RSSMicrosoft: Ignore Third Party Vista "Service Packs"
By Nate Mook | Published April 4, 2007, 3:42 PM
For years, tech enthusiasts have been compiling hotfixes into unofficial service packs for Windows, offering brave users a quick way to update their operating systems before Microsoft finishes its own. But for Vista, Microsoft is warning users not to trust these third-party roll-ups.
In a blog entry posted Tuesday, Vista product manager Nick White specifically mentions one such "Service Pack 1 preview" for Microsoft new operating system. The fact that Microsoft is preparing SP1 for Vista is a given, but the company has remained coy about its potential release date.
In turn, some bloggers at thehotfix.net have taken it upon themselves to create their own. While such updates would have gone largely unnoticed in the past, social news Web sites have helped spread the word through eye-catching titles such as "Blogger Posts Windows Vista SP1."
"Those of you who've been closely following discussions on Windows Vista will quickly notice that what is posted consists of some material already available on Windows Update and some hotfixes that we give out on a case-by-case basis, along with a lot of speculation about what may and may not be included in SP1," explained White.
He adds that the blogger utilized Knowledge Base articles on Microsoft's support site to compile a list of available hotfixes, stitching them together in one update with previous Vista updates. It's standard policy for Microsoft to include hotfixes it has created for very specific problems into the next service pack.
"However, a service pack is not just a compilation of hotfixes and security updates, so don't make the mistake of thinking that the set of fixes offered in this particular blogger's list represents a preview of the service pack itself," White says.
But even if it's not a complete preview of Vista SP1, what's bad about installing fixes created by Microsoft? Potentially quite a bit, notes White.
"These hotfixes represent specific fixes for specific customer scenarios and typically have not undergone full regression testing. When they are integrated into a future service pack, they will receive full regression testing and beta testing. So, installing a collection of unnecessary hotfixes may cause more problems than are fixed."
White additionally emphasized that Microsoft is not yet ready to discuss Vista Service Pack 1, saying that the company will have plenty to say when it's ready. That stance has irked some businesses looking for future guidance, but Microsoft has remained adamant that Vista is ready for prime time and waiting on the first service pack is unnecessary.
For Vista, MS should release patches as fast as it makes them, NOT once a week.
Score: 0
That'll keep a lot of places on their toes and they'll complain again to Microsoft so that Microsoft goes back to the once-a-month scheme. I also suspect that a lot of people don't want to be bombarded daily (or thereabouts) by requests to install one or more updates. It's hard enough to get people to update once a month!
Score: 0
read this
http://blogs.csoonline.com/node/236
this is for the "linux" users
Score: 0
There's a very simple reason as to why the manufacturers of other operating systems don't churn out patch after patch after patch: they don't have 90% market share! If less than one in 10 (or 50, or even 1000) computers runs your OS, your software won't be the first to be targeted. It's easy to diss MS & its Windows OSs because almost everybody's using 'em. And if most people concentrate on Windows then sooner or later bugs and exploits, etc. will be found.
Do you remember how many security holes were found in Mac OS recently? And why?... because Vista came along and people started to compare the two. So they attacked both... and suddenly Apple wasn't sweet any more, so let's not be too quick to judge.
Look, I'm not exactly a fan of MS or Windows, but when I consider that it's an OS for the masses and it's attacked far, far more than any other OS, it stands up quite solidly.
I use 3rd party packs because of the convenience and I accept the risk of doing so rather than using Windows Update. Nothing is ever perfect. It all depends on how perfect you need it to be.
Score: 0
Here's the Truth about this statement. First, the people who compile the patches and hotfixes into a "service pack" are doing it to give system builders (maybe even their own business) the ability to slipstream the operating system before it's installed, so that the hotfixes and patches are already included when they install the operating system on the computer (or you can add each hotfix and patch with nLite and do it yourself). It saves time doing it this way, because then you don't have to worry about going to the Windows Update web site and downloading and installing the latest patches and hotfixes. Thus, if you're company is hungry for bandwidth, it's not being waisted on stupid patches and hotfixes that shouldn't be needed in the first place. Considering Microsoft's track record over the years, and the fact that Vista was the most expensive software project in the world, you would think that they would have learned to work out as many bugs as possible before releasing another operating system. But obviously it's impossible to find all bugs on your own. What's funny is, I don't see Fedora or Solaris having that problem. Why is that?
N E Ways, back to 3rd party service packs. The reality is, what Microsoft wants to avoid is "pirated" copies of Vista that have been updated and patched outside of Microsoft's WGA enabled Windows Update. They know there are already ways to bypass the activation, so they really want to avoid having the same problem that they had with XP.
Well, too bad! If they wouldn't be charging so much for their operating systems, then maybe the hackers would go break Fedora or Mac OS X. But the fact of the matter is, Microsoft generates billions of dollars a year.
I'm not telling you it's ok to use these 3rd party service packs, because you really need to know what you're doing to even get involved with it. It's like working on a car. Just because you know how to change the brake pads and change the oil doesn't mean you are a mechanic. Just because you can download and install a 3rd party service pack (or any update from Microsoft for that matter) doesn't mean you know how to work on a computer.
But Microsoft doesn't care one way or the other. They just don't want so many pirated copies out there, so that they can generate billions more than they already have.
Sorry Microsoft, but I will continue to find my own ways to patch your faulty operating systems. It's people like me that are always fixing your problems!
Score: 0
Foolish statement.
Apparently this guy doesn't remember the rigorous beta testing that SP1 and SP2 went through.
I mean every time Apple comes out with a Service pack they give it some stupid cat name and pawn it off for 200$ At least with Microsoft its free ;)
(ps this is a response to Zridling's comment)
Score: 0
No, the Combo updates (ie: 10.4.8 to 10.4.9) are similar to the service packs. They only come out with a new name when they are releasing a version update, similar to 10.5 (Yeah, the cat names are lame). Also, the price is $130 at the most.
Score: 0
What's wrong with installing updates/fixes from Windows update. Then when an official SP1 update is released installing that.
A wasted story only serving to highlight some bored blogger. Wait for official updates. If your paranoid, then move to another OS.
Score: 0
[Microsoft]: " When they are integrated into a future service pack, they will receive full regression testing and beta testing."
OMG, I spewed coke all over the monitor when I read that line! I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times I've udpated Windows only to be told 24 hours later: "Don't install that update, it breaks this or that, security, IE," and so on. There are millions of people sitting on the sidelines who vow not to touch Vista until SP1 is released and thoroughly vetted. Until then, Microsoft needs to shutup and keep working.
Score: 0
That's what they are talking about, the service pack. All the patches that go into it will have been fully tested.
Score: 0
Which is why no sane person should use this "SP1" because not all of the patches have been tested like they should. Not to mention that you probably simply don't need the fixes anyway. :o
Score: 0
There will always be updates (hopefully only a very few) that will break some combination of hardware/software somewhere in the world. Regression testing is designed to catch these few problematic updates. The same updates in a future service pack should (hopefully) have been modified to affect fewer users.
I repeat NOT EVERY COMBINATION Of HARDWARE/SOFTWARE IN THE WHOLE WORLD IS GUARANTEED PROBLEM FREE FROM A PARTICULAR UPDATE. PERIOD. Regardless of what OS/platform were are talking about!
Go bash your neighbours teddybear instead of Microsoft!
Score: 0
So Microsoft's persistent mistakes on Microsoft's operating systems are now my fault? Microsoft made the decision not to patch the Microsoft OS on this ani crap (again, who uses animated cursors; anyone?).
Go figure.
Score: 0
They patched that on Tuesday. Go use Windows Update, that is if you can pass WGA.
Score: 0
He makes a good point when he says Service Packs are not just hot fixes and already released updates. I know for sure that Vista SP1 will release a new kernel that aligns itself with the Longhorn Server kernel. As far as I know, this is the first time a new kernel has been included with a SP.
Score: 0
Microsoft never said they were including a completely new kernel in Vista SP 1. That is like saying Microsoft is releasing the next version of Windows for the desktop for free as a service pack which is never going to happen.
Score: 0
Microsoft has said that Vista SP1 will include a kernel update. Completely new from the ground up, no. But it's still new compared to the current kernel.
Score: 0
Microsoft = Huge bunch of jackasses.
I'll patch my copy of any Windows OS that I have with anything I want.
Score: 0
lmao..
Jackasses...for warning their customers of possibly damaging 3rd party "updates".
That's rich.
Score: 0
Amen brotha'
Score: 0
If they didn't warn you, then someone would claim they are not acting responsibly.
Score: 0
lmao..
i'm pc_tool and i'm a jackass...for warning microshaft customers that they'll be ripped off and that they should switch to linux.
i'm bending over for ya stevie poo!
Score: 0
They are not forbidding anyone from doing it, it is just a warning that they can mess up you're system and that they won't be responsible if you do. You're free to go ahead and use them though, quit whining like a baby about it.
Score: 0
PC_Fool? You are the lamest kiddie online terd I have seen yet at betanews. No self respecting mature person would actually create an account mimicking a person's name and talk as if they were that person. Go back to your mama's breast, no one wants you here.
Score: 0
Panties in a knot?
Score: 0
Touchy, touchy.....someone needs to get a grip.
Score: 0
Lambs.
Thats all I gotta say,
Cant see you little kiddie, the moneys in the way.
Latz, SB
Score: 0
wow... real mature
PC_Tool is probably one of the sanest most realistic people posting on beta news.
Score: 0
I'm blushing. :p
Thanks. :)
Score: 0