Windows 7 SP1 release candidate goes up

The first service pack for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 is almost here. Microsoft’s Brandon LeBlanc updated the Windows Blog yesterday to say the service pack has hit the release candidate stage, and you can grab the RC right now from the TechNet Evaluation Center.

If you’re expecting snazzy new features and performance improvements, though, you might be disappointed—at least if you’re a Windows 7 user. As LeBlanc points out, SP1 adds a couple of new features for Windows Server, Dynamic Memory and RemoteFX, but really nothing noteworthy for Windows 7 other than previously released updates. Well, SP1 for Windows 7 will "enable PCs to take advantage" of the new server features, for what that’s worth.

According to the TechNet site’s frequently asked questions page, Microsoft intends to have Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 SP1 out the door "within the first half of calendar year 2011." LeBlanc’s post adds that this release candidate will be the last one before SP1 goes gold.

Comments closed
    • ShadowEyez
    • 9 years ago

    Not to defend M$, but they are screwed either way: a SP that adds too many features and fixes tons of things (like Vista’s) means a bad OS to start with.
    A SP that adds a few fixes and rolls up all the patches (like Win7) and everyones saying… who cares? If you’ve kept up on all the regular updates there’s probably not a lot to really download or change in the OS anyway.

    • ImSpartacus
    • 9 years ago

    So this is a service pack for a service pack?

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist…

      • no51
      • 9 years ago

      yo dawg i heard you liked service packs.

      • bcronce
      • 9 years ago

      In the way that everyone calls Win7 a service pack to Vista, it’s funny. But Win7 only shares Vista’s GUI and basic framework, the Kernel and IO systems are completely different, kind of like comparing Win95 to WinXP.

        • boing
        • 9 years ago

        Uhh, considering the kernel is based on Vista which is based on XP which is based on W2k which is based on NT4… I wouldn’t describe the kernel as being “completely different”.

          • UberGerbil
          • 9 years ago

          Each of them may have been “based on” the previous one, but there were major changes to most of the kernel guts (the driver model, scheduler, memory manager, etc) between NT4 and 2K/XP and then between 2K/XP and Vista/7. (Which is why the major version number, as revealed by VER, incremented across those transitions and only the minor number incremented within them — and rightfully so.)

          • bcronce
          • 9 years ago

          The OS as a whole is based on the previous OS’s, but the kernel is completely different. It has a new kernel interface with completely new logic. It’s not even remotely the same. 100% started from scratch.

          Comparing Vista to Win7 is like comparing Starcraft to Starcraft2. They may look about the same and feel about the same, but the engine is completely different.

          P.S. Actually, Vista was based on Win7. Win7 was started after XP, but Vista was a fork from 7 while 7 was still being worked on. Vista was just a “stabilized” fork from an incomplete version of 7.

        • OneArmedScissor
        • 9 years ago

        You forgot that it also has a different logo and a number instead of a word for a name. Those are probably the most important differences, because “Vista 2” would have made it terrible.

          • l33t-g4m3r
          • 9 years ago

          You can also call it Mojave, I do.

            • Meadows
            • 9 years ago

            But you’re a moron.

            • xtalentx
            • 9 years ago

            It’s usually a safe bet to say I disagree with anything you say (type) but in this instance I can find no fault in your logic or delivery.

            • jackbomb
            • 9 years ago

            I’ve always wanted to say that to l33t-g4m3r, but I just didn’t have the /[

    • 5150
    • 9 years ago

    Finally, now that SP1 is out I can purchase Windows 7.

      • just brew it!
      • 9 years ago

      Heh… I was just about to post the exact same thing! ๐Ÿ˜€

      • bcronce
      • 9 years ago

      Win7 itself has been rock solid. Unlike XP service packs that did major changes to the system, Win7 service pack is going to just be a roll-up of all patches. No major changes except for virtualization.

        • Shining Arcanine
        • 9 years ago

        Windows XP SP3 was the only one that brought major feature changes. The others were mostly updates.

          • 5150
          • 9 years ago

          I think you mean SP2.

            • UberGerbil
            • 9 years ago

            Yeah, it was SP2 that aligned the kernel with Server2k3, switched on PAE to support the NX/xD bit, etc. SP3 was more like what Service Packs are supposed to be — bugfix roll-ups.

    • Jigar
    • 9 years ago

    They are smart, they won’t realize new features, new features are to be expected in Windows 8.

      • Deanjo
      • 9 years ago

      They just don’t need to put in extra features into existing products anymore. SP2 for XP was an exception to rule to address MS not having a replacement OS anywhere in the near future at that time. Longhorn was extremely late and had major development issues to overcome at the time. If they were still relying on WinFS becoming the new filesystem for Vista chances are we would be still using XP and up to SP 4 or 5.

    • sweatshopking
    • 9 years ago

    sucks. i wanted new features. really though, i’m not very creative, and don’t think ahead in regards to what new features i need….

      • Deanjo
      • 9 years ago

      The only windows SP that ever really added “new features” was SP2 for XP. MS said long ago that SP2 would be the last Windows SP to add new features leaving SP’s to bug fixes and security issues.

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        I know. i’m just sad. that’s all ๐Ÿ™

      • cygnus1
      • 9 years ago

      It is neat. But many servers won’t be able to take advantage of remoteFX, as it requires essentially a gaming capable video card in your server.

      And Dynamic Memory is definitely a “catch up to VMWare from 5 years ago” feature.

      *it does all work pretty well though, i’ve been running the SP1 beta on my home server for quite a while with no issues, the RC should be fine.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This