I think we may have some history in the making here. This is the first SP1 for an MS OS release that I have no interest in installing. I probably will at some point, but my system is running so well that w/o new features I fail to see what the upside can be.
Who would've thunk anyone would say about Windows... "No need for SP1. The original version is working like a charm."
The changes in Windows Server 2008 SP2 (which is concurrent with Win 7 SP1) to support virtualization are a Big Deal for organizations that are using virtualization... there's some very substantial stuff in there, but for the rest of us, it's a snoozer.
Can I ask why? I'm really curious, I don't believe I know anyone who has ever switched back to Windows from OS X. I use Win 7 at work and OS X at home, and while Win 7 is the best version of Windows I've ever used (and I started on 3.1), it's no match for OS X.
OS X has the terminal, that's about the only major thing I'd give it over Windows 7, and is the reason I use it at work. I particularly like Win7's great hardware support; I recently built a $2000+ gaming desktop, and it handled all the newfangled hardware like it was born to do it. Another major advantage is multitasking even in the most arduous circumstances--Windows 7 made my older PC* run much faster than my shiny new Macbook Pro. My Macbook Pro is constantly giving me the middle finger in the form of that little bouncing beach ball. I could go on but I don't own Microsoft stock.
*That PC was a low end 4-year-old Athlon dual core that could barely play 720p YouTube videos, as a point of comparison. For it to beat my new Macbook Pro in everyday usage was just damning.
I've also mostly switched back. From a day to day usability standpoint I honestly don't find any compelling difference between the two. They both have their annoyances, but nothing that is significantly worse than the other. Both let me get my work done without getting too much in my way. Windows on the other gives me a far wider selection of hardware and software.
For me it is the fact that the system seems to have multiple personality disorder. There is a unix system in there and a Mac system in there, the two are not well integrated. There were a number of times I would do something in bash and not be able to find it in finder. It has been a while since I used it but at the time smp support was quite poor. Running a build that would max out one processor of a dual processor box would cause the system become unusable, as it tried to load balance the one job between the processors. Sadly in my experience so far, Win7 has been more stable than OS X.
I tried Mac for some time and LOVEDLOVED the lack of crapware, but I found it overrated:
1. Blurry text :)
2. iLife apps are nicely approximated by Windows Live. Before I checked out Windows Live Movie Maker, I was very impressed with iMovie.
3. Lack of apps (e.g., wasn't able to find a decent fullscreen, borderless terminal emulator like the alt-enter mode of putty).
4. Didn't seem especially fast or anything compared to Windows (on a 4G machine).
5. Loved the unixyness of the OS. But it's subtly not Unix, which breaks some things. E.g., macports' GCC 4.5.1 + gdb wasn't stable compared to Apple's older versions of gcc. I now ssh into an Ubuntu box from Windows (putty + tmux + consolas FTW) for development.
Personally: games, foobar2000, sharper font rendering, and better hardware support -- Mini's and iMacs are too weak, the latter has a silly integrated monitor I don't want, and Mac Pro's are too over the top. OS X can't even use my keyboards properly without third party keymaps :/
Of course I don't do much real work in Windows - that's reserved for FreeBSD, Ubuntu and Debian on various real and virtual systems.
What features does OSX have that Windows lacks? Assuming a user that doesn't really interact much with the terminal. To me unless your a developer I can't see much that would really drive a decision one way or the other. Can't think of anything that either Windows or OSX makes impossible that the other does.
- Virtual invulnerability to malware - no need to buy and use crippling and intrusive anti-malware systems.
- Partly as a result of the above, it's noticeably faster.
- Time Machine (albeit it would be much nicer if it were based on ZFS).
- It comes bundled with pretty computers that have no blue LEDs (and most users, Windows and Mac alike, just stick to whatever came pre-installed). My last HP had 18 blue light sources piercing my retinas all the time.
- The company comes with a very charismatic CEO.
- It's prettier than Windows.
- It just works. And keeps working.
- If you are a developer, it offers a rich Unix environment matched only by Linux machines - that, I have to admit, don't work as consistently. It also comes with a kick-ass IDE for free.
- It already ships with a decent web browser. No need to download and install one.
- The App Store promises near-Linux ease for finding, selecting, downloading and keeping software up-to-date. It certainly beats the Windows way of googling for the software, hitting a malware site, going back, searching more, finding the correct site, downloading an executable and giving it the keys to the kingdom so it can do whatever it wants with your computer, something it may never recover from.
I can't tell whether this is a serious post or not, but as someone who uses both every day:
> - Virtual invulnerability to malware - no need to buy and use crippling and intrusive anti-malware systems.
> - Partly as a result of the above, it's noticeably faster.
If you let Windows Update do its thing and recognize that downloading and launching freevideo.avi.exe and granting it admin access seems like a bad idea, there's nothing to worry about. Microsoft Security Essentials is free, stays quiet, and uses a negligible amount of memory.
> - Time Machine (albeit it would be much nicer if it were based on ZFS).
Backup and Restore. It's not as pretty nor well marketed, but it does the job just fine.
> - It comes bundled with pretty computers that have no blue LEDs (and most users, Windows and Mac alike, just stick to whatever came pre-installed). My last HP had 18 blue light sources piercing my retinas all the time.
So does Windows. You have a choice of whether to buy a Latitude or the pink Alienware XPS Mega 8000 with the Lady Gaga vinyl faceplate.
> - The company comes with a very charismatic CEO.
Windows comes with a jolly bald guy and an awesome well known philanthropist. Can we call it a draw?
> - It's prettier than Windows.
This depends on the person really, but I do love the borderless windows in OSX. The super-fat window borders in Win7 look silly (although you can make them smaller). The other big difference is the Dock, and that probably falls under UX rather than design. I hate how much space it wastes compared to the Taskbar though.
> - It just works. And keeps working.
Except when something goes wrong, as tends to happen in tech built by anyone running any OS. I think you'll find that the general consensus is that Win7 is rock solid and just as stable as OSX.
> - If you are a developer, it offers a rich Unix environment matched only by Linux machines - that, I have to admit, don't work as consistently. It also comes with a kick-ass IDE for free.
Win7 has PowerShell and MS gives away Visual Studio Express too. It really depends on what you're developing for, of course.
> - It already ships with a decent web browser. No need to download and install one.
IE8 is more than decent - it is by far the most popular and reliable method for downloading Firefox. Also, do any OSX power users even use Safari? All the OSX people I know use either Chrome or Firefox.
> - The App Store promises near-Linux ease for finding, selecting, downloading and keeping software up-to-date. It certainly beats the Windows way of googling for the software, hitting a malware site, going back, searching more, finding the correct site, downloading an executable and giving it the keys to the kingdom so it can do whatever it wants with your computer, something it may never recover from.
My first experience with the App Store was being asked for credit card information when I tried to download the free Twitter app. Ninite is a Windows app that comes close to doing what the App Store does.
> I can't tell whether this is a serious post or not,
I am only half-joking
> If you let Windows Update do its thing
I find the "don't turn off the computer just now, applying update 10 of 130" very annoying. I am glad I only see it in VMs these days
> Backup and Restore. It's not as pretty nor well marketed
Time Machine (and the time slider in Solaris) allow you to see and restore last week's version of any file without you consciously having to back it up.
> You have a choice of whether to buy a Latitude or the pink Alienware XPS Mega 8000 with the Lady Gaga vinyl faceplate
You have a strange notion of what would be a pretty computer.
> Windows comes with a jolly bald guy and an awesome well known philanthropist
Both of them accused (and found guilty) of monopoly abuse. I stay with Jobs.
> Except when something goes wrong
The only time I had to reinstall a Mac was when upgrading hard disks. With Windows it's so frequent I keep disk images and VM snapshots to help me.
> It really depends on what you're developing for, of course.
Indeed. Windows is the best platform for developing for Windows.
> IE (...) is by far the most popular and reliable method for downloading Firefox.
Can't argue with that, but, unless I am developing on the Mac, I stick with Safari.
> My first experience with the App Store
Give them some slack. It's a first attempt. Too bad they couldn't decide to just copy what Linux has since the early 2000's...
> Time Machine (and the time slider in Solaris) allow you to see and restore last week's version of any file without you consciously having to back it up.
Previous versions do it, but with less eye candy
Generally I despise comparisons as they tend to get overboard, however I agree with everything you've said.
I've only been on OSX for about four months but I can attest to one fact. OSX and Macbook hardware is so well integrated I get uptime of more than 30 days easy. Since I got my macbook, I've only restarted it handful of times. My work Macbook hasn't been restarted since it was bought a month ago too btw and I spend about 14 hours on it ever workday.
It is the type of performance I remember getting from Windows server OSes on very optimized hardware.
Anyway, Win7 is pretty rock solid. I never had problems with it and I've been using it since beta phase. Though I have to reboot the laptop after a day or two of working on it.
I too am one that has switched back to Windows 7 from MacOS X. OK well not completely I still have one machine using MacOS X but I won't be purchasing anymore MacOS boxen for my business now that Windows 7 is proven to be so capable. Love it!
Not by a mile. Windows 7 literally beats Vista to death -- it's a lot snappier and (to me, anyway) a lot more stable.
Let's not forget that it actually runs in 512 MB of RAM, and I can attest to this. I'm an OS X guy by trade and employment, but Windows 7 I can actually tolerate (which blows my mind, really).
Agreed. I'd never use Windows as a primary OS (that would just be silly), but I find that I don't hate Windows 7. It's still Windows (still opaque, still overwrought, still not posix, still has a registry), but it's a Windows you can live with.
"In short - there is no new functionality as we have mentioned previously beyond client-side support for RemoteFX and Dymanic Memory which are 2 new virtualization features enabled in Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1."
Does anyone have a link to actual release notes from SP1? I followed about 10 links, downloaded a *.doc that the microsoft site led me to believe had release notes, which actually only contained links back to the page I downloaded the doc from.
I just did the same and somehow ended up back at the page linked to in this submission...
edit: okay, just got to the same document you did. Apparently microsoft considers 'release notes' to be 'notes about the process of releasing' which that document will have when there are any, rather than notes about the release itself, aka the Service Pack. There is another file on that link called 'Notable Changes in Windows 7 SP1' or something similar, which basically boils down the changes to: HDMI audio improvements, fix to XPS documents, and a change in the way 'restore previous folders at logon' works...
More likely they just hit a limit for hotfixes, and do a rollup because they'll do a reprint of the DVDs as well, so that new systems come without needing 200 hotfixes.
Once you install the SP, it can get rid of a lot of older binaries that were related to Windows Update (i.e. we have to keep around old versions in case you ever decide to uninstall anything)
Looks like it won't install (error code 0x800F0A12) if you have a different bootloader in the MBR. Bah. Can't be bothered to redo my whole Hackintosh setup.
Note that you don't need the 1.9GB file linked there to install this on one PC. You should be able to get it from Windows Update. I needed to select it, it was listed as an "important update" but deselected by default.
Upgrades continue to this day! As an example, I updated my last household PC to Windows 7 Ultimate (up from Windows MCE 2004 from HP: a frankenstein OS).
It runs better than ever (2.4Ghz, 2GB memory). Media Center works great (looks like MCE 2005). For a 7 year old PC with AGP graphics (7600 GT) it's surprising how well Windows 7 performs. Assuming nothing breaks, it's still a good 'dev test server' for .NET and LAMP work.
Ok, let's say I'm trying to be a nice guy and download it to a shared drive for the PC/Techs. Let's also say I don't use Windows. Is there actually a link for that?
I think he's asking for a direct link that doesn't require you to go through the Windows validation requested in the link. That validation requires you download via a Windows PC.
Yes, I am asking about a normal download link. I really don't get why they continue, years after Mr. Gates's memo, to make it so hard to download anything. The OS checks its validity, why worry about the updates?
I've recently worked for a large bank still running XP and IE6 and their migration policy stipulated that upgrades to the OS weren't considered until a SP has been released; perhaps this is more widespread, and enterprise applications notwithstanding, the insignificance of the Win7 updates could be in anticipation of IE9...
If they are still running XP and IE6, I suspect some other problem exists, like a very critical program that was done in, say, Webclasses or plain ASP/VBScript, that breaks under IE7 and nobody dares to touch it for it will collapse.
Think of it... All previous MS OSes really became feasible after SP1 and started to shine after SP2.
Win 7 seems to be a notable exception (truthfully it is a Vista SP2). Anyways one supper happy Win7 user here - although 64 bit is STILL not what it should be - Firefox memory leaks are a bit worse and it is noticeably slower (I have 32bit W7 on laptop) plus some other minor issues - but that is hardly Microsoft's fault.
I have found Windows 7 to be a pretty good OS, I am happy to say. I just wish Microsoft would make the intergrated Windows 7 Install DVD ISOs available for download, like the do for MSDN and Technet, even if they charged a small fee for it.
From there we can see the download details for all "Windows 7 with Service Pack 1" ISO files (all Windows 7 editions, all processor architectures and all languages).
From there we can for example see the following information for the English Professional x64 version:
File Name: en_windows_7_professional_with_sp1_x64_dvd_621750.iso
Date Published (UTC): 2/16/2011 8:49:08 AM Last Updated (UTC): 2/16/2011 8:49:08 AM
SHA1: 5ED2584110E03F498DB4458BA9FAFD5A7EF602ED ISO/CRC: 74F3CB73
With this information, I can be confident in downloading an ISO from a peer-to-peer torrent. When the hash matches, I can be assured that the file is legit and not backdoored.
What do you mean integrated? I bought Home Premium and Pro version from Microsoft online store and they did provide ISOs and even USB tool to put the ISO on flash drives.
Two ways to look at what you just said.
Windows 7 is a very solid OS. I've been using it for the past year or so now, and this is the first time that i'm using a Windows OS that i havent said to myself on almost weekly basis, "I wish the OS could do X, or y or z"
The whole ecosystem is changing, and so maybe we dont demand so much from the OSes in themselves anymore, at least not in terms of feature-set itself.
Microsoft's main customer (as they perceive it, rightly or wrongly) is the enterprise.
Enterprises are not equipped to cope withe Steve Jobs style new OS every year - they want standardization and stability, and often be able to deploy their own build which they don't have to change for years.
Every time a new significant OS or SP comes out, many enterprises feel the need to do security audits, complete compatibility checks, acceptance testing while running their enterprise apps, rounds of 'training' for the people who can't work out how to do stuff on their own, etc.
Lots of reasons behind that, many will end over time. But for now that is why you don't see a lot of new feature orientated updates from Microsoft.
Hardly boring. Updating provided me with adventure of traversing the clusterfuck that is the Dell website and re-discovering all kinds of interesting drivers, only to be told they're 'not compatible with this version of Windows'.
They could do something that my Windows folder doesn't eat up 30GB of my SSD disk. Or do something like an app store where all applications get updated in a uniform manner. They could make the backup program usable.
There is so much that could be done.
Sometimes I wonder what the 50000 (just a guess) or so people in Redmond do.
You drink laxatives heavily right before a new Windows service pack comes out? Maybe it's a form of prescience - you should see if you can use it to make money, somehow.
Who would've thunk anyone would say about Windows... "No need for SP1. The original version is working like a charm."