done. They could have been elegant, and created a generic font/icon/UI scaling engine that would allow the OS to work on displays of any arbitrary resolution, but I suppose they thought ratcheting the Xbox 360's UI on top of Windows was the quick and dirty way to get it done. I actually just bought an upgrade to Ultimate Edition for my laptop, if that says anything about what I think of Windows 8.

Re:to continue the trend? (-1, Troll)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 years ago | (#41754145)

Vista sp3 = win7
win7 sp2 = win8

Re:to continue the trend? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754285)

Kill yourself. Shotgun mouthwash.

Re:to continue the trend? (3, Insightful)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 2 years ago | (#41754007)

Microsoft doesn't make drivers, they repackage and sign what vendors send them.

I wouldn't give up on a service pack just yet. I would expect it after Windows 8 is released and any cross-version bugs are found. THEN it will be the last one.

Re:to continue the trend? (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 2 years ago | (#41754305)

my older hardware isnt going to like windows 8. windows 7 runs fine though

When I wanted to test the developer preview of Win8, my only available computer was a single core Celeron from 2006 with 2Gig of RAM. It ran surprisingly well. For all the things that I disliked about Windows 8, the speed of the OS was not one of them.

Your Windows 7 machine will cope alright with 8. But I think that if you are happy with Windows 7 then you might as well stay with that. (Although being a $40 upgrade, I suppose that it is not a major investment to try the new user interface)

Re:to continue the trend? (3, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#41753757)

It could also be more benign. The fact that most of us have high speed internet connections and can update the system when the updates are made and tested. The Service Pack Concept is a throwback to them good old days where we would get a CD or Disk in the mail and run the upgrade. Because trying to get it online every week would be a major job.

Re:to continue the trend? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753791)

You're forgetting that some people actually, you know, buy Windows and put a DVD in their drive and install it. Having to install an old version and wait an age for the updates to download is much more annoying than just installing the latest version from the DVD and installing any new updates since that Service Pack was released.

Re:to continue the trend? (5, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#41753829)

It could also be more benign. The fact that most of us have high speed internet connections and can update the system when the updates are made and tested. The Service Pack Concept is a throwback to them good old days where we would get a CD or Disk in the mail and run the upgrade. Because trying to get it online every week would be a major job.

Until you have to install a new version on blank hardware. One of the really big annoyances with Windows is the initial install. Install Windows 7 (no SP). Now run Windows Update for the next 10 hours downloading and installing updates.

The SP is basically a roll up of fixes so you can install all 500 or so in one go, or when slipstreamed onto the disc, during install. Which turns the Windows Update hassles from huge mess down to something much more managable.

And no, you don't need to get them every week. Once every few months or once a year is quite enough to ensure you aren't spending hours installing updates.

Re:to continue the trend? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753973)

The way that Apple handles this makes sense.

There are no reinstall discs. There is a recovery partition and something called "internet recovery". If you use internet recovery, it just downloads the current version of the OS and installs it. No further updates required.

Re:to continue the trend? (4, Informative)

f3rret (1776822) | about 2 years ago | (#41754211)

It could also be more benign. The fact that most of us have high speed internet connections and can update the system when the updates are made and tested. The Service Pack Concept is a throwback to them good old days where we would get a CD or Disk in the mail and run the upgrade. Because trying to get it online every week would be a major job.

Until you have to install a new version on blank hardware. One of the really big annoyances with Windows is the initial install. Install Windows 7 (no SP). Now run Windows Update for the next 10 hours downloading and installing updates.

The SP is basically a roll up of fixes so you can install all 500 or so in one go, or when slipstreamed onto the disc, during install. Which turns the Windows Update hassles from huge mess down to something much more managable.

And no, you don't need to get them every week. Once every few months or once a year is quite enough to ensure you aren't spending hours installing updates.

Problem being that Windows Update is a complete retard. I recently had to install Windows 7 from a DVD and when I first installed it I had to run windows update and I had to go through like one or two cycles up updates before it wanted to push service pack 1 to me, then there was like 10 rounds of downloading, installing and rebooting after the SP had been installed.

Re:to continue the trend? (5, Informative)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 2 years ago | (#41753841)

Service Packs also include hotfixes that don't appear on Windows Update. You have to request them from Microsoft if you have that specific issue. One notable hotfix that dogged XP users was the UAA patch that enabled HD Audio sound cards to work. It wasn't available for download from Microsoft, you had to get it from the vendor who made the hardware.... it was later made part of XP SP3.

Re:to continue the trend? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 2 years ago | (#41754301)

I haven't run anything newer than XP.

Would there be a lot of reboots in the patches to Windows 7?

I know this was something they were working to reduce, given the frustrations of multiple sequential reboots associated with small patches. The nice thing about a service pack is that (presumably) it would involve a single reboot at the end to complete the installation.

Re:to continue the trend? (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 2 years ago | (#41753877)

They aren't cutting support for Windows 7; they're just not aggregating updates into a single download. There hasn't been a Service Pack for Windows XP in 4 years, but the OS is still supported and will be for another two years. Service Packs are a relic from an age where the internet was not as pervasive, windows update was in its infancy, and it was easier to install a single offline update. Now, everyone is connected to the internet, and the difference between installing 80 updates online and a single service pack online is transparent.

Re:to continue the trend? (3, Insightful)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41754073)

FYI, it is still easier to install a single update especially if you do it on a regular basic.

Re:to continue the trend? (2)

Guru80 (1579277) | about 2 years ago | (#41754045)

I assure you it is much less about keeping people current than it is about getting you to spend more money on a newer version sooner so they make money faster.

Re:to continue the trend? (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 2 years ago | (#41754273)

So I have no reason to upgrade to Win8 when I can just continue with Win7 until the dust has settled with Win9 or Win10.

MS has lost its sway in convincing me to spend hard money on an OS. It used to be we almost had to upgrade hardware every year or two. Those days are long gone. The earliest I upgrade is 3-4 years.

Re:to continue the trend? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753643)

Integer underflow error, please install Service Pack 18446744073709551615

Re:to continue the trend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753681)

comma: ,

Re:to continue the trend? (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | about 2 years ago | (#41753751)

Even better - NT 3.5.1 had like 12 service packs.

Re:to continue the trend? (1)

AVryhof (142320) | about 2 years ago | (#41753915)

The next step is SAAS....

Re:to continue the trend? (3, Insightful)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 years ago | (#41753917)

NT4 - 6 2000 - 4 XP - 3 Vista - 2 7 - 1 8 - 0???

Never deploy a Microsoft OS until at least the first service pack release.

Re:to continue the trend? (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#41754097)

What happens if Microsoft stops making service packs for future OSes?

Re:to continue the trend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754227)

Surely you can figure it out.

Re:to continue the trend? (1)

chill (34294) | about 2 years ago | (#41754245)

Whoosh!

Re:to continue the trend? (5, Funny)

JamesTRexx (675890) | about 2 years ago | (#41754247)

Year of the Linux desktop! :-D

Re:to continue the trend? (1)

jerquiaga (859470) | about 2 years ago | (#41754163)

Good news for you then, they've apparently already released SP1 for Windows 8. I wish I could find the article now, but apparently they found a way to get together all the fixes they would normally do for vendors that would comprise a normal SP1 and have them available through Windows Update.

Re:to continue the trend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754201)

Or more accurately:

NT4 - SP7 that was in the works was canned when Win2000 came out
Win2000 - SP5 canned when XP came out

etc.

Re:to continue the trend? (4, Interesting)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about 2 years ago | (#41754275)

To be honest, NT4, 2000, and XP *NEEDED* all those service packs. This was before the great Security turnaround in 2003 that delayed the release of WIndows Server 2003, and resulted in the massive XP SP2 release.

Since then, Windows has had far less need of service pack because the code tends to be more solid.

SP1 is almost always a necessity though. The initial release of the OS tends to have enough niggly bugs that get fixed in SP1. I would argue that Vista SP2 was not really a service pack, but rather just a hotfix rollup. There were no new features introduced in SP2 (as it should be).

7 was pretty damn solid out of the gate though, still 7 SP1 had almost 1000 hotfixes and security patches (though a good portion of them related to specifically server functionality).

Windows 7 and Windows 8 have been pretty solid out of the gate. I don't see why MS wouldn't supply hotfix rollups for 7, but does it really need SP2? Only those people that want MS to provide Windows 8 features on 7 think so.

Why? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753617)

Duh. People won't willingly switch to Windows 8, so this is just another way to push them there.

Having barely used Windows for the last few years I'd almost forgotten the horror of Windows Update compared to apt-get or yum update.

Re:Why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753691)

yea, having barely used windows in years you still talk shit about stuff you dont know - sorry winupdate is much better than it was before, and linux is still shit for retards like you, where nothing works and no games exist. Kill yourself faggot.

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754267)

yea, having barely used windows in years you still talk shit about stuff you dont know - sorry winupdate is much better than it was before, and linux is still shit for retards like you, where nothing works and no games exist. Kill yourself faggot.

:( :(

i'm sad now

Re:Why? (1, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#41753717)

Yep. This is the sort of decision made by marketers, not engineers.

Welfare of existing users isn't high on the list of marketing priorities.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753807)

Welfare of existing users isn't high on the list of marketing priorities.

It's not high on the list of engineering priorities, either. Most developers I know would rather have beautiful code than support backwards compatible features that customers requested.

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 years ago | (#41754169)

perhaps if they actually developed beautiful code in the first place... unless you mistyped bloated...

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

OldGunner (2576825) | about 2 years ago | (#41753903)

Yet MS still faces the challenge of all the businesses who are still using Win XP. My employer has tens of thousands of systems running XP, and is just now trickling out Win 7 systems. It would take a year of hard work to internally certify Win 8 -- and for what benefit? Prematurely killing off Win 7 could be a horrendous mistake.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

gander666 (723553) | about 2 years ago | (#41754225)

I am in marketing and product management, and I can state that this is not true. Often it is engineering who wants to cut or discontinue support for older products.

It is far more common that I have to force them to support a reasonable life cycle after the launch of a new version (reasonable being 3 or 5 years).

FWIW, Microsoft publishes their PLC, and is quite good at giving you runway to plan for end of support.

Re:Why? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#41753767)

Indeed. This looks like a deliberate strategy not to repeat the Vista fiasco. I expect Windows 7 to be made unavailable through most channels very quickly after Windows 8 release.

Re:Why? (1)

dittbub (2425592) | about 2 years ago | (#41753813)

who would switch to windows 8 over this. "OMG all these updates I only have to do once! I'm so bad I'm switching to windows 8!"

Re:Why? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#41753959)

How about people that set up many PCs daily or weekly? Sure, home users aren't overtly affected by it but businesses are. Even automating it (IE: WSUS) still makes it a pain in the ass. "You would have had your new PC yesterday, but it's still updating Windows"

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about 2 years ago | (#41754041)

How about people that set up many PCs daily or weekly? Sure, home users aren't overtly affected by it but businesses are. Even automating it (IE: WSUS) still makes it a pain in the ass. "You would have had your new PC yesterday, but it's still updating Windows"

Anyone that installs multiple PCs and doesn't have a slipstream version deserves their punishment.

It's like digging a canal with spoons.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754173)

Anyone who deploys many PCs daily or weekly should be using either a slipstream update or they should be installing from images, which would take the time to deploy for each machine down from a couple of hours to a few minutes.

Re:Why? (1)

jerquiaga (859470) | about 2 years ago | (#41754197)

If you have an internal WSUS server running on a gigabit LAN, it shouldn't take you more than a couple hours for the updates. And if you didn't manage your customers expectations in the first place regarding their delivery time, then that's your fault, isn't it?

Horror? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753885)

Having barely used Windows for the last few years I'd almost forgotten the horror of Windows Update compared to apt-get or yum update.

Horror? Yeah, MS likes to slip shit in - like their Genuine something or another that now all of a sudden flags my MS Office as being illegitimate - event though it had no problem with it when it was first installed. (I turned Auto Update on because I wanted to make sure my system was patched against exploits and even though I unchecked the "GEnuine Advantage" or whatever it's called, it still got on my system.)

But horrror?

Occasionally, a PITA is more like it.

Re:Why? (1)

imbaczek (690596) | about 2 years ago | (#41753911)

it was a horror on XP. nowadays i don't even notice it apart from the occasional "reboot me" window.

Re:Why? (1)

jamesl (106902) | about 2 years ago | (#41753927)

The horror of having your computer OS updated automagically in the dead of night while you sleep. I don't know how people have lived with it this long.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754135)

Install Windows 7.

Check for updates. 120. Download, update, restart.
Check for updates. 34. Download, update, restart.
Check for updates. 12. Download, update, restart.
Check for updates. 5 Important, 6 non. Download, update, restart.
Check for updates. 0. Relax.

Install Office 2007.
Check for updates. 19. Download, update.
Check for updates. 4-8. Download, update.
Check for updates. 0. Relax.

Install something that uses Visual C++ 2005,2008,2010 | Visual J 2.0 | NET Framework.
Check for updates. 2 - 5+ per version. Download, update.
Repeat.

Why can I simply update everything from the kernel to flash to my goddamn MP3 player with one single command on Linux?

Re:Why? (1)

fragatak (562710) | about 2 years ago | (#41754137)

That is funny. He said Windows 8. If I am already going to have to relearn a whole new UI and in turn OS why not jump ship to OSX via http://tonymacx86.blogspot.com/search/label/CustoMac [blogspot.com] or another BSD system. Or how about 1 of 2.8 billion different Linux versions. Windows 8 just gives me a push to branch out more. I am already thinking about doing the CustoMac deal as most games I have on Windows already have a mac version.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754259)

Yes... the horror... All of the security ones are checked by default, so I have to click into Windows Update, and then click Next.... TWICE!

I'm surprised I don't have carpal tunnel syndrome after all that clicking once or twice a month.

Your meme is bad (0)

jkflying (2190798) | about 2 years ago | (#41753627)

And you should feel bad.

really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753641)

who cares

There is going to be a 2nd service pack for Win7.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753655)

...it's called Win8.

Re:There is going to be a 2nd service pack for Win (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#41753963)

Just like Windows ME was a service pack for 98 SE?

But there is an SP2 for Windows 7 (1)

Roskolnikov (68772) | about 2 years ago | (#41753659)

Windows 8....

Re:But there is an SP2 for Windows 7 (0)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#41753865)

.... or a non-microsoft operating system. Seriously, there are fewer and fewer reasons to stay with microsoft and they seem intent in making their operating system worse.

Re:But there is an SP2 for Windows 7 (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#41753879)

I thought it was called ubuntu or mint

Self deportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753663)

It is like self deportation. If Microsoft makes conditions miserable enough on Windows 7, they hope people will upgrade to Windows 8. It won't work because going form Windows 7 to Windows 8 is like going from Mexico to Guatemala.

It's called . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753669)

a way to make IT managers waste so much time they HAVE to upgrade!

M$ yo!

Are we surprised? (0)

xystren (522982) | about 2 years ago | (#41753683)

After all, M$ is more worried about Windows 8/Metro.

Re: Are we surprised? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753723)

LOOK! he wrote m$, do they still make shits like you? That is so 1995...linux tard

Why are you installing Win7 pre-sp1? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753687)

Why not install Win7 SP1, hit the update button and walk away... if it's really a problem, you can always set up a wsus server.

Re:Why are you installing Win7 pre-sp1? (1, Interesting)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 2 years ago | (#41753781)

He explained that in the summary.

I once unpacked a laptop and had to wait more than 8 hours for all the patches to install. Not cool.

Re:Why are you installing Win7 pre-sp1? (2)

dittbub (2425592) | about 2 years ago | (#41753783)

I reload windows all the time at work and I simply create an image with all the updates and programs already installed :) When it gets over 40 updates I make a new image!

It's logical really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753699)

They can EoL windows 7 really fast and try and force as many people as possible to switch to windows H8, I mean 8.

M$ still partying like it's 1999? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 2 years ago | (#41753711)

Does Microsoft think it can just withhold updates and people will upgrade like lemmings to the Entity Formerly Known as Metro?

This is only going to accelerate the migration to Ipads, Android tablets, a bit of Linux, et alia.

Re:M$ still partying like it's 1999? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753815)

They see that Apple users do it without too much complaining

Re:M$ still partying like it's 1999? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754117)

No, more likely it'll mean more people stick with XP unless they need an entirely new computer that comes with Windows 7.

Slipstream (1)

RoTNCoRE (744518) | about 2 years ago | (#41753727)

If you are doing fresh installs that often, just create a slipstream disc. Problem solved.

patches on patches (1)

trev.norris (2010080) | about 2 years ago | (#41753735)

I've never understood the need to apply patches on patches on patches on ... Maybe it's just a Linux thing I'm used to, or maybe I'm not even aware it's happening, but why isn't there just a single "updated" version that is pushed out?

Re:patches on patches (1)

0racle (667029) | about 2 years ago | (#41753835)

Updated version of what? Windows isn't distributed as individual packages from desperate sources, it is developed as a single entity. The BSD's ship patches that you apply to local source and deploy from there for much the same reason.

Not that you couldn't change the development process to work that way (Solaris was a little more like this) but it is a non-trivial change to the workflow. It's not something that could be done on a whim.

Re:patches on patches (1)

trev.norris (2010080) | about 2 years ago | (#41753987)

OK, so that makes sense. They have one massive monolithic product, and have to replay history of patches on top of themselves. Most annoying is when you apply many patches, just to have the Windows tell you that those patches have prepared you for the next set of patches.

Re:patches on patches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754027)

Disparate sources. Desperate housewives.

Re:patches on patches (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 2 years ago | (#41753891)

AFAIK patches are optional. So MS will release a hotfix for something that only affects a small subset of users but they never push it to Windows Update and don't include it in automatic updates since most users won't need it and they don't want to deploy it since it'll just risk breaking already-working code for them.

Re:patches on patches (1)

trev.norris (2010080) | about 2 years ago | (#41754081)

Seems like I may have my terminology confused. In my mind all updates are a "patch" (e.g. security hotfix, product update, etc.).

Guess I figured they would keep a branch of their source, and apply things like security fixes to a minor version and release both. For example, if I released v1.0.0 and v2.0.0, and there was a security problem that would affect both then I'd port it both supported branches like v1.0.1 and v2.0.1. When I updated, the latest version would have all the security updates.

Re:patches on patches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753995)

Please don't tell me when you keep your kernel updated you download the whole kernel bz2.

Re:patches on patches (1)

trev.norris (2010080) | about 2 years ago | (#41754115)

um, not completely sure. i'm no linux pro, and just use package managers. but I'd assume so. when I install a new kernel, it downloads the entire new one and installs it along side the old one. so if something breaks I can just select the old kernel from the GRUB startup menu.

"Unofficial" service packs (3, Interesting)

phorm (591458) | about 2 years ago | (#41753755)

When service-packs were slow in coming for previous windows OS's, weren't there some "unofficial" bundles that basically did the same thing?

Disappointing, but not surprising (5, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#41753787)

This is disappointing, but not surprising. Microsoft knows that most experienced Windows users don't want any part of Windows 8. But they are convinced that Windows 8 is a vital part of their business strategy going forward. So they are doing whatever they can to bribe, force, or coerce users to switch to Windows 8. They don't want Windows 7 to become the new XP, even though they profited handsomely for many years from XP licenses. The power user/business desktop just isn't cool enough for Steve Ballmer, Steven Sinofsky, and the other myopic decision-makers at MS these days.

Re:Disappointing, but not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753859)

You honestly think that people are going to jump OSs over a service pack? You're living in a dreamland.

More FUD. That's all this is.

Re:Disappointing, but not surprising (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about 2 years ago | (#41753929)

They can always change their mind. Depends on how much business users force the issue.

Re:Disappointing, but not surprising (1)

fragatak (562710) | about 2 years ago | (#41754271)

I _AM_ thinking about jumping off the windows train over Windows 8. I am on win7 now and will not go to win8. Every video I have seen of win8 leads me to believe I am going to have to re-learn the UI and OS operations again. If I have to do that why not try a completely different OS all together? If I am wrong teach me o-wise internet user land. I am not afraid of being wrong as long as I learn from it.

Re:Disappointing, but not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754307)

Why the hell would anyone switch to Windows 8 due to the lack of Service Pack 2? You don't install updates more than once... and Windows 7 already works awesome on Service Pack 1. I'm trying to figure out how your drivel is anything more than a waste of a few bytes on some server somewhere...

Should there be one? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753849)

Should there be one? I mean, with so many people singing 7's praises, why would they even bother?

Honestly, WTF is wrong with you people, you're getting security patches with some degree of speed, it's incredible compared to it's previous incarnations, what more do you want? I remember a time, when, with a single ping, you could drop everybody on the network, have you all forgotten stuff like that? BSOD's anyone?

Installing Windows 7 is not that bad (2)

bragr (1612015) | about 2 years ago | (#41753901)

I usually use Linux, but occasionally I spin up a Win 7 vm when I need it. If you install using a SP1 disk, there are around 100 updates that need to be installed afterward. In my experience, this is comparable to the amount of updates needed after grabbing the latest Ubuntu LTS or a few month old Fedora release (Although Windows update can be slower that Apt or Yum). Sure its not super convenient, but if you are installing Windows enough for it to be a problem, then you aren't doing your deployments correctly. You should really look into WSUS and WAIK for updating and deploying windows, respectively. They are both Microsoft products, but there are also numerous 3rd party tools of variable quality. A proper WAIK install can actually do the patching process during the install, so that when the computer logs in for the first time, it is fully patched.

Re:Installing Windows 7 is not that bad (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754075)

It is that bad. In fact, it's worse.

I work for a uni and had to get windows at home to deal with idiots installing software that only worked on it. Only cost like $10 as an employee at least.

Threw that POS into a VM, and started patching just like you. I think it was 130 updates... whatever.

It took over 10 reboots to finish applying all of the updates and service packs. One at a god damned time.

I don't care if it's just one. It's one person times a million.

apt, yum, whatever just needs to run or twice top, reboot for a new kernel (even that isn't necessary in the best server distros) and it's done.

I don't care what your WAIK/WSUS can do -- that may work fine on a corp LAN and such, but as a home user, *IT SUCKS*.

Plus you get the wonderful popups as you try to do something ... "windows needs to rebooot, save everything, because we're going to do it in the next 15 minutes"

It's all in the grand scheme (1)

Anarchy24 (964386) | about 2 years ago | (#41753923)

Two words: Planned obsolescence

mod 04 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753953)

Profit (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 2 years ago | (#41753971)

They want you to think of Windows 8 as a replacement that is so good they need not have a sp2 for 7. They also want to give the impression they're stopping support for 7 so anyone who wants customer service will have to upgrade, which in the end all lends itself to profile.

I'm the submitter... apk (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41753975)

Per my subject-line above: I submitted this today since I felt it was important not only for matters of convenience but also time-saving!

By installing a Service Pack instead of the roughly 80++ hotfix patches I have that APPLY to this system (and there are about 10 more that don't for whatever reasons) after Service Pack #1 is installed!

Now, bear in mind, that having to install THAT many patches (many needing a reboot)?

Hey - this is a LOT OF ROOM FOR ERROR in that one could SKIP one of them (and most are "critical security-related fixes") as well as time-consumption even if done manually (worse, if you wait for "Windows Update" to do it)).

I sort of "beat" the time-consummation by installing them in NAME order, ala e.g.-> KB1.exe -> KB2.exe -> KB3.exe (you get the picture) & then, I do an "en-masse reboot" - telling the hotfixes to omit the reboot UNTIL I APPLY THEM ALL!

(Yes, I am hoping this is "ok" to do, & so far over the years/decades now, it's worked)...

However again, it's risk - MORE RISK than installing a single service pack that "rolls up" those 80++ hotfixes as well as IE9 & its unified "remote install" rollup service packs too (mostly these are "the latest/greatest" contains the fixes from the ones before it, again, afaik).

I don't like the time taken or risk either, doing that many installed file patches @ once is all... I doubt ANYONE here does!

* Lastly, as I stated in my submission - others are and HAVE been curious about it. I am one of them, since I submitted a story not TOO long ago regarding my asking "Where is Service Pack #2 for Windows 7?" here -> http://idle.slashdot.org/submission/2245763/where-is-windows-7-service-pack-2 but, I was "rejected"... not this time!

(Nice part is, it's the VERY 1st story /.'s ever taken from me, & I've been "hanging around" here posting since 2005... "bonus", I guess!)

APK

P.S.=> LMAO @ the "Unknown Lamer" as the submitter...

... apk

Sinofsky (3, Insightful)

AdmV0rl0n (98366) | about 2 years ago | (#41753983)

Has decided that its out with the old and in with the new. Anyone opposing him is binned or sidelined. To underline the drive involved in Windows 8 - Windows 7 will quite quickly face a lock. If they can force you onto 8 thats where they will do so.

If he doesn't do this, the moment they will get on 8 will be minimised and he will look a private and public failure. And Mr Sinofsky doesn't like to be a failure.

It may questionably be good for windows users long term - as this might mean that the eco system has the earthquake required to shunt a billion trillion manhours of ecostructure from old win to new win.

Personally I think metro/notro is very poor. And it would take more than Sinofsky being a knob and a shitty UI to persuade people in the real world. Thus, looks rocky to me.

Its a shame, because to be blunt, 8 has some good engineering as does server 2012, utterly ruined by Sinofsky's insane LSD based unwindows, no windows allowed, ported from zune, but still broken beta UI. To rub your nose in it, they broke the old UI as well, and denied you the start bar and old desktop even if you like it. From now on its notro for you. Unless you go get classic shell and give sinofsky the finger.

The problem is I think he'd like the finger, so lets not.

I'll get my coat.

Not repeating WinXP to Vista/Win7 mistake (1)

flatfilsoc (679306) | about 2 years ago | (#41754077)

> Why Microsoft? No go to Service Pack 2 for Windows 7!"

MS does not want to repeat its WinXP "mistake" of customers not upgrading; service packs were sufficient to run legacy software and not retrain employees. XP is a stable enough, functional OS with sufficient features that there is no compelling reason to upgrade. If your future profits depend on customers willingly upgrade ,why would you make it easy to NOT upgrade by supplying service packs.

Ironically, the price for XP machine was climbing for the first half of the year. I replaced my child's old WinXP with refurbished machine several months ago because of legacy software and minimal requirements compared to VISTA or Win7.

. . . .
You can't always wait for your ship to come in;
sometimes you just have to row out and get it!

At the very least, do quarterly and annual bundles (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#41754161)

For small shops who only do a few "from scratch" installs a year and who want to patch their system as much as possible before connecting to a network, annual, quarterly, and monthly bundles will be a good solution.

If I can download:

Service Pack 1
2011 patch bundle for Windows 7
1Q2012 patch bundle for Windows 7
2Q2012 patch bundle for Windows 7
3Q2012 patch bundle for Windows 7
October 2012 patch bundle for Windows 7

and install all of these before I turn on the network, I'll feel a lot safer.

The current option of downloading Service Pack 1 then individually downloading each subsequent patch isn't practical for most small shops.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754179)

Yeah, that's a difficult question, why not make it easy to install Win7 when you can sell them a Win8 License...

No big deal (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41754213)

So instead of one big update they are releasing lots of small ones. As long as holes get patched in time I don't see how this affects end users. It's just a different patching schedule, a development-time decision which has little to do with the quality of the product.

Regression Testing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41754237)

It is my understanding that updates are not fully regression tested, whereas service packs are.

That said, they are going to need every single scrap of QA help they can muster to troubleshoot and isolated Windows 8 bugs for the next several years, so Microsoft will not have time to regression test the updates for Windows 7 into a Service Pack 2.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?