VISTA SP3

It's possible certainly, there are a lot of computers that were sold within the last few years that run Vista. In addition, Microsoft appears committed to not abandoning the OS, as they recently updated it with DirectX 11 and other things commonly found in Win7.

I don't know what the point of speculating on a date would be though. Really, service packs have diminished in importance more and more ever since Windows Update.
 
Actually, GotNoRice, Service Packs are more important since Windows Update. I also look forward to the next Vista service pack so I can keep it local and reduce the amount of updates I need to perform when preparing computers with Vista on them at work. It would drastically reduce time spent on preparing computers.

Office 2007 is overdue for SP3 too I believe. Even after installing Office Suite SP2, I still have another 400mb worth Office updates to do. Grrr..
 
You don't need holes for service packs. Service packs are collections of patches and updates from day one til now so you don't have to deal with hours and hours of Windows Update.

I would rather have a 250mb service pack 3 on my thumb drive and an extra few updates to install in Windows Update than having to install 450mb of Windows Update every time I install Vista, SP2 and Office 2007 SP2. Or even better, be able to slipstream them into my Vista install disks.
 
Yea, SP3 for vista will be an update rollup, mainly. I don't see Microsoft dropping much more "new" into the OS unless it already exists in 7 and is built already.


I wish Microsoft would release bi-monthly rollup packages that we could download to fully update the system with ONE update. That way, the max you're looking at is 8 weeks of updates.
 
Azhar said:
Actually, GotNoRice, Service Packs are more important since Windows Update.
Click to expand...

How so? I never said service packs weren't convenient, but there was a time not so long ago where Service Packs represented basically the only time most systems received updates. If a critical system vulnerability was made known, most wouldn't have that patched until the next service pack, or at best would have had to manually download an update/fix for each individual issue from Microsoft. Now vulnerabilities are fixed within days and instantly available to anyone who wants it, often being installed automatically without user intervention. Service packs have become more about adding new components to the OS or making large under-the-hood changes and the vast majority of the updates and patches they contain is stuff previously released on windows update.

NT4 had 6 service packs and 2000 had 4 service packs within only a few years whereas XP and 2003 server both only had a few service packs spread out over a much longer interval. Windows Update is what changed.
 
I wouldn't mind an update roll-up/SP3, though I don't do very many Vista deployments anymore. :(
 
GotNoRice said:
How so? I never said service packs weren't convenient, but there was a time not so long ago where Service Packs represented basically the only time most systems received updates. If a critical system vulnerability was made known, most wouldn't have that patched until the next service pack, or at best would have had to manually download an update/fix for each individual issue from Microsoft. Now vulnerabilities are fixed within days and instantly available to anyone who wants it, often being installed automatically without user intervention. Service packs have become more about adding new components to the OS or making large under-the-hood changes and the vast majority of the updates and patches they contain is stuff previously released on windows update.

NT4 had 6 service packs and 2000 had 4 service packs within only a few years whereas XP and 2003 server both only had a few service packs spread out over a much longer interval. Windows Update is what changed.
Click to expand...

Think beyond your home computer. I work in the IT field and prepare approximately 10-15 computers a week among other things. Most of our computers come with XP Pro preinstalled where I have to use the included Vista (and 7) DVD to remove XP and put in Vista. All of these Vista DVDs I have are SP1 or pre-SP1.

Service Pack as a roll-up greatly speeds up my work as opposed to Windows Update on a slow T1 line. If I was doing all this at home on my 25Mbps Comcast connection I wouldn't mind too much. It would just take 10-15 minutes to install 450mb or more of updates, but at work, 1.3Mbps T1 line is pathetic and it takes about 2 hours to update each computers.

And actually, only a few Service Packs have enhancement updates. XP SP2 enhanced network security, but 1 and 3 were mostly roll-ups. Ditto Vista SP1.

Windows Update is great as a day to day source of updates, but not as a fresh install source. It's slow and time consuming.
 
GotNoRice said:
How so? I never said service packs weren't convenient, but there was a time not so long ago where Service Packs represented basically the only time most systems received updates. If a critical system vulnerability was made known, most wouldn't have that patched until the next service pack, or at best would have had to manually download an update/fix for each individual issue from Microsoft. Now vulnerabilities are fixed within days and instantly available to anyone who wants it, often being installed automatically without user intervention. Service packs have become more about adding new components to the OS or making large under-the-hood changes and the vast majority of the updates and patches they contain is stuff previously released on windows update.

NT4 had 6 service packs and 2000 had 4 service packs within only a few years whereas XP and 2003 server both only had a few service packs spread out over a much longer interval. Windows Update is what changed.
Click to expand...

Azhar said:
Think beyond your home computer.
Click to expand...

That was going to be exactly my response.
 
Windows Update is great as a day to day source of updates, but not as a fresh install source. It's slow and time consuming.
Click to expand...
Any organization that's configuring that many machines should either have prepared ghost images or a caching server to store and control Windows Updates through. Either of those fix your "limited bandwidth" problem
 
Office 2007 SP3 would be great. I don't roll out Vista to many clients, as most of our clients are medical and have non Vista/7 compatible legacy apps. Office SP3 is horrible though, there are like 50 updates for the damn thing post SP2.
 
Arainach said:
Any organization that's configuring that many machines should either have prepared ghost images or a caching server to store and control Windows Updates through. Either of those fix your "limited bandwidth" problem
Click to expand...

Yeah because all organizations are alike and you know exactly what it is we and I do :rolleyes:

Or we could just keep service packs handy. Why the hell are you so against service packs?
 
Arainach said:
Any organization that's configuring that many machines should either have prepared ghost images or a caching server to store and control Windows Updates through. Either of those fix your "limited bandwidth" problem
Click to expand...

Making a ton of images, and keeping them all up to date is a PITA. You can much more easily slip stream SP's then individual updates. WSUS servers are another piece of work/time/money to invest in and have a limited enough scope that most small or medium sized businesses won't bother with.
It's easy to talk about ideal IT infrastructures, it's hard if not impossible to create one when you take budget/vendors/legacy apps/etc into consideration.
 
I guess I'm the only one that does a hybrid version... Installation with the latest SPs, then WSUS to quickly push down the updates (100meg network is faster than your internet connection).
 
TechieSooner said:
I guess I'm the only one that does a hybrid version... Installation with the latest SPs, then WSUS to quickly push down the updates (100meg network is faster than your internet connection).
Click to expand...

We have about 300 employees and clients all over the world with only 7 of us in the office. WSUS wouldn't help me because of the infinite number of possible scenarios and the fact that it doesn't make sense to pull updates to my server and feed it to everyone at 1.3Mbps rather than having them getting it with whatever bandwidth they have at their sites directly from Microsoft.

I have WSUS disabled on the server because of this.

Also because of countless configurations and hardware and software combination, I loathe to let Windows Update automatically update their computer blindly, possibly breaking something critical.

We don't have volume license for Windows. We use what comes with the computers, which is perfectly fine with me. I just make sure it's always Business or Professional Windows instead of Home so they can join our domain. I would have to make images for each model of laptops so I don't get activation conflicts because the built-in OEM licenses on the laptops disagrees with the OEM image I created. It's easier to just do each laptops individually. Most of the time it's as simple as toss in a recovery disk and let it do it on it's own. I just worry about updating it - which is where service pack roll-ups really comes in handy.

As I said to Arainach, every organization is different. There's no one way to handle your IT department. My way is quite efficient as it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top