[CharlotteTheHarlot]

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 ...

Quote

I say good.

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

wtf?

[MagicAndre1981]

CharlotteTheHarlot, on 14 October 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

wtf?

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

[Photek]

tomasz86, on 14 October 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

Quote

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.

tomasz86, on 14 October 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

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?

tomasz86, on 14 October 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

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..

tomasz86, on 14 October 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

Quote

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 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.

This post has been edited by Photek: 14 October 2012 - 04:19 PM

[Digitalfox]

CharlotteTheHarlot, on 14 October 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

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 ...

Quote

I say good.

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

wtf?

MagicAndre1981, on 14 October 2012 - 02:54 AM, said:

CharlotteTheHarlot, on 14 October 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

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.

This post has been edited by Digitalfox: 21 October 2012 - 10:40 AM

[submix8c]

@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?)...

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

Digitalfox, on 21 October 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

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. 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.

[erpdude8]

CharlotteTheHarlot, on 22 October 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

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.

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 22 October 2012 - 04:49 AM

[jaclaz]

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).

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

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:

• have all updates clearly listed/accessible "individually" (Digitalfox on this is 100% right, sometimes finding "manually" an update is a nughtmare)
  
• have an "intelligent" automatic "online" updater (Windows Update)
  
• 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 and noone would have reasons to whine.

jaclaz

P.S.: Mind you this does not apply "only" to the OS, example:
http://www.msfn.org/...ches-after-sp3/

This post has been edited by jaclaz: 22 October 2012 - 05:11 AM

[johnhc]

Quote

...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.

[jaclaz]

For NO apparent reason:

Spoiler

jaclaz

[Digitalfox]

johnhc, on 22 October 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

Quote

...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.

First, sorry about my delay in answering, workaholic

Of course I mean unlimited GB downloaded/uploaded, I'm on DSL, 16/1Mb.
We have fiber here, my ISP provides true FTTH (Unlimited traffic, no Traffic Shaping) for +/- 50€ month for 100/20Mb (plus unlimited phone calls for homes + 140 TV (20 or 30 HD) Channels, but not in my area yet.

[MagicAndre1981]

jaclaz, on 11 November 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Think of this screen in 4 years when you have to install 300 updates

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

MagicAndre1981, on 12 November 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

Think of this screen in 4 years when you have to install 300 updates

Yep. Although that number is probably low for the year 2016. And just imagine in 2020.

I had someone call me after they reset their laptop to factory default, Win7 RTM naturally, and complain it was taking forever with absurdly high number of updates. This was the updates=automatic feature enabled by default after the reset.

I asked them to stop the updates and launch Windows Update from the Start Menu, walked them through the Scan and get to the criticals. Sure enough, Service Pack 1 was but one of many updates selected for install. Which number in the sequence it would have been I don't know. I had them only select that and proceed.

This whole thing is a real bad mess. How is it possible that Sp1 is not the very first ( and singular ) update applied by either the Automatic Updates or manual Windows Update function? What a massive recipe for disaster.

[Tripredacus]

jaclaz, on 11 November 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

For NO apparent reason:

Spoiler

jaclaz

That reminds me of when I was out at the corporate hq, and at the end of the day I shut down the notebook to a screen like that. Here's me sitting in the car, waiting on installing updates (on battery no less) while everyone is inside the restaurant having a good time.

[jaclaz]

Tripredacus, on 12 November 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

Here's me sitting in the car, waiting on installing updates (on battery no less) while everyone is inside the restaurant having a good time.

Well, at least you are sitting in the car....and it isn't raining...

SCOOP!

I have a RARE image of Trip outside the restaurant (and with no car) attempting to protect the privacy of his customers :

Spoiler

And before someone invents a new accessory for IT Admins without cars, it has been already invented
http://www.prlog.org...ds-tablets.html
http://zippashades.c...r-umbrella.html

jaclaz

This post has been edited by jaclaz: 12 November 2012 - 09:31 AM

[cluberti]

Hahahahaha Awesome pic.

[RJARRRPCGP]

MagicAndre1981, on 24 August 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

MSFT tries to push Windows 8. It wouldn't surprise me if there won't be a Sp2. MSFT reduces the amount of SP dramatically for each product. This is again the Sinofsky Style. F*ck you costumers, to get fixes buy the next product.

Actually, this reminds me of Windows 95! Remember OSR2? Microsoft refused to offer OSR2 as an update to retail variants!

This caused me to get P-ed back in 1999.

[HarryTri]

Quote

This whole thing is a real bad mess. How is it possible that Sp1 is not the very first ( and singular ) update applied by either the Automatic Updates or manual Windows Update function? What a massive recipe for disaster.

Windows Update would probably install SP1 first and then the later updates. It installs only the updates that contain the latest version of each updated file and it installs the updates in an order more or less unrelated to the one that lists them before updating (I don't know why it does that but thanks God the order of installation seems to usually be the correct one).

[harkaz]

I have created "unofficial" 7 SP2 ISO with updates, .NET 4.5, USB 3.0 support, many drivers integrated and more. Is publishing it here acceptable?

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Not here....