"It's no secret that there's a leaked beta of Vista SP1 floating around, but no-one yet has really taken the time to analyse it in detail to find out what it really does. I made it my mission this weekend to trawl through the registry and file changes in SP1 to find out as best I could exactly what SP1 does." Apparantly, it isn't just Vista SP1 that got leaked - Windows XP SP3 has also been leaked.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2007-02-22
It might be interesting on a technical level, but I'm worried that people will look at these and get excited over a feature that's better off delayed, or dismiss it because of a feature that's not yet included...
Nice that they're bringing recovery discs back. And curious that they're making bugfixes just to run with faulty hardware (KB938979 and the Canon EOS 1D series) -- I thought that they had decided to stop doing that to force hardware developers to get their testing done right the first time?
And changes to the Telnet client? Man, that hasn't been updated since Windows 3.1. I still remember years playing around in MUDs and MUCKs with that tiny but sufficient piece of software...
Member since:2005-12-15
Maybe. I think the people whom would download these, even known about them, are techs like us. We're all smart enough to know this isn't final, it isn't even alpha or beta and a lot can change. Just look at Vista's big changes between releases (near the end anyway) and this is demonstrated well.
To be honest, I'm pretty happy this has happened, and hope that it was a deliberate move by Microsoft. My hope is that, and please excuse me if I seem naive on this point, that this may be the start of a trend by them to release work-in-progress builds like this to get a broader base of results and experiences. No matter how much internal testing they do, it doesn't compete with real world use.
Yes, I agree that a recovery disc tool is warmly welcomed.
Member since:
2005-10-19
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:
2005-07-20
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-12-04
Member since:2005-08-10
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:
2007-04-11
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:
2006-04-20
Microsoft products don't typically reach maturity until SP2, and by the time Vista gets to SP2 stage, the next Windows will be in beta, and no doubt the same hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth will occur as has happened with people contemplating the move from XP to Vista: "Oh no, Windows 7 is a load of crap, no way am I moving to that, I'm sticking to Vista" will echo the usual sentiments people come up with "Vista is crap, I'm sticking with XP" -> "XP is crap, I'm sticking with Windows '98" etc... People just don't like change, and seem to expect that new Operating systems won't have problems, or will run on outdated hardware. People also don't seem to realise that because Windows gets installed on such a stupendously large variety of machines with a vast number of possible hardware configurations, there is no way they can possibly test it completely. Early adopters are the "delta" testers as it were. If MS were like Apple, and had control over the hardware as well, then the number of problems and required service packs would be smaller.
I have no qualms about Vista per se - it will be a fine OS after a service pack or two. As for SP3 for XP, well better late than never I guess, but XP is already pretty mature, and doesn't really need that much attention. I really think it would be a waste of effort for MS to continue to support XP other than minor bug fixes and security patches. Focus on getting Vista up to speed instead.
Edited 2007-08-12 06:35
Member since:
2005-07-06
I cannot see them being "leaked". I actually think they are duff packs put together by spammers.
There is no official from Microsoft about XP SP3 and Vista SP1, to beta-testers, so a release is still months away, so I conclude this is akin to the original XP SP3 release that was doing the rounds about 18 months ago. Install that on your machines and you had an instant zombie on a bot-net.
I think these scumbags are doing the same thing, this time to circumvent the improved security of Vista, by getting uneducated users to download and install it.
What better way, than to have a "leaked" version that people do not have to buy......
Edited 2007-08-12 08:00
Member since:2005-07-06
While possible, I don't believe this is the case. While MS has preferred to remain quiet about SPs for now, there have been reports that the SPs were released to a select group of testers. These are likely members of the Technology Adoption Program (TAP), which mainly consists of larger OEMs/ODMs and other partner corporations, any of which could be responsible for leaks.
MS has also stated a few months ago in their joint status report to the DOJ that Vista and XP Service Packs would likely be released towards the end of the year (IIRC November), and detailed some of the forthcoming changes.
Since then, several references to Vista SP1 (and I believe XP SP3) have appeared in various MS materials, such as the Windows and DirectX SDKs. With Server 2008 basically done, it's not unusual that work on the SPs is underway, especially since the fixes and additions that will appear in the SPs and other updates are first made in the latest product in development (Server 2008), then backported to released platforms (Vista/XP). Vista's SP will probably be released first since there are more commonalities in its codebase and Server 2008s. Though they may hold it for a simultaneous release. I think in the status report, they stated XP SP3 would be released later (early next year), but don't take that as definite.
Member since:2005-08-11
Member since:
2007-05-19
Member since:
2005-11-23
I've used it to make Windows 2000 slipstreams, but it make XP slipstreams as well.
http://www.nliteos.com/
Whether or not MS leaked their own stuff is a mute point; they have this thing for testing things--it's called a beta version : )
...Or alpha, if you prefer.
Edited 2007-08-12 18:37
Member since:
2005-11-19
Member since:2006-04-20
Me, I prefer Vista Ultimate 64 over XP, as there are a range of nice improvements, and the bugs will be ironed out before long. I would likewise dump either of them if something better pops up - I have no brand loyalty, and I will use whatever OS runs my apps in the least painful way, and doesn't get in the way of me doing what I want.
I really like Ubuntu, but I can't stand centralised package management when it comes to third party apps (by that I mean packages that aren't central to the OS itself), nor do I particularly like having to edit text files to be able to use my display at native resolution.
I really like the way OS X handles application installation, but I hate the GUI and I prefer to build my own machines from the ground up (more because I just like assembling things than for any sound technical reason).
SkyOS looks great, but it is pie in the sky until it is officially released.
I don't mind Windows - XP has served me well for several years, and I really like the Vista GUI, and the new audio API will be a wonderful thing for musicians like me when it takes off. I just wish that MS would take backwards compatibility a little less seriously, and tame the wilderness that is the Windows userland.
