SuperSite Blog

They updated VL customers with new ISO downloads too.

Pingback from  Windows Vista and Server 2008 are now Integrated with SP2 | OS Attack

Vista?, meh.

Pingback from  Najlepsze Programy, Recenzje, Informacje.  » Blog Archive   » Microsoft posts fully integrated Windows Vista/Server 2008 with …

Pingback from  Microsoft posts fully integrated Windows Vista/Server 2008 with … | Windows (7) Affinity

@ken:

Since it's been shown that Windows 7 isn't really all that much faster than Windows Vista in most standard benchmarks, and most people on here would still call it "Vista 2.0", I'd say that a comment like that is a bit off-base.

Vista SP1 is the stable baseline that many companies are working from right now.  SP2 hasn't hit WU/MU yet, and it'll take more testing to deploy that.  Windows 7 will need a couple of months to get last-minute wrinkles out, no matter how much Microsoft can plan ahead, and it's still already months away, so it'll be a while before any company deploys it.  Vista as it is right now, is mature.  Windows 7 isn't even released yet.  

And XP is so long in the tooth that it needs to be put to sleep.  Keeping it up to date is like putting a band-aid on a sabre impalement wound.

My estimation is that any mid-to-large company already thinking about deploying Windows 7 will likely be at least a good year off from somewhere between now and RTM before they adopt it.  Any of those that have decided to skip Vista altogether will be even longer.

Any company using Windows Vista now will be able to deploy the service pack after a much shorter testing period.

Anyone know if there's any performance improvments with SP2 on Vista or Server 2008 or is this pack just an update roll-up?

"Since it's been shown that Windows 7 isn't really all that much faster than Windows Vista in most standard benchmarks, and most people on here would still call it "Vista 2.0", I'd say that a comment like that is a bit off-base."

One of the reasons they call it that is because of the bad reputation Vista has earned over the last couple of years. They hope that by calling it "Vista 2" or "Vista SP3", people will be wary of Windows 7.

Here's another change:

www.istartedsomething.com/.../windows-7-native-virtual-wifi-technology-microsoft-research

@blakes7:

There aren't any new ones, aside from the WiFi sleep bug.  SP2 will incorporate past ones though, many of which were provided on past Patch Tuesdays, not specifically in a service pack.

The doc on the most important changes can be found here:

technet.microsoft.com/.../dd335036(WS.10).aspx

(you might need to copy and paste that)

@sharky:

You know I know better than the blow-hards that call Windows 7 "Vista 2.0".  I'm just saying that it's part of the ongoing argument about the number of changes.

It is certainly a good operating system for low-end hardware.  Is it dramatically different from Windows Vista?  It all depends on what parts of it you see regularly.  From a deployment point of view, it has some new tools and default features which I'm looking forward too.  Vista still started with the major changes though.  The taskbar is the most obvious thing from a consumer standpoint too.

I would still say it's a minor upgrade over Vista.  Some people will see the benefits.  I certainly do, and I would recommend it.

Think about it this way:  how was your experience going from Windows 95 to 98?

Pingback from  bMicrosoft/b posts fully integrated bWindows/b Vista/Server 2008 with b…/b «  Windows 7 Live Info

Want a faster Win 7, then buy a faster CPU and some more RAM, dangit. Isn't it worth the price to say you the time? Vista isn't slow on either of my $399 laptop or my Mac Pro tower with a 3GHz Quad Xeon. Also, with 7 lower hardware requirements, people should be jumping for joy, especially netbook lovers. Like Paul said, there's no real world tests. Like Wae said, how fast do you think a cheapo computer will be? You get what you pay for. [the only thing left of my $400 after rebate eMachine is the case, the modem  and the DVD drive. The other hardware parts died and were replaced. I got what I aid for, a computer that lasted 15 months. It only cost me $100 after rebates to replace the motherboard, PSU, CPU, HD (used an old one from an old computer) and get more RAM].

Wae, how can they believe that 7 is Vista 2.0as 7 has much lower hardware requirements? Jeez, most upgrades go in the opposite direction.

"Think about it this way:  how was your experience going from Windows 95 to 98?"

Or better yet, Windows 98 to Windows Me.

"Or better yet, Windows 98 to Windows Me."

For me?  AWESOME!

98 sucked, but then I had proper hardware support for Me.

"For me?  AWESOME!"

Oh, you're the one.

DRWAM

"how can they believe that 7 is Vista 2.0"

Well, at least we haven't had one say it's built on top of MS-DOS yet.

(The last Windows built on top of MS-DOS was Windows for Workgroups 3.11 which was replaced 14 years ago with Windows 95 but I've seen the arrogantly ignorant insist that Vista still uses MS-DOS so I suspect it's just a matter of time)

Lotsa

"Oh, you're the one"

I was, too.

In fact, I'd say it's a very safe bet that even the worst estimates on Windows ME include millions more users happy with it than the total installed base of non-Windows computers.

" how can they believe that 7 is Vista 2.0as 7 has much lower hardware requirements?"

Actually, if you read the specs closely, the minimum hardware requirements are the same as Vista's recommended ones.  Vista's official requirements were lower, albeit too low IMHO.

I know what you mean though - it runs better on lower end hardware that Vista wasn't designed for, specifically Atom-based systems with low amounts of RAM.  I just don't believe that anyone should run Windows 7 on anything less than what Vista runs acceptably on.  That is, I wouldn't recommend anyone to run on something with less than 1GB of RAM, or less than a socket 775 Intel CPU, preferably something with a 945 chipset or newer.  Atom systems will run Windows 7 alright, but I'd have to say that the Z-series chipsets are a letdown when it comes to Aero performance.  

I'm really waiting for Ion-based netbooks to make the grade before I can say confidently that someone could use a netbook for everyday tasks with a decent amount of performance.  Current netbooks can't handle HD video, and that's the major issue I have with them.  Video sites are the ultimate Web 2.0 multimedia service, and many are already offering 720p HD video.  Most netbooks can't handle that at full screen, so until that changes, I still consider them a bit of a gimmick for the consumer side.

I'd say they make better devices for businesses that use intranet-based web services.  I'd recommend a netbook to a company looking to offer mobile workers something small that works with light Office duties, or else does all of their work from a SharePoint application.  I can see businesses moving more towards self-hosted SharePoint web apps, and locally-hosted copies of the web app versions of Office come 2010.  Outlook Web Access already offers much of the functionality of the desktop version, and Microsoft has some amazing SharePoint web app templates that take a lot of data processing and communication tasks into a web browser.  What's missing is the web-app versions of Office.  And that's all perfectly in-line with what a netbook is for - they certainly don't do consumer multimedia any justice.

"I was, too."

Figured you'd chime in. Somewhere in the depths of your respective basements, you and "Waethorn" are probably still running a copy of Microsoft Bob and pining for the good old days.

"The last Windows built on top of MS-DOS was Windows for Workgroups 3.11 which was replaced 14 years ago with Windows 95 but I've seen the arrogantly ignorant insist that Vista still uses MS-DOS so I suspect it's just a matter of time"

Ooooh, but it still supports the CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files, so it MUST be running on top of DOS!  ;)

BTW:  I do wish that Microsoft had in-built support for mounting ISO's in Windows 7.

"Somewhere in the depths of your respective basements, you and "Waethorn" are probably still running a copy of Microsoft Bob and pining for the good old days."

Sorry, but my business upgrades faster than most.  I have to.  If I can't deploy early after beta testing and a quick stint with the RTM, then I can't serve customers properly.  Most of my business runs exclusively on Microsoft software though (aside from my accounting software and a few other utilities), and hardware turnaround is also very fast (usually about every 6 months).  We do this to stay current.  We have to be on the ball when it comes to new technology and the best way to learn about the new stuff is to use it ourselves.

When Windows 7 RTMs, we'll be there to adopt it on workstations probably within a month of our receiving it.  Ditto for SBS 2008 R2, whenever that will be.  Every six months we clear out old hardware and sell it as a used special but with a full 3 year warranty (which is our standard).  We usually just wait for new hardware platforms from Intel.  Why do we clear it out?  What better way to advertise the hardware than to use it yourself.  The systems that we build for business use are the same models that we sell.  Once platforms change, those computers DO go up for sale.

FYI:  I never used Microsoft Bob.

lotsa

"Somewhere in the depths of your respective basements, you and "Waethorn" are probably still running a copy of Microsoft Bob and pining for the good old days."

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm on Windows 7 Ultimate RC and am looking forward to Windows 8.

I do have a nice IBM PC/AT Model 339 running Windows 1.0 and a 512K Fat Mac around to remember what things were like when I took the gamble on that new GUI thing back in the mid '80s.

Oh, and I did evaluate Microsoft Bob to see if there was a business case for developer or support courseware for it. Bob was actually a nice product for its niche. It gets laughed at by people who never used it and don't understand the needs of really low-end users. Unfortunately it was a little ahead of its time for the hardware and really could have used touch and voice input.

DRWAM

No surprise there. Remember that anything invented after you were a grown up is "technology" and a bit scary. Anything already invented before you were born is just a part of the world.

lotsamystuff said:

"Think about it this way:  how was your experience going from Windows 95 to 98?"

Or better yet, Windows 98 to Windows Me.

My Take:

Have you actually used the beta or the RC? From the ignorance in the comment, I would have to say no. I agree with Leo Laporte from a few Windows Weekly, that Windows 7 is more akin to a modern version of Windows 2000. If anything.

You're using the same complaints that every hardcore Mac fan uses with every new version of Windows. Frankly, after 16 years as the top OS, its getting a bit stale by now. Besides, the so called benchmark testing done by PC World and others is really a useless metric when people in the real world can tell the difference.

Are you so desperate to pump up Apple that you'd take desperation shots at two guys who really like Microsoft products? Seriously? We know where their loyalties are. Besides, WWDC will be around next month and you guys can actually see what SnowLeopard looks like. Let the damn products speak for themselves.

The Apple has definintely fallen far from the tree.

subzero

"The Apple has definintely fallen far from the tree."

Judging from the lack of innovation over the last 20 years you could have stopped at "The Apple has definintely fallen."

@lotsamystuff

"Think about it this way:  How was your experience going from Windows 95 to 98?"

Absolutely fantastic. I was working with JavaScripts on Netscape Navigator at the time. Every second JavaScript error took down Netscape which took the system with it. I was rebooting all day. Windows 98 was like some sort of Godsend in comparison. Far fewer crashes - plenty nevertheless - but far fewer in comparison.

Basically I skipped Windows Me. Instead I went from Windows 98 to Windows 2000.

Windows 2000 was fantastic. Stable but not so fast on a Pentium 133 - so I went out and got a Pentium III  450 Mhz - I was actually sad to move to XP from it.

Pingback from  Microsoft posts fully integrated bWindows/b Vista/Server 2008 with b…/b «  Windows 7 Live Info

I can say that after using 7 for the last 5 days (in a VM) with only 1 CPU and 1gig of RAM that it will be rolled out to my company around this time next year.  It is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay faster than Vista, and that is in a Fusion VM and like I said 1 core, 1gig of RAM.  I dont care what the benchmarks say its night and day faster.

Running Vista with 2 cores and 2gigs of RAM in Fusion kills my unibody Mackbook with 4gigs of ram and a 2.4gig dual core.  7 is not even officially supported by Fusion, and it thinks its Vista and it works better.

Whatever MS has done to Vista to make 7 they have done it right.  My only test left is a battery life test and to do that I will have to grab a spare PC notebook or bootcamp it on my Macbook.  The boot camp drives for the glass track pad blow so I will probably use one of the new Latitudes we have to test it.  I copied the WDS deployment DVD from a server to my 7 VM today over the network and it was XP fast.

For work 7 will be my OS from here on out.  At home, its still going to be OS X.

What I find most hilarious about the OS extremists on both sides is that you all say how the other side is "this or that" and that you don't believe that they would act one way or the other...but in reality you are all the same simple minded people that have an unnatural devotion to companies that both make good products and want your money. I'm pretty sure that none of you are currently being paid for that service. It's like the kids today all wearing re AE or Gap logo on all of their clothes.

--tayme

Not guilty... Bro.

hamiltonstallings

What you're missing is that tayme thinks anyone who ever has an opinion that differs from his or provides facts that disagree with him is guilty. And, of course, that's pretty much everybody.

He likes to post these "all of you are idiots" posts every week or so - I'm guessing as some sort of ego self-reinforcement. We just tend to ignore them.

I remember those days when I could slipstream a service pack into the original setup files. Neither Vista nor everyone's beloved Windows 7 can do it without reverse integration which is needlessly complex. Long live XP and its servicing stack.

"What you're missing is that tayme thinks anyone who ever has an opinion that differs from his or provides facts that disagree with him is guilty."

Good to have you back, "mikegalos"; we all missed your witty insight. I'm so glad Microsoft let you go.

MikeGalos,

As far as "lack of innovation over the past 20 years"...just answer this question.

Which of the two companies was innovative enough to bring multi-touch devices to the mainstream, MS or Apple?

Which of the two companies was innovative enough to incorporate a desktop compositing engine into an OS and bring it to the mainstream, MS or Apple?

Let's see....MS has 0 multi-touch devices out that the mainstream uses..Surface?  I haven't seen any of them yet.

Apple has had desktop compositing since, what, 10.0?  MS just started to copy that idea from them for use in Vista, 6 years later.  Why?  Because they needed something that looked as "flashy" as OS X.

Just stop saying idiotic stuff with your MS slant, it's really REALLY old.

Thanks mikegalos, for your witty comeback and your attempt to act as a therapist. Wasn't it you who last week asked what gave me the right to act as your therapist? Another double standard on your part. You really do need to visit yours more often.

--tayme

@panache - I can't wait to see how mikegalos twists and turns your post to meet his needs. That is his favorite debate tactic when faced with facts that don't fit into his simple little world.

--tayme

@mikegalos - please explain how you, as a self proclaimed evangelist for Microsoft, are any different than some of the regulars here that Paul, and you for that matter, like to label as the iCabal? The only difference that I see is the company that you so fiercly and blindly support.

--tayme

"I'm so glad Microsoft let you go."

@losta:

You're an a$$.

Just another typical day at the Supersite.

Pingback from  Where is Vista SP2? | All about Microsoft | ZDNet.com