Vista SP2 Due in April?

TechARP has leaked info from a confidential source that says that Microsoft will be delivering a release candidate for Service Pack 2 for Windows Vista in February 2009. The binary release to manufacturing (RTM) is set for April 2009. TechARP nailed the previous SP release dates so it appears they have a solid source.

We have news of the upcoming Service Pack 2 for Windows Vista! Microsoft is doing their best to rush out Service Pack 2 for Windows Vista so there will be additional incentive for folks to upgrade to Window Vista now, instead of waiting for Windows 7.

APRIL FOOLS!

I really don't like the idea of rushing it, MS and Vista really can't take any screw ups.

Who is this Terry guy^^

Originally Posted by RangerXML

APRIL FOOLS!

I really don't like the idea of rushing it, MS and Vista really can't take any screw ups.

Who is this Terry guy^^

Maybe you should contact Microsoft and tell them that.
Also, tell them that recently they had a too much screw ups.

I can see it. Even though it would be a year from the first service pack, it sounds like SP2 is adding features more than anything. Im sure these features they are adding have been in development for some time now and now its time to roll them out. Sure it will have it handful of fixes, but the fixes are not going to be as critical/needed as SP1 fixes were. Since SP1, Vista has been fine....at least for me.

How is this rushed? A year between service packs sounds about right. And I agree with you lazy_moron, since sp1 my Vista installs have been rock solid, better than could be expected really.
Anyways I'm sure SP2 will be a nice little update, on it's own, so I can't wait.

Ditto on Vista (64) being rock solid since SP1. Well, except for iTunes, but I blame Apple for that. I just use iTunes on my WinXP machine and it's at least usable.

Wow, they have really succeeded in lowering the standard if people think this is rushed. NT service packs used to be quarterly. OS lifespans were only a couple of years before XP.

Anyway, this says to me Windows 7 is going to take longer than they thought. Before Balmer was saying you can skip Vista and wait for 7. Now they are saying don't wait, get SP2.

Originally Posted by devil22

How is this rushed? A year between service packs sounds about right.

Based on what? XP? 7 years... 2-3 SPs... ??? Based on that it's pretty darn quick.

Originally Posted by TechieSooner

Based on what? XP? 7 years... 2-3 SPs... ??? Based on that it's pretty darn quick.

We all know XP was an exception to the rule. Most OS releases are 2-3 years apart.

Originally Posted by TechieSooner

Based on what? XP? 7 years... 2-3 SPs... ??? Based on that it's pretty darn quick.

Over the long haul I hate to base anything on that. I have been around since the DOS days, and I think a service pack every 3 years is a bad standard. Considering service pack 1 for XP and Vista were released in about a year, annual service packs are not unreasonable. In the days of NT 4.0 they came faster than that. And yes, there are enough bugs in any of these OS's to justify that. The first service pack for Windows 95 came 30 days after its release.

Originally Posted by Cobalt35

Ditto on Vista (64) being rock solid since SP1. Well, except for iTunes, but I blame Apple for that. I just use iTunes on my WinXP machine and it's at least usable.

VISTA is solid os

I love Vista SP1 x64 but I just see SP2 as more bloat. I haven't heard of any performance or compatibility fixes.

Originally Posted by bigdogchris

I love Vista SP1 x64 but I just see SP2 as more bloat. I haven't heard of any performance or compatibility fixes.

In actuality, most of it will probably be a rollup to existing updates.

Originally Posted by rflcptr

In actuality, most of it will probably be a rollup to existing updates.

True, that's pretty much all it is going to be. And early beta testers are claiming performance increases.

Originally Posted by xxEIEIOxx

True, that's pretty much all it is going to be. And early beta testers are claiming performance increases.

It's called Placebo.
XP SP3 supposedly had "drastic" performance increases but that all turned out to be mostly a placebo effect.

They listed the SP2 features and there was absolutely nothing of interest. And beyond hot fixes or updates not included in Windows Update, everyone probably has the fixes. But I'll still download it.

Originally Posted by HardDrugsUser

Maybe you should contact Microsoft and tell them that.
Also, tell them that recently they had a too much screw ups.

says someone who's on too much hard drugs. The only screwups are FUD spreaders.

To Ranger: Terry's the weekend News guy. Been that way for a few months now.

Originally Posted by TechieSooner

It's called Placebo.
XP SP3 supposedly had "drastic" performance increases but that all turned out to be mostly a placebo effect.

thats actually the first time i've heard that. from the beginning i knew it wasn't going to change things besides provide an update rollup. guess it was just the ppl who wanted to stay put on XP and were trying to make excuses for it? i left it behind long ago and i'm not lookin back.

Originally Posted by TechieSooner

It's called Placebo.
XP SP3 supposedly had "drastic" performance increases but that all turned out to be mostly a placebo effect.

XP SP3 was actually slower. I heard very few claims otherwise, and didn't consider those credible because I never heard them at all until the betas went public. SP2 for Vista may or may not be, but ultimately it will be worth the fixes anyway.

Originally Posted by bigdogchris

They listed the SP2 features and there was absolutely nothing of interest. And beyond hot fixes or updates not included in Windows Update, everyone probably has the fixes. But I'll still download it.

There are will be many fixes not included in Windows Update, and I'm sure we'll all download it.

Originally Posted by markt435

thats actually the first time i've heard that. from the beginning i knew it wasn't going to change things besides provide an update rollup. guess it was just the ppl who wanted to stay put on XP and were trying to make excuses for it? i left it behind long ago and i'm not lookin back.

Originally Posted by xxEIEIOxx

XP SP3 was actually slower. I heard very few claims otherwise, and didn't consider those credible because I never heard them at all until the betas went public. SP2 for Vista may or may not be, but ultimately it will be worth the fixes anyway.

Yea, it was actually a big movement going around how SP3 will be faster and do more than Vista's SP1 and a bunch of this BS... Turned out contrary to that fact.

My point is let's not get hasty on the whole speed thing...