backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by just4U.. on Oct 25 at 4:24 AM

Will Microsoft's new service pack reinvigorate Vista sales on the eve of Windows 7?

Microsoft is preparing new service packs for Windows Vista and its server counterpart, Windows Server 2008.  The pair of service packs, according to sources, will likely land before the release of Windows 7 which is set to debut in late 2009 or early 2010.  Microsoft confirmed that the project was in the works, with a Vista spokesman saying, "Microsoft is working on a second Windows Vista service pack (Windows Vista SP2) and will share more details in the coming months."

Windows Vista already saw the release of its first service pack in May of this year.  The first release was marred by compatibility difficulties, which forced Microsoft to take it offline for a short time.  Amid slower than-hoped-for adoption growth, Microsoft launched a reinvigorated push to convince people to adopt Windows Vista, highlighted by its "I'm a PC" commercials.

Reports indicate that Microsoft is hard at work preparing the second generation service packs, to help further this new campaign.  It has reportedly delivered a beta of the Vista pack to select hardware and software partners.  This is similar to its current distribution method for early builds of Windows 7.  Microsoft also posted a placeholder article for Vista SP2 on its Knowledge Base site.

Details on the new packs are scarce, but sources with Microsoft say that the biggest deliverable for the Server version will be the integration of Hyper-V bits with it.  Sources also say the reason Microsoft is pushing to release the pack before Windows 7 is to limit confusion about whether to upgrade to Windows 7 or choose the newly more functional Vista.

The service pack for Windows Server 2008 will also reportedly be called SP2, despite it being the first service pack for the OS.  This because Windows Server 2008 was built on Vista with the SP1 service pack included.  Still, the first real service pack for the server OS will be an essential boost as many corporate partners are hesitant to buy an OS without service packs.

Microsoft is remaining tight-lipped about the server SP2 as well, except to acknowledge that its coming soon.  A Microsoft spokesperson stated, "[The] comment [on Vista] serves for Windows Server as well; Microsoft is not commenting further on the timing/release plans for the WS08 SP2 at this time, but will share more details in the coming months."

The Beta 1 releases for the two SP2s are expected within the next couple months.  This will put some pressure on Microsoft's developer team to quickly complete the service pack, as the Windows 7 Beta 1 is slated for mid-December release.

It is rumored that Microsoft may be including some aspects of Windows 7's functionality into Vista via the new service packs.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Limit confusion?
By Cypherdude1 on 10/18/2008 2:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
That's just not true. When XP arrived in 2001, 256MB sticks were already inexpensive. In fact, in 2001 my old Win98SE system already had 512MB (2*256).
quote:
When XP was released most of the world was using 128Meg of ram.. a few die-hards out there had 512 while others were just getting ready to move to 256meg.


RE: Limit confusion?
By QueBert on 10/18/2008 4:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
That's just you, I'm a tech and in 2001 the majority of people still had 128 megs, price doesn't matter when a lot of people simply don't upgrade. Hell, I was working on a box eairler this week, an Athlon 2.8, not new but not stone age. It had 256 megs with on board video. Mind you this was a PC that was bought MUCH more recently than 2001. Hell I worked on 2 Vista box's last month that had 512 megs, these were new from the store not self upgraded XP boxes. The lady who has the 256 meg box wouldn't add more memory unless I recommended it. She has no idea what memory does and why she needs it. She is far more typical than you or I, who understand the need the memory and upgrade ours.


RE: Limit confusion?
By omnicronx on 10/19/2008 12:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry buddy, but you are the one that is wrong here. The VAST majority of users still had 64-128 Megs of ram when XP was released.

Just go look at PC hardware reviews from the time.
http://www.pchardware.ro/Reviews/review.php?id=140...
http://www.pchardware.ro/Reviews/review.php?id=145...
They are benchmarking new hardware with 256M and 128M DDR memory, and this would have been considered high end.

I personally upgraded many of my friends computers, unless they had just bought a new computer, they did not have 256M of ram.

I actually remember buying my XP 1800 with 256Megs of ram, and I thought I was super cool.
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article....
Notice once again that they are using 256M of ram for new reviews.


RE: Limit confusion?
By mindless1 on 10/19/2008 12:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
What you mean is the majority of users of OLDER computers not yet running XP had 64-128MB. Your first link already goes against your claim since they list several 256MB modules and only one 128MB module.

Back then any sane system buyer would buy at least half the capacity each memory slot could accept which was at least 256MB. Back then that meant 8 SDRAM chips on one side of the module PCB. That has always been typical with SDRAM PC DIMMs.

Lastly, you overlook one of the reasons they didn't use more memory, because if the OS and app fit within that memory space, it could slow down a system to put more modules in because the system read SPD timings to determine chipset parameters including things you often didn't even have manual control over.


RE: Limit confusion?
By just4U on 10/25/2008 4:24:51 AM , Rating: 2
Bottom line was during XP's launch new computers were coming with 256meg's of ram. That's why I said a few die-hards had jumped to 512 but they were not the norm. After XP had been out for a bit 512meg became the sweet spot for windows xp .. later that sweet spot went to 1Gig and finally 2Gig.

Anyway,

Overall with Vista 64 I've found that a default install runs fine with 2G. However, it really likes 4Gig and you do notice the improvements. Moving to 8G .. mmm not so much, atleast not for me. I wouldn't want to run it on 1Gig but hell I don't even want to run XP with that amount anymore either.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki