Upgraded to SP1 for Office 2007 on all my systems from last year December. Interesting enough, my brother and sister in law got the SP1 update through Windows Update from last year. So it was being pushed from early on.

I think the most surprising thing about SP1 is really the size. Comparing it to past SPs for older versions of Office, SP1 for Office 2007 is huge!

Office 2000 SP3 - 13 MBs
Office XP SP3 - 57 MBs (Admin Install)
Office 2003 SP3 - 117 MBs

Office 2007 SP1 - 217 MBs!

I understand that Office is getting more complex with each release. But I hope that by SP3 this thing does not reach the size of Windows XP on CD.

Perhaps Andre Da Costa's numbers say it best.

The day of the monolithic application (and that includes the application called "operating system") has ground to a halt.

Without a granular module approach to building software for the future, a company without the capability to build something like that should go into another industry. Say, something like advertising.

Gaming? You can build monolithic applications for gaming for another few years, perhaps. All but the massive affiliation type games, that is. If you want to run across remote platforms, a much lighter mechanism is critical.

Now you see why Microsoft is so anxious to lock everything to the desktop client. They have to further squeeze their existing monolith of whatever monies they can for as long as they can. Meanwhile, the component software future is walking off without Microsoft.

Maybe Ballmer thinks he can play the copy by buying game but this time the adoption rate will outpace any kind of systemic technological growth within Microsoft's ranks "organic" or "inorganic".

They can only hope to come in last at this point. I would think the world is going to want to know why as the weeks drone by with no visible plan B.

I am not saying Service Packs are a bad thing or complex software is a bad thing. Apples forthcoming update for Leopard weighs around 470 MBs for Combo alone. So Microsoft is not the only one faced with large maintenance updates.

But I do hope its a sign to developers such as Apple and Microsoft that extreme/thorough testing must be done on their products before it is released to avoid these huge updates required a few months after the initial version of the application or OS.

Still it is minimal in comparison to Linux, where distributions will probably be released every 6 months needing a 600 MB download or 2 GBs depending on the distribution.

Oh come on portuno, the desktop will continue to be king for years and years to come. Microsoft Office 2007 is the best office system I have ever used. It does so many things and I have uncovered so many of these things that I now take for granted. Sure SP1 is big. Of course it's big. Everything gets bigger and better in the PC world. Our pipes are bigger, faster connections, faster internet. Our software is becoming bigger and more feature rich, but that is why we have faster and larger capacity PC's. I downloaded Office 2007 SP1 in less than 10 minutes and installed it in less than 10 minutes. That is much faster than when I downloaded Office 2000 SP3 on 56K and my PC took a half hour + to install it.

I have seen many persons post about how big and bloated Vista is. Man that is a joke! When I first installed Windows 95, it took up over 10% of my hdd. Today, Vista takes up only roughly 5% of my hdd. It took me half a day just to get Windows 95 up and running (slow to install/driver issues) on my old PC. Vista took 15 minutes to be up and running! Come on, that is progress. Then it took maybe a half hour TOPS to get all my hardware working. It is beautiful. Vista works absolutely perfect and only 2 minor problems with some older software (and the only problem is I lose aero interface on those 2 programs).

But just like back in Windows 95 era, if you had an older PC, running Win 3.1, and upgraded to Win 95, there were plenty of issues with hardware and software and sluggishness. Sorry Vista haters, but it really is an awesome OS. Just probably best to get on a new system, or only upgrade on a newer high-end system.

Oh, and Vista SP1... for me was quick to download and installed ridiculously fast. Maybe 15 minutes is all. And now files transfer much faster. Stability and security are really good too.

Hey Frizzi;

Boy, do I have an awesome OS for you to consider. It uses up less than half as much disk space, runs much faster yet does everything Vista does. You can run ALL your software, and with no "aero" issues. It is called Windows XP. Install SP3 on it and you have an up-to-date, modern, fast, stable system.

Oh, and here's a tip... dump Office 2007 for OpenOffice. It's compatible with MS Office and it is cheap (free), quick to download and install, and works fast and flawlessly.

Vista is a bloated, complex OS with all sorts of bells and whistles and eye candy that don't actually do anything you need.

well said, Bob I use open office now and couldn't be happier with it and so are my costumers. 07 it just another bloated piece of crap with more features most never use and the stupid ribbon sucks to. i still have people using office 97
and just fine with it.

I bet if you Bob and TCY were getting a free copy of Windows Vista and Office 2007, you both would format your computers in a heartbeat to install both. But your anti-Microsoft agendas are talking right now because you know that Vista and Office 2007 are a better choice compared to Linux. Vista and Office 2007 are not only easier to use, but they have surpassed Open Source when it comes to security.

I am not gonna dictate what you must run on your PC. But don't talk non-sense about using less hard disk space and run all your existing software. We are living in the age of Quad Core, TB Hard disk and 4 GBs of RAM. And Vista does run quite well on most budget systems.

@Andre Da Costa

Nothing you say is true, or remotely so. Which is why we know who you work for!

Adolf Hitler once said, "if you going tell a lie, tell a big lie." As in that way it might be believed.

Who do I work for Sam? I am a student right now, nothing else. Yes, I do reviews for ActiveWin and thats about it. I run a Technology enthusiast website centered around my experiences with Vista on my PC, which anyone can do by just signing up for one of the popular free blogging services.

There is nothing untrue about what I said in my previous post. I guess you are just another example of the Pro-OpenSource, Linux zealot AntiMicrosoft rhetoric engines that ironically thinks with a closed mind.

@Dan, it would be a plus if you acknowledged that disk drive growth is exponential and thus has grown over 200 times between 1995 and 2007. That would place Vista at about 100 times bigger disk wise and 1000 times RAM wise.

Another issue with your post is that you compare it with a 12 year old OS and Microsoft's first try at a GUI OS. Try comparing it with something more recent. Say Windows XP and all sorts of issues arise. When compared to XP most people find no compelling reason to "upgrade".

@Andre, I've had free copies of XP and Vista on my machines. They came preinstalled and I didn't pay a dime more for them. Nor did I have an option not to pay for them. Despite this I still keep upgrading to Linux.

Now Office 2007 is a better choice than Open Office, but when you factor in costs and % of application usage then Open Office becomes very viable. Of course if Microsoft gave Office 2007 away all the time or if Open Office were to cost the same as Office 2007 I wouldn't hesitate to use Office 2007. But that is not the case, nor will it be.

As a side note. I find it interesting that you say Office 2007 and Vista have surpassed Linux in regards to security. Implicitly admitting all prior products are less secure than their open source alternatives.

Gerado, I didn't say Windows Vista's predecessors are insecure, re-read the post. Surpass would in fact mean that Windows XP is in fact more secure that Open Source but Vista takes it to an even greater level.

You say Windows Vista and Office 2007 came for free on your PC. Thats nonsense and you know it. OEMs pay a discounted fee for OEM versions of Windows and Office, so you are obviously limited when it comes to the understanding of software licensing.

Basically the cost software is included in the cost of the machine.

Microsoft lies about Vista being the most secure Windows ever

http://vista.blorge.com/2008/05/10/microsoft-lies-about-vista-being-the-most-secure-windows-ever/

Quotes; " “Ironically, the new operating system has been hailed by Microsoft as the most secure version of Windows to date.”

“However, recent research conducted with statistics from over 1.4 million computers within the ThreatFire community has shown that Windows Vista is more susceptible to malware than the eight year old Windows 2000 operating system, and only 37% more secure than Windows XP.”
--------------------------------------------------
The UAC in Vista with all its problems, still does work to a degree, and I encourage my customers, who are stuck with Vi$ta, to use the UAC. With XP being less secure than Vista, out of the box, unless you protect it with 3rd party apps. The problems with Vista, is that many, if not most, unlike XP,of the 3rd party apps used to protect it from various forms of malware, will not be compatible, or work on Vista. Which makes XP the better system for users willing to do a little work securing their systems with 3rd party apps, many of which the better ones are free.

Finally, with at least 500,000 to 1 million variations of malware targeting MS Windows, and none, or almost none, targeting Linux/BSD/Unix/Mac OS X, its hard to believe that anyone, but an Micro$oft Shill could state that Vista is more secure than Linux. I work on computers all the time that are infected with Malware, and guess what people, they are always Windows computers. Never a Mac OS X or Linux computer.

Andre, actually you do. To have surpassed they need to have been in a prior position of lesser security. Thus you imply that prior products were less secure. Which is correct, they were.

Regarding licensing, I'm quite aware of it and understand it. That is why I made a clear statement "Nor did I have an option not to pay for them." My argument is that I did not pay extra. There was no bare bones Toshiba laptop and one with Vista at +50 bucks. There was just one price.

Now do take note that the same laptop comes with MS Office 2007 demo. And it will stay that way, a demo. In this case since it costs me more to actually use the full blown version and I find no compelling reason when compared to the Open Office functionality. I opt not to pay. An option I was not given with the laptop's OS.

I could also comment on the Eee PC who's price tag for the 4G version is the same with Linux or Windows included. In this case the cost of the OS is not visible. Thus $0.00. If the Linux versions are selling it must be for some reason. Don't you think? It is a good thing you adore Windows so much, but please understand there are people who find Linux to be much better.