johnhc

Service Pack 2 for W7?

55 posts in this topic

Vista is longer supported than Win7. Server 2008 gets Updates till 2018 so you can sue them on Vista, too.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Windows 7 is the new XP, the OS that was hard to kill. So I think we will see a SP3 for 7 because of public demand

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt this. Sinofsky is not so user friendly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows NT 4.0 - SP6a

Windows 2000 - SP4

Windows XP (x86) - SP3

Windows 2003 Server / XP x64 - SP2

Windows Vista - SP2

Windows 7 - SP1?

That list doesn't reflect the reality, which is:

1 - The need for service packs depends partly on how half baked the RTM was. Seriously, how many of those versions were usable and stable from day one?

W7 was far better out of the box than Vista, XP or 2000 was. Dunno about NT 4.0 or NT 5.2 since I never used the RTM versions of them.

2 - How much better did W7 actually get with SP1? Sure, you didn't have to install loads of updates, but the overall impression was the same as with RTM.

W7 RTM was stable.

3 - The reason why XP SP3 exists, why Vista was delayed, and why Vista RTM sucked was all because MS dropped the ball back then, simply put.

4 - The reason for why there are six service packs for NT 4.0 is partly because back then you didn't update the OS over internet the way we do it today.

You used floppies or a CD with the service pack to update, the service packs were much smaller and came more often. SP1 was 1.4 MB large and came SEVEN WEEKS after the launch of NT 4.0.. :D

As a contrast, W8 got a 170 MB large cumulative update this week from WU, before launch. That update alone is larger than all the service packs for NT 4.0 combined!

I expect one more SP for W7, at most.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 - How much better did W7 actually get with SP1? Sure, you didn't have to install loads of updates, but the overall impression was the same as with RTM.

W7 RTM was stable.

Wasn't the original meaning of a Service Pack to just include all updates and hotfixes in a one package which can be either installed or slipstreamed? No new components were added to Win2k in any of its SPs. It's XP SP2 where a lot of new things were introduced.

Not having to install a lot of single updates is a huge advantage. Another one is that if you check what exactly was included in the SPs for 2K/XP/2K3 you will see that apart from the security updates available to download directly from WU there were also HUNDREDS of hotfixes by request included. Downloading such hotfixes separately is a pain.

As a contrast, W8 got a 170 MB large cumulative update this week from WU, before launch. That update alone is larger than all the service packs for NT 4.0 combined!

You can't compare it like that :w00t: First check size of system files in NT 4.0 and W8.

Edited by tomasz86
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrast the discussion here with the one at Fanboy Central ...

Microsoft may kill Windows Service Packs ( NeoWin 2012-10-12 )

I nominate this one for the Darwin Ballmer Award of the Day ...

I say good.

Waiting years for a cumulative pack of fixes is a waste of bandwidth every time you install Windows.

wtf? :blink::huh::no::puke:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wtf? :blink::huh::no::puke:

What do you expect from the trolls at Fanboy central? Neowin is simply terrible and most users have no deeper knowledge.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 - How much better did W7 actually get with SP1? Sure, you didn't have to install loads of updates, but the overall impression was the same as with RTM.

W7 RTM was stable.

Wasn't the original meaning of a Service Pack to just include all updates and hotfixes in a one package which can be either installed or slipstreamed?

Sure, but the difference between now and then is that it's not a matter of life and BSOD anymore.

No new components were added to Win2k in any of its SPs. It's XP SP2 where a lot of new things were introduced.

Who said anything about components?

Not having to install a lot of single updates is a huge advantage. Another one is that if you check what exactly was included in the SPs for 2K/XP/2K3 you will see that apart from the security updates available to download directly from WU there were also HUNDREDS of hotfixes by request included. Downloading such hotfixes separately is a pain.

Well that's what I said, right? I guess we're all a bit spoiled by the overall stability of W7 RTM compared to older versions.

W7 RTM is 3 years old now, and still usable. Of course we all use W7 with SP1 now, but RTM is still usable.

Imagine using XP RTM in 2004, it was a whole different story..

As a contrast, W8 got a 170 MB large cumulative update this week from WU, before launch. That update alone is larger than all the service packs for NT 4.0 combined!

You can't compare it like that :w00t: First check size of system files in NT 4.0 and W8.

And that's my point, you can't compare six service packs for NT 4.0 from an era when MS couldn't even expect everyone to have a dial up connection,

to today when MS makes a 170 MB update to W8 before launch. Without the internet, that update alone would have been a service pack.

Edited by Photek
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrast the discussion here with the one at Fanboy Central ...

Microsoft may kill Windows Service Packs ( NeoWin 2012-10-12 )

I nominate this one for the Darwin Ballmer Award of the Day ...

I say good.

Waiting years for a cumulative pack of fixes is a waste of bandwidth every time you install Windows.

wtf?

wtf?

What do you expect from the trolls at Fanboy central? Neowin is simply terrible and most users have no deeper knowledge.

Who would ever guessed that by searching Windows 7 SP2 a quote from me would be found...

Anyway.

LOL, that troll would be me and fanboy? Seriously, me a iPhone and Samsung S3 owner/user, PlayStation gamer, and Fedora 17 KDE as my home File Server, and I'm a fanboy for using also Windows? You guys are quick to know and acuse a person, wow so grown up around here (even someone from the *house*) aren't we?

I guess you misunderstood my post, or I made it not clear enough (reading it now do make me wonder what crap did I smoke, it doesn't make much sense), so:

I was referring to the fact most KB are unavailable or well buried in MS KB database and can't be easily found and installed. So you have to wait for a SP. With Windows 8 that's not case anymore and it's a good thing. And please spare me the Windows 8 crap, I dislike it too, but that's not point here.

So with the first "type of" SP for Windows 8 that was released, more hidden KB (and sooner) can be made available to the home user without requiring searching for OEM pages with those updates. Is it a true SP like in the old days? No it isn't.

Look, back in NT6/2000 SP's were more important, online updates were barely usable and there were lot's of limited bandwith problems, now it's not case, for 50€ my ISP provides Triple Play (TV+Internet+Phone) with unlimited bandwith, yes completely unlimited and I'm from a country that is no where the speeds most country's now have.

Now it is good to have a SP with say 2 years of updates and avoid time and bandwidth waste every time you install Windows? Yes. But nowadays not so important and even less since Microsoft doesn't bundle the last versions of it software with it, say IE9/10, Directx 11.1, etc... You still have to manually update a lot of stuff. Plus it's much harder to slispstream a SP in Windows than say 2000/XP/2003, for example you lose the option to choose edition when doing so in Vista/7 (unless you get a Technet or similiar account and grab the ISO).

I hope I now make more sense and if you disagree, fine by me. :)

PS: And thanks for the award, please send it to me, so I can put it next to my certifications.

Edited by Digitalfox
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Digitalfox - I think "fanboy central" meant Neowin, not you in particular, nor were you designated as "troll". Just that the comment seemed rather silly and not very explanatory. You might use the expansive explanations you used here over at that forum. ;)

There are methods to include the "upgrade" components. As was stated, XP SP2 had new "features" that apparently no other SP ever actually offered, the reason being security (e.g. "basic" Firewall). I've never seen any SP ever offer "upgrades" (as in your example IE9), including any given SP Release of any given WinOS (since they are just "pre-integrated").

I would be willing to bet (again) that an SP2 for Win7 is being delayed due to the release of Win8. Indeed, the link given has "implications" not yet even known. It in fact "implies" that some "features/fixes" may be in this so-called Pre-RTM Win8 SP since Win8 has been found to be "flawed" for desktop use.

As for KB's being "unavailable" or "buried", seems members here have methods and even supply Link Lists via their own or other associated websites. Generally speaking, all Win OS have a list/links that are kept up to date (with some exceptions, mainly Servers). Seriously, we (generally) have this covered...

Glad to see you have a good stable Linux for a server (NOT a snark, OK?)...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who would ever guessed that by searching Windows 7 SP2 a quote from me would be found...

And no-one would have known it was you if you hadn't blabbed. :lol: I posted that link and quote without identifying the person. The point was the contrast between this thread of people genuinely wondering whether they will produce sp2 ( let alone sp3 through sp5 out to 2020 or whatever year they actually kill Win7 ), and the tone over there where the Windows 8 fanatics hypnotized by Metro reflexively toss out comments like "I say good ...!". Anyway, whether you wrote it or not is beside the point, the logic of: "Waiting years for a cumulative pack of fixes is a waste of bandwidth every time you install Windows." has so many holes in it, I don't know where to start.

Service Packs are the exact opposite of a "waste of bandwidth" precisely because one download gets applied to many computers. It is the most minimal use of "downloading" possible. The only way to use less bandwidth is to borrow someone else's download. In stark contrast, re-installing Windows on 5 computers and allowing each of them to phone home and update individually is the very problem solved by Service Packs in the first place.

And I'm not even addressing the issue of a single rolled-up Service Pack vs. 100 or more separate Windows updates, the former done in a single pass, the latter requiring multiple reboots and certain ordering and prerequisites and even extra wasted disk space since recent Windows versions automatically make restore points for tiny updates, some as small as an optional display INF or mouse driver. To summarize, imagine two identical Sp0 computers. One gets Sp1 from a local file, the other is connected to Windows Update. Guess which will not only take longer, reboot more, and use up far more space from restore points? And this is assuming the online Service Pack install actually completes without errors since it has to deal with various Antivirus, Firewall, and permissions.

Finally, the comment ignores even more refined solutions such as slipstreaming service packs or tossing the original Sp0 media and using a refreshed Sp1 image. In short, that comment couldn't be any more wrong if it tried. Service Packs are good. Not bad. Canceling Service Packs would be bad, not good, as the quoted comment said.

P.S. The Ballmer Award is in the mail, so whoever wrote the original comment should sign for it and enjoy it. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canceling Service Packs would be bad, not good, as the quoted comment said.

which is what happened to NT4 SP7 and Win2000 SP5. those SPs were cancelled and update rollup packs were released in their places.

I'm pretty sure SP2 for Win7 won't get cancelled. it's just that it'll take a while for that one to be available.

Edited by erpdude8
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be way off, but I thought that "windows Update" was already exactly that.

I mean, you install from your original CD/DVD a MS OS and then you will have some (several) hours of downloading updates (and rebooting between them and what not). :unsure:

BTW, this method has caused historically catastrophic failures over installed "production" systems (not very often but it DID happen) :ph34r: .

In the good ol'times you upgraded the source integrating latest Service Pack (a single operation) and the number of "needed" updates were minimal.

As I see it (and this is what some good guys do "privately") a cumulative, integrated set of updates is very handy, one "update model" does not exclude the other.

An IT administrator will find much faster/handy a "set of cumulative updates" that he/she can prepare and deploy to all computers without using any "external" bandwidth, the "home" or "small office user" will find single online updates (automated) much more comfortable.

A Tech/Repairman would find handy a way to access "manually" single updates.

In a perfect world there would exist a method (officaial, supported by MS) to:

  1. have all updates clearly listed/accessible "individually" (Digitalfox on this is 100% right, sometimes finding "manually" an update is a nughtmare)
  2. have an "intelligent" automatic "online" updater (Windows Update)
  3. have a way to combine them together and create a "monolithic" "Service Pack" or "Cumulative Upgrade" package

this way every user could choose the way that best suits him/her :thumbup and noone would have reasons to whine.

jaclaz

P.S.: Mind you this does not apply "only" to the OS, example:

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...with unlimited bandwith, yes completely unlimited...
Digitalfox, I am curious about this. Did you mean unlimited GB downloaded not unlimited bandwidth (speed)? If you really meant speed, how is this accomplished? Is the delivery via cable, fiber or what? What kinds of speeds do you actually see? Enjoy, John.

Interestingly, this thread has taken some strange turns.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For NO apparent reason:

that-awkard-moment-when-you-just-wanted-to-do-a-quick-restart.jpg

:lol:

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.