By Joaquim P. Menezes -
A lot of silly speculation surrounding the release of the first service pack for Windows Vista was laid to rest last week after Microsoft announced that Vista SP1 will ship in Q1 of 2008 (along with Windows Server 2008).
I’m inclined to agree with those who claim that much of the initial confusion was caused by Redmond’s remarkable reticence (until last week) about Vista SP1.
As Paul Thurrott observes on his informative site, Microsoft was probably keen that its corporate customers “upgrade on the initial release and not wait for a service pack.”
Thurrott relates how Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer twice “publicly disavowed” any knowledge that the company had even considered releasing an update.
“My guess is that Ballmer didn't want to discuss SP1 then because the company's corporate customers typically wait for the first service pack release of an OS before upgrading.”
But when Redmond realized customers were in no hurry to upgrade, it has, begrudingly, begun discussing SP1.
Now that Microsoft has finally came clean about SP1 one thing is clear: from an end user standpoint the upgrade will not include any major functional differences. As Gartner Inc. analyst Stephen Kleynhans puts it: “As far as service packs go this is middle of the road — not too risky and relatively uneventful.”
Microsoft, meanwhile, claims that it doesn’t know how many corporate users have already moved to Vista. Likelihood is the number isn’t very high.
So here's the big question. Are there genuine reasons – apart from “peace of mind” - to stall deployment until the delivery of Vista SP1?
I believe there are, though Redmond would have you believe otherwise.
Microsoft maintains that since Vista’s launch, it has been using a variety of channels to get fixes, improvements and updates into the hands of customers.
Some of these channels are mentioned by Jon DeVaan, Microsoft Senior Vice President, Windows Core Operating System Division in a Q&A on the Microsoft Web site.
DeVann cites the ‘hot fixes’ developed for enterprise customers (single downloads containing one or more files that address a very specific issue) made available through Microsoft’s managed support channel.
He alludes to the Windows Update service for home users.
To OEMs and system builders, he says, Microsoft has delivered important updates that support issues discovered with new hardware – such as updated USB support, which benefit new PCs based on new hardware.
The thrust of the argument is clear: with the continuous stream of updates and patches being pushed out via all these channels, it’s safe to deploy without waiting for SP1.
That’s one perspective.
I’m more inclined to agree with the contrasting one – articulated by folk like Josh Phillips, who in his Windows Weblog convincingly makes the case that service packs do matter.
Some reasons he cites include:
• Service packs are far more rigorously tested than individual updates offered via Windows Update.
• Only a portion of updates are actually delivered via Windows Update
• The frequency of updates can be unweildy and overwhelming, causing frustration for admin and end users
Of course, apart from all these, there’s the question of convenience.
Which would you prefer – scores of incremental updates spread out over several months (with all the attendent hassles, including the chance that you may miss some) or a single super update – via a service pack that is controlled and easy to manage.
That’s a no brainer, I believe?