well, that's a surprise, M$ usually set themselves deadlines and work their bo11ocks off trying to meet those deadlines BTW: i'm glad i don't rely on M$
That's funny, Ballmer said Vista wouldn't need service packs at all. RSVP — Xnews: No Vista Service Packs...
That reminds me of Bill Gates, who said that a PC won't ever need more than 640KB of RAM But Ballmer is right, Vista won't need a service pack. That is because a Service Pack doesn't make Windows better than it was, it's just a few hundred megabytes of failed code added to the OS.
Not sure if this has been covered yet because I can't be bothered to read the whole thread, but... Service Pack 1 for Vista is already available for Technet and MSDN subscribers. The reason it hasn't been made available to the general public yet is because SP1 actually manages to "break" existing software and drivers that worked with Vista. LOL, driver and application support is bad enough on Vista, now SP1 will break these things even further...
Unsurprising, considering Microsoft's apparent design philosophy: "Don't fix old code, add new code on top of it!"
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If Microsoft had brought out Vista with what they had planned initially, it would've been a compelling upgrade. Unfortunately, they took too long, stripped out too much, and ended up with DirectX 10 being the only thing that might prompt people to purchase it. The NT code is at least 14 years old, and while it's served well, Redmond needs something fresh. Vista is the Windows ME of the NT family.
Absolutely right. Even so, what did XP offer over 2000 Pro? A broken version of Roxio Easy CD Creator and an equally broken Ulead Video Studio? A default theme that might have been designed by Fischer Price? Seems like this is the direction MS is headed, like it or not.
