No service pack 2 for Windows 7

[Pheran]

Ugh, this sucks.

Microsoft has no plans for a second Windows 7 Service Pack

I guess this is another way Microsoft is attempting to force Windows 8 on us. One of these days I'll have to figure out how to integrate patches into an SP1 install because installing a zillion patches after reinstall is really painful. Tactics like this just make me dislike Windows 8 even more.

 

[Snoop]

Wow.

 

[theevilsharpie]

This sucks for home users, but for businesses, it's not that big of a deal. It's substantially easier to build and generalize a Windows 7 image than XP, and that image can be installed from disk in place of the generic Windows image (space permitting).

 

[Nothinman]

Ugh, this sucks.

Microsoft has no plans for a second Windows 7 Service Pack

I guess this is another way Microsoft is attempting to force Windows 8 on us. One of these days I'll have to figure out how to integrate patches into an SP1 install because installing a zillion patches after reinstall is really painful. Tactics like this just make me dislike Windows 8 even more.

It should make you dislike MS and Windows in general, not just Win8. And it's not like anyone is forcing you to use Windows...

 

[Pheran]

It should make you dislike MS and Windows in general, not just Win8. And it's not like anyone is forcing you to use Windows...

Games, plus lots of other applications only run under Windows. If all the apps I wanted to run supported Linux, I'd use it as my desktop.

 

[daveybrat]

Games, plus lots of other applications only run under Windows. If all the apps I wanted to run supported Linux, I'd use it as my desktop.

Couldn't agree more. I'd love to run Ubuntu as my main OS....but what's the point? None of my games will run on it and even the Mac OS will not run the vast majority of my games.

So in a way, we are forced to use Windows. Not that i personally am complaining, i love Windows 7, runs like a dream on my pc.

 

[Steltek]

What Microsoft says now isn't even worth printing, much less worth reading.

Wait 12-24 months from now and look at the presence of Win8 at the enterprise level. That is what will determine whether Win7 gets another service pack. If the enterprise-level customers demand SP2 for Windows 7, Ballmer will bend over so fast to accomodate them that he'll tear something and end up in traction.

 

[MichaelD]

What Microsoft says now isn't even worth printing, much less worth reading.

Wait 12-24 months from now and look at the presence of Win8 at the enterprise level. That is what will determine whether Win7 gets another service pack. If the enterprise-level customers demand SP2 for Windows 7, Ballmer will bend over so fast to accomodate them that he'll tear something and end up in traction.

This is basically what I was going to post. () Speaking as an Enterprise Admin that manages roughly 20K PCs I can say that it's the Volume Licensing space where MS makes it's money. What my company pays for a W7 Pro volume licenses+Software Assurance could pay Ballmer's salary for a year. And we are one of hundreds of companies that Volume License W7 in some form.

Three years ago MS said they'd support XP until end-2014. W7 is so much better technically, user-experience, etc-wise than XP. Win7 is THE Windows OS. IMO, it'll be supported at least thru 2020, if not longer.

 

[Steltek]

This is basically what I was going to post. () Speaking as an Enterprise Admin that manages roughly 20K PCs I can say that it's the Volume Licensing space where MS makes it's money. What my company pays for a W7 Pro volume licenses+Software Assurance could pay Ballmer's salary for a year. And we are one of hundreds of companies that Volume License W7 in some form.

Three years ago MS said they'd support XP until end-2014. W7 is so much better technically, user-experience, etc-wise than XP. Win7 is THE Windows OS. IMO, it'll be supported at least thru 2020, if not longer.

My employer has 100,000+ workstations running Windows 7 in 1600+ locations across the US. Win8 isn't even a blip on their radar now, as curbing the productivity losses associated with that mentally retarded user interface would probably cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. In short, it won't happen for many, many years (if ever). For them, Win7 will be just like XP -- they'll still be using it until 2020 when they are forced to upgrade, unless the stupidity somehow gets fixed in Windows 9 or 10.

 

[MichaelD]

My employer has 100,000+ workstations running Windows 7 in 1600+ locations across the US. Win8 isn't even a blip on their radar now, as curbing the productivity losses associated with that mentally retarded user interface would probably cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. In short, it won't happen for many, many years (if ever). For them, Win7 will be just like XP -- they'll still be using it until 2020 when they are forced to upgrade, unless the stupidity somehow gets fixed in Windows 9 or 10.

LOL! So true! My average user is in the 50+ age bracket, doesn't know a network drive from a local drive and still confuses "Log off" with "Shut down." If Calendar in Outlook even puts something in the wrong place they get all freaked out. Windows Update popups cause mass confusion, despite educational PPoint presentations with screen shots that we send out to try and educate people.

Ah, the life of Net Admin. We work a 60-hour, 40-hour workweek and then get to come in on Saturday's too.

 

[ViRGE]

Do we even need another service pack? Other than rolling up updates I'm not sure what purpose a SP2 would serve.

Meanwhile business customers would be elated to not have another SP. Service packs break their precariously programmed software, and their vendors aren't about to support a new service pack any time soon.

 

[blurredvision]

Do we even need another service pack? Other than rolling up updates I'm not sure what purpose a SP2 would serve.

Meanwhile business customers would be elated to not have another SP. Service packs break their precariously programmed software, and their vendors aren't about to support a new service pack any time soon.

First reasonable response I see in this thread. Some of you are actively trying to find ways to bitch about Microsoft/Windows.

I don't see the big deal about not having SP2. The only thing the OP mentions as bad about this is having to download patches on a new install. Slipstreaming is easy and there are tons of tutorials out there for it. It's not like Microsoft said they weren't patching it anymore.

Word would get out that Ballmer farted and you guys would raise a shit storm.

 

[oynaz]

First reasonable response I see in this thread. Some of you are actively trying to find ways to bitch about Microsoft/Windows.

I don't see the big deal about not having SP2. The only thing the OP mentions as bad about this is having to download patches on a new install. Slipstreaming is easy and there are tons of tutorials out there for it. It's not like Microsoft said they weren't patching it anymore.

Word would get out that Ballmer farted and you guys would raise a shit storm.

A Service Pack is a collection of patches, isn't it?

 

[Nothinman]

Do we even need another service pack? Other than rolling up updates I'm not sure what purpose a SP2 would serve.

Meanwhile business customers would be elated to not have another SP. Service packs break their precariously programmed software, and their vendors aren't about to support a new service pack any time soon.

Service packs are supposed to be just a big roll up of updates so that you don't have to install 200 disparate updates. And if MS was doing their jobs right an SP would never break any apps because it would just be security updates with no other changes or features.

 

[ViRGE]

Service packs are supposed to be just a big roll up of updates so that you don't have to install 200 disparate updates. And if MS was doing their jobs right an SP would never break any apps because it would just be security updates with no other changes or features.

For Windows, service packs have been collections of both traditional updates (which are largely composed of security patches) and fully validated hotfixes (actual bugfixes). This is in contrast to an update rollup, which is called just that and only contains updates.

Because service packs fix bugs, they break software that relies on the behavior of those bugs. Which is why businesses and vendors hate service packs, because their precariously programmed software, developed with poor programming practices, essentially relies on those bugs to operate. Which brings me back to my original point: this is why "MS is doing this to drive us to Windows 8" is such a silly claim; there are far bigger issues at stake when deciding to issue a new service pack than a few stubborn consumers.

 

[Nothinman]

For Windows, service packs have been collections of both traditional updates (which are largely composed of security patches) and fully validated hotfixes (actual bugfixes). This is in contrast to an update rollup, which is called just that and only contains updates.

Because service packs fix bugs, they break software that relies on the behavior of those bugs. Which is why businesses and vendors hate service packs, because their precariously programmed software, developed with poor programming practices, essentially relies on those bugs to operate.

I can't say I've ever hit one of those issues, but MS shouldn't be making changes that affect known behavior unless it's absolutely necessary. They do tons of regression testing so I would say that if a SP breaks your app, your app was broken to begin with and you deserve it.

My big problem with MS' SPs is that they also tend to sneak in features that aren't just bugfixes. Those should be released separately to minimize the changes caused by a SP to avoid issue like what you're talking about.

 

[ViRGE]

I can't say I've ever hit one of those issues, but MS shouldn't be making changes that affect known behavior unless it's absolutely necessary. They do tons of regression testing so I would say that if a SP breaks your app, your app was broken to begin with and you deserve it.

I completely agree. But you know how businesses are: they want to buy a piece of software and then run it for 20 years without changing a thing. Which would almost work if not for the fact that most systems are networked (and hence exposed to attacks).

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I guess I just feel that when the number of update patches hit a certain number (a humungo number of patches), that we should get some sort of SP update that rolls-up those patches into one update file that is easily distributed and installed.

But I guess it's good, because who knows, MS might try to change certain behaviors in Win7, or make IE9 manditory, or something, and we probably don't want that.

(I personally like the fact that, even though all my Win7 desktops are licensed, MS will let you install Win7, and run it basically indefinitely without activating, as long as you don't mind not getting Windows Updates, and having a black background that says Windows is Not Genuine in the lower-right corner. It doesn't lock you out after 30 days like XP does.)

 

[cl-scott]

Wasn't this basically news around the time SP1 came out? Seem to recall Microsoft saying then that they were planning to move away from service packs. And really, it is a minor annoyance to people who reinstall their OS and have to download all those updates, but even though it may not be called a service pack, it doesn't mean Microsoft can't create a "cumulative update" that would be a service pack in all but name like in the final days of Win2000 when SP5 was scrapped officially but there was a rather large cumulative update released that was effectively SP5.

 

[lamedude]

We went from 6 (7 if you count 6a) to 4 to 3 to 2 to 1. I wonder if Win8 will be getting any.

 

[cl-scott]

We went from 6 (7 if you count 6a) to 4 to 3 to 2 to 1. I wonder if Win8 will be getting any.

I'm sure Win 8 will get 1 service pack, and it will be fairly early on in its life. There are a number of companies that have unofficial policies about not upgrading until at least SP1 of some Windows release. So there will probably always be at least one service pack, but only one.

 

[chucky2]

If there's no Win 7 SP2 then how about Win 7 Patch Rollup '13. Or they could just release SP2 like they should be doing anyways...

 

[tcsenter]

Learn how to use the MS customization tools and create your own Win7 install image with all post-SP1 updates integrated/installed.

 

[KingRaptor]

Corporations may not want to move to win 8 given the touch oriented UI. Therefore, win 8 sp1 may not be needed.

 

[postmortemIA]

Learn how to use the MS customization tools and create your own Win7 install image with all post-SP1 updates integrated/installed.

that is more work than just installing SP1 after OS install, and then let windows update take care of the rest.