Windows Vista SP2 due in April 2009

Send to a friend Print

Help more people find out about this story

Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon

James Bannan03 December 2008, 7:00 AM

Still holding out on Vista? Not convinced by the SP1 fixes? Maybe SP2 will sweeten the deal.


Still holding out on Vista? Not convinced by the SP1 fixes? Maybe SP2 will sweeten the deal.

In a recent posting, Tech ARP has released information it obtained from "a confidential source" about the release schedule of Windows Vista Service Pack 2, along with some details about what we can expect from Vista's next major update.

According to the rumour mill, an RC build (Release Candidate) of SP2 will be released in February 2009, with the final RTM build (Release to Manufacturing) coming out in April 2009.

As with prior builds, we'll be expecting the RTM build to be first released to OEM builders, Volume License customers and MSDN and TechNet subscribers before being generally released the public. Users with access to integrated builds should see their download subscriptions updated with SP2-integrated installation media along with the standalone update package. This gives system builders and IT Pros the ability to start updating their image repositories and testing internal SOE builds.

As with previous service packs, the RTM will probably be released in waves, supporting different language packs. The main five languages Microsoft tend to support first with their major builds and updates are English, French, German, Japanese and Spanish, with other language builds coming out approximately one month later.

When SP2 is released to the public, it will almost definitely use the release methodology which Microsoft employed when deploying SP1 - the service pack will be made available for download as a standalone update package, and then later via Windows Update.

One important thing to note is that Windows Vista SP2 might be more accurately called Windows Longhorn SP2, is it seems that the release will coincide with the release of Windows Server 2008 SP2 (Vista and Server 2008 share the same kernel version). For IT Pros this will mean a lot of testing to ensure compatibility between the two platforms, both during the public beta phase and past RTM.

So what can we expect in SP2?
  • Windows Search 4.0 for faster and improved search accuracy. This is already available to Windows Vista users as an optional download via Windows Update
  • Bluetooth 2.1 Feature Pack supporting the most recent specification for Bluetooth Technology
  • Ability to record data on to Blu-ray media natively. There's no information whether Blu-ray movie playback functionality might be included
  • Windows Connect Now (WCN) to simplify wireless connectivity and configuration
  • Enables the exFAT file system to support Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) timestamps, which allows correct file synchronization across time zones
As for Windows Server 2008, SP2 is expected to include the Hyper-V RTM build - this is available to Server 2008 systems now via Windows Update and WSUS - and some power profile changes which should give about a 10% improvement in power efficiency.

From the perspective of Vista users, at this stage SP2 is looking much more like a feature pack than the major update of fixes and patches which SP1 represented. Presumably as more information about the service pack comes to light we'll find out more about some of the underlying changes and any particular outstanding problems Microsoft are looking to fix.

And unless there are particularly attractive enhancements, it also probably won't do much to change user perspectives of Vista. The technical problems which plagued Vista's early days have pretty much been resolved with SP1 and subsequent patches, but opinion on the OS is still firmly divided between those who find it to be a solid, stable and responsive operating system (like me) and people who think it's the modern-day embodiment of Black Death. If you find yourself on the garlic-wearing side of the fence, based on the details we have so far it's not likely that SP2 will result in a raft of Vista converts, but we'll wait and see.

Read more stories about

Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

petert (Advanced member):

"And unless there are particularly attractive enhancements,. . ."

MS cannot even manage to bring-out anything additional for Vista Ultimate users. I doubt that SP2 will offer much, if anything, in the way of "extras".

03 December 2008, 7:51 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Truckasauras (User):

I've no real issues with Vista as it stands. Having said that, I've only booted my desktop (running Vista Ultimate) maybe a handful of times since installing Ubuntu 8.10 on my laptop. That says more of the greatness of Ubuntu then the faults of Vista.

03 December 2008, 8:24 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Truckasauras (User):

Quoting Truckasauras:
I've no real issues with Vista as it stands.

I tell a lie. I did have one issue. When uncompressing winzip files it seemed to take an eternity. A 5 meg file took in excess of 5 minutes to unzip. I now use WinRAR as that works perfectly, but did anyone else experience this?

03 December 2008, 1:43 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

And unless there are particularly attractive enhancements, it also probably won't do much to change user perspectives of Vista

It's not a matter of Trinkets James, Vista appeared loaded to the gunalls with trinkets, we dont want or need trinkets.

between those who find it to be a solid, stable and responsive operating system

and those who'd like their OSs to be solid stable and responsive on sub $1500 brand name desktops and notebooks with 2 or less GB of RAM. XP remains the better Windows choice for this class of affordable hardware and I doubt any service pack will change that.

03 December 2008, 8:35 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Your Average Joe (Cornerstone member):

I hope file transfer speeds get a boost. Even with SP1 it is still sluggish. And, although, driver stability was much improved, there are still issues with some of the hardware commonly used (eg. HD Tuner cards).

03 December 2008, 9:47 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Move along, nothing to see here??

Strikes me that this is an attempt to yet again revive interest in a faulty product. I agree with Average Joe... File transfer speeds had better be in their sights for this one. I've dropped Vista from all my systems now mostly because of that issue.

03 December 2008, 1:39 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Me In Oz (Regular user):

Please, please, please MS ........ Fix your hit-and-miss 'sleep mode'

03 December 2008, 1:53 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

CBR1100XX (Regular user):

"According to the rumour mill, an RC build (Release Candidate) of SP2 will be released in February 2009, with the final RTM build (Release to Manufacturing) coming out in April 2009." - APC

Should be just in time to see the release of Win 7.
People will see that SP2 adds nothing to Vista and then go straight to Win 7 (Gee ! I'm cynical)

03 December 2008, 2:43 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting CBR1100XX:
People will see that SP2 adds nothing to Vista and then go straight to Win 7

That's probably correct, but ultimately it will depend on what Vista SP2 and Win7 actually deliver. If SP2 brings performance up to a similar level of performance, then a free upgrade would look a lot more attractive than an expensive purchase. And still to see if either offering will be attractive enough to lure the huge WinXP user base to any upgrade.


03 December 2008, 2:55 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

jake (User):

i've been using xp more than vista lately. because vista is just complaining to me and been a peice of crap. even though my xp pc's soundcard is buggerd and my vista's isan't

03 December 2008, 5:12 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Just in the time this article has been up, 3 fairly shocking performance issues have been raised. 2 of them have been present since the first public beta (with the suspend one possibly also being there too). One was present in XP (the Zip slowness).
Does anyone seriously expect these performance issues to be fixed in SP2?

04 December 2008, 9:04 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Tin:
Does anyone seriously expect these performance issues to be fixed in SP2?

Could these issues be rectified in a service pack? Yes it is possible.
Do I seriously expect problem fixes to be priority in a service pack or new release? Well I'm long over waiting with expectations it usually ends in dissapointment.

The simple reality is that these problems are not problems for the manufacturers until the issues affect sales. If a good of consumers are willing to accept whatever they are given then we can never expect to receive anything better.


04 December 2008, 9:14 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

kandoo (New user):

The issue with Vista for education departments is licensing not reliability. MS are demanding a single point of authentication for all Vista machines in our department covering hundreds of schools over south east qld. It hasn't happened, and likely won't.
If reliability was an issue no one would have used '98, but they loved it. I use Vista Business and it is a dog with less than 2GB RAM.

04 December 2008, 11:46 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

stefcep (User):

firstly xp will always run faster than vista, as long as drivers are available. having said that vista business is quite quick on my amd x2 5000+ with 2gig ram. BUT thats a fresh install, the indexing is complete and i don't auto defrag, with office the only thing on it. my laptop with vista had a lot of preinstalled junk and it ran slowly. starting from a clean install and performance improved dramatically. but still slower than xp...

04 December 2008, 7:46 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Your Average Joe (Cornerstone member):

Quoting stefcep:
BUT thats a fresh install,

ANY OS will be quickest after first install and relevant patches applied.
I also found boot and shutdown times dramatically improved with SP1.
Hopefully this is the trend and SP2 will improve on this again !




05 December 2008, 8:42 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

stefcep (User):

You'd think so but, Vista boot time is getting faster for me..What really clobbers Windows performance over time is a registry clogged with debris from uninstalled software and a fragmenetd drive.

The interesting thing about Vista 32 bit is that its limited (AFAIK) to recognising less than 4 gig of ram. Whenever a new version of Windows has appeared in the past, the bottleneck for performance was usually RAM, not CPU speed, not even hard drive speed. With 98 you could go from 32MB to 64 Mb to 128Mb on the same CPU, and OS performance would improve significantly with each step, with xp from 128 to 256 to 512 to 1 gig and now-6-7 years later- 2 gig is the sweet spot as apps became more ram intensive. But not even two years into its life the most popular version of Vista ie 32 bit vista home premium already has nowhere to go RAM-wise. 2 gig is realistically its minimum but it can't use more than 3 (or 3.5) gig. But what happens as Apps need more and more ram? Well then you gonna get alot of writing to and from the hard drive, which will kill performance. Unless they optimize Vista in software to make it use less ram, maybe make it multithreaded so it runs different OS tasks simultaneously on separate cores, or we go for super fast NAND hard drives, Vista 32 bit is only gonna get slower in the future as app usage of ram leaves less and less ram for the OS. Its life is therefore severely limited.

What of Win 7? With the ram-hungry apps that it will have to deal with leaving it less ram for itself its probable that Win 7 will be even slower than Vista, a lot slower. A 32-bit single-threaded Win 7 in 3 years time seems a waste of time and effort.

05 December 2008, 6:00 PM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting stefcep:
But what happens as Apps need more and more ram?

Why should Apps need more and more RAM? What part of 2008 word processing is so much more demanding than word processing in 2003 or 1995.
It's poor programming to be putting out apps that demand huge amounts of resources to achieve the same task a prior version achieved more than adequately within less. All this memory is being churned through for the added tat and not for any quantum improvement in the core application.


Quoting stefcep:
A 32-bit single-threaded Win 7 in 3 years time seems a waste of time and effort.

Only if MS and others refuse to address the efficiency of their programming. MS once amazed the world with what they could achieve within 640K, now those onerous restrictions are long gone it appears they have lost all ability to code efficiently.
There is no excuse for the inefficiency of current software releases even with the low purchase cost of today's hardware.



06 December 2008, 9:21 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

stefcep (User):

Oh thats a thing I have been saying for years with much frustration. I am an ex-Amiga user so i know all about operating system and application efficiency. The programmers in the x86 world -including the Linux guys- should be ashamed of themselves because year after year they've been able to write software that does 10% more but needs 200% more resources to do it. Its one of the great technological crimes of the 20th century.

I recently fired up my old PIII 650 with 256 meg ram running win98se. Booted faster than vista, gui was more responsive than vista and apart from playing some games, I could do everything i did with it that i do in vista, faster. vista was running on a core2duo 2.4ghz 4 gig ram system.

Based on what has happened in computing in the past 20 years there is no indication that this lazy, wasteful programming will ever change.

BTW what MS achieved in 640 k was as amazing as what it achieves in 4 gig today: its rubbish now and it was rubbish then. If you want to be amazed, buy an Amiga 500 for 50 bucks off ebay and witness a mouse-driven windowing GUI with pre-emptive multitasking OS, 4096 colors on-screen, 4 channel 8 bit stereo, super smooth parallax scrolling, all running in 512k ram and booting off a single 880k floppy. Compare this with MS's two color, command line single tasking OS with the occasional beeps running in 640k rubbish.

My comment was based on the highly probable assumption that any future x-86 OS's and applications will need greater hardware resources. And no linux is NOT the answer, most fully featured Linux OS's are just as bloated and underperforming as MS latest, and less user-friendly to boot. I was just being a realist as I no longer hold out hope that we'll see a return to efficient programming.

06 December 2008, 11:57 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags