 HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:2 | reply to Glen T
Re: [WIN7] No Service Pack 2 Only Win95 OEM versions supported USB. I could have sworn there was a work-around or hack that enabled it on non-OEM versions though. |
|
|
|
 plencnerbPremium
join:2000-09-25
Elgin, IL
kudos:2 | reply to trparky
I rebuilt my system back on Oct 17th. I have SP1 built-into my install media for Windows. I also have SP1 for Office 2010 built-in as well.
However, I still had to install 141 updates! The picture may be hard to see everything installed, but that is all the updates I had on my system for Office 2010 after SP1 and Windows 7 after SP1.
The breakdown for me for each group is below
• CAPICOM: 1
• McAfee VirusScan Enterprise: 1 (Patch 2 for VSE 8.8)
• .NET 4 Client: 8
• Office 2010: 39
• Silverlight: 1
• Windows: 91
This is why a "update rollup" would be nice. 
--Brian
--
============================
--Brian Plencner
E-Mail: CoasterBrian72Cancer@gmail.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail |
|
| reply to trparky
For the SMB sector that doesn't buy PCs in bulk and/or doesn't use images, the issue here is the time/cost associated with patching up 'new' PCs. With the service packs, the OEMs roll them into the builds and that saves a bunch of time for the end user. |
|
| reply to trparky
I don't see a problem with them eventually releasing an update rollup without calling it SP2 |
|
plencnerbPremium
join:2000-09-25
Elgin, IL
kudos:2 | said by talz13:I don't see a problem with them eventually releasing an update rollup without calling it SP2
That would work to. It does not have to be called SP2. Call it "Security Roll-up for Windows 7".
Wasn't there one of those for Windows 2000?
--Brian
--
============================
--Brian Plencner
E-Mail: CoasterBrian72Cancer@gmail.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail |
|
| reply to talz13
I think that the discussion is moot. MS has got their poker face on. If business decides to bypass Win8 then MS will recant and extend support for Win7 (meaning service packs) just like they did with XP. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
| reply to Hall
said by Hall: How many OS service packs include new "features" ? That's not typical, I don't believe. XP SP2 did, but they were much-needed security enhancements, as I recall. Right off the top of my head, Vista SP1 added SSTP VPN capability to the OS. Sure, I agree that XP SP2 was a special case (in fact some argue it could have been billed a new OS, and they may be right), but other SP's have included new functionality in the past as well.
--
Ron Paul 2012 »www.ronpaul2012.com
Beyond AM. Beyond FM. (((XM)))
|
|
OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | reply to lorennerol
said by lorennerol:For the SMB sector that doesn't buy PCs in bulk and/or doesn't use images, the issue here is the time/cost associated with patching up 'new' PCs. With the service packs, the OEMs roll them into the builds and that saves a bunch of time for the end user.
Good point. Think about millions and millions of computer hours they could save, if they provide service pack, that consolidates all of those updates.
And here is one more thing that should be mentioned here. From my experience when I install new OS from the scratch, there is a big difference between computer, that was updated using those multiple updates one-by-one and computer, which has installed OS with already integrated service pack. That's why I always made (or looking for) installation media with integrated service packs. It was easy to do with WXP (slipstreaming, remember?). And I think it would benefit greatly everyone, if with W7 they did the same...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
| reply to lorennerol
MS WSUS 3.0 can help speed up windows updates. It downloads them from the Internet and then pushes them out to the PCs.
It is free and can run on a PC if need be (vs server). |
|
HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:2 | There's many tools out there in addition to WSUS that do this as well. Granted, most cost money, but given the MS option that is free, it doesn't have to be as big of a deal as people may try and make it. |
|
| reply to trparky
Conspiracy or no, I agree with others that Microsoft is pushing for Win8 (whether you like or not). And I also agree Win8 is like WinVista/Me all over again. I'd say let them hang themselves and when they see Windows 8 is not being adopted, especially in the enterprise environment.
--
Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian. Robert Orben
|
|
andyrossPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL | reply to trparky
Why is anyone surprised:
NT 4 = 6
Win2K = 4
XP = 3
Vista = 2
7 = 1
8 = 0
(Not certain about NT 3) |
|
 DustynPremium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:10 | reply to trparky
That's cause Windows 7 is good enough. Failed attempt at making me upgrade?/downgrade to Windows 8. |
|
HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:2 | reply to Boricua65
said by Boricua65:...and when they see Windows 8 is not being adopted, especially in the enterprise environment. Most "enterprises" never run the latest MS operating system. Where I used to work, a large, multi-billion, international company, XP was still being imaged on brand new machines as of 2009-2010. |
|
| reply to trparky
Staying Win 7 x64 Ultimate. Reviews of RT say can't run Win 7 apps. Win 8 Pro maybe but why have dual methods of Metro & desktop. Surface tab said to have slow cameras, chicklet kb (IBM Jr anyone). Etc. Not for me. |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | said by sludgehound:Reviews of RT say can't run Win 7 apps. Well, it's a different instruction set for a start. So even if it could run 'traditional Windows desktop apps' (and I assume it cannot, but don't know that), either the app vendor would have to sell an ARM version, or else there would need to be a software-emulated virtual x86 running on the ARM, which seems kind of ridiculous since x86 is the high end and ARM is the low end. |
|
| reply to sludgehound
said by sludgehound:Reviews of RT say can't run Win 7 apps. Correct. I suspect a lot of people will be in for a rude surprise when they discover that Windows won't run Windows programs. They should have called it something else, like Apple did with OS X and iOS. |
|
 BloggerJedi PosterPremium
join:2012-10-18
·Champion Broadba..
| reply to trparky
It seems to this simple old man and intermediate home computer user that if you run Windows 7 64 bit that the only sane way to consider running Windows 8 unless you are cash strapped is to have two computers. One that is your day to day working computer in every way and a second computer to "play" and experiment with. It would be on that second computer you would install Windows 8 and play with it to see it is a keeper or not.
I have a PC and a Mac. I think Windows 7 is simply by far the best OS MS has ever produced as opposed to some others not so great like 95, 98, Me, and for different reasons Vista. I've used every MS Windows OS ever made.
Listening to all the feedback for those that have used or played with any version of Windows 8 available I've heard a variety of opinions. However, the evidence seems clear and convincing as of today that Windows 8 is not worth the money and effort to upgrade to and use. It doesn't even sound close to being worth it for the average user.
Just my two-cents. |
|
quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
South FL
kudos:2 | reply to plencnerb
said by plencnerb:... using up 500 MB of your download cap each time you reinstall the OS? Maybe that's the problem. There's very rarely a valid reason to reinstall the OS. |
|
 DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:78
 ·DIRECTV
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·magicjack.com
·Google Voice
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to trparky
personally myself, autopatcher is the only service pack I really need. Sure I can install sp1 as soon as the O/S is on but I hit it with autopatcher afterword and installpad to install some basic apps. I spend less time reloading a machine and I make a restoral image.
Much easier to maintain, and far less hassle. |
|
