Searched did not see this anywhere (not that I would since search is spotty at best)

Quietly late the 26th this became available.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en

 

FYI #1 - This service pack is not cumulative. You need to have SP1 installed before you can install SP2.

FYI #2 - This service pack is one and the same download/installer as SP2 for Windows Server 2008.

 

Downloading now...

 

There's also a DVD iso available for download which contains both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the service pack. Strangely though, it's about 30% bigger (1.3 GB) than the sum of the two stand alone SP2 installers. I have yet to burn it so I don't know what else may be included in the image. Maybe SP1 files?

 

people actually use vista? what a POS

 

i bought a new laptop a few weeks back that had vista...i was nervous cause of all of the negativity about it.....i am more then happy and actually like it a lot....just my 2 cents

 

I was going to say that. All my Vista machines have been upgraded to Windows 7.

 

This Windows Vista service pack is like putting an M3 body shell on the frame and engine of a Pinto. Sure it looks nice, but it's utter shit underneath.

 

There is nothing wrong with Vista.

I am running 7 RC on a machine I don't care about and will migrate all my machines when it is released but for now Vista 32 is fine on 5 machines I have.

 

I have Vista on my laptop. Is this SP2 essential? What are the changes/additions/fixes?

 

I never experienced Vista pre-SP1, but I am happy with my 64-bit SP1 install. I'll get SP2 tonight.

Thanks for the notice.

 

possibly multi-language sp's?

 

I don't think that's it. The two stand-alone installers for x86 (348 MB) and x64 (577 MB) each have the files for English, French, German, Japanese, and Spanish. I suppose the DVD could have even more languages, but I can't see why Microsoft would release those only on a DVD image and not in stand-alone installer format.

 

Installed it last night, so far so good

 

I think i see the difference, the dvd contains the package for ia64 systems which is a 450 MB file.

350 + 450 + 577 = 1377MB

 

Just installed it!

 

 

WTF. An hr and several restarts? You shitting me?

 

that's about right....maybe slightly less than an hour, but i would guess it took about that long for me

 

It's been working great for me for over a year. No problems what so ever.

 

I'm glad people are coming to the conclusions that those mac commercials a bunch of shit. I installed sp2 on my brothers pc laptop afaik no problems to report.

 

No problems so far...

 

My friend just tried to install it and...




...he got an error after one of the restarts. Just a black screen with a problem code. Can't even boot in safe mode. This was a problem many people had when installing SP1. You'd think MS would've fixed the problem for SP2.

 

^^^ great. Another giant turd to add to the pile of poo.

 

Ahhh yes.... IA64. The bastard child that would be king of the IT world.

 

Please tell me you forgot the red text.

It is fairly well accepted that Vista will go the way of Windows ME, although for different reasons...

UAC
Compatibility
System Requirements
Drivers
The list goes on...

 

I was planning I on writing a huge long response to this, but I've been there done that, ask Srika. Instead Ill just say, how's your sound card working in Win7 using XP drivers that only work because of the backwards compatability that's included in Vista? The fact that you have sound from XP drivers in the Vista audio stack should say something about it's compatibility.

 

While that may be true (although it required a bit more effort than an regular user should have to go through), when half the printers in the office don't work with Vista, somebody in Redmond screwed the pooch.

It was a poor product, with poor development and testing, and the lifespan is indicative of this.

Generally, people have lined up to buy and try the new operating systems. MS had to force Vista on most people through the purchase of new computers. That's why the sale of boxed retail versions of Vista was abysmal...

Look, at the end of the day, it does work. It just wasn't ready for release, and to get it to work comfortably required a skill level well above the average user.

 

Even Bill Gates hinted that Vista was the worst mistake MS ever did

 

*made, not did

 

I've been using it for over two years now on three machines and it was a POS at first (slow network file transfers, drivers, etc.) but once SP1 was delivered along with a slew of subsequent patches Vista has been running like a champ. Don't fall for the hype of the Apple crowd. For the record, we run Solaris 10, RHEL, SuSe Linux and XP in our enterprise, there is not one MAC to be found. You'll find that on most major networks

 

OK. I have a laptop that has the Vista Home Premium with 64 bits. I have a program that will not run on it because of the 64 bits.

1) how do I check if I have the SP1 already?

2) or do I just download the SP2 above?

 

You can't blame MS if companies don't want to spend money to make drivers for an old printer since they'd rather you buy a new one so they can make more $$$ off you. I will say that yes there were some problems when Vista first launched but most OSes do, even Leopard had it's share of problems and compatibility issues when it launched. Of the problems that Vista had most weren't MS fault, it was manufacturers who didn't have their drivers ready and if they had drivers they weren't high quality. But MS has made a better effort in Win7 to ensure that drivers are good. For example about a year ago MS started a program that in order for you drivers to be WHQL certified for Vista you had to test them with Win7 also, they didn't have to pass compatibility tests but you at least had to test them.

It's lifespan has nothing to do with it's crappiness, the time between XP and Vista was abnormally long and not usual. It was three years between Win 95 and Win 98 and that wasn't because Win 95 sucked it was considered MS most successful OS at the time, and it was three years between Win 98 and XP (2001), just like it'll be three years between Vista and Win7.

I will say that Vista had some problems up until Aug of 2007 when it released two updates (KB938194 and KB938979) the performance a lot and after that it's been pretty solid. Also by then most companies had gotten their act together on the driver front as well.

 

Look, overall, I understand you have used Vista and have made it work, but overall it failed on many levels for most people.

It is a product. As products go, it was poorly implemented and poorly received.

Even after SP1 was released, there was no giant rush to buy and implement. It happens. The UAC was a complete flop, and the only way for the normal user to get around it wa to disable it. How does that enhance security?

MS has a notion that a few good ingredients, plus a ton of bells and whistles will sell products. Well, if you don't get the good ingredients to be great, and the bells and whistles turn into headaches (system resource hogs, etc.) then you have a flop of a product. Hopefully MS learned their lesson.

 

Just use Windows Update, which is built into Vista, to tell you what updates you need to install.

If you want to see if SP1 is installed, right-click on My Computer and choose Properties (at least, that's how you can check on XP. From my limited use of Vista, I think it's the same process)

 

Just installed it. Took about ~30min and works just as good as before.

 

Sorry about the previous thread hijack.

 

i think vista is ok after using it for a year on one of my laptops. it is an idiotic resource hog but runs pretty good after it's optimized and tweaked with 4gigs of ram. my main desktop is still xp and i'm interested in upgrading to windows 7 later on. the biggest flop in my mind is still ME, what a piece of crap that was.

 

ME was on my computer for 24 hours. I ran out and bought it on release day (like an idiot) and hated it.