Uh-Oh! No Vista SP1 This Year?
 Joe Wilcox
As we reported overnight, a recent court filing submitted by the Justice Department, state attorneys general and Microsoft revealed that Windows Vista Service Pack 1 will be available later this year as a beta. Will that mean final delivery in 2007 or 2008? |
Early indications are that Vista SP1 will be released some time in 2008, based on information I've obtained from my sources. However, Microsoft could dedicate more resources to SP1 development in order to make the Vista search changes sooner because of a court oversight. That said, Vista search changes could just as easily slow down the SP1 development.
The search changes would allow users to select a default search provider and offer new links to the default provider.
Certainly, Microsoft and its customers would benefit from the search changes coming before there are massive Vista deployments. But the changes would be a reason for some businesses to further delay Vista deployments.
Julie Giera, a Forrester Research vice president, said that she believes many businesses would further delay deployments because of the search changes.
"Why in your right mind would you install and then turn around and install again," she asked, referring to the initial deployment and the service pack update that will be available soon after. "You'd have to be out of your mind."
Already some high-profile Microsoft customers, including Intel, have said they would wait until the release of SP1 before deploying Vista.
"Any delay in SP1 will delay commercial rollouts," said Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies Associates. "More appropriately: 'Ich nicht rolle diesem Yahr aus.' Translation: 'I'm not rolling out this year.'"
Kay took a fairly pessimistic view on the impact of a delay. If Microsoft delivers SP1 in the first quarter of 2008, early deployments would start around the third quarter, with mass deployments beginning in early 2009—or a "year late," Kay said.
Previous analysts' projections had put early Vista deployments in the third quarter of this year, with mass deployments starting around the second quarter of 2008. But some of the projections assumed that Microsoft would release SP1 in the third quarter or a little later.
If there is a delay due to the search changes, Google would get a secondary benefit. Windows XP's built-in search capabilities are shockingly inferior to those in Vista. The longer consumers or businesses use Windows XP, the more opportunity there will be for them to use the Google Desktop Search. Vista's search is exceptionally robust and greatly diminishes the need for a third-party product like Google's.
The search changes are nevertheless an important compromise for Microsoft. Sources indicated that several states were looking at bringing a separate action against Microsoft on behalf of Google. The agreement to make search changes removes the shadow of a potentially protracted and public legal proceeding that could have forestalled some customers' Vista upgrades. The agreement gives Microsoft and its customers clarity, even though Vista will have to undergo changes with SP1's release.
"When" remains the unanswered question. Giera said that Vista's launch "isn't going as well as they [Microsoft] expected."
If there aren't many customers deploying the operating system, Microsoft has much less incentive to release a service pack. However, if customers are waiting for the service pack before deploying, Microsoft faces a kind of chicken-and-egg scenario: Which comes first, adoption and the service pack or the service pack and adoption?
Ultimately, SP1's fate is intimately tied to Windows Server 2008. Analysts have described a coming "Big Bang" of infrastructure upgrades following the release of Windows Server 2008, and these would include Vista.
Last November, a Microsoft executive told eWEEK that the new Windows Server version and Vista SP1 would ship "simultaneously". Microsoft has since backed away from that position. My speculation has been that Microsoft would release Windows Server 2008 to manufacturing late in the year, with broad availability next year rather than in 2007.
This week, Microsoft informed testers that a "Centro" CTP (Community Technology Preview) would come within a few weeks. The new software for midmarket companies derives its lineage from Windows Server 2003. The CTP is one guidepost for measuring Windows Server 2008's development progress.
I must ask: If you are an IT manager, will you delay your Vista deployments until SP1 is released? Or, if you were planning deployments ahead of the release of SP1, will the search changes coming in the service pack affect your plans? Our comment lines are open. Please share with the class.
Editor's Note: Additional analyst comments added.
Related Posts:
- Microsoft Will Modify Vista Search, Microsoft Watch, June 20, 2007
- Google Complaint Targets Vista Search, Microsoft Watch, June 9, 2007
- 'Longhorn' Server Comes When?, Microsoft Watch, June 5, 2007
- 'Longhorn' Named Windows Server 2008, Microsoft Watch, May 15, 2007
- Microsoft's 'Big Bang' Is When?, Microsoft Watch, April 26, 2007
- Viridian Delay Foreshadows What About Windows 'Longhorn' Server?, Microsoft Watch, April 12, 2007
- Windows Server Takes the Lead, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 16, 2006
Create, Communicate, Collaborate with IT Professionals at Ziff Davis Enterprise IT Link.
Comments (27)
DOJ announces service pack availability. It seems to me that the DOJ will be the chief software architect of the next windows version. I think Microsoft's worst fears are becoming a reality...
Posted by evan | June 20, 2007 4:26 PM
As if Apple needed any more ammunition to throw back at M$. It is true that Apple has delayed the release of Leopard until October, mostly to put resources on to iPhone. Now that iPhone is a week away from release, a lot of those resources are going to go back to Leopard and take care of any last minute bugs that will be discovered as developers take home the beta version from WWDC. Give those talented people at Apple 3 months and Leopard will basically be coming out of the box as SP1, months ahead of Vista. The stockholders and accountants at Apple are going to laugh all the way to the bank.
I'm very computer savvy and it's a pain in the ass to get XP on my desktop to talk to Vista on my wife's work laptop (not my choice of OS). Somehow it was tons easier to set up my sister's home network in a house full of Macs. Is this merely coincidence? Just look at the Finder search demo from Jobs' keynote. He was talking to all kinds of machines across a not-so-local network.
Apple already had the hole-shot and M$ just tripped on the starting blocks.
Posted by Chris | June 20, 2007 4:51 PM
The DOJ has been slowly overstepping its bounds through the years. I think someone needs to step back a little and examine what their true role really is.
Posted by Jremy | June 20, 2007 5:05 PM
Chris, I find setting up XP and Vista to see each other very easy. as for OSX it could not see any windows version, and some version of Windows could see OSX. Even Vista could see 98, 2000, ME, & XP, without issue.
Posted by Joe | June 20, 2007 6:08 PM
Since Service packs tend to be mainly the released patches issued since the Vista release, I could see MS waiting longer. To be fair to MS, there hasn't been the huge number of patches similar to in the past. But then again this could just be a sign that MS does not really intend to fix Vista.
If you going wait this long for SP1, whats another year wainting for Viennia in 2009. MS will bring Viennia out asap since Vista is not turning out to be the next best thing.
Posted by chips b malroy | June 20, 2007 7:43 PM
Microsoft is in a much better position to complete all past projects now that they seem to have mended their differences with VCSY(The next tech giant)
Posted by B.Clanton | June 20, 2007 9:26 PM
"Windows XP's built-in search capabilities are shockingly inferior to those in Vista."
I was under the impression that the Windows Search addon for Windows XP was equal to the search capability in Vista. Google doesn't have a monopoly on desktop search in XP.
Vista will not touch the computers at my company until 3-6 months after SP1. Likely a year since we "only" have Dell D520/D820 laptops with 1gb of ram and vista seems alot slower than XP on these laptops.
Posted by DosFreak | June 20, 2007 9:32 PM
Joe, despites all these bashing , you are still using Microsoft Windows daily...
Please switch to Ubuntu on your old Mac with Openoffice and tell us your experience.
Posted by Jane | June 20, 2007 10:24 PM
Hey Jane;
While I am not Joe, you did ask; "Please switch to Ubuntu on your old Mac with Openoffice and tell us your experience."
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I don't have a Mac, but I do have a PC. I dual boot XP and PClinuxOS (not Ubuntu). I use OpenOffice on both Linux and XP. I greatly perfer PCLinuxOS or SimplyMepis GNU/Linux with OpenOffice to MS products for general web use. No Virus problem, no endless scans, extremely stable, and fast. Not that XP is a terrible OS, I still use it for a few things, but less and less all the time.
Ubuntu is ok, but uses the Gnome window manager, and I much prefer KDE.
Posted by chips b malroy | June 21, 2007 2:02 AM
y do u want a service pack already?
they just released windows vista
what the toilet! its already July in a few days! felt like yesterday when windows vista was realsed. time is going so fast. jesus is coming back. quick everyone ask 4 forgiveness! become a christian!
puppet1991@hotmail.com
Posted by puppet | June 21, 2007 4:55 AM
MS's GosPlan Approach Holds Business Hostage
From the Article:
"Vista's search is exceptionally robust and greatly diminishes the need for a third-party product like Google's."
I am confused by this. Are you referring to Vista's ability to search the local hard drive, or its ability to search the internet?
Because, if I'm not mistaken, the magic behind the Google search lies in the thousands of Linux boxes in that magical cluster of Google's.
The lesson behind all these service pack debacles over the years is that MS's multi-year product plans = Soviet Style GosPlan approach to a really key industry.
Are we really to believe that numerous competing companies could not do a better job publishing service packs and patches than MS has over the last ten years? Central planning of really large commercial efforts never works well - MS is the latest evidence. Simply too many variables in plans of this size.
OK great, MS did the world a service by publishing Windows and managing it for a few years. But does that give them the right to plan every aspect of the tech economy? No. Too much is at stake.
--Doug Hettinger
Posted by Doug Hettinger | June 21, 2007 11:33 AM
I think that the extreme complexity of Vista is creating a real problem to MS, a problem that maybe could only be fixed with a new SO. I think that, really, no pack will solve the real problem, and its very possible that MS's managers are afraid of that enormous task (and all its possible complications.) It would explain for example the delay in SP1 (when a lot of people are waiting for it -also, MS needs it-) or MS's despair which arises on the need to sell Vista. (http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=528 ) and the soon release (possible) of Vienna (2008; pack3 XP, pack1 Vista. 2009; Vienna? Are they unaware of something named market saturation?).
Ah, sorry MS fans: “How to downgrade to XP is at the top of Microsoft’s “Top 5 Licensing Questions.” It is true, people are getting rid of Vista.
Posted by Marco | June 21, 2007 5:19 PM
The Delay of the SP1 deployment means many of the small business computers may jump ship to the Mac world, in the retail market here, many are eager to get SP1 as stated they will wait for SP1 before they deploy and the wait my cause some to move to apple, some have said they cant wait and may take a bite of the apple world
Posted by Tom M | June 21, 2007 9:23 PM
I have installed Vista business on 4 systems.
The results were so flakey that I had to "upgrade" back to XP Pro.
It appears as if M$ put more effort into WGA than the compatibility and stability of its new OS.
They put the BOW in the WOW (as in it's a dog).
It's slow and bloated.
It's a least a year away from any more of my desktops.
I truly dislike this OS.
Posted by pgm | June 22, 2007 12:56 AM
Businesses don't delay OS rollouts because of service packs. That's so 90's... Any business worth their salt have defined processes for SP upgrades.
Businesses are waiting on Vista rollouts in order to complete testing on their applications and for vendors like Trend to get their @ss in gear and get Vista compatible apps out the door (FYI - Trend 8 came out 6 mo. after Vista). Poor application support/certification is what is holding back Vista and there is little MS can do about that.
Oh, and we're busy rolling out Office 2007 :)
Posted by bwicked | June 22, 2007 11:05 AM
I am the IT for a small 3 office Realtor. I am holding off as long as possible moving to Vista. There are too many issues with this OS. My user base has enough problems with XP. Vista is to “different”. It does the same things for basic users, but Microsoft moved everything around and changed everything’s name. My users are not GEEKS. Relearning an OS will drive them nuts.
Vista needs a “Classic Mode”. Let it look and feel like XP if you want, but with more bells and whistles. This would make moving to Vista much easier.
Posted by George LaCourse | June 22, 2007 11:35 AM
We will wait till next year to roll out Vista..
Reading through all the comments in this thread.
Here is my 2 cents.
Too much speculation.
No one really knows what M$ is thinking.
As far as Vista and other OS's go: They all have issues.. Always have always will.
We have Vista set up in our labs. While it takes some getting used to.. We find the OS works fairly well.
Posted by Imdaman | June 22, 2007 12:08 PM
You are all luddites. mbrace the machine that gave you the productivity you take for granted.
Posted by CharlesInCharge | June 22, 2007 2:24 PM
Marco said:
I think that the extreme complexity of Vista is creating a real problem to MS, a problem that maybe could only be fixed with a new SO. I think that, really, no pack will solve the real problem, and its very possible that MS's managers are afraid of that enormous task (and all its possible complications.) It would explain for example the delay in SP1 (when a lot of people are waiting for it -also, MS needs it-) or MS's despair which arises on the need to sell Vista.
I share this viewpoint, that there is no cure for Vista. It is a terminal illness of the NewTechnology source tree. It started when the MS programmers were ordered to insert image and sound drivers into the kernel of Windows NT 3.5 so that Windows NT 4.0 could have the same bells and whistles as Windows 98, while being more stable and reliable than the DOS-based, earlier operating systems. That introduced many bugs; some of them caused memory leaks, and others caused resource allocation deadlocks. Why do I know? Because those are the easiest to produce when one deals with sounds and images on a computer, and hard to identify and neutralize. MS violated solid rules of software engineering in order to make slow hardware be able to provide short lag times for moving images and music, for the sake of marketing.
Later, MS decided to tolerate the imperfections in the OS design in order to maintain legacy applications untouched, and the planned incompatibility with the rest of the world. If MS changed the nature of the OS on that occasion, companies such as Adobe, Macromedia and Quicken might drift away from its exclusive control. MS's business model mandated it. That decision was fatal, because the programmers had to generate hundreds of software patches for Windows 2000 to behave like a legitimate multiuser OS, making the source tree grow from 10 mlsc (million lines of source code) to about 30 mlsc. By doing that, the programmers introduced many bugs and lost mental control of what they were doing, due to sheer size of the code.
When Windows 2000 presented unsatisfactory features for home users, MS added about 15 mlsc to produce Windows XP. So, Windows XP is a huge bazaar, instead of a refined cathedral architecture as it was supposed to be according to Eric Raymond's Cathedral and Bazaar essay. Whenever I wrote these historical notes, no MS advocate ever refuted them, because the truth might be even worse, and MS fears to unwind the truth that might expose the many lies of its marketing and press releases.
To produce Windows Vista, MS apparently dumped part of the earlier code and rewrote it with DRM built in, always in a hurry. Windows Vista code is estimated to have about 50 mlsc total. Imagine how many bugs there might be in Vista if, according to software engineering, the number of bugs grows exponentially, with a positive exponent, with the size of the source code. And fatal bugs are likely to show up at the most inconvenient moments, according to Murphy's law.
Perhaps the MS testing team uncovered some hairy bugs, and now the developer team is fearful that things will get nastier if they write a service pack that might make the situation worse, because whenever one fixes a bug, in an uncontrolled situation, many bugs may be added. Since this is a situation created 10 years ago, now there is nothing one can do. It is like having built a house with unprotected wooden pillars and trusses that have been all compromised by bugs. It is dangerous to stay in it, and the only way is to rebuild it from scratch.
Posted by M. Miyojim | June 22, 2007 2:31 PM
I haven’t seen any large corporations that installed anything that didn't have SP1 (servers and desktops) and they are worth billions in $ or salt. That includes the largest NW based bank, two large retailers (all IBM clients). When you make it easier for computers to network with each other you also make it easier to break into them.(from what I've seen, ssh2 tunnels seem to be the only secure way of networking these days on un-trusted networks). Just this is just my 2 cents. Big companies have the resources to install vista then sp1 but why not wait so you only have one scenario to; simulate in the lab, write scripts for the tech monkeys/computers to follow? It’s costly to pay someone to touch a computer 2 times when you could wait and do it all at once. You don’t put unstable software on mission critical computers that would cost $60+/hr for down time.
Posted by John | June 22, 2007 2:43 PM
With Windows ME there wasn't a service pack released. But then users could just spend more money and run out and buy NT4 or 2000, not sure which was out at that time. The only MS relieve valve right now is XP which MS insists OEMs will not be able to preinstall after Jan. Predict that if MS follows through on this, this will bite them in the ass. There will be a customer backlash against using this bug ridden DRM infested piece of code.
MS will release a Service Pack 1 for Vista, and might even talk about a SP2. However, it will be a collection of patches (already available) and probably not too much more. They will not fix the problems in Vista, which are mostly related to the DRM in Vista. If anything, expect the DRM and WGA to be patched and strengthened in SP1.
Service Pack 1 will be released also to fix the problem with the desktop search and the DOJ, so its coming. But the basic reason to release this Service Pack is SALES. Yep, they going suck a lot of people in and make a lot of money by releasing a service pack, even if it does nothing.
I do agree with the other posters that Vista cannot be fixed with a service pack. Unless that Service Pack removes the DRM and WGA features which are probably at the heart of the problems with Vista.
Posted by chips b malroy | June 23, 2007 2:57 PM
Based on all the cross licensing going on I think that M$ wants to use Linux as the base for their next operating system. That would allow them to move away from the bloated Vista OS and to start with a smaller and cleaner OS. M$ keeps pulling out the old "I'll sue you" mantra whenever they feel afraid of new ideas and then cross license to try and gain full control of those same ideas.
My company has no plans to upgrade its 600+ computers at my site and are looking at several Linux OS's to see how much rewriting will be needed for their mission critical software. Vista is NOT on their list of possible installations.
Posted by Dave | June 25, 2007 9:16 PM
Here's my take. Vista is not really doing anything better then XP for me or my users yet. Ok the encryption in Vista Enterprise is a nice feature for Notebooks but that's about it. The replacement for offline folders needs longhorn to work right. So who cares. If you buy a biz pc it most likely comes with some form of Vista on it but that don't matter. Companies are going to image it with what works. That's going to be XP for a while I think.
Vista may be pretty but I just don't see it doing anything for anyone but mobile users that worth the time investing in it. SP1 may be a bit of a let down for Vista if you ask me. The longer longhorn takes to get on the street the longer it will be before Vista starts to become usefull. Then there's the SP1 for Longhorn companies are going to wait on before installing Longhorn.
Some person said that waiting for SP was so 90's. Umm no that's called trying to avoid trouble. Procedures and steps for installing anything might be in place but that doesn't mean you need to spend resources spinning you wheels.
I'm not saying vista is junk by no means... but it's June now and Vista seems like a bust to me. Maybe Vista will be remembered like 98ME ten years from now? I really don't know.
Sean~
Posted by Sean | June 28, 2007 11:45 AM
I want to create a Vista image. I have been waiting for the service pack.
I agree that the best software is ligt and nible.
Microsoft should try to produce a new Windows completely from scratch usingless code.
The size of the new Windows should be small enough to fit on a CD (max 700 MB).
The new OS should run on a 2 GHz processor with just 512 MB RAM.
Checkout my xpimage: http://drpcdr.ca/xpimage.htm
Chris
Posted by chris | July 17, 2007 3:36 AM
The only thing that is shockingly inferior is this piece of crap called Vista which is a sprayed turd over Windows XP.
Posted by Scott | July 18, 2007 1:08 AM
I had Windows XP, my comp died and now I have a laptop, and I'm in Vista hell. Since I can't seem to format the thing without finding the crappy drivers for this awful Operating System, and dual booting XP ....for a semi computer guy like me, I'm stuck in Vista hell. The only thing that is "shockingly inferior" is a Operating System called Vista. When an Operating System can't run the most popular platforms of the times, it's crap. I would love to expand on my vocabulary, but I would rather just leave. If you've read most sites, this Operating System is slower for gaming and I just don't have the words to describe how angry I am with this thing. I feel like I had a top of the line Operating System and I've downgraded to something from the sewers of the 20th century. Not modern computing by any means. Sad.
Posted by Scott | July 18, 2007 1:15 AM
You know an Operating System is bad when it can't run the software that came with it, like Windows Media Player and Explorer 7 without freezing or crashing. Yeah I did have Windows 3.1 at one time, even that never crashed once on me. Even th VOip phone that was included with the laptop was incompatible. I mean how much more obvious can it get that this Operating System is garbage. Sadly this is worse then Windows ME. I guess the next hope is Windows Fiji I think it is. Obviously Microsoft can't seem to make a proper Operating system "every other" release. Maybe these smaller Operating Systems should just be released to servers and other security type businesses. Microsoft should maybe stick to the 5 year rule now, it's pretty obvious.
Posted by Scott | July 22, 2007 9:58 PM