Windows 7 SP2?

[Bruce Hagen]

Any ideas when will SP2 be released? It seems M$ is concentrating on
Windows 8 these days.

AFAIK, there are no plans for another service pack for Win7.

 

[Bruce Hagen]

Any ideas when will SP2 be released? It seems M$ is concentrating on
Windows 8 these days.

AFAIK, there are no plans for another service pack for Win7.

 

[Microsoft Hacker]

Any ideas when will SP2 be released? It seems M$ is concentrating on Windows 8 these days.

 

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

AFAIK, there are no plans for another service pack for Win7.

No money in service packs.

 

[Scott]

No money in service packs.

Or maybe no requirement? Would you care to state what aspects of
Windows 7 require 'servicing'?

 

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

Or maybe no requirement? Would you care to state what aspects of
Windows 7 require 'servicing'?

Nothing in particular, but service packs in the past have included an
accumulation of bug fixes and new features.

 

[charlie]

Nothing in particular, but service packs in the past have included an
accumulation of bug fixes and new features.

Why would MS issue a Win 7 SP2 service pack?
Corporations mainly. For now,and likely a couple of years,
many will NOT change to Win8. Retraining costs money and
Win 8 is not likely to be as "productive" as Win 7.

 

[Scott]

Nothing in particular, but service packs in the past have included an
accumulation of bug fixes and new features.

I'm surprised they don't just issue one anyway that does nothing other
than increment the version number, then customers such as yourself
could feel a warm glow of satisfaction in having the latest version.

 

[VanguardLH]

I'm surprised they don't just issue one anyway that does nothing other
than increment the version number, then customers such as yourself
could feel a warm glow of satisfaction in having the latest version.

Or in having a single file that can actually be downloaded and retained
for later fresh re-installs to apply all those security and bug fixes
that have been released. Services don't just contain new code changes.
They roll up old code changes, too. If you wanted to do a fresh install
and wanted to get to some minimal fix level, you think it's easier to
revisit the Windows Update site and install them one by one or to pull
out the disc where you stored the service pack and just run the
executable once?

Not everyone even knows about WSUS Offline to get all those updates
stored locally and creating an installer that can apply all the updates
at once. Service Pack files provides a means of quickly and easily
incrementing the OS snapshot up to a defined level.

 

[Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]]

Any ideas when will SP2 be released? It seems M$ is concentrating on Windows 8 these days.

Microsoft hasn't issued an official statement on the matter but there
are reports stating that there won't be an SP2. Have to wait and see.

- Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]

 

[Stan Brown]

Why would MS issue a Win 7 SP2 service pack?
Corporations mainly. For now,and likely a couple of years,
many will NOT change to Win8. Retraining costs money and
Win 8 is not likely to be as "productive" as Win 7.

I expect very few users with regular laptops or desktops will
voluntarily get Windows 8. It's Vista all over again -- anyone who
possibly can, waits for Microsoft to realize how badly it blundered
(again) and release a less sucky Windows.

Maybe the Fisher-Price interface known as Windows 8 is good for cell-
phone users, but it's terrible for those of us trying to do actual
work.

I work in tech support, and among my customers upgrades from Windows
XP to Windows 7 are very common; from XP to Vista are quite unusual.
And as for Windows 8, pretty much the only context I've seen it in is
users who got new computers and so had no choice.

 

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

I'm surprised they don't just issue one anyway that does nothing
other than increment the version number, then customers such as
yourself could feel a warm glow of satisfaction in having the latest
version.

Users such as myself who remember when Service Pack 4 for NT 4 created a
virtually new system and SP 4 for Windows 2000 updated the system for
the latest hardware and protocols. Those were definitely warm and fuzzy
experiences. If I just wanted the satisfaction of having the latest
version, I wouldn't have hung on to Windows 2000 for ten years, ignoring
both XP and Vista. Service packs made that possible.

 

[Rob]

I expect very few users with regular laptops or desktops will
voluntarily get Windows 8. It's Vista all over again -- anyone who
possibly can, waits for Microsoft to realize how badly it blundered
(again) and release a less sucky Windows.

Maybe the Fisher-Price interface known as Windows 8 is good for cell-
phone users, but it's terrible for those of us trying to do actual
work.

I work in tech support, and among my customers upgrades from Windows
XP to Windows 7 are very common; from XP to Vista are quite unusual.
And as for Windows 8, pretty much the only context I've seen it in is
users who got new computers and so had no choice.

+1
In my case, those who get w8 on new PCs are instantly given a
URL to download Classic Shell and then go away happy.

 

[Ghostrider01]

Users such as myself who remember when Service Pack 4 for NT 4 created a
virtually new system and SP 4 for Windows 2000 updated the system for
the latest hardware and protocols. Those were definitely warm and fuzzy
experiences. If I just wanted the satisfaction of having the latest
version, I wouldn't have hung on to Windows 2000 for ten years, ignoring
both XP and Vista. Service packs made that possible.

It was a business error that Microsoft is not going to
repeat. I only shifted to Windows XP less than 3 years
ago from Windows 2000-SP4 and have just now started up
with Windows 7, both 32-bit and 64-bit. I have no plans
to move up to Windows 8.

Service Packs have become superfluous with broadband
and high-speed Internet, either for on-line updating or
for downloading. It took about 55 updates to bring my
new Windows 7-SP1 64-bit install up-to-date and 105 for
the 32-bit version.

GR

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Nothing in particular, but service packs in the past have included an
accumulation of bug fixes and new features.

I think service packs are not really for bug fixes, but more for new
features, or at least features that didn't exist at OS introduction. For
example, XP had been around for over a decade, and a whole host of new
technologies came into existence during its reign, like USB2, SATA, etc.
There really hasn't been much new technology introduced since Win7 was
first introduced.

I can't even think of a new technology supported by Win7 SP1 that wasn't
also supported by the original Win7. All SP's do now is serve to make
people think they're getting extra things in their OS.

Yousuf Khan

 

[fritz]

I think service packs are not really for bug fixes, but more for new
features, or at least features that didn't exist at OS introduction. For
example, XP had been around for over a decade, and a whole host of new
technologies came into existence during its reign, like USB2, SATA, etc.
There really hasn't been much new technology introduced since Win7 was
first introduced.

I can't even think of a new technology supported by Win7 SP1 that wasn't
also supported by the original Win7. All SP's do now is serve to make
people think they're getting extra things in their OS.

There are those of us who do not do updates. The service packs, so
far in their existence, put all* the updates in with whatever else
they may include.

* - all being the updates that ended up doing the job

So, I've never thought of SP's as "getting extra things" or being
particularly for new features.

What do you think when you see Office SP's? Probably not, "What new
technology now? None, so it is of no use to me."

 

[Mellowed]

I expect very few users with regular laptops or desktops will
voluntarily get Windows 8. It's Vista all over again -- anyone who
possibly can, waits for Microsoft to realize how badly it blundered
(again) and release a less sucky Windows.

That's for sure. My new replacement desktop has Win7 PRO. That should
be good for 5 years. IF there is a new desktop upgrade, then maybe I
will consider a successor, as long as it does not resemble Win8.

 

[Ken Blake]

I think service packs are not really for bug fixes, but more for new
features, or at least features that didn't exist at OS introduction. For
example, XP had been around for over a decade, and a whole host of new
technologies came into existence during its reign, like USB2, SATA, etc.
There really hasn't been much new technology introduced since Win7 was
first introduced.

Three points:

1. There's no real meaning to the term "Service Pack." It means
whatever Microsoft wants it to mean, and it isn't necessarily the same
each time.

2. Most service packs are mostly just accumulations of previous
updates, whether or not they are bug fixes, new features, or anything
else. Sometimes there will be something new in a service pack, but
usually there is little that's new.

3. Service Packs are released whenever Microsoft feels like releasing
them. They could decide to release it after a bunch of updates to
consolidate all the updates, or they could do it earlier. Or they
could do it later. That's why the fairly common view " I won't install
a new version of Windows until the first service pack is released" is
nonsense.

 

[Peter Jason]

Or maybe no requirement? Would you care to state what aspects of
Windows 7 require 'servicing'?

1/ The tendency of window sizes to change at
random.

2/ No automatic focus at mouse point. (Unlike
Outlook10, Lightroom3,)

3/ Icon size lose their size setting.

4/ Others I can't remember right now.

 

[charlie]

Users such as myself who remember when Service Pack 4 for NT 4 created a
virtually new system and SP 4 for Windows 2000 updated the system for
the latest hardware and protocols. Those were definitely warm and fuzzy
experiences. If I just wanted the satisfaction of having the latest
version, I wouldn't have hung on to Windows 2000 for ten years, ignoring
both XP and Vista. Service packs made that possible.

hung on to Windows 2000 for ten years, ignoring

That's the reason, among others, that MS ain't gonna do that again!

As a user, I wish they would. As a stockholder, I wish they would not!
You have to sell product to make money!

Windows 8 users should have had a "Legacy" mode that is more appropriate
for existing and typical new business computers.

Touch screens have been around for years, but acceptance and utility for
general use haven't been that good.

We were playing with them in the 90's, and, due to cost and technical
issues (Durability and Temperature range) ended up not considering them
for general DOD/military use. At the time, there were two common means
of sensing "touch". A grid of emitters and sensors, either LED or
capacity sensors were the alternatives.