Windows Vista SP1 Beta - Mid July

Mary Jo Foley has just posted some interesting information about Microsoft gearing up for the imminent launch of Windows Vista SP1 Beta:

"Just when Microsoft had customers, partners and competitors all believing that it was going to delay the first service pack for Vista - not releasing a first beta of it until just before year-end - the company is set to deliver Beta 1 of Vista SP1 in mid-July.

Word (from various sources who asked not to be named) is Microsoft is gearing up to drop Vista SP1 some time the week of July 16. And despite what Microsoft seemingly led Google, the U.S. Department of Justice and other company watchers to believe, the final version of Vista SP1 is sounding like November 2007."

Link: Forum Discussion
View: ZDNet Blogs

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

MGTEK dopisp 1.2.0378 - iPod plug-in for WMP

Next Story

Solar flares blamed for dropped cellphone calls

107 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

For all the ones saying this wasn't going to happen:

Hello WDK Beta Users-

A new beta WDK build is now available for download on Connect. This WDK beta release to Connect coincides with the recent OS beta release for Vista SP1 Preview. Please take a few moments to install the new build and test as applicable for your needs. As always, please file bugs as quickly and detailed as possible.

Thank you for your continued support!

WDK Team

and there was sp6 adn sp6a because sp6 was totally Sh^t and wasn't it sp4 that totally bricked some pc's, don't get everyone started on NT SP's they werent that special

whocares78 said,
and there was sp6 adn sp6a because sp6 was totally Sh^t and wasn't it sp4 that totally bricked some pc's, don't get everyone started on NT SP's they werent that special

Bullcrap. SP6a was SP6 + final updates that would have been called SP7. As for SP4 of Windows 2000 - it was some dick head who was using FAT32 for his boot drive - quite frankly, anyone who uses Fat32 for their boot driver deserves to die a horrible death along with their computer.

kaiwai said,

Bullcrap. SP6a was SP6 + final updates that would have been called SP7. As for SP4 of Windows 2000 - it was some dick head who was using FAT32 for his boot drive - quite frankly, anyone who uses Fat32 for their boot driver deserves to die a horrible death along with their computer.

You really have no idea what i am talking about, NT service packs not 2000 service packs, NT SP4 caused lots of issues, especuially on virtual machines on macs, and i don't think it had anything to do with FAT32, adn as for your FAT32 comment, i know many people that would ldisagree, i know one developer that still uses fat 32 on his XP box, now i think he is an idiot (an incredibly smart idiot) but he has many many reasons for doing it.

SP6a http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246009/EN-US/ you may want to read some stuff about it

as for someone using fat32 on 2000 being a ********, why?? there is absolutely no reason this should fail, and if it was so not supported and buggy then it would not be an option on instalation, what if they dual boot wiht a 98, can't make that NTFS?? just curious as to what you base your claims on.

does anyone recall the SP releases of NT4?

within *weeks* of release, SP1 was out. within weeks of that, SP2 was out, etc.

Oh, I was close...?

I think I said originally, between July and October. although I am a little worried about the fact they said it would take 5 months to sort out the list of vaulnrabilities, they must habe been working around the clock to resolve alll the issues ready for SP1.

It will be interesting to see what changes have been made and what has been added.

yep they did say that big time. because of the new tools and new frameworks under vista and Microsoft in house tools built around all this and vista means they have been able to cut the time it takes to produce a service pack or any kinda software cut the time down allot for making such a peace of software . so Service packs can be rolled out allot faster then what could be done on XP . so if it seems they rushed things well they didn't because of the advancement in ther software

EduardValencia said,
From day 1 MS said that coding for vista will be much easier than XP,so it's logic to see a service pack done in such a short time

umm by coding for vista what do you mean, if ou are refering to third party devvelopers, i disagree, it is nowhere near easier to program for

I wonder if it will be just bug fixes or will there be improvements to USING the OS. Like more sensibly done UAC that doesn't pop up boxes basically every single time you adjust any system setting.

I'm sorry, but UAC is SUPPOSED to prevent you from changing system settings without permission. That is what it is designed to do. Nerfing UAC by making it allow these changes by default would be rendering it useless.

UAC is supposed to be annoying while you are setting up your system, installing stuff and configuring windows to your liking. It's like a firewall. It's annoys you while it learns your applications, then it quietens down.

Remember that UAC doesn't (at at least shouldn't) bother you at all to just run applications and use your computer day-to-day.

I'd say it will be predomintly just fixes, however alot of those fixes should have a large impact on the useability of the system. For example file moviving/copying is one thing alot of people claim is very slow at times and fixing that will of course make everything run smoother.

I'd also expect some small tweaks, but I wouldnt expect another XP SP2 like release this early in Vistas life. That said I dont think Vista needs anything too dramatic really. It needs a fix here and there but theres nothing too huge that needs doing, at least not yet. The sum of the small fixes and improvements will hopefully raise the quality of the product (although I'm quite fond of it as it is currently anyway even if there are improvements that need to be made)

TCLN Ryster said,
I'm sorry, but UAC is SUPPOSED to prevent you from changing system settings without permission. That is what it is designed to do. Nerfing UAC by making it allow these changes by default would be rendering it useless.

UAC is supposed to be annoying while you are setting up your system, installing stuff and configuring windows to your liking. It's like a firewall. It's annoys you while it learns your applications, then it quietens down.

Remember that UAC doesn't (at at least shouldn't) bother you at all to just run applications and use your computer day-to-day.

I haven't upgraded to Vista yet but played around with a friend's laptop that had it and the constant popups encourage people to not read them and just click OK every time. We started doing this very quickly just trying to get a network setup. I think one of the best demonstrations of how the UAC is ****ed up is here: http://nudel.dopus.com/opus9/page4.html#vistauac

I quote:

Creating folder in a protected location
You ask Explorer to create a new folder.
(Prompt 1) Explorer prompts you to let you know it's about to prompt you.
(Prompt 2) Explorer displays a UAC prompt.
"New Folder" is created and its name is selected, ready for you to type over.
You type the desired name and press return.
Explorer was waiting for you to type the name and yet, inexplicably, treats this as a completely new rename operation.
(Prompt 3) Explorer prompts you again to let you know it's about to prompt you again.
(Prompt 4) Explorer displays another UAC prompt.
The new folder is renamed to what you asked for.

Instead of constantly prompting you, it'd be better to prompt for the password once and then remember it for a while, while using the current program rather than letting anything do as it wants of course. In its current form it's really more like "Who wants to be a Vistanaire".

LaXu said,

I haven't upgraded to Vista yet but played around with a friend's laptop that had it and the constant popups encourage people to not read them and just click OK every time. We started doing this very quickly just trying to get a network setup. I think one of the best demonstrations of how the UAC is ****ed up is here: http://nudel.dopus.com/opus9/page4.html#vistauac

I quote:

Creating folder in a protected location
You ask Explorer to create a new folder.
(Prompt 1) Explorer prompts you to let you know it's about to prompt you.
(Prompt 2) Explorer displays a UAC prompt.
"New Folder" is created and its name is selected, ready for you to type over.
You type the desired name and press return.
Explorer was waiting for you to type the name and yet, inexplicably, treats this as a completely new rename operation.
(Prompt 3) Explorer prompts you again to let you know it's about to prompt you again.
(Prompt 4) Explorer displays another UAC prompt.
The new folder is renamed to what you asked for.

Instead of constantly prompting you, it'd be better to prompt for the password once and then remember it for a while, while using the current program rather than letting anything do as it wants of course. In its current form it's really more like "Who wants to be a Vistanaire".

Why are you even creating a folder in a protected location - save everything in your home directory and don't touch a damn thing outside it; there you go, problem solved.

kaiwai said,

Why are you even creating a folder in a protected location - save everything in your home directory and don't touch a damn thing outside it; there you go, problem solved.

there are many reasons, you may want to do this. baackup purposes etc etc

kaiwai said,

Why are you even creating a folder in a protected location - save everything in your home directory and don't touch a damn thing outside it; there you go, problem solved.

Well, for some inexplicable reason, Inetpub is considered a system folder. Including wwwroot. The POINT of wwwroot is that it's a folder you put stuff in for the web server to host. Why would I want to confirm that I want to put stuff there?

Sounds promising, if Microsoft don't release it too late, but also don't release it too early and make a mess of the patch.

And I'm still hoping to see XP SP3. I'm sticking with XP SP2/SP3 until Vista SP1 is released. Maybe I won't have to use SP3 afterall. Depends which comes first really.

b0m8er said,
wow! a Beta SP 6 months after RTM... that was pretty quick

november
december
january
february
march
april
may
june
july

looks like more than 6 to me

november 1
december 2
january 3
february 4
march 5
april 6
may 7 --hrmmm, after that it goes to more then 6 months, someones math is way off.....lol
june 8
july 9

9 months by my count, but of course if you want to be picky, the beta STARTS 8 3/4 months after vista went rtm.....

ps, if yiou want i can always break it down to number of days for those who are too lazy and real picky about it. :P

sirghost said,
november 1
december 2
january 3
february 4
march 5
april 6
may 7 --hrmmm, after that it goes to more then 6 months, someones math is way off.....lol
june 8
july 9

9 months by my count, but of course if you want to be picky, the beta STARTS 8 3/4 months after vista went rtm.....

ps, if yiou want i can always break it down to number of days for those who are too lazy and real picky about it. :P

November is actually 0 - December is the first month after the RTM.

wicked, just to clarify for the n00bs its a beta so you install it at your own risk so don't come crying in the forums if your computer decides it doesn't want to do something xD

Here's what's funny about this. And this happens every single time too.

What was it, like a month or 2 after it hit the store shelves there were PC's found that were running test versions of SP1 for Vista? As seen by those screenshots someone captured of a PC at some Microsoft event. So sometime around March, maybe even April?

Vista went RTM in November of 2006. People were very quick to start whining about a service pack to fix all the bugs. It's now July, 2007 and there's news about a possible BETA of a service pack starting in the next couple weeks. Vista has been done for what, 7 months now? 7 months from release there's talks of a service pack BETA with a possible final version in November of 2007 and some people want to say that they rushed it?

That's one whole year to build and test a service pack. More than enough time and a year from release is a normal time for releasing a service pack. They didn't rush it and they didn't take forever with it either. Late 2007, early 2008 was always the timeline for a Vista service pack from everything I've ever read about it. So that part isn't even news really.

There's these people out there that always find a way to complain about something. It's like they're not happy unless they constantly complain.

Whine because they're too slow and whine because they're too fast. The people that whine about Vista need to find a new hobby.

On a side note: I'm waiting for this to appear on Paul Thurrotts site. He'll say "my inside sources have told me..." inside sources being he read Mary Jo's blog and will try making it look like he knew before anyone else. I bet he's very irritated right now not being the first person to say anything about this and I'm thrilled about that

excalpius said,
Or, whine about whiners. :)

First time I've ever talked about the subject actually and if you want to keep trolling with your little remarks like this one here and the one above I'll gladly report you to a mod. Seeing how your post above "look in a mirror lately?" can be considered a personal attack towards statm1.

My post was far from whining. Just pointing out how stupid people have been acting over this.

Dude it sounded as whiney (about BOTH sides) as any of the posts above...in other words, I didn't find either of them whiney, but I thought it was relevant to post how people seem to be whining about, well, people whining.

And, while you are at it, stop whining.

excalpius said,
Dude it sounded as whiney (about BOTH sides) as any of the posts above...in other words, I didn't find either of them whiney, but I thought it was relevant to post how people seem to be whining about, well, people whining.

And, while you are at it, stop whining. :D


Well if you really want to go the immature route. Your whining about whining about the whiners.. Wow. Your doing your job well Excal..

I totally agree Nightmare. I didnt think your post was supposed to be considered whining at all.

I just meant that the amount of posts about people complaining about Vista had started to taper down and now with news of a SP starting up. It will start going back up again. Thats really all I meant.

I was talking about the whole thread, not statm in particular.

And yes, I was being ironic by whining about the whiners whining about whining.

statm1 said,
Wonderful another round of whiners.

I agree I have been a vista fan since beta 2 infact I would not mind running my system on rc1
vista is fine with standard software and standard hardware (properly installed not overclocked)

Nothing weird about it. They haven't actually announced anything official yet about this service pack and when the beta of it does come out I'm thinking they'll make it a public beta so they can get a big number of people to test it.

All just my opinion though.

Oh great, here we go again.

SP1 delayed - everyone says screw you MS, you said SP1 would be out by the end of 2007, damn you, I hate you, I will never use your products again.

SP1 back on track - screw you MS, you are going to release it before it's ready. blah blah blah blah (insert usual whining here).

They have been working on SP1 a long time right now and quite frankly they originally did say SP1 would be out by the end of 2007, so I was shocked when they said they were going to delay it. So this news really isn't news, it's just that confirming the old news was really the right news (confusing). I'm glad it's being released because I was waiting for this to go to Vista and quite frankly, I will be happy that they are updating the kernel to match Longhorn Server, not to mention everything else.

In any event, I love how the same people complaining about the delay are now complaining about a so called "rush in release" which isn't the case if you had bothered to follow the timeline. Such hypocrites.

They rushes Vista 2 after Vista 1 was scrapped, so yeah, call us all a bit skeptical. My guess is that Vista SP1 will be the equivalent of XP at RELEASE time and we'll have to wait for Vista SP2 to see wide scale deployments. Hopefully I will be wrong, but...

Primetime2006 said,
They have been working on SP1 a long time right now and quite frankly they originally did say SP1 would be out by the end of 2007, so I was shocked when they said they were going to delay it.

Maybe I missed it, but did they ever really announce a delay? All I remember reading is that they promised a beta "by the end of the year," others made speculations that it would be delayed until winter 2008 based on that. They were probably just giving themselves ample wiggle room with the DoJ in case they ran into problems and couldn't produce SP1 on schedule, all the while still planning on having SP1 final out be the end of the year.

Anyways, whenever SP1 comes out, it'll be a good thing. I've been hearing nothing but good about Server 2008, and Vista's getting the same kernel in SP1. The driver issues (with newer hardware, anyway) should be taken care of by then, and most developers have already released either a new Vista-compatible version of their software, or patches to make their existing products work with Vista.

By the end of the year, I doubt that most people will have any valid reason not to upgrade to Vista, other than possibly the cost of Vista itself and/or cost of hardware upgrades. Now whether or not they'll have a reason to upgrade remains to be seen...

excalpius said,
They rushes Vista 2 after Vista 1 was scrapped, so yeah, call us all a bit skeptical. My guess is that Vista SP1 will be the equivalent of XP at RELEASE time and we'll have to wait for Vista SP2 to see wide scale deployments. Hopefully I will be wrong, but...

Rushed?! What the hell are you smoking?

Windows Vista was moved from Windows XP to Windows 2003 SP1 base - how is that a 'rush'? maybe if they were cmopletely and utterly diffferent platforms, then sure, but they're not.

As for the issue at hand, SP1 has been in development for some time already - delays? absolutely NOTHING to do with product quality and everything to do with waiting for DOJ to make sure that all the changes required, are being made.

If people want a company or individual to lynch, then look at Google whining over crap like 'desktop search' - it has moved from being a semi-reasonable assurance for equal access to OEM by competing operating systems to complete bull**** demanding security features to be removed as to allow the likes of Symantec and McAfee to royally f*ck around with the system internals.

Sorry, quite frankly, if Microsoft competitors can't compete without butchering the operating system, then maybe they should close up shop, sell off the assets and find a damn hole to hide in.

Kaiwai, blaming DOJ for this is ridiculous. I for one am looking forward to having ANY other desktop search option for Vista. OR I'd like MS to give us the kind of control over the Desktop Search Service that keeps it from interfering with games, etc. IT NEVER STOPS. Even when playing a full screen game, Windows Desktop Search is off banging the hard drive and taking up CPU (although less that when it is running all alone). I have to DISABLE the damn service to play any game with a solid frame rate. How retarded is that? How hard is it to have a PAUSE INDEXING button or just PAUSE when any full screen application is running, or if the CPU is running high? Honestly?!

So, if google's desktop search can be integrated and works in a more user-friendly fashion, I'd love to use it.

excalpius said,
Kaiwai, blaming DOJ for this is ridiculous. I for one am looking forward to having ANY other desktop search option for Vista. OR I'd like MS to give us the kind of control over the Desktop Search Service that keeps it from interfering with games, etc. IT NEVER STOPS. Even when playing a full screen game, Windows Desktop Search is off banging the hard drive and taking up CPU (although less that when it is running all alone). I have to DISABLE the damn service to play any game with a solid frame rate. How retarded is that? How hard is it to have a PAUSE INDEXING button or just PAUSE when any full screen application is running, or if the CPU is running high? Honestly?!

So, if google's desktop search can be integrated and works in a more user-friendly fashion, I'd love to use it. :)

Once you end the indexing service it's always off unless you turn it back on. I don't think you even know what you're talking about. I've never had the indexing service slow any game down when I was running Vista. If you're computer is that bad at indexing it must be pretty slow. There's also no reason your system should be constantly indexing like you make it sound like it does. On a fresh install I let it sit for about 20 minutes and it had everything indexed.

Sounds to me like you just turned it off for the duration of the time you played a game. You have to put it on DISABLED in the drop down menu or else it will just start back up the next time you restart. I think you just don't know what you're doing and it looks to me that you're only in here to bash Vista if I were to judge by your other posts in here.

kaiwai said,
Rushed?! What the hell are you smoking?

Windows Vista was moved from Windows XP to Windows 2003 SP1 base - how is that a 'rush'? maybe if they were cmopletely and utterly diffferent platforms, then sure, but they're not.


If he means what I think he means, I completely agree (but then imo Longhorn 4xxx was unfairly scrapped). Vista needed a few more revs in the beta stages to iron out some of the bugs and give the devs more time to add features, polish etc (e.g. the sidebar - who the hell decided to use DHTML/JS instead of .NET interop there?)

It's a valid point, you just failed to understand it.

Esvandiary said,

If he means what I think he means, I completely agree (but then imo Longhorn 4xxx was unfairly scrapped). Vista needed a few more revs in the beta stages to iron out some of the bugs and give the devs more time to add features, polish etc (e.g. the sidebar - who the hell decided to use DHTML/JS instead of .NET interop there?)

It's a valid point, you just failed to understand it. :)

It was scrapped for reasons that go far beyond what we know about. They probably looked at it, realised that future developments they wanted to do wouldn't stand up to the requirements for future development.

For me, if I was developing Vista, I would have grabbed the OpenSolaris core, and build a sexy gui ontop; a insanely scalable and stable operating system with a sexy front end.

With that being said, Windows Vista as delivered right now, is great. Its definately less buggy than when Windows XP or Windows 2000 was released; the need to wait out of Sp1 was little more than Microsoft bashing than anything to do with reality.

NightmarE D said,
On a fresh install I let it sit for about 20 minutes and it had everything indexed.

LMAO did you have any data on your PC, i.e word docs PDF's, on a clean install i would assume no, everythign i have heard it takes days to index the average conmputer, and 20 minutes to index a clean install is ridiculous, what the hell is it indexing. operating system files????

kaiwai said,

It was scrapped for reasons that go far beyond what we know about. They probably looked at it, realised that future developments they wanted to do wouldn't stand up to the requirements for future development.

For me, if I was developing Vista, I would have grabbed the OpenSolaris core, and build a sexy gui ontop; a insanely scalable and stable operating system with a sexy front end.

With that being said, Windows Vista as delivered right now, is great. Its definately less buggy than when Windows XP or Windows 2000 was released; the need to wait out of Sp1 was little more than Microsoft bashing than anything to do with reality.

are you insane, vista is about as stable as my ass after a hot curry!!!!

and your comment on building windows on opensolaris core, is just funny, thisis MS we're talking about

It's not being rushed. People seem to think it is, but because (and this has been said many times), Vista and Server 2k8 are on the same code base, all the testing and fixes that Server 2k8 has been going through also apply to Vista SP1. The 6 or so months of direct Vista SP1 testing should be enough imo, though only time will tell.

I wonder what kind of new anti piracy protections are being introduced in sp1. Theres been alot of talk of even stronger protectins being introduced through the service packs.

whenever some new kind of anti-piracy thing comes out, someone somewhere will crack it. give it a day or two once its release and it will be cracked. thats the internet for you.

Desperate ?

Vista went RTM 8 Nov. 2006. By the time SP1 goes RTM, Vista will be 1 year old, a normal time frame. Also remember Vista SP1 is being developed at the same time as Server 2008. So when SP2 comes out, there will be Vista SP2 and Server 2008 SP2 released together.

M118LR said,
Desperate ?

Vista went RTM 8 Nov. 2006. By the time SP1 goes RTM, Vista will be 1 year old, a normal time frame. Also remember Vista SP1 is being developed at the same time as Server 2008. So when SP2 comes out, there will be Vista SP2 and Server 2008 SP2 released together.

You mean Server SP1 and Vista SP2. Remember Server RTM = Vista SP1, code wise.

No I meant what I said. Vista SP2 and Server 2008 SP2.
This is already the case with Server 2003 SP2 and XP64 SP2. As XP64 started at the Server 2003 SP1 level, there was not an SP1 for XP64.
Vista SP1 and Server 2008 RTM will be at the same level as well. So when SP2 comes out, it will be Vista SP2 and Server 2008 SP2.

M118LR said,
No I meant what I said. Vista SP2 and Server 2008 SP2.
This is already the case with Server 2003 SP2 and XP64 SP2. As XP64 started at the Server 2003 SP1 level, there was not an SP1 for XP64.
Vista SP1 and Server 2008 RTM will be at the same level as well. So when SP2 comes out, it will be Vista SP2 and Server 2008 SP2.

this is bloody confusing can we wait till sp1 is released adn also till 2009 server is released before we start talkign about sp2's

Orlando said,
I hope SP1 will solve my PPPoE connection problem. :S

Damn, there are companies who use PPPoE? *shudder* give me adsl anyday of the week.

kaiwai said,
Damn, there are companies who use PPPoE? *shudder* give me adsl anyday of the week.

You've got me confused. The encapsulation on my ADSL connection is PPPoE (used to be PPPoA until my ISP changed over to the faster protocol).

Are we all talking about the same thing?

whocares78 said,
LMAO you may want to read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-Poin...l_over_Ethernet

it's pretty much standard for ADSL

Mate, have you heard of a thing called a ROUTER which you connect to your NETWORK card - you know, so then your operating system should have nothing to do with needing to setup PPPoE on the client computer.

btw, my ISP, Xtra, uses PPPoA - setup the the router, and everything else is a non-issue; heck, I can hook up anydamn computer running any damn operating system, its all good.

Maybe the person complaining about PPPoE should invest in an ADSL router instead of using a scody PPPoE client.

kaiwai said,

Mate, have you heard of a thing called a ROUTER which you connect to your NETWORK card - you know, so then your operating system should have nothing to do with needing to setup PPPoE on the client computer.

btw, my ISP, Xtra, uses PPPoA - setup the the router, and everything else is a non-issue; heck, I can hook up anydamn computer running any damn operating system, its all good.

Maybe the person complaining about PPPoE should invest in an ADSL router instead of using a scody PPPoE client.

umm yes and that is what almost every singleADSL conection uses, even mine, my ADSL ROUTER uses pppoe so why you are saying adsl desn't use ppoe is just crazy. i do agree it has nothign to do with your PC if you usea router. the point was you said give me adsl any day of the week, my point was all adsl pretty much uses pppoe, whther it is through a ppoe client or a router. read the damn article.

kaiwai said,

Mate, have you heard of a thing called a ROUTER which you connect to your NETWORK card - you know, so then your operating system should have nothing to do with needing to setup PPPoE on the client computer.

btw, my ISP, Xtra, uses PPPoA - setup the the router, and everything else is a non-issue; heck, I can hook up anydamn computer running any damn operating system, its all good.

Maybe the person complaining about PPPoE should invest in an ADSL router instead of using a scody PPPoE client.

Ah, but being Xtra you likely have more downtime than the folks with the "scody PPPoE client"

Remember: "There are no known problems with the Xtra network"

I wonder how we can slipstream service packs into the Vista install DVD? That will be interesting! *goes to search MSDN*

Doesn't Vista have a slipstreem tool that comes with it? I sorta remember something about a easy to use tool/app that would do all that for you now.

Express said,
Look up WAIK.
Michael Kleef has posted some pretty cool video tutorials that will give you a primer on the tools.

LMAO
i know him.

There is no doubt about that they will rush it. Just as they "rushed" Vista as a whole. Although it was delayed several times, they should've delayed it A LOT longer. Personally, Vista is no better than Windows Me was to 98SE, a total POS!

Had it on 2 of my machines for 2 days. That was all it took to realize XP Pro, is still the way to go!!


cork1958 said,
There is no doubt about that they will rush it. Just as they "rushed" Vista as a whole. Although it was delayed several times, they should've delayed it A LOT longer. Personally, Vista is no better than Windows Me was to 98SE, a total POS!

Had it on 2 of my machines for 2 days. That was all it took to realize XP Pro, is still the way to go!!

:rolleyes:

cork1958 said,
There is no doubt about that they will rush it. Just as they "rushed" Vista as a whole. Although it was delayed several times, they should've delayed it A LOT longer. Personally, Vista is no better than Windows Me was to 98SE, a total POS!

Had it on 2 of my machines for 2 days. That was all it took to realize XP Pro, is still the way to go!!

Yeah, you can get a good feel for Vista in 2 days.

I've been using it since the first betas, and XP is STILL a much more solid experience than Vista RTM. Now I like a lot of things they did with Vista, but it needs a lot of work under the hood. Let's hope the SP1 refresh is a worthy one.

Beta is fine, but would you install this on a production unit?
Does anyone else think that MS is like the left hand not knowing what the right
hand is doing? One side says no SP til winter, then another side says beta by mid
July.

Well the estimated release of the finished SP might not be until the winter, where as, the beta might start in mid July.

They've always beta'd SPs before. Just like everything else, you'll have to sign up for the beta test and so on. Or maybe they'll just pick you outta some past beta you've been in.

Beta is fine, but would you install this on a production unit?

No, but I'd put it on my girlfriend's computer! Hey, she doesn't have anything important to lose, so why not!

beta is beta. i am not stupid so would not install it on my production machine.

MS is MS, and always will be MS, they never give releiable release info about any of this ssort of stuff. it is not about one part not having any idea of the other, it is MS not wanting everyone knowing what is going on, and creating speculation is good for them

SharpGreen said,
I would. I have installed beta SPs on production boxes with no problem.

first question, are you an IT guy?

second question, woudl these production machines be in a corporate environment

third question, if answer to second questino is yes, were you fired?

if answer to second question is no, then i assume it was your own PC?

naap51stang said,
Beta is fine, but would you install this on a production unit?
Does anyone else think that MS is like the left hand not knowing what the right
hand is doing? One side says no SP til winter, then another side says beta by mid
July.

Um no? If SP1 is to be realized around winter then don't you expect the Beta to be around this time? The only problem are the fragmented news releases where it takes a week to get the full story, but that is to be expected from the rumor mill.

They aren't upping the schedule. MS has been working on SP1 internally for a while now. The build# as of Server 2008 June CTP was 222