Vista Sp1 info download

[Bill Yanaire]

"If you want to think it's finished go ahead"
I never said what I think as to whether windows Vista is finished or not,
that is not relevant.

You stated in a message prior

You or others thinking Windows Vista acts like a Beta has no relevance to
the fact it is not a Beta.

So if it's not Beta then it must be finished. That's your opinion and
Microsoft's opinion. If I put out software that had hundreds or thousands
of bugs, then it isn't finished. Anyway we could argue that till the cows
come home. Microsoft just doesn't care that it puts out second rate
software to the public, using them as guiena pigs. If they put out Vista in
1976 when they were a young company, they would be out of business today.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Do not read into my post what is not there.
"That's your opinion and Microsoft's opinion."
That is not what I said.
I never stated whether I think Windows Vista is finished or not
because that is not relevant.
The manufacturer has said it is not a Beta, that is all that is
relevant.
Whether we think it is finished or not does not change that fact.

"If I put out software..."
And you declare it finished and not in Beta, that is it.
Whether I think your software is release quality is not relevant.
What is relevant is if you think it is ready for release and deem it
not Beta.
It is not up to me to tell you or anyone it is Beta, as the owner,
that is your call.
All I can do is give an opinion that it does not meet release quality
and should still be in Beta.
But that does not change the fact your software is not a Beta.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org

 

[cvp]

You stated in a message prior


So if it's not Beta then it must be finished. That's your opinion and
Microsoft's opinion. If I put out software that had hundreds or thousands
of bugs, then it isn't finished. Anyway we could argue that till the cows
come home. Microsoft just doesn't care that it puts out second rate
software to the public, using them as guiena pigs. If they put out Vista in
1976 when they were a young company, they would be out of business today.

The key part of a beta is that it is not released and therefore has none
of the support options and release commitments behind it. Whether it's
good code, bad code or "finished" in your mind is totally irrelevant Its
a simple business decision on the part of the producer, balancing the
number of users satisfied (sales, commitments) with the number of users
dissatisfied (support costs).

 

[Adam Albright]

Do not read into my post what is not there.
"That's your opinion and Microsoft's opinion."
That is not what I said.
I never stated whether I think Windows Vista is finished or not
because that is not relevant.

The manufacturer has said it is not a Beta, that is all that is
relevant.

So you admit you can be easily brainwashed by Microsoft marketing and
hype. Oh what a shock. Not!

Whether we think it is finished or not does not change that fact.

"If I put out software..."
And you declare it finished and not in Beta, that is it.

So if you make a spreadsheet in Excel and tell it to sum two and two
and it comes back with five you'll just shrug your shoulders and say
oh, it is what it is because Microsoft said so.

Watch for your USP driver. Your official "I'm a Microsoft pansy ass"
sweatshirt should be arriving soon.

Whether I think your software is release quality is not relevant.
What is relevant is if you think it is ready for release and deem it
not Beta.

Rarely have I seen a better example of circular logic. Of course that
is after all what MVPs major in with a minor in copy and paste.

 

[Shane Nokes]

Ok then how is this.

There is no such thing as a finished product of any kind. If there were there would be no need to make new versions of anything.

Everything improves or changes over time. Everything.

You can't refute that argument.

"Other opinions disagree."
Disagree all they want, that does not change the facts.
You or others thinking Windows Vista acts like a Beta has no relevance to
the fact it is not a Beta.

A Beta product usually isn't finished and has many bugs. Vista is
"finished" according to Microsoft, but has many bugs (In the Thousands, I'm
sure). Any company that puts out a product that has thousands of bugs is
still not finished. If it's not finished then it's BETA.

If you want to think it's finished go ahead. The rest of us know better.
Just FYI.

"that's my opinion. Get over it."
Nothing to get over.
You are entitled to your opinion.
However whatever your or my opinion, the fact is Windows Vista is not a
Beta.
The software manufacturer, Microsoft in this case, and not us makes that
determination.

 

[Shane Nokes]

From your post then I'm guessing you're not a programmer.

I've been a programmer for over 20 years.

Some things are easy fixes and some are not.

Unless you have the source and can look at it you're not qualified to determine what is or isn't an easy fix.

"Depends on your definition of Beta."
False.
You nor I determine when a product is Beta, the manufacturer makes
that determination.

That's true, provided the manufacturer has standards.
Vista isn't even a beta, I've worked with LongHorn
beta's since just after the alpha stages, they were
smaller, quicker, and had little problems outside
of a few memory leaks and file system..MS took out
the file system and called the memory leak a feature.

Vista fresh install works fine, the Vista upgrade is
an insult to Microsofts integrity and skill, it will
automatically (without any prompt) roll back at the
very end of installation simply for a missing video
driver (maybe for sound also)..2 hours wasted.
Oddly..the fresh install places the generic video
driver into use and bypasses sound setup..yet the
upgrade can't make that decision and the actual
files for video card are in Vista *.inf <duh>,
I actually ended up manually installing the same
video drivers the XP edition were using and that
was for a vista ready certified card. I've used,
installed, corrected some hundred or more MS
beta's over the past decade and this installer
would never have been an acceptable beta (although
beta OS is always a fresh install recommendation).

That is your opinion and some can say the same for virtually all
software from any source.

Yes one can, but that's not why people use or buy
Microsoft products..a product that typically sets
the bar for performance and user friendly operation.
Vista does have all the goodies but is assembled
in such a manner I can't believe it's from MS,
it's more like a first time retail attempt from
a startup company...one that won't even survive.

The fact is Windows Vista is not Beta.

Correct, beta products move forwards not backwards.

Those who feel otherwise are free to choose any of the many other
options available.
And those that do, probably should.

Heh, sort of like we got your money over the years and
we control your food supply ... so eat dirt or die.

Jupiter, you've already posted a hundred times more
effort than it would actually take in mouse clicks
for MS to clean up and repair some trivial errors
hardcoded into Vista, lowering your standards to
fit a lazy slowpoke MS regime and product is not
going to do the future any good, defend yourself.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

 

[Shane Nokes]

Ken normally I try not to contradict MVP's, but you didn't even check the link.

It was a link to the documentation about SP1, not a link to the beta download.

Below, Vista Sp1 info download. Hope to goodness it tames the monster down to
a more managable savage beast for the average home user.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...f6-2eaa-4aaa-8b3b-2e199db4a97d&displaylang=en

Warning! This is *not* SP1. This is a *beta* version of SP1.

A beta version, by definition, is one with known bugs and problems in
it. If those known bugs and problems weren't there, it would be a
released version.

Unless you enjoy playing with such things *and* you have a spare,
non-production machine to run it on, installing this is foolhardy.
It's just looking for trouble.

 

[Shane Nokes]

Arm twisting?

Every OS has updates.

Why would it take arm twisting to have a beta for a service pack when every service pack from MS has always been beta tested?

Warning! This is *not* SP1. This is a *beta* version of SP1.

Yes, it is a BETA which means if your system is running ok
then don't even think about it, there is the possibility of
giving a properly functioning system new_problems.

The SP1 BETA seems to be an attempt by some folks at MS
to try and help people with issues on Vista or complaints..
I suspect it took some people there a lot of arm twisting
just to get that much available (a cut down beta SP1).
Hopefully they will get good feedback and continue.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

 

[MICHAEL]

* Shane Nokes:

From your post then I'm guessing you're not a programmer.

I would take his advice/word any day over the blather
you so easily spew in this forum.

One of his accomplishments,
http://ntcanuck.com/
TreeWalk DNS

I've been a programmer for over 20 years.

We know- you say the same crap over and over and over again.

Some things are easy fixes and some are not.

Some things just require the will and the "want to".
Many times, Microsoft moves at the speed of grandma.

Unless you have the source and can look at it you're not qualified to determine what is or isn't an easy fix.

I bet your elbows touch the ground quite easily when you
bend over.


-Michael

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken normally I try not to contradict MVP's,

You are welcome to contradict me at any time, if I'm wrong. I hate to
be wrong, but if I am, I'd rather be corrected than go on believing
something false.

but you didn't even check the link.

Actually, I did.

It was a link to the documentation about SP1, not a link to the beta download.

Yes, but it is a link to an Overview of the SP1 *beta*, not SP1 itself
(which doesn't exist yet). Whether you can download the beta from that
page or not wasn't my point. My point was simply that the beta is not
the product itself, and with rare exception, most people here should
stay away from that beta.