Microsoft Publishes Detailed Vista SP1 Changelog

[f0dder]

Just saw this over at OSNews, thought it might interest you guys... I'll take a look at it a bit later, and decide whether Vista might deserve a go.

"Leading up to next week's public beta-test release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Release Candidate, Microsoft today has published a 17-page document outlining in fine detail exactly what difference SP1 makes to Vista. Some of the contents has been shared in bits in the past, but this is so far the most comprehensive 'changelog' we've ever seen and probably will see as the final version is not expected to differ much from the RC, with the exception of WGA modifications."

-OSNews

[Josh]

Direct Link

[zridling]

No IE8 update?! Microsoft needs to ditch these huge service packs and go to a more incremental 6-month update approach. This is the Vista they should have released to RTM back in late '06.

[Josh]

Did they say SP1 would include IE8? I dont remember reading it if they did.

[zridling]

I don't think so. Believe that will come with the Longhorn (Windows Server) in the Spring. No matter, based on this changelog, this will be a good step toward solidifying Vista and perhaps quieting its loudest critics like myself, who've suffered through its x64 version this year.

[Eóin]

I for one am wondering if Server 2008 will be viable as a workstation. As I gather (from the above mentioned change log and elsewhere) that the core system kernels will be the same. I've toyed with the RC releases and very much like the feel of the OS, it seems snappier.

That said I've bought Vista x64 and don't want to just give up on it, I really hope though there will be some better VS for it. I love Aero and the glass effects, but everything else; buttons, toolbar, scrollbars, even context menus are so bad I find myself unable to use anything but the Windows classic style. Server 08 also suffers this problem, even just if XP style worked I'd be happy

P.S. hope this rant hasn't hijacked the thread.

[Lashiec]

And the WGA now plays quite more nice than before, like it does with XP.

[Ralf Maximus]

I for one am wondering if Server 2008 will be viable as a workstation.

-Eóin (December 09, 2007, 08:23 AM)

I know at least one developer who uses Server2003 as his primary workstation.  Aside from some games not working (or installing) he's quite happy with it.

[f0dder]

I for one am wondering if Server 2008 will be viable as a workstation.

-Eóin (December 09, 2007, 08:23 AM)

I know at least one developer who uses Server2003 as his primary workstation.  Aside from some games not working (or installing) he's quite happy with it.

-Ralf Maximus (December 09, 2007, 01:00 PM)

Can you make him comment on any advantages over using regular XP?

[Ralf Maximus]

I'll ask.  When I questioned him originally about his choice, he cited the fact that he's primarily a SQL Server developer and liked how stable his environment became after switching from XP.  I don't think he's the sort that runs a bazillion tray applications either (like many of the folks around here).

[Eóin]

Actually the switch to Server 2003 is one I'm thinking I'll be making myself over the Christmas break. (which begins next week ) I only have a legal license for 32bit which is unfortunate but is also all the more reason to continue to dual boot with Vista x64.

I've already been toying with it in a VM, I applied Windows X's Windows Server 2003 - XP Conversion Pack, though not the full switch everything to XP, I was conservative. Some initial tests were very promising, two of my favourite shell extensions (Link Shell Extension and HashTab) worked perfectly. Windows update gave no issues. Heck even the Vista Transformation Pack also from Windows X worked but I wouldn't bother with that really.

Drivers are however my concern and I won't really be able to know how that will pan out until I try it on real hardware, so you can be sure I'll be imagining my current XP disk should it all crash and burn.

I'll report my experiences here if people are interested, f0dder in your case though I think XP x64 is built on the Server 2003 codebase so the switch probably wouldn't be necessary. But that's worth looking into.

[f0dder]

I'll report my experiences here if people are interested, f0dder in your case though I think XP x64 is built on the Server 2003 codebase so the switch probably wouldn't be necessary. But that's worth looking into.

-Eóin (December 09, 2007, 05:22 PM)

Exactly

But even with 32bit XP, I do wonder why people are doing this... sure, the win2k3 codebase is better (looks like they use a more recent optimizing compiler, and have a couple of assembly-optimized routines), and iirc there's some additional security features - but still, why? I'd really love to hear something tangible from somebody