SP1

MS's normal update of Win7 today was labeled Service Pack 1 (SP1).
Is this a first SP for Win7? (SPs were a big upgrade step under XP.)

--
JohnW-Mpls

JohnW-Mpls wrote:
> MS's normal update of Win7 today was labeled Service Pack 1 (SP1). Is
> this a first SP for Win7? (SPs were a big upgrade step under XP.)

Installing SP 1 as an update is recommended, but it was released months
ago. I don't know why you are only now receiving it, unless you have a
new Win7 installation.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/w...ice-pack-1-sp1
--
Crash

"In politics, stupidity is not a handicap."
~ Napoleon Bonaparte ~

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:20:09 -0500, JohnW-Mpls wrote:

> MS's normal update of Win7 today was labeled Service Pack 1 (SP1).
> Is this a first SP for Win7? (SPs were a big upgrade step under XP.)
>
> --
> JohnW-Mpls

I've had SP1 for quite a while now, and others on this NG have indicated
the same. It's been a few months, but don't ask this leaky brain how
many :-)

My only guess is that you recently installed Windows 7 from a disc that
didn't have SP1 on it...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

JohnW-Mpls wrote:
> MS's normal update of Win7 today was labeled Service Pack 1 (SP1).
> Is this a first SP for Win7? (SPs were a big upgrade step under XP.)
>
> --
> JohnW-Mpls

Do you own backup software ?

Can your backup software do a "bare metal restore", by booting a separate
CD that came with the backup software, so you can restore your C: drive ?

That's what I did, before installing SP1. Made a backup. The SP1 install
process went smoothly, and I didn't need the backup.

Chances are, if you apply SP1, nothing bad will happen. But there's been
at least one case, of someone who got stuck in the "middle" of SP1. The
Service Pack finished installing, and the computer could not boot. In
a lot of cases, if SP1 fails, it "backs out" and reverts to the pre SP1
state. But for safety sake, do a backup first, before trying it.

I like to download the file separately. Then, if I ever need to install
the OS again, I'm ready to load up SP1 as well.

http://www.microsoft.com/download/en...s.aspx?id=5842

windows6.1-KB976932-X64.exe 903.0 MB <---- if you have the 64 bit OS
windows6.1-KB976932-X86.exe 537.0 MB <---- if you have the 32 bit OS

If you install SP1, by allowing Windows Update to do it, the download will
be much much smaller (~100MB ?) than that. But if the installation attempt fails,
you might be repeating that Windows Update thing more than once.

Also be aware, that there are some restrictions on whether you can do a
repair install or not. I would not let this stop me from installing SP1.
Just be aware that Windows 7 is not as flexible as WinXP in that regard.
The claim here is, you really need a DVD from Microsoft, with SP1 already
on it (a Windows 7 SP1 DVD), to make repair installing possible. Slipstreaming
in the traditional ways, apparently is not enough to make it work.

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials...r-install.html

"You can use a Windows 7 SP1 installation disc (ex: Technet (available),
MSDN (available), or retail (when available)) to do a repair install"

HTH,
Paul

On 31/08/2011 6:20 PM, JohnW-Mpls wrote:
> MS's normal update of Win7 today was labeled Service Pack 1 (SP1).
> Is this a first SP for Win7? (SPs were a big upgrade step under XP.)

I had one heckuva time installing SP1 on my computer. Everything that
could go wrong went wrong. I'd suggest image-backup it first. Not so
much for piece of mind, but to use Murphy's Law to your own advantage.
After you have taken all precautions meticulously, then chances are
nothing will happen.

Yousuf Khan

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:41:25 -0400, "Dave \"Crash\" Dummy"
<> wrote:

>JohnW-Mpls wrote:
>> MS's normal update of Win7 today was labeled Service Pack 1 (SP1). Is
>> this a first SP for Win7? (SPs were a big upgrade step under XP.)
>
>Installing SP 1 as an update is recommended, but it was released months
>ago. I don't know why you are only now receiving it, unless you have a
>new Win7 installation.
>

"Released months ago" answers my question. I installed this Win7 a couple
months ago but I dual boot and am still using XP for my work. Every once in
a while, I boot to 7 and install some more apps but have not stayed in 7
very many hours - very probable that the SP 1 update just finally got to my
7.

--
JohnW-Mpls

JohnW-Mpls wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:41:25 -0400, "Dave \"Crash\" Dummy"
> <> wrote:
>
>> JohnW-Mpls wrote:
>>> MS's normal update of Win7 today was labeled Service Pack 1
>>> (SP1). Is this a first SP for Win7? (SPs were a big upgrade step
>>> under XP.)
>> Installing SP 1 as an update is recommended, but it was released
>> months ago. I don't know why you are only now receiving it, unless
>> you have a new Win7 installation.
>>
>
> "Released months ago" answers my question. I installed this Win7 a
> couple months ago but I dual boot and am still using XP for my work.
> Every once in a while, I boot to 7 and install some more apps but
> have not stayed in 7 very many hours - very probable that the SP 1
> update just finally got to my 7.
>
Sounds reasonable. If you are only going to boot Win7 intermittently, I
suggest running Windows Update manually each time you do. I don't
remember if it is in the Programs menu by default, but it is on the
Control Panel if it isn't.
--
Crash

Committed to the search for intraterrestrial intelligence.

On 9/1/2011 11:45 AM, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:
> JohnW-Mpls wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:41:25 -0400, "Dave \"Crash\" Dummy"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> JohnW-Mpls wrote:
>>>> MS's normal update of Win7 today was labeled Service Pack 1 (SP1).
>>>> Is this a first SP for Win7? (SPs were a big upgrade step
>>>> under XP.)
>>> Installing SP 1 as an update is recommended, but it was released
>>> months ago. I don't know why you are only now receiving it, unless
>>> you have a new Win7 installation.
>>>
>>
>> "Released months ago" answers my question. I installed this Win7 a
>> couple months ago but I dual boot and am still using XP for my work.
>> Every once in a while, I boot to 7 and install some more apps but have
>> not stayed in 7 very many hours - very probable that the SP 1 update
>> just finally got to my 7.
>>
> Sounds reasonable. If you are only going to boot Win7 intermittently, I
> suggest running Windows Update manually each time you do. I don't
> remember if it is in the Programs menu by default, but it is on the
> Control Panel if it isn't.

No offense, but why? I used to do updates religiously till somewhere
around 2008. And I heard a few people who wasn't even bothering with
them. Most of the excuses were because some updates screws everything
up. Yes I have been there and done that before. I've been using Windows
since '93 and I never had a Windows virus to this very day (but I have
worked on many other computers which did).

What made me stop updating on some of my many computers were those
netbooks with only 4GB or 8GB of SSD space. These you just can't keep up
with updates as you just don't have enough room to hold them all. And if
you try, Windows will start crashing without any disk space to work
with. So you now have far bigger problems than not keeping up with updates.

And what did I learn from all of this? That I still didn't get viruses
whether I updated or not. And I also learned that Windows security
updates are the weakest of all security measures. And if that is what
you are depending on to protect yourself, you are doing something wrong.
As there are far better ways to protect yourself from viruses than from
security updates.

I still play around in both worlds. As some I still update and some I do
not. And I used to have three Windows 7 computers here. But I put XP
back on two of them and this is the only one left with Windows 7. This
one still doesn't have SP1 or IE9. And like JohnW-Mpls, I don't have
much use for Windows 7 either. As Windows 7 won't run 5% of the Windows
software I want to run, while XP still runs 100% of them. YMMV I am
sure, but Windows 7 for me basically is used for checking email,
newsgroups and browsing. But almost any OS can do that as well. So I am
still not very excited about it. Best thing I can say about Windows 7 is
nice eye candy. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo 2GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 7

On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:41:43 -0500, BillW50 <> wrote:

>On 9/1/2011 11:45 AM, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:
>> JohnW-Mpls wrote:
>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:41:25 -0400, "Dave \"Crash\" Dummy"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>> Sounds reasonable. If you are only going to boot Win7 intermittently, I
>> suggest running Windows Update manually each time you do. I don't
>> remember if it is in the Programs menu by default, but it is on the
>> Control Panel if it isn't.
>
>No offense, but why? I used to do updates religiously till somewhere
>around 2008. And I heard a few people who wasn't even bothering with
>them. Most of the excuses were because some updates screws everything
>up. Yes I have been there and done that before. I've been using Windows
>since '93 and I never had a Windows virus to this very day (but I have
>worked on many other computers which did).

Viruses aren't much of a concern anymore. For quite a few years now
the bigger concern has been things like trojans, worms, rootkits, etc.
Viruses used to do destructive things to your computer's filesystem,
but in recent years the object of the bad guys is to keep your
computer running as smoothly as possible so that you don't suspect
anything is wrong. They can take control of your computer and you
don't even know it.

I realize you're just trolling, but I wanted to set the record
straight anyway.

>What made me stop updating on some of my many computers were those
>netbooks with only 4GB or 8GB of SSD space. These you just can't keep up
>with updates as you just don't have enough room to hold them all. And if
>you try, Windows will start crashing without any disk space to work
>with. So you now have far bigger problems than not keeping up with updates.

I think you're confusing RAM with storage. The amount of RAM might
well be 4GB or more, but storage space on even the low end netbooks is
around 80GB.

>And what did I learn from all of this? That I still didn't get viruses
>whether I updated or not. And I also learned that Windows security
>updates are the weakest of all security measures. And if that is what
>you are depending on to protect yourself, you are doing something wrong.
>As there are far better ways to protect yourself from viruses than from
>security updates.

Lots of nonsense there. As vulnerabilities are discovered and patches
created, the patches are offered to users. It makes no sense to
decline them. No sense at all.

>I still play around in both worlds. As some I still update and some I do
>not. And I used to have three Windows 7 computers here. But I put XP
>back on two of them and this is the only one left with Windows 7. This
>one still doesn't have SP1 or IE9. And like JohnW-Mpls, I don't have
>much use for Windows 7 either. As Windows 7 won't run 5% of the Windows
>software I want to run, while XP still runs 100% of them.

If you want help running that last 5% of your programs that won't run,
just ask. There are plenty of ways to get it done.

--

Char Jackson

On 9/1/2011 1:35 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:41:43 -0500, BillW50<> wrote:
>
>> On 9/1/2011 11:45 AM, Dave "Crash" Dummy wrote:
>>> JohnW-Mpls wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:41:25 -0400, "Dave \"Crash\" Dummy"
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>> Sounds reasonable. If you are only going to boot Win7 intermittently, I
>>> suggest running Windows Update manually each time you do. I don't
>>> remember if it is in the Programs menu by default, but it is on the
>>> Control Panel if it isn't.
>>
>> No offense, but why? I used to do updates religiously till somewhere
>> around 2008. And I heard a few people who wasn't even bothering with
>> them. Most of the excuses were because some updates screws everything
>> up. Yes I have been there and done that before. I've been using Windows
>> since '93 and I never had a Windows virus to this very day (but I have
>> worked on many other computers which did).
>
> Viruses aren't much of a concern anymore. For quite a few years now
> the bigger concern has been things like trojans, worms, rootkits, etc.
> Viruses used to do destructive things to your computer's filesystem,
> but in recent years the object of the bad guys is to keep your
> computer running as smoothly as possible so that you don't suspect
> anything is wrong. They can take control of your computer and you
> don't even know it.

I believe that was always true. The last thing a bad guy wants is to be
detected.

> I realize you're just trolling, but I wanted to set the record
> straight anyway.

Hardly! All I want to do is to set the record straight. And I have the
data as well. So what do you have? If you have the data, I want to see
it. Otherwise I will not believe anything you say.

>> What made me stop updating on some of my many computers were those
>> netbooks with only 4GB or 8GB of SSD space. These you just can't keep up
>> with updates as you just don't have enough room to hold them all. And if
>> you try, Windows will start crashing without any disk space to work
>> with. So you now have far bigger problems than not keeping up with updates.
>
> I think you're confusing RAM with storage. The amount of RAM might
> well be 4GB or more, but storage space on even the low end netbooks is
> around 80GB.

No, back in 2007 and 2008 netbooks came with 4GB and 8GB of SSD. I
focused on the first ones that were the Asus EeePC 700 series. Some of
them like the 702 and the 701SD you can upgrade. But the 701 (the vast
majority of them anyway) had 4GB soldered on the motherboard. Windows 7
will never fit (at least I don't know of a way) and XP SP2 does, but SP3
is next to impossible to get it on there.

>> And what did I learn from all of this? That I still didn't get viruses
>> whether I updated or not. And I also learned that Windows security
>> updates are the weakest of all security measures. And if that is what
>> you are depending on to protect yourself, you are doing something wrong.
>> As there are far better ways to protect yourself from viruses than from
>> security updates.
>
> Lots of nonsense there. As vulnerabilities are discovered and patches
> created, the patches are offered to users. It makes no sense to
> decline them. No sense at all.

It makes no sense on paper. But learn from people who are doing things
otherwise in real life and you learn that things don't always work the
same as on paper. Maybe you should pay more attention to these people.

>> I still play around in both worlds. As some I still update and some I do
>> not. And I used to have three Windows 7 computers here. But I put XP
>> back on two of them and this is the only one left with Windows 7. This
>> one still doesn't have SP1 or IE9. And like JohnW-Mpls, I don't have
>> much use for Windows 7 either. As Windows 7 won't run 5% of the Windows
>> software I want to run, while XP still runs 100% of them.
>
> If you want help running that last 5% of your programs that won't run,
> just ask. There are plenty of ways to get it done.

Well games always perform less on Windows 7 than Windows XP. But that is
because Windows 7 demands more of the system than XP does. Although lets
start here. I have used dozens of different newsgroups readers. And the
only one I really like is OE6 with quote-fix. I even tried portable
versions of OE6 and they work fine under XP, but not under Windows 7.
Yeah WLM has some of the same features of OE6, but it is really lacking.
And I see it as a downgrade.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo 2GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 7