Microsoft: No plans for Windows 7 Service Pack 2

When a new operating system comes around, most people eagerly wait for the release. Once it’s in the wild, lots of us go with the early adoption approach and use the OS from day one. In the case of Windows, a lot of businesses are reluctant to adopt until the first service pack (SP).

But now it seems like Windows 7’s first SP is to be it’s only one, with sources close to Microsoft’s sustained engineering team (the guys and gals that build and release SPs) saying there are no plans for a second Windows 7 SP.

This breaks Microsoft’s normal product update cycle as SP2 for Windows 7 has had no mention, even in rumour. Not that Microsoft won’t support and patch Windows 7; Patch Tuesday and zero day vulnerabilities will be actioned as normal for the OS, at least until support for Windows 7 SP1 ends in February 2013, 24 months after its release. Windows 7 as an OS will still be supported until 2020.

But all a SP is, is a compilation of all the individual Patch Tuesday updates in one handy package, up to a certain date. But they have proved to be a pain for Microsoft as they take up engineers’ time and budget away from building new versions of the Windows OS. Not that the SP isn’t without merit. Aaron Suzuki chief executive of desktop management and deployment specialist SmartDeploy, gives his take on the SP:

The usefulness of a service pack is it lets you roll up that [updates and fixes] into a build for an operating system, so you can flip a switch and not worry about performing 50 to 80 updates that take up hundreds of megabytes.

With Windows 8 launching on Friday, it’s to be expected that Microsoft will focus all their efforts in convincing Windows 7 users that Windows 8 is the right way to go, rather than using an older OS, no matter how established it is. But look at it this way; even Windows Vista got a SP2.

Source: The Register

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Some recent Windows 7 PCs can't handle Windows 8 upgrade

Next Story

Review: Windows 8, the hybrid OS has arrived

95 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Wait... They changed their minds. The new SP2 for Windows 7 will include the Metro UI and will disable the start button. It will also shift everything around so you can't find it anymore.

Whether anyone likes Windows 8 or not has nothing to do with this, but this is the very thing that ticks me off big time with any company. They have no problem stealing your money through overpriced software, then they give no support after they have taken your money. Then some people wonder why warez exists.

Microsoft will pull this same stunt with the tablet they released.

The only reason that Vista got an sp is because it didn't function properly and needed some things to be fixed. Now Windows 7 has no needs of a second service pack because it functions the way it is supposed to.

Even Ubuntu Long Term Support editions (ones that come out every other year) or rolling release Linux distributions have stop-gap images built.

My guess is that a new SP for 7 would automatically mean a few years added to the OS' support cycle. Microsoft wants people to move on so that's why they're "limiting" (or rather, not extending) it.

What they should do instead is release a new version of Windows either yearly or biyearly (although I think yearly would make sense), like they do with Windows Phone and like Apple does with OS X and iOS. I think this may be the direction Microsoft are going in, and maybe they're focussing their efforts there.

Hmmm, if this article is true, why is that when downloading Win7 hotfixes there's an "SP2" sitting under the "Release" column? That strongly suggests that it's a hotfix destined for an SP2.

Here's an example. Click the green button and then "Show additional information":
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2645594

rseiler said,
Hmmm, if this article is true, why is that when downloading Win7 hotfixes there's an "SP2" sitting under the "Release" column? That strongly suggests that it's a hotfix destined for an SP2.

I wish you were right, but, If you do the same for a windows XP post SP3 hotfix, it says SP4. There is no way in hell SP4 will happen...

MS please release a master update patch so that everytime I reinstall OS I dont need to wait for 80 updates to be downloaded. I'm already flashing SP1 and I will be happy to flash SP2 or super patch whatever you wish to call.

I don't understand people's obsession with service packs. Service packs are just update bundles for the very most part. So keep your Windows uptodate through MS/Windows Update and you won't need a service pack.

True story: I reloaded a computer with a clean SP1 disc, WU installed roughly 93 updates. I had previously used a disc with updates from one of the many aggregate sites linking to post SP1 hot fixes, Programs & Features in the Control Panel had about 440 updates installed in total. So no, simply running Windows Update is NOT the same as having all the available updates.

GEIST said,
I don't understand people's obsession with service packs. Service packs are just update bundles for the very most part. So keep your Windows uptodate through MS/Windows Update and you won't need a service pack.

FAIL! We are talking about updates when reinstalling. Not on a current install

A system admin you will not make.

GEIST said,
I don't understand people's obsession with service packs. Service packs are just update bundles for the very most part. So keep your Windows uptodate through MS/Windows Update and you won't need a service pack.

One minor issue with this - yes the SP1 support will end in february 2013, but Windows 7 support will end in 2020 ! So, they should change something - an SP2 or delay expiry date for SP1 support.
But will we see. Normally with a new Windows just released, an SP should come in next 6 months if they respect tradition.

The lack of unbridled enthusiasm by consumers for Windows-8 and the insistence by the business community for a Win-7 SP-2, should (if MS is smart) trigger a SP-2. I can see Ubuntu just waiting to start picking up business defectors who have become tired of MS's arrogance and uncaring attitude.

TsarNikky said,
The lack of unbridled enthusiasm by consumers for Windows-8 and the insistence by the business community for a Win-7 SP-2, should (if MS is smart) trigger a SP-2. I can see Ubuntu just waiting to start picking up business defectors who have become tired of MS's arrogance and uncaring attitude.

MS is arrogant? And you think Canonical is not? really dude...... its funny you think that though.
MS does not care? Just cause it doesn't tie together a whole array of updates and patches into a SP? ....again... really dude.....

a service pack is NOT just a collection of updates that are on windows update! Service packs include fixes that are only available via tech support too. These are tested relatively little hence why they aren't put on windows update, service packs have these integrated with everything tested a lot, hence why windows becomes far more stable after a service pack.

I WANT SERVICE PACK 2!

So this is suppose to make me desperate enough to jump to Windows 8? Steve Baldhead still doesn't realize the only thing he is doing is ****ing the loyal consumers off.

Call me cynical, but I wonder if this is so Microsoft doesn't have to support Windows 7 for as long? As a service pack usually adds 24 months to the lifespan of a product, releasing a SP2 would give Windows 7 another 2 years. This way, update support can stop a lot earlier.

Kushan said,
Call me cynical, but I wonder if this is so Microsoft doesn't have to support Windows 7 for as long? As a service pack usually adds 24 months to the lifespan of a product, releasing a SP2 would give Windows 7 another 2 years. This way, update support can stop a lot earlier.

That is exactly it and it isn't cynical at all. MS has a support life cycle policy, X number of years of mainstream support and Y years of extended support per service pack. If they did another service pack they would be extending support by several years.

sphbecker said,

That is exactly it and it isn't cynical at all. MS has a support life cycle policy, X number of years of mainstream support and Y years of extended support per service pack. If they did another service pack they would be extending support by several years.


WTH are you 2 ranting about... ridiculous.

If the product has to be supported for 2 years after a SP release... you're in luck considering Win7 will be supported untill 2020. This wont magically turn into 2022 just cause of an SP.

Shadowzz said,

WTH are you 2 ranting about... ridiculous.

If the product has to be supported for 2 years after a SP release... you're in luck considering Win7 will be supported untill 2020. This wont magically turn into 2022 just cause of an SP.

That's extended support, although from looking it up mainstream support ends in 2015 so if an SP2 was released now it would make no difference.
In fact, even if an SP2 was released in December 2014, it would make no difference:

Support ends 24 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product's support lifecycle, whichever comes first. For more information, please see the service pack policy at http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/#ServicePackSupport .

The article is actually slightly misleading then, as the 2013 date is meaningless - SP1 support would end 24months AFTER an SP2 was released, not after the release of SP1 (Otherwise you'd end up with the latest service pack being unsupported while the existing product still is...which makes no sense...).

Source: http://support.microsoft.com/l...ndows+7&Filter=FilterNO

Too bad. It needs one, if not only to collect all the post-SP1 fixes into an easily distributable package. Windows 7 will be around and heavily used until at least 2015. Only yesterday did I have a customer ask me questions on their move towards Windows 7 x64 and compatibility with our applications. It's still gaining traction. Windows 7 marketshare will probably not peak until next year if not later.

Quote:
. . . at least until support for Windows 7 ends in February 2013 . . .
Unquote.

Wrong! Support for Windows 7 ends in 2020, not 2013. Don't give the Windows XP die-hards
any more reason to stick with their increasingly antiquated, anachronistic, nearly obsolete OS!

Edited by DJGM, Oct 24 2012, 12:21pm :

DJGM said,
Wrong! Support for Windows 7 ends in 2020, not February 2013.
Mainstream support ends in 2015. It is extended support that ends in 2020. Products are only fully supported during the mainstream support period; once a product moves into extended support it only receives patches for security issues, with any non-security issues remaining unpatched.

Arkose said,
Mainstream support ends in 2015. It is extended support that ends in 2020. Products are only fully supported during the mainstream support period; once a product moves into extended support it only receives patches for security issues, with any non-security issues remaining unpatched.
Its been a while since a Windows OS went out of mainstream support.
But Windows 98 received updates (and not only security fixes) well beyond its mainstream support cycle.

RIGHT!
Prior to this change in policy, Mainstream Support for Windows Vista would run out in April of this year. Support for all users has now been extended through to 2017. Windows 7 was originally looking at a Mainstream Support end-date of 2015. All users can now expect support to last through to 2020. Extended Support for Windows XP, which is still used by many businesses, is scheduled to end April 2014.

Studio384 said,
Wrong! Windows 7 support ends on February 2013 Windows 7 SP1 support ends in 2015. Both mainstream.

Where'd you get " until support for Windows 7 ends in February 2013" from ? According to Microsoft website end of mainstream support for Windows 7 is January 12, 2015, and extended support to January 14, 2020.

xpgeek said,
Where'd you get " until support for Windows 7 ends in February 2013" from ? According to Microsoft website end of mainstream support for Windows 7 is January 12, 2015, and extended support to January 14, 2020.

Yes, I would be VERY surprised if support for Win7 ends in just 4 months!!

Relax. The enterprises will scream fowl and there will be another one before Windows 7's lifecycle ends. MS doesn't listen to consumers, but does listen to its enterprise customers.

MsftGaurav said,
Relax. The enterprises will scream fowl and there will be another one before Windows 7's lifecycle ends. MS doesn't listen to consumers, but does listen to its enterprise customers.

Why would enterprises care? They use image-based deployment tools 99% of the time such that updates are installed once and the image is distributed to all of their PCs.

dagamer34 said,

Why would enterprises care? They use image-based deployment tools 99% of the time such that updates are installed once and the image is distributed to all of their PCs.

Exactly, enterprise create their own images with all their software and crap pre-loaded and slipstreamed with service packs and updates built in

dagamer34 said,

Why would enterprises care? They use image-based deployment tools 99% of the time such that updates are installed once and the image is distributed to all of their PCs.

And the size of the image keeps increasing as more updates are integrated. Service packs will drastically cut the size of such WIM images.

MsftGaurav said,
Relax. The enterprises will scream fowl and there will be another one before Windows 7's lifecycle ends. MS doesn't listen to consumers, but does listen to its enterprise customers.

Hence Windows-9 (or, possibly Windows-7 SP-2) will come out, and a return to sanity.

Microsoft seem to be doing their very best to spit on their most loyal customers it seems. The moment Linux becomes a more viable gaming OS, I am giving serious consideration to jumping ship.

Javik said,
Microsoft seem to be doing their very best to spit on their most loyal customers it seems. The moment Linux becomes a more viable gaming OS, I am giving serious consideration to jumping ship.

You'll be waiting for a while.

Javik said,
Microsoft seem to be doing their very best to spit on their most loyal customers it seems. The moment Linux becomes a more viable gaming OS, I am giving serious consideration to jumping ship.

WOW. For starters this is as of now, ATM they are focusing on Windows 8. If there are a bunch of security or other updates that they think rectify a SP then they undoubtedly will whip one up. Anyways, whats wrong with Windows 7 SP1 anyway? What would you want in a service pack? BTW I don't think you understand that no service pack doesn't mean no updates...

Javik said,
Microsoft seem to be doing their very best to spit on their most loyal customers it seems. The moment Linux becomes a more viable gaming OS, I am giving serious consideration to jumping ship.

Go for it, you think Ubuntu has service packs? It does not.
And for OSX service packs, you have to pay.
Windows is the only one with free service packs to begin with.
So crying about it and 'threatening' to go to another OS just makes you sound like a dimwitted person.

What they should do instead is offer a Windows 7 Download and or cd with the updates pre-installed. Just take your existing product key enter it online and download

wv@gt said,
What they should do instead is offer a Windows 7 Download and or cd with the updates pre-installed. Just take your existing product key enter it online and download

Exactly

Shadowzz said,

Yeah cause 5 service packs is a great thing

It is, since that would imply that an OS has been given good software support.

If you imply that many service packs are a sign of weakness, they're not. Bugs always happen, especially at times of introducing new features. Service packs can also incorporate support for new kinds of hardware. For as long as Windows 7 receives regular security updates and other fixes, it would need a service pack every now and then.

Again, many bug fixes over many years are not signs of buggy software. All software have bugs, especially when as complex as an entire operating system. That Google or Mozilla release new versions of their browsers frequently is similarly not signs of weakness. These are also signs of strength in their software support.

Rudy said,
It's sad to see each release of Windows get less and less SPs (Just looking at the NT branch)

I cut my teeth in the NT days. The 6 service packs, 4 feature packs and the roll-up packs were a royal pain in the... While I would like to see an SP2 for Windows 7, it doesn't upset me too much.

Northgrove said,

It is, since that would imply that an OS has been given good software support.

If you imply that many service packs are a sign of weakness, they're not. Bugs always happen, especially at times of introducing new features. Service packs can also incorporate support for new kinds of hardware. For as long as Windows 7 receives regular security updates and other fixes, it would need a service pack every now and then.

Again, many bug fixes over many years are not signs of buggy software. All software have bugs, especially when as complex as an entire operating system. That Google or Mozilla release new versions of their browsers frequently is similarly not signs of weakness. These are also signs of strength in their software support.


Most service packs are a collection of updates. They rarely actually change the inner workings of the OS. WinXP was the last OS where service packs have done some major changes to the underlying kernel and OS structures.
Vista's service pack where mainly updates and some improvements and tweaks that flowed back to Vista from Win7 development. (and some driver model updates iirc)
Win7's service pack was just a collection of updates and something about HyperV or something (been a while since i last checked).

Many bug fixes can be a sign of weakness. Especially unnecessary bug fixes. Don't be silly.

The industry average is roughly 10-15 bugs/errors per 1000 lines of code.
MS's average is roughly 0.5 bugs/errors per 1000 lines of code.
Although these research info's are years old. These things dont change that much in a few years.
And information found over some things currently, they just check found bugs/exploits per 1000 lines of code. Which brings down numbers below 0.1. And thats on released versions. And the KLOC is for all errors made per 1000 lines of code over the course of the application development. So its a bit misleading.

But applications that go way above 10-15 bugs per 1000 lines of code... you're software is just crap.

Mikeffer said,
And before some idiot types it first, NO Windows 8 isn't Windows 7 SP2.

...seriously, who on earth is even going to attempt to say this? Honestly, find me one person that's actually convinced that Windows 8 is a "minor" update to Windows 7. Windows 8 makes Windows 95 -> Windows 7 look like a series of Service packs, Microsoft has not made such a big leap since the leap from 3.1 to 95.

Kushan said,

Microsoft has not made such a big leap since the leap from 3.1 to 95.

Just because Windows 95 looks almost exactly like Windows NT 4.0 doesn't mean there aren't any differences between them.

vvtunes said,

Just because Windows 95 looks almost exactly like Windows NT 4.0 doesn't mean there aren't any differences between them.


This..
Every Windows has had huge amount of changes and improvements under the hood that you never hear MS talk about or promote. (found quite a few really neat improvements that I cant seem to find anywhere on the web in Win8)
And if its about looks, then its silly. With normal every day desktop work, Win8 is pretty much identical to Win7, except the start icon being 'different', start menu went full screen and the borders are sharp and not rounded.

torrentthief said,

No, it is Vista SP1, it is EXTREMELY buggy!


No it isn't. Some of the first-party and third-party apps may be buggy, but they aren't the operating system, and I haven't experienced many bugs at all while using them.

If this is supposed to convince people to upgrade to Win 8, then MS is dead wrong, however, this seems like a non-story. If I am reading it right, MS isn't confirming there's no SP2, the engineers simply haven't heard anything yet.

Just think what windows updates are going to look like in a year or more from now on a clean unpatched Win7 machine... I can't wait!!! Good move M$!!

Co-ords said,
Just think what windows updates are going to look like in a year or more from now on a clean unpatched Win7 machine... I can't wait!!! Good move M$!!

So it might take an extra 20 minutes to get it patched. Big deal. If you install an OS so much that it matters then build the patches into your image.

this is a bad call, IMHO.... People don't like to be "forced" into upgrading.... And if W7 users feel like that's happening... They won't react well. And Microsoft will suffer... Bottom line here is, Win 7 is to win 8 what Win xp was to Win Vista. They might as well cater to their Win7 users a little more, simply because many of them are already skipping Win8.... And it would NOT be good for MS to let them skip Win9 too. That may very well happen if they get tired of supporting a company that abandons its software too soon.

Reverend Spam said,
this is a bad call, IMHO.... People don't like to be "forced" into upgrading.... And if W7 users feel like that's happening... They won't react well. And Microsoft will suffer... Bottom line here is, Win 7 is to win 8 what Win xp was to Win Vista. They might as well cater to their Win7 users a little more, simply because many of them are already skipping Win8.... And it would NOT be good for MS to let them skip Win9 too. That may very well happen if they get tired of supporting a company that abandons its software too soon.

TBH Windows 7 only fixed what was wrong in Vista, there is nothing wrong with it at the moment and so there is nothing to warrant a service pack. "many of them are skipping": I don't know where you've been but every OS release the majority of people wait about a year or when they get a new PC.

ingramator said,

TBH Windows 7 only fixed what was wrong in Vista, there is nothing wrong with it at the moment and so there is nothing to warrant a service pack. "many of them are skipping": I don't know where you've been but every OS release the majority of people wait about a year or when they get a new PC.


Please sir, tell me what was wrong with Vista that Win7 actually fixed?

Shadowzz said,

Please sir, tell me what was wrong with Vista that Win7 actually fixed?

Performance issues, networking issues, slow file transfers, and some UI oddities. I enjoyed Vista, but 7 is more stable.

Tyler R. said,

Performance issues, networking issues, slow file transfers, and some UI oddities. I enjoyed Vista, but 7 is more stable.


Performance issues? except for boot times, Vista wasnt slower then Win7. Except offcourse you where on 2gb ram or less, no proper GPU and 32bit. Then it was indeed crippled. But on a proper system it ran more then fine.
File transfers arent faster/slower on Win7, same technique. This changed from 7 to 8 though.
And Win7 still has UI oddities that made it all the way into Win8 aswell (stupid highlighted taskbar windows while mouse isnt anywhere close to your taskbar for example... and opening up preview windows or showing titles)

Shadowzz said,

Performance issues? except for boot times, Vista wasnt slower then Win7. Except offcourse you where on 2gb ram or less, no proper GPU and 32bit. Then it was indeed crippled. But on a proper system it ran more then fine.
File transfers arent faster/slower on Win7, same technique. This changed from 7 to 8 though.
And Win7 still has UI oddities that made it all the way into Win8 aswell (stupid highlighted taskbar windows while mouse isnt anywhere close to your taskbar for example... and opening up preview windows or showing titles)

Why are you so defensive? I don't have a top of the line computer by any means, but I don't have a sh*ty one either. I met all the system requirements with a x64 bit copy of Vista Ultimate. No GPU? I had a 9800 back then with 4gb of ram and a 2ghz. dual core Athlon. (Currently upgraded to a Phenom II and a 550 TI.) It's better than what 80% of the planet currently has and I max that sucker out to it's full potential. I'm sorry you took that offensively, I was only trying to help.

Shadowzz said,

And Win7 still has UI oddities that made it all the way into Win8 aswell (stupid highlighted taskbar windows while mouse isnt anywhere close to your taskbar for example... and opening up preview windows or showing titles)

I hate this bug.

Shadowzz said,
Please sir, tell me what was wrong with Vista that Win7 actually fixed?

Removal of the Kernel Global Dispatcher Lock in Win 7 (2008R2) allows for scalability to higher number of processors/cores/threads.
Fixed the 2d GPU pipeline which caused problems in Vista when toggling in and out of full screen gaming.
Superbar.
Pinning.
Least priveledged user execution as default execution policy.
Improvements to ASLR/DEP implementations
More robust WDDM 1.2 driver model.
shall I continue?

Shadowzz said,

Performance issues? except for boot times, Vista wasnt slower then Win7. Except offcourse you where on 2gb ram or less, no proper GPU and 32bit. Then it was indeed crippled. But on a proper system it ran more then fine.
File transfers arent faster/slower on Win7, same technique. This changed from 7 to 8 though.
And Win7 still has UI oddities that made it all the way into Win8 aswell (stupid highlighted taskbar windows while mouse isnt anywhere close to your taskbar for example... and opening up preview windows or showing titles)

Vista is exactly like Windows ME in the fact that on the presentation layer, there doesn't appear to be much wrong, but behind the scenes there's a lot of problems. Vista was bloated, inefficient, and many components were half-baked. On a couple brand new laptops I used to use, Vista would find ways to fail to boot and corrupt certain core system files. File transfers are slow. Certain features of the Command Prompt were missing that were available on XP (they were added again in 7). There's a reason no one uses it anymore.

why not just make a windows 7 CD with all updates installed. theres plently of apps that allow you to customize and build your own ISO's. n-lite etc.

tomcoleman said,
why not just make a windows 7 CD with all updates installed. theres plently of apps that allow you to customize and build your own ISO's. n-lite etc.

Because you need multi-layer DVD's at least. Or blu-rays disks.
I tried a while ago, with all updates, firefox and few other default applications (no more then 100-200mb tops above the rest) and ended up with a 14GB image file.

Shadowzz said,

Because you need multi-layer DVD's at least. Or blu-rays disks.
I tried a while ago, with all updates, firefox and few other default applications (no more then 100-200mb tops above the rest) and ended up with a 14GB image file.

Just install from USB if you can't spring for some dual-layer discs. They are way faster anyway. I never install from DVD anymore, they take a little longer to create, way longer to install, you can't easily add extra files if you need a storage driver or something, and they are wasted when you are done. USB is way better.

sphbecker said,

Just install from USB if you can't spring for some dual-layer discs. They are way faster anyway. I never install from DVD anymore, they take a little longer to create, way longer to install, you can't easily add extra files if you need a storage driver or something, and they are wasted when you are done. USB is way better.


Yeah thats an option. But I rather have MS delivering a mid-way thing like a SP to help out countless of hours for IT techs to update freshly installed machines.
I do have an USB disk with a few Windows' and Linux'. But it still sucks, installing aint the longest period, takes what... 20minutes at best? few min less with USB (albeit not hugely faster) and then the hours of updating. (especially with no local updater service).

Shadowzz said,

Because you need multi-layer DVD's at least. Or blu-rays disks.
I tried a while ago, with all updates, firefox and few other default applications (no more then 100-200mb tops above the rest) and ended up with a 14GB image file.

Wow. I recently updated my x86 SP1 WIM file with IE 9 and then integrated 80 MS updates to it and mine was only 2.4GB (originally was 2.1GB). I do not add any applications as they are always out of date quickly and we deploy them with SCCM in the deploy task sequence.

sphbecker said,

Just install from USB if you can't spring for some dual-layer discs. They are way faster anyway. I never install from DVD anymore, they take a little longer to create, way longer to install, you can't easily add extra files if you need a storage driver or something, and they are wasted when you are done. USB is way better.


The pc must support booting from usb though.

I think it's a good thing. I know service packs are convenient and all, but they are also auto-update blockers. The user needs to give explicit permission to install a service pack because it's so big. And as we all know, novice users don't usually bother clicking on "New updates are ready to install" balloons. Result: the computer stops installing any newer patches because it's waiting for permission on the service pack, and the user ends up hopelessly behind without knowing or caring. Just saw this in action on a Vista machine which had no SPs.

Get rid of large service packs and the machine will carry on auto-updating for as long as it likes, and the novice user never needs to know. Just the way it should be.

Incidentally, I think we can reasonably expect to see no service packs at all for Windows 8...

One way to have the best of both worlds might be to release update rollups that are literally nothing more than a collection of previously released updates, and which (here's the crucial bit) are not required if all the individual updates have been installed. Then the SP wouldn't block the auto updater, but could still be useful for admins.

err... common MS even if its like SP1, just a collection of updates and such.
I hate installing new Windows machines, even with a local updater service on Winserver... takes a long time to download and install all those frigging updates.
Let alone people on slower internet connections that aren't a multitude of several mbits.

But they have proved to be a pain for Microsoft as they take up engineers' time and budget away from building new versions of the Windows OS.

Its not like MS lacks engineers....

Shadowzz said,
err... common MS even if its like SP1, just a collection of updates and such.
I hate installing new Windows machines, even with a local updater service on Winserver... takes a long time to download and install all those frigging updates.
Let alone people on slower internet connections that aren't a multitude of several mbits.

Its not like MS lacks engineers....

Slip stream them into a new iso!

ingramator said,
Slip stream them into a new iso!

slipstream technology died with XP.
The new method has a new name and a new convoluted way of doing it.

Tyler R. said,

Nothing. Just a roll up of updates would be nice.

That is known as a patch roll-up, not a service pack, and anyone can put those together. A service pack represents a huge super undertaking. This might be overkill, but from a support point of view MS treats a service pack as a totally separate OS, and they put that same level of testing into them.

sphbecker said,

That is known as a patch roll-up, not a service pack, and anyone can put those together. A service pack represents a huge super undertaking. This might be overkill, but from a support point of view MS treats a service pack as a totally separate OS, and they put that same level of testing into them.


Boy you really don't anything about service pack which is a collection of updates, fixes, and even enhancements to OS or program delivered in the form of a single installable package, in stead of installing many hundred of individual patches.

SHS said,

Boy you really don't anything about service pack which is a collection of updates, fixes, and even enhancements to OS or program delivered in the form of a single installable package, in stead of installing many hundred of individual patches.

Right and wrong. Microsoft hasn't exactly been consistent in their definition of Service Pack. Windows 2000 had an epic run of what were essentially patch roll-ups, while Windows XP had the infamous SP2. Windows 95 had OEM 'Service Releases'.

The only thing we can count on is Microsoft being a little wonky about naming strategies. Personally, I like the idea of there eventually being a way to slipstream the bulk of updates into a Windows 7 image for a happier clean install experience, but...then again, I don't see myself re-installing Windows 7 any time soon. 8 handles the same hardware just fine.

SHS said,

Boy you really don't anything about service pack which is a collection of updates, fixes, and even enhancements to OS or program delivered in the form of a single installable package, in stead of installing many hundred of individual patches.

This isn't always true. Some service packs have offered extended functionality and additional improvements. XP SP2 is the biggest example. A more recent example is in Vista where each SP gave great performance and reliability improvements (ones not offered in single updates) and MS Expression Web 2, whose description clearly states that SP2 adds new features.