Submitted by Reckon you won’t upgrade to Vista until the first service pack is released? That’s looking likely to be the second half of this year, according to Microsoft’s latest email blast. The company has put out a call for “customers and partners (to) actively test and provide feedback on Windows Vista SP1 to help us prepare for its release in the second half of CY07”. Microsoft hasn’t released details of exactly what changes will be wrought in Vista SP1, which has been assigned the codename ‘Fiji’ but some OS components which missed the RTM cut-off will almost certainly be rolled into the update. One of the candidates for this better-late-than-never brigade would be the Windows PowerShell, previously Microsoft Shell – a .NET-based command line shell with its own scripting language.
Call me crazy but as much as I hate vapor ware and delayed release dates, one would think that it would have made way more sense to wait a few months and release a product that is ready for the prime-time instead of an immature product followed by immediate patches and service packs.
It seems like the sole purpose of releasing Vista when they did was to hit the market at a certain time regardless of the readiness of the product.
This way they can have Vista finally out plus that they say they are putting big effort in fixing bugs fast and make they software more secure (if vista’s sp1 will bring any new security features) or usable (if it will have new features), it can also keep the Cool New Vista hype up and running.
You make a good point but I don’t see how the current consumer release date they have is of strategic value. If concern for quality was so lacking, they would have released it in time for OEM installations for Chistmas sales.
I won’t suggest that Vista is a quality product, I have not used it so I don’t know. I have not seen any compelling reasons to upgrade so who knows when I’ll get around to trying it. However I don’t think we should equate plans for a service pack as an indication of lack of quality.
If Microsoft plans to have more frequent OS releases in the future, why would not service packs be released with increased frequency as well?
Well, here we go with the service packs again. At least they’re free to download, though.
Horray for Microsoft! Horray for Windows! Horray for Vista!
Ah, nevermind…
To what are you referring to?
Good question; I installed Fedora Core 6 3 days ago, and needed to install 484mb of updates; would it be ok for me to scream about how terrible it is to download and update my installation of Fedora?
You don’t _need_ to download them. But yes. You may scream. And I will scream with you in case you need support in screaming at your Fedora installation or just screaming at life in general
Do I need to explain the joke? Maybe I could rewrite the joke. How about this:
Soooooooooooooo, here we go again with the service packs! Well, at least the darned things are free to download, though (three cheers for Microsoft).
Horray for Microsoft! Horray for Windows! Horray for Vista! Horray for Ser-
(Suddenly cut off in mid-sentence, realizing that nobody, absolutely nobody, is joining in with the cheers. Looking back at you are countless thousands of cold, hard stares.)
Cough, cough…
Ahem.
Ah, nevermind…
(A rock to crawl under would at this point be priceless.)
Well, I hope that explains it.
I’ve been running Vista Business RTM for a little while now, and though it seems like a viable upgrade for many there are noticeable issues. For instance just try changing the DPI setting and see how everything looks with the login screen. Although not a significant bug it is surprising for a released product. This is sign there might be more severe bugs open and probably undiscovered.
Customers know this, and Microsoft know their customers. Hence the early SP1.
In fact I believe the whole success of Vista being adopted by enterprises relies on an early and good maturing of the OS, hopefully for MS in the form of a service pack. One might even turn this around and say that MS will *not* improve upon Vista significantly in SP1, hoping that the release of the service pack itself will make enterprises adopt earlier.
This is what I hate about closed source – politics plays an even bigger role.
In fact I believe the whole success of Vista being adopted by enterprises relies on an early and good maturing of the OS, hopefully for MS in the form of a service pack.
Hence the reason why they released it 2 months or so before the retail channels get it – so that they can test it and provide feedback to Microsoft on what needs to be corrected in SP1 – SP1 will roll around, and probably released at the same time Windows Vista Server is released, thus syncing the two code bases up.
Vista will be a bugged product from day one. I knew they would have a SP1 build before the end of the year. Guess I won a bet at the office.
They should have waited to release Vista until it was ready.
I agree, however I am not so sure that it will even be “ready” with SP1 being released. Are we sure this isn’t just marketing or politics? (ref. my post)
Well, Service Pack 1 for Vista was scheduled for 2007 anyway, because once Windows Server 2007 is released (2007), Vista is supposed to get updated with “new” kernel and some other improvements from Windows Server 2007.
Edited 2007-01-22 22:10
XP SP1 was originally supposed be released within roughly the same timeframe following XP’s release. Same deal with 2000 if memory serves.
Let me guess:
all holes in Vista that are caused by bad design will be marked with big fat popups like “opening files is risky” or “images can contain malware” or maybe some day “using vista is dangerouse, are You sure You want to do that?”
I just love when MS make software with features that when missused by users or used by hackers can crack Your box and after finding that not everyone will use it in a such innocent way that MS wants it to be used, they just mark those features as “dangerouse” so chceck twice before doing anything
they will add some new services that will do some security stuff in the backgruand so Vista will slow down even more
maybe they will fix some app compability so You won’t need to spend more cash on new softare but who knows
Can’t make a service pack already, it will still feel rushed, by the time XP started getting good, was Service Pack 2, and that’s after they’d really dwelled on their mistakes and implemented ways to fix it.
All I see happening is this Service Pack is a way to add the features they missed during shipping, and instead of fixes and things, we are getting even more new features.
Time to recommend people wait for Service Pack 2 =)
But seriously, I’m more of an OS X fan, I love the OS, and for me it’s hands down the best for what I do. But I was, albeit my reluctance, impressed with some of the things in Vista.
It does look pretty good. (Although I can’t say I like how everything is 2x bigger, such as the right click menus and Icons are bigger etc.)
And the biggest pet peeve I had, was I don’t like Thumbnail previews with normal Explorer browsing. Unless I specifically want thumbnail browsing incase I’m looking through a photos folder.
So disabling the Preview of Thumbnails, turns off any way to look at thumbnails in Open Dialog boxes for programs, which is completely ridiculous.
I just hope they pull off a half decent Service pack that I can slip stream into the DVD. http://www.vlite.net/ is the way to go. Avoids more troubles later on.
What we really need though is hardware manufacturers to keep working hard on getting drivers out. Particularly Nvidia/ATI and Creative.
Edited 2007-01-22 22:09
I agree, Microsoft cannot make a service pack yet, as the consumer release has not hit the shelves yet.
I myself have been testing Vista for a couple of years, and it is nowhere near ready for Joe Public. When it does get released, it will show up thousands of bugs and incompatabilities.
Microsoft simply cannot begin a service pack until it has a grasp on what needs fixed. If it were to begin a service pack now, then that would be obsolete by the time it was released, as the users would then want another service pack to fix the bugs that show up in the interval.
I find it somewhat ironic after the constant. “Need to use the command line” as an argument against Linux.
Vista plans on providing a better command line.
I’ve read somewhere that it eats 40 MB of ram or so, did someone tried it and can confirm that? My gentoo eats less without X.
Edited 2007-01-22 22:35
I’ve read somewhere that it eats 40 MB of ram or so, did someone tried it and can confirm that? My gentoo eats less without X.
Windows PowerShell is running on .NET, so memory consumption can not be really measured like we used to do for years due to the fact that .NET (just like Java) is using Garbage Collector to manage memory – memory gets recycled when GC decides that it is time to do it.
And since more and more stuff in Windows is running on .NET, memory consumption, the way we see it through Task Manager, is simply not reliably measured any longer.. Simply, stop worrying about it and let GC do its job.
(On my XP, right now, PowerShell is using ~27 MB but as I said..)
Edited 2007-01-22 22:49
There is always need for the command line.
There is always need to specifically spell out to a computer, in very specific terms, exactly what to do. Especially for complex or excessively repetitive tasks.
Most repetitive tasks in Windows are still human driven. Where the task is the same over and over again across hundreds or thousands of files. The solution is to download MS’s advanced command line tools (Resource Kit) to get the job done. And when that isn’t good enough, you have to turn to third party tools to get any manageable scripting available – and it *still* remains a half-baked solution.
“Those who do not understand Unix are doomed to re-invent it. Poorly.”
So they want to re-invent Unix. Let them try. I’m grateful that they see the error in their ways and are working to correct them – even if they continue to fall short.
I am applauding the inclusion of PowerShell. But it is not enough. I won’t settle for Almost-As-Good-As.
Microsoft has led so many to believe that thousands of mouse clicks are the only way to accomplish these tasks which computers were solving in the 70’s, indeed created, to relieve us from such mundane tasks.
I work in an entirely MS shop. I had a hundred similarly formated text files. I need to do the following:
-Process all files in the given directory, without having to specify each file
-Delete the first two lines of each file.
-Remove the third column (they are tab delimited).
-Delete all lines starting with a specific text.
-Combine each of the hundred files into a single text file report that lists matching lines by number of matches.
Spend hours and hours doing this by hand or almost all by hand in Windows?
No. USB key, Damn Small Linux, and I had my “several hours” of work done for me – by the computer, in less than 1 minute.
In Linux there are single line “scripts” that are full replacements for what would take hundreds, perhaps thousands of applications to accomplish in Windows. Backup & Restore, which MS still hasn’t got right, is easy, and highly customizable in Linux. Most Windows commercial and even some enterprise level software doesn’t even begin to offer the features and flexibility of a single, simple Unix command line.
“Those who do not understand Unix are doomed to re-invent it. Poorly.”
To label Jeffrey Snover and other people, that work on PowerShell and have big experience working with VMS and Unix, just like that is simply wrong.
PowerShell is much closer to what VMS was/is offering in terms of command-line tools than Unix, by the way. However, PowerShell is dealing with OBJECTS, rather than with pure text, and that is, a big innovation. And it is a good one. Really good.
“Those who do not understand PowerShell are doomed to trash it. Poorly.”
“To label Jeffrey Snover…”
No, just the operating system as a whole. Which now, maybe, in the future, including PowerShell.
My rant was lacking specifics despite being long winded. Do I still need a GUI to use PowerShell? Do most Windows OS’s have it? Will most have it? When?
If an application locks the GUI, can I keyboard shortcut to the CLI and save the day, or does the application get to take down everything?
“Those who do not understand PowerShell are doomed to trash it. Poorly.”
How many Windows applications are written to take advantage of it? Output verbosely to it?
Power Shell is a major leap forward in terms of shells and scripting. What it lacks, however, is any reasonable integration into the OS or applications in such a way that something simple like a terminating a GUI locker or a completely GUI-less system is not only possible but easy.
More of a rant on Microsoft’s decades of work in removing, and limiting such direct OS access in the name of simplicity, only to come full circle and begin reworking it into Widnows in a more Unix way.
Limited accounts by default, (almost)sudo, removing unnecessarily long directory names (Documents and Settings), etc.
In the future, perhaps a GUI as a layer instead of an OS, and doing away with drive letters and file extensions. One can hope.
Don’t get me wrong, I am very happy that Power Shell is going to be integrated.
One of the things I feel was a lame effort, however, was Microsoft’s decision to release Vista, and then ONE WEEK LATER release Power Shell. It could have been included by default, but again… they fall short.
Which now, maybe, in the future, including PowerShell.
Why is it such a problem to download PowerShell later? What is the big deal? Last time I checked, Windows didn’t come with, for example, SQL Server, Visual Studio, MS Office, Photoshop.. so what?
One of the things I feel was a lame effort, however, was Microsoft’s decision to release Vista, and then ONE WEEK LATER release Power Shell. It could have been included by default, but again… they fall short.
What is the big deal, I have to ask again? You don’t know how to download PowerShell and install it?
I have PowerShell v.1.0.0 on my box since fall last year.
Power Shell is a major leap forward in terms of shells and scripting. What it lacks, however, is any reasonable integration into the OS or applications in such a way that something simple like a terminating a GUI locker or a completely GUI-less system is not only possible but easy.
Are you sure that you know what you’re talking about? Command line tools for administering pretty much everything in Windows are available since.. well, feels like forever. Why don’t you check, for example, Windows XP CD and see what is inside Support folder. Then you install Support tools. Then you can go to Microsoft.com and download Windows Resource Toolkit, IIS Admin Tool Pack, etc, etc. All those are *packed* with command line tools for Windows. They all work fine with PowerShell. Is there room for improvement? Sure, but what system has no room for improvement?
Do I still need a GUI to use PowerShell?
Yes, you do, so what?
Please.. 15+ years ago Amiga was running fine in all-graphics environment using 7.x MHz CPU and video subsystem that is way slower than even the poorest video cards/chipsets today, yet you’re complaining about it?
Why? What’s the problem? Today’s CPUs and video cards can’t handle it, such a demanding task of displaying a desktop and a few windows? Oh come on..
“Why is it such a problem to download PowerShell later?”
Because anything not default is typically underutilized, and not always available.
“Why is it such a problem to download PowerShell later? What is the big deal? Last time I checked, Windows didn’t come with, for example, [bunch of commercial not-free applications].. so what?”
Because its lack of a reasonably powerful shell can severely limit what it can do, outside of course, of adding it all on, or paying money for a 80mb GUI application that replaces the functionality of six 20kb CL tools.
“Then you install Support tools. Then you can go to Microsoft.com and download Windows Resource Toolkit, IIS Admin Tool Pack, etc, etc.”
But you just can’t use them until you get network, GUI, and a browser running, and then download, and install PowerShell, WindowsRT, IIS Admint Tools, Cygwin, etc, etc, etc, etc…
Then you have a competent, mix and match, dozen tools for the job (copy, xcopy, robocopy, MScopy, funcopy) for the job with little or no standardization.
So any command line script for Windows comes complete with a list of requirements.
“Sure, but what system has no room for improvement?”
“So what if XYZ sucks – it sucks less than ZYX!”
Is not a good argument. Set your standards higher.
Do I still need a GUI to use PowerShell? “Yes, you do, so what?”
What if the GUI locks? System has to go down. WHY? Don’t settle for that. We all know that doesn’t have to be the case.
Want to run a system without a GUI for increased stability, and still have full control over it and it’s applications? You can’t.
kaiwai’s comment much more eloquently summed up what I attempted to say about application/shell interaction. Great command shell? Fantastic – now why can’t I use it to send *commands* to the applications?
It is a major step in the right direction, but they are still falling very short, starting with not waiting one week to make sure that PowerShell is in all Vista installs.
So far, no one has made a good reason to settle for this very incomplete afterthought solution.
Not really discussing anything here. Seems to be more of an argument, so I’ll stop : )
Edited 2007-01-23 03:05
Because anything not default is typically underutilized, and not always available.
This must be the funniest statement of the week, or even worse.
“..anything not default.. (is) not always available.”
How clever observation, dare I to say
))
If it is not available, then it is perhaps because network admin decided that you shouldn’t have it on your system. Is that so hard to understand?
If I need it, I can always install it, thus, problem solved. Oh, I see, it is not there by default so poor Joe Sixpack doesn’t know about it. Well, guess what, Joe doesn’t know how to get it because he doesn’t need it. Those that need PowerShell know where to get it. Those that need Photoshop will get it. Those that need Linux will get it, etc, etc. Important thing is that it is freely available and easy to setup.
Because its lack of a reasonably powerful shell can severely limit what it can do, outside of course, of adding it all on, or paying money for a 80mb GUI application that replaces the functionality of six 20kb CL tools.
It is not lacking. It is just not there by default.
By the way, PowerShell is, I think, about 5MB download, not 80MB. And it is free.
Ah yeah, 5MB is too much, right? We’re running out of space on our 100+ GB hard drives? Not enough room for PowerShell
But if it was there by default, then you wouldn’t complain, right? 
Or let me guess, if it was there by default, then you’d say: “Why is it there by default????!!!!”
Then you have a competent, mix and match, dozen tools for the job
Oh, now you’re talking about Linux/Unix, right?
I agree, any further discussion makes no sense, since you show lack of very basic knowledge of Windows in general. And you lack some common sense.
Edited 2007-01-23 03:36
And I said I would stop : (
I said *pay* for an application, which relates back to my first post. Obviously no one is paying for Power Shell.
I know how big it is, I have it, otherwise I wouldn’t be talking about it. And I have occasion to use it at work.
It is called standardization, something Linux is accosted for failing and Windows is praised for having.
Limited accounts are in XP, but they are not *default*. So they go underutilized, and applications developed are created to disregard it entirely. Even it being there is not enough if the default is to not use it. Small decisions like this have major impacts on future application development and how the OS is used.
New applications in Vista will not take advantage of PowerShell (see kaiwai’s post). Everything designed for and around Vista will largely ignore it because it is not part of Vista’s base install.
I think Vista is vastly superior to XP. I am just very disappointed that Power Shell did not make it into its base, especially considering how close it came.
I know the timing is off in this example, but imagine if .Net were in XP’s base. It would have substantially changed Windows development and easily made .Net much more utilized.
Or if Linux only had the very basic DOS commands that come with XP, but the rest could be just a download away. It leaves you with a GUI system, and until that download, leaves you with much less options for complex or repetitive tasks.
“agree, any further discussion makes no sense, since you ..lack some common sense. ”
Ouch. No comeback on that one Sir. All your views have failed to sway my *personal opinion*, but you have won by insulting me. I concede. Goodnight.
Limited accounts are in XP, but they are not *default*. So they go underutilized, and applications developed are created to disregard it entirely.
PowerShell != Limited accounts in XP.
Vista != XP
Apples != Oranges.
etc.
Edited 2007-01-23 13:48
So they want to re-invent Unix. Let them try. I’m grateful that they see the error in their ways and are working to correct them – even if they continue to fall short.
The failure of the new shell will not because of the shell itself, but if they fail to seperate the back and front end of an application so that an applications capabilities can be accessed not only from a sexy front end but also from command line.
That has bee historically a problem with Windows; Windows administration tools tend to be one big ball of mush, where as in the *NIX world, you’ll have a number of small utilities glued to gether to deliver something useable with a GUI front end – k3b would be and example of a nice GUI with command line DVD/CD writing tools in the back end doing the heavy lifting.
Don’t expect major changes, but I think Microsoft has moved along and realised t that their ‘the gui way or the high way’ stance they took isn’t going to win any favours with customers, and more so as they try to move further up the chain in regards to big multi-core, multi-processor, refridgerator sized computers setups where automating via script and access via text console are the favoured means of administration.
Do you really need to boot into Linux to accomplish that?
What about using cygwin and a bash shell?
Seriously you could do that in a few lines vbscript… if you don’t know vbscript you can still install perl which will possibly need even less lines of code to accomplish the task.
Edited 2007-01-23 16:42
well, the good ol’ “release Now, fix it later”… feels like home already.
Geez….
A few months ago it was ragging on MS for taking too long to release Vista…. now it’s Rag on MS for not waiting alittle longer. O.o
In All seriousness I like that fact they are already planning a Service Pack. It’s important to stay up2date on patches and fixes and sorts. Look at Fedora. Yes you can update stuff by Yum and it’s updated regularly. but no one rags on Red Hat for having to make such frequent updates to packages. But then every 6-8 months a new release of Fedora comes out.
Maybe MS is gonna try to make more frequent OS Service Packs.
**FACT** No Operating System is perfect and Flawless. Not Windows, Not OSX, and Not Linux/Unix.
I for one applaud MS for Planning a SP already. Keep it up. Help keep the Average computer user safer.
Edited 2007-01-22 23:04
Is anyone else concerned with this quote from the article?
“The Chosen Ones will be expected to deploy pre-release versions of Service Pack 1 into production environments at each major milestone (Beta, RC, RTM) within 30 days of the milestone release, actively provide feedback on all builds made available to them and also meet or exceed predetermined deployment count goals for each milestone.”
How many companies would be willing to risk losing profits by being the test mouse for Microsoft in a production environment? Why isn’t Microsoft using their vast resources to test Vista SP1 in a controlled simulated production environment or even their own? Besides agreeing to a Microsoft NDA I’m sure the companies willing to test this service pack will also have to waive all rights to sue Microsoft if things go down the crapper.
MS releases something once every 6 years, they get slandered. They decide to release often within a year, they get slandered. So which one is it?
I thought a lot of people proclaimed the “release early release often” mantra. Isn’t that what MS is trying to do here?
Edited 2007-01-22 23:12
Heck, it’s what they used to do and they still got blasted for it.
Things like “New releases come out too often, I don’t have enough time to test, blah blah blah… they need to take their time and get it right.”
Of course, no one seemed to realize that you didn’t have to buy every single version of Windows.
Then they spend a good bit of time on Vista, and ever since it was first delayed everyone says, they are taking too long.
Can’t have it both ways….
So this is Fiji.
I thought R2 for Win2003 was more than a service pack?
Rememeber in 2000 they said “service packs don’t have codenames”
God i love windows
steve ballmer is fukn looser J3W
software vendors plan on providing updates in the future.
Surely such groundbreaking revelations are newsworthy.
that’s dumb!
microsoft products are like bananas, matures at the customer.
Msft is patching non-existant products?
I guess msft is doing this because a lot of people are saying: “wait for service pack one before you upgrade.”
I’ve been mucking aboot with Vista last few days. Noticed a few wee bugs already.
The biggest disappointment has to be how fugly Vista looks when you turn off all the eye candy. At least XP looks half decent when you go back to ‘classic’ look’n’feel. Vista looks so unfinished when you do that.
what were they doing in 6 years…
what were they doing in 6 years…
and the answer is….
Money
Vista Vista Vista… Vista here, Vista there. For me it’s only a Hole in the Water.
IMHO.
“That’s looking likely to be the second half of this year”
Did somebody else besides me think “Beta software” when reading this?
Edited 2007-01-24 12:33