I see how this might be useful for people who use the original DVDs because they don't have to install every single update.
But I download a updated version from the Internet, one without cracks and type in my own key.
It would have been better if they just released monthly DVD images for burning.
And I don't see how this would promote piracy because pirates don't need these in order to release their versions.
Actually it would be better because the majority of users who want it free would get this disk image from Microsoft instead of the cracked version and use a random key, get caught and buy it. Those that don't buy probably never will anyway.
[citation][nom]husker[/nom]If the Windows 7 client SP1 consists of a combination of updates already distributed to Windows 7 clients, how can they call it a beta?[/citation]
I totally agree with this lol.
[citation][nom]makotech222[/nom]This is the first time i can honestly say, whats the point? win7 runs smooth as heck, i've never had a crash.[/citation]
The SP1 title tends to bring more businesses and users to hop on board with the new OS. Lots of people for instance didn't switch to XP or Vista till after the SP1 release. Some even waited for an SP2. =)
Not really interested that much since it doesn't add very much for the consumers using Windows 7. It's pretty much an upgrade for Windows Server R2 2008 with bug fixes for Windows 7. I expect as with previous Windows releases this is a sign of stability and product maturity for business, education, and corporate level IT departments that will help force their hand into the new environment.
[citation][nom]johnh2005[/nom]"For Windows 7, SP1 will simply be the combination of updates already available through Windows Update and additional hotfixes based on feedback by our customers and partners,"Um... Yay? What's the point?[/citation]
Mainly for the big corporations who does updates once in a blue moon or once every SP release. Besides, most corps generally won't change their OS to a new one until the 1st SP is released, so they'll have less bugs to deal with up on installation.
[citation][nom]Trueno07[/nom]I'm running windows 7 and i have every one of those you listed...[/citation]
Yeah, but where in Vista, it took me 1 click to choose between the 3, in W7, it takes 3 or 4.
I am fully aware that it is there. The problem is, my clients rarely are.
It is annoying to those who know computers, but for the computer illiterate, they go around running 'balanced' or 'power saver' on their desktops, not knowing that it is killing their performance, and on laptops, people are chewing through battery life, or don't know that they can get better performance from their new dual core rig because the obvious option of 'high performance' is not presented to them.
The options are 'there' but they are not 'visible'. It is an unnecessary extra few annoying clicks and it hurts the computing experience for those who are not in 'the know'.
Personally, having tested them both side by side, I must admit I'm underwhelmed by Win7 compared with Vista SP2 - reminds me a lot of Xp vs. 2000.
Now don't get me wrong: Vista RTM was pure horse dung (the installer alone is horrendous, in its "You want to delete partition 2? Let's trash partition 5 instead!" way).
It's just that SP1 fixed many problems, and SP2 fixed even more - with all fixes and updates applied (the platform update and recent GPU drivers), Vista performs as smoothly as Win7, if not smoother. You can also revert it to XP-like themes and services running, which has a rather drastic effect on RAM use.
On the other hand, Win7 feels like 'Vista SP2 + lipstick' - it's not BAD, and I recommend getting it if you need a Windows version, but those of you who got Vista (I went Linux when they started writing 'XP or better' on software boxes), don't feel so shafted and keep your money.
The thing that makes me dislike Win7 is that, as said by several people in previous comments, advanced settings in Win7 are even better hidden than in Vista.
...BUT, on the matter of service packs: those require testing because they include hotfixes that didn't go through the full MS regression testing process, and that may cause problems when used in conjunction with other fixes/updates. And, since a SP isn't a 2 Mb fix, it's rather long to test - and even requires in-the-field testing.
Of course, previous SPs changed the trend quite a lot: if 2000 saw SPs that did contain only fixes and very limited updates, XP SP2 was actually an almost all new OS (SP1 and SP3 contained fixes and slight platform upgrades only), and SP1 is actually "what Vista RTM should have been".
[citation][nom]fatedtodie[/nom]how many people missed the part about XP downgrade rights going away? Regardless if it is a "waste of time" to bundle the updates it means they can finally let that POS of an OS XP DIE. DIE XP DIE!.I hate people that are stuck in the past, and it is even worse when it is tech related.[/citation]
Some people cant just afford it
@fatedtodie: XP wasn't a POS; it was a good OS with solid foundations, unfortunately Marketing defined several of its default settings. A well-set XP (post-SP2) is actually fast, stable, reactive with a rather small footprint.
Too bad it was set by default to be slow, unstable, fat, insecure and ugly, and with artificial limitations to what hardware it can support (there is EAP support in it, but MS said: we don't want it to work on more than 4 Gb and waste a good chunk of it above 3 Gb, so it will not - eventhough it could).