No plans for Windows 7 SP2

[SIW2]

Carl, the point of a service pack is that it is very useful to those who need to deploy/reinstall.

It makes the process much less tedious.

It is especially useful when MS include it in the operating installation media.

If they don't want to make it easier to do that - then they won't release a service pack.

 

[Fantail]

What's an avg. $ for W8 pro about 150$?
OK so let's say they don't roll out 7sp2, but updates proceed. May I offer an alternate solution;
Spend the $ on a nice SSD & 7 will last like XP has.

The whole 'metro' / 8 deal reminds me of a movie line from an old comedy called Head Office, some guy said something about a made in Moscow cabbage roll shoved down his throught.

 

[FuturDreamz]

What's an avg. $ for W8 pro about 150$?
OK so let's say they don't roll out 7sp2, but updates proceed. May I offer an alternate solution;
Spend the $ on a nice SSD & 7 will last like XP has.

The whole 'metro' / 8 deal reminds me of a movie line from an old comedy called Head Office, some guy said something about a made in Moscow cabbage roll shoved down his throught.

I only spent $15 to upgrade two computers to W8
$55 if you count the money that I will be getting back.

 

[lkgriffith]

What's an avg. $ for W8 pro about 150$?
OK so let's say they don't roll out 7sp2, but updates proceed. May I offer an alternate solution; Spend the $ on a nice SSD & 7 will last like XP has.

True but Microsoft's purpose will have been served. They will have eliminated the possibility of selling new customers software packages based upon Windows 7. If you are an ISV, this is an ultimately fatal restriction. For the better part of two decades, this has not been a serious problem with NT based software. Revisions of special purpose device drivers is generally all that has been required.

Windows 8 is a direct attack on the existence of ISV's ability to deliver complex, high performance, and highly capable systems. It suggests that Windows 9 will make such a thing impossible. All software will have to pass through Microsoft hands and can be sold only by the Microsoft Store. Microsoft will determine what can be sold and will take a major cut of the value delivered. I suspect the agreement between the ISV and Microsoft will eventually include the notion that Microsoft really owns the intellectual property behind the software sold on its so called store and can replicate and use it without compensating its creators. At which time, Microsoft finally becomes Master of the Universe.

Microsoft will continue to ignore that such actions will guarantee the end of Microsoft. If the threatened ISVs got together, we could eliminate Microsoft as a serious contender in the field in three to six years. I doubt that ISVs will be able to get their act together anytime soon but I am quite willing to work toward that end.

Open Source is NOT the answer. It is not even the question. Each ISV must be able to own and control the distribution of its intellectual property and to make a living from selling it. Open Source is based upon the principle that each contributor gives up his rights to his product to any and all who ask free of charge. Even though most who will ask for free stuff have and will contribute little to nothing of value to the body of work. I have not, do not, and will not cooperate with such an abomination. It is worse than Microsoft's worst and most predatory action.

 

[FuturDreamz]

So, you're saying that you want to use your 20+ year old APIs that Microsoft wants to remove because of security and performance issues? that's all I understand.

And as for the Windows Store: it's primarily designed to ensure that your application meets the new Windows requirements, and ensure it will continue to work during OS updates. Microsoft wants to sandbox the OS and try to make it secure.

And as for ISVs creating a replacement to Windows: how would that work? how would you resolve security issues.

What you're describing would be like Windows 2k, where the entire OS is open and applications and malware can change things to however they like, regardless of end user experience.

 

[lkgriffith]

So, you're saying that you want to use your 20+ year old APIs that Microsoft wants to remove because of security and performance issues? that's all I understand.

If that is what you want to believe, go ahead. It's your choice.

I would ask, have you ever attempted to process eight to thirty two 7 to 24 meg pixel images in real time using managed code defined by XML in a thing called an "app" to be run on the "start" screen? Further, have you ever attempted to drive the view computed by that process using a six axis mouse at better than 10 Hz? If you have, send me your resume and we might like to hire you. If not, try to do it and report back on your results.

 

[SIW2]

It is a dangerous point atm.

MS is angling for virtually complete control.

Win8 lovers cannot see the obvious.

It is the launching pad for MS new direction.

It works ok as an os for the average user with simple needs , better suited to a tablet, it has (to some ) a cool new interface, etc.

The point of it is to get people into the MS clouds -and the forthcoming subscription service. MS will have contol over what you are allowed to run on it, and what you can do with it.

They don't necessarily make money on all the apps. - but they do "approve" or censor them .

This is all very dangerous and if it goes the way MS wants - it will be a disaster for everyone except MS.

 

[lkgriffith]

"...it will be a disaster for everyone except MS."

Ultimately, it will be a disaster for Microsoft as well. All who attempt to be "Master of the Universe" or master of any part that they do not legitimately own, will fall. The primary reason is they confuse themselves with god and believe they can define the nature of the universe and truth itself. This cannot be done. The universe and any part of it is what it is no matter how many masters try to assert otherwise. Therein lies their fatal flaw that will cause their eventual demise. Unfortunately, they may take many of the rest of us as they go down in flames.

If you claim yourself only the master of what you legitimately own and try to deem it other that it is, you will be the one to fall. Few others will go with you or even shed a tear in celebration of your demise. You will have proved that you were simply a stupid fool by attempting to fake reality.

 

[FuturDreamz]

Not to mention doing that would make Windows hard to market and make rival OSs much more attractive to customers.

Microsoft is a company, but they realize that they have to actually work to create what consumers want and NEED (as security isn't always a customer's top priority. Windows 95 proves this)

 

[lkgriffith]

I agree that Microsoft once realized that but I am not so sure the current crop of so called managers do. At least not judging by their recent words and actions. Those of us who want and need a fully functional supported desktop OS rather than a pretense of one are treated worse than second class citizens or even burnt toast. We are aggressively ignored and considered to be no better than buzzing flies who are going to die over the winter.

It is almost enough to make me go over to the dark side and start developing for Apple. That is except for the fact I would be treated exactly the same if I wanted to use some hardware and software not approved by the sacred and unquestionable Apple priesthood.

 

[King Arthur]

So, you're saying that you want to use your 20+ year old APIs that Microsoft wants to remove because of security and performance issues? that's all I understand.

And as for the Windows Store: it's primarily designed to ensure that your application meets the new Windows requirements, and ensure it will continue to work during OS updates. Microsoft wants to sandbox the OS and try to make it secure.

And as for ISVs creating a replacement to Windows: how would that work? how would you resolve security issues.

What you're describing would be like Windows 2k, where the entire OS is open and applications and malware can change things to however they like, regardless of end user experience.

Win32 may be old and have legitimate issues, but are they so bad to a point that we must replace it wholesale and sandbox every single thing we run and hamper practicality, the user's freedom, and the PC's traditional position as an open platform?

I can understand the point behind MS making Windows 8 so security-focused and running everything we might want through Window Store, Windows has been the target of malicious attacks because of its market share and steps should be taken to mitigate them. However, this "security" is coming at the price of the user's and the PC platform's freedom.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, anyone who would sell their freedom for security deserves neither. This isn't just a question of whether we like or hate Metro, this is also a question of whether we want to protect our right to use our computers as we wish; Microsoft is not and should not be in any position to tell me I can't run (for example) Adobe Flash because it doesn't meet their arbitrary specifications.

 

[SIW2]

At last, somebody who gets it.

 

[gregrocker]

I do not get the impression that MS even realizes they scored such a winner with Win7, being in such a hurry to compete with Ipad. When I have the chance to mention how much users love Win7, it seems like irrelevant news to them. The company's focus is so completely on Win8 now that those of us supporting tens of millions of new users just getting to know Win7 feel like unwanted stepchildren.

They're presently more interested in my social media connections than how many hours a day I spend helping their consumers here with the toughest install/boot/partitioning issues that aren't even addressed to MS forums. It's really quite discouraging but at the same time I do not want to appear ungrateful for their recognition.

 

[FuturDreamz]

So, you're saying that you want to use your 20+ year old APIs that Microsoft wants to remove because of security and performance issues? that's all I understand.

And as for the Windows Store: it's primarily designed to ensure that your application meets the new Windows requirements, and ensure it will continue to work during OS updates. Microsoft wants to sandbox the OS and try to make it secure.

And as for ISVs creating a replacement to Windows: how would that work? how would you resolve security issues.

What you're describing would be like Windows 2k, where the entire OS is open and applications and malware can change things to however they like, regardless of end user experience.

Win32 may be old and have legitimate issues, but are they so bad to a point that we must replace it wholesale and sandbox every single thing we run and hamper practicality, the user's freedom, and the PC's traditional position as an open platform?

Essentially. A good portion of the Windows APIs are really old, but are used in current software. Microsoft has been introducing new APIs (Such as ActiveX and Silverlight) that attempts to move developers off of old APIs, but all they have done is made things a complete mess. And Microsoft is not interested in porting and maintaining these in Windows on Arm.

Metro is a clean start. Developers have no choice but to use standard APIs, which frees up Microsoft to rebuild Windows any way they see fit. It's highly possible Windows 9 won't even run the NT kernel. Desktop apps may still be supported, but only in a virtual machine like XP Mode (or like WINE on Linux). Sort of how Blackberry can support Android applications.

If you think you can't recognize Windows NOW, wait until Windows 9 or 10.

 

[badtux]

Windows 8 beats 7 in performance benchmarks according to many review sites. Hope MS could provide an update that improves W7 performance.

Not likely, there's been some significant changes deep inside to do things like, e.g., reduce the number of timer interrupts (which in turn suck CPU cycles) that aren't really backward compatible without the whole set of libraries tuned to work properly with a tickless kernel, in which case you have Windows 8 with the Windows 7 UI on top of it. Too bad you have to get the atrocious Windows 8 UI to get the nice Windows 8 kernel. Sigh!

 

[neo101]

For those that say it runs faster - is it not cos everyone now have tons of ram in their pc's running on 64bit plus the fact that MS 'stripped' a load of stuff operating in the background out - like media player which you have to pay Xtra for?

I just bought another copy of Win7 Ultimate for a new build.

 

[theveterans]

Windows 8 beats 7 in performance benchmarks according to many review sites. Hope MS could provide an update that improves W7 performance.

Not likely, there's been some significant changes deep inside to do things like, e.g., reduce the number of timer interrupts (which in turn suck CPU cycles) that aren't really backward compatible without the whole set of libraries tuned to work properly with a tickless kernel, in which case you have Windows 8 with the Windows 7 UI on top of it. Too bad you have to get the atrocious Windows 8 UI to get the nice Windows 8 kernel. Sigh!

This is why I want MS to release an update that matches the performance of Windows 8 kernel. Be it a service pack or a regular update, I just want Windows 7 UI to match the performance of Windows 8 kernel or better. I know some 3rd party software that mimic Windows 7 UI in W8, but I don't like messing with Windows shell files plus you still won't be able to get rid of Metro completely. I feel that Windows 8 UI is more cumbersome than Windows 7 even with weeks of getting familiarized with it.

 

[badtux]

Windows 8 with the Windows 7 UI on top of it.

This is why I want MS to release an update that matches the performance of Windows 8 kernel. Be it a service pack or a regular update, I just want Windows 7 UI to match the performance of Windows 8 kernel or better.

Not happening. What is likely to happen is that Windows 9 will actually fix the Windows 8 UI to be less clunky and more flexible.

What annoys me most about Windows 8 is the complexity of the gesture language that Microsoft invented from scratch. So each corner of the screen is a hot corner? And each hot corner does something entirely different? And some corners do something even *more* different if you touch it then slide your finger to the side or down? Dude. That's just inventing complexity for the sake of complexity. Love it or leave it, Apple demonstrated all you need for a tablet is *one* hot button. They've added a couple of swipes since then, but nowhere near the complexity of the Windows 8 gesture language. Over in Linux-land, the Gnome 3 folks with their tablet release of their window manager have gotten even simpler, they have one gesture and one hot button each of which works identically, and get this, it works just as well as a non-touch desktop environment as it works in a tablet environment. But noooo, Microsoft had to layer all this complexity into their gesture language. It's as if Windows 8 was designed by Texans under the principle of "more is better!". Uhm, no. More is just more. Sigh.

 

[Layback Bear]

Well I have a finger gesture for Windows 8 but I can't show it here.

 

[lkgriffith]

Layback,

I suspect your proposed finger gesture is rather like what I did decades ago while working with an especially frustrating dialect of UNIX. While trying to remember the exact spelling and sequence of one its over 700 totally incomprehensible command line strings, I became so frustrated that I gave it a very simple command: "Go to Hell!". It politely refused by telling me that "Hell" was not defined. You would likely get a similar response from Windows 8.

This is an obtuse way of my being able to explain that Windows 8 is returning to the same philosophy that drove the so called design of UNIX.

"People can learn the commands so why should we make it easy and intuitive to use. By making it difficult to learn and almost impossible to remember, we can show the world how smart we are."

I call BS to that. To call the so called designers, dumb as a pile of rocks, would be insulting to piles of rocks. Any idiot can make something that is very difficult to use. It takes real skill, knowledge, and a heroic effort to make something that is easy to learn, easy to use, and does something useful at the same time. Windows 8 is a far cry from being like that. It is closer to matching the UNIX design philosophy than any Windows OS to date. I would not be surprised if the next version of Office has vi for a text editor.