Why No SP2 for Win7?

[ninaholic37]

Microsoft way is install Win7

6,000 updates and 40 reboots later you could be done.

And that's if it works. My Win 7 netbook had 83 updates to do, and after I rebooted my screen just went black. I think I got it back to normal by system restore or restoring the factory image, then never turning on windows updates again.

 

[blankslate]

It's probably because Microsoft expects that businesses running Win 7 will have people knowledgeable in creating baseline images for a Win 7 install that is currently updated. So that when they bring up a new machine they just install an image with Win 7 SP1 and however many years of security updates.

They expect the consumer to most likely have a newer OS.


....

 

[Maximilian]

Apple is so much better at how they do it.

Install OS X 10.x

download the latest combo pack.

boom.

Microsoft way is install Win7

6,000 updates and 40 reboots later you could be done.


I never understood why microsoft does not offer patch rollup's that would include the entire set of patches like Apple does.

I could be wrong but I think its because of the windows architecture just not being as good as OSX. Linux and OSX share some things in common and I know one of Linux's pros is that it rarely has to restart when it gets updates.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I could be wrong but I think its because of the windows architecture just not being as good as OSX. Linux and OSX share some things in common and I know one of Linux's pros is that it rarely has to restart when it gets updates.

They both require reboots; Windows locks files currently loaded in memory to prevent you from editing it, and then having a process try to access a chunk of the file only to find it's no longer there. So the reboot is to unload all processes using a file and update it. Linux has no such protection and lets you edit in use files (I should know. I lost a Gentoo install by doing an emerge -uDn; GCC tried to recompile itself and died in the process. I had some programs running and they were fine; opening a new instance however threw errors about missing c libraries. Oops.)

You still need to reboot linux (or reload everything in memory) - it just isn't forceful about making you do it. In OS X, it forces reboots. I had to reboot for an update a couple of days ago.

 

[Muse]

Go into task scheduler and disable the end of life task. Also, remove MSE if you have it installed or you will get the same message from it.

That worked! There were two, one for logon, the other to be run once/month. I left the latter, I figure I won't mind once a month, and an occasional reminder might help me not forget to upgrade, I really want to.

I couldn't see a way to disable the task so I just deleted it. Haven't removed MSE yet, will see if I need to, I figure it might give me some protection in the meantime...

 

[nemesismk2]

if you ask me windows 7 needs service pack 2 and windows xp needs service pack 4. i know i am not going to get any support for the windows xp comment but windows 7 needs a service pack 2!

 

[Mem]

if you ask me windows 7 needs service pack 2 and windows xp needs service pack 4. i know i am not going to get any support for the windows xp comment but windows 7 needs a service pack 2!

Problem is Win7 is already six years old ie 2009 release so I can understand Microsoft wanting to concentrate on newer Operating Systems with both time and resources.

It's really only die hard Win7 fans wanting SP2 and that is far from top of Microsoft's must do list.


I also wonder how many will upgrade from Win7 to Win10 this year so that will make SP2 even more of a less concern.

 

[nemesismk2]

Problem is Win7 is already six years old ie 2009 release so I can understand Microsoft wanting to concentrate on newer Operating Systems with both time and resources.

It's really only die hard Win7 fans wanting SP2 and that is far from top of Microsoft's must do list.


I also wonder how many will upgrade from Win7 to Win10 this year so that will make SP2 even more of a less concern.

the problem might become just like windows xp when users just don't want to switch. windows 10 better be very great or i will not even stop using windows 7. i am going to adandon most microsoft applications anyway, already use a different anti virus and firewall just incase is don't get windows 10.

 

[Mem]

the problem might become just like windows xp when users just don't want to switch. windows 10 better be very great or i will not even stop using windows 7. i am going to adandon most microsoft applications anyway, already use a different anti virus and firewall just incase is don't get windows 10.

My XP and Win7 was replaced by Linux distros many years ago,I know two people that'll be upgrading within my family this year from Win7 to 10 for sure.

I'll upgrade my two 8.1 PCs(which are working great btw)to 10 as well,the Microsoft ball keeps rolling and stops for nobody including you or I.

Fact is Win7 only has five years left maxed so that'll be eleven years by then, every OS comes to an end and you can't stop progress.


Don't take this the wrong way but what's great about Win7?..I have owned and used it for many years but don't see anything special about it,just another Microsoft OS in my books getting old.

 

[Muse]

I don't get any nag screens on XP. Can you post a screenshot?

That message looks to be by virtue of MSE, which I may have to discard and get some other free AV. Some of them still support XP AFAIK. Meantime, I really need to launch my project of getting a new mobo/cpu/ram/OS for that machine.

 

[sourceninja]

...

 

[Berryracer]

First thing I do when I make an image for windows 8.1 is to do the following:

In powershell:
Get-AppxPackage -AllUsers | Remove-AppxPackage
Get-AppXProvisionedPackage -online | Remove-AppxProvisionedPackage -online

This removes completely all pre-installed metro applications. We then create a group policy to disable the windows store. Finally we set the defaults to open to desktop and when you open start it should display apps by most recent.

This method makes the desktop very functional and honestly I"m a keyboard guy anyway so I don't mind the start screen. What I really hate is that there is no way to hide the windows button on the start bar.

When I copy/pasted the first command:

Get-AppxPackage -AllUsers | Remove-AppxPackage

This is what I got:

Then I ran the second command, I saw it mentioning all the apps as Online: True / Restart Required: False but I still have the Photos app and webcam app those never go away....

 

[matricks]

Well, I unexpectedly got an opportunity to test the need for an SP2. Fresh install of W7 SP1 on a new laptop, installed 192 updates in the first round, one failed, succeeded by just rebooting. Two more rounds of a couple updates each, and done. No issues (apart from KB3038314 which fails, which is a known issue).

On the other hand, I had to burn one of those circular one-time storage drives (what are they called again?), because the installer didn't recognize the USB controller. After install, neither Ethernet, Wi-Fi or USB works either. Another circular storage drive to install drivers. Some modern OS this is. Good thing I kept those circles around.

 

[escrow4]

Well, I unexpectedly got an opportunity to test the need for an SP2. Fresh install of W7 SP1 on a new laptop, installed 192 updates in the first round, one failed, succeeded by just rebooting. Two more rounds of a couple updates each, and done. No issues (apart from KB3038314 which fails, which is a known issue).

On the other hand, I had to burn one of those circular one-time storage drives (what are they called again?), because the installer didn't recognize the USB controller. After install, neither Ethernet, Wi-Fi or USB works either. Another circular storage drive to install drivers. Some modern OS this is. Good thing I kept those circles around.

Hint 8.1, hint . . . .

 

[RampantAndroid]

Well, I unexpectedly got an opportunity to test the need for an SP2. Fresh install of W7 SP1 on a new laptop, installed 192 updates in the first round, one failed, succeeded by just rebooting. Two more rounds of a couple updates each, and done. No issues (apart from KB3038314 which fails, which is a known issue).

On the other hand, I had to burn one of those circular one-time storage drives (what are they called again?), because the installer didn't recognize the USB controller. After install, neither Ethernet, Wi-Fi or USB works either. Another circular storage drive to install drivers. Some modern OS this is. Good thing I kept those circles around.

Wait, you want the Windows installer ISO to somehow have drivers built in for modern hardware that - because of the OEM's implementation - cannot have the generic driver used.

Windows isn't OSX - Microsoft has no control over what hardware is used. Nor is it Linux - you don't have to spend 5 years figuring out how to install a boot loader that can handle GPT/install drivers and so forth.

 

[matricks]

Hint 8.1, hint . . . .

I'm well aware of that, and all Windows installations of mine are 8.1. It wasn't clear, but this is for someone I'm helping out, and has asked for Windows 7. Blind user, screen readers work in 8.1 too, but there are less issues with 7 on that front. Which is a very specific reason to use Win7 that I can understand.

The actual point of my post was that those 192 updates, and the 10 or so that came afterwards, went totally fine, despite the cries for a SP. No bluescreens, no stuck updates (apart from the issue Microsoft is working on). Secondly, Windows 7 is old, demonstrated by the lack of a generic USB 3.0 controller driver (Windows 8+ wouldn't have had this problem).

I see now that my post sent the opposite message. I mean that it's outdated, and there is no need to maintain it beyond what Microsoft does today.

 

[xSauronx]

When I copy/pasted the first command:

Get-AppxPackage -AllUsers | Remove-AppxPackage

This is what I got:

Then I ran the second command, I saw it mentioning all the apps as Online: True / Restart Required: False but I still have the Photos app and webcam app those never go away....

fyi those errors will appear on a multi user system if the apps have already been "provisioned" for a user, which basically just means if more than one user at all has logged in.

but it is useful for an mdt capture/deploy scenario where you are using sysprep and the default admin account. it will strip out the microsoft apps. i customized a powershell script to remove *most* of them from our build, but left in weather and a couple of others.

most of our users get to apps from the pinned items on the taskbar. we customized a start screen with just a few things [like...8 or 10] and let them pin items to it, but not get to the store for new apps. only a few people bother to use it. i love the start screen--once i customize it to my liking. i get the feeling a lot of people do not bother.

 

[Muse]

most of our users get to apps from the pinned items on the taskbar. we customized a start screen with just a few things [like...8 or 10] and let them pin items to it, but not get to the store for new apps. only a few people bother to use it. i love the start screen--once i customize it to my liking. i get the feeling a lot of people do not bother.

I have never liked the Start button functionality of Windows (my most advanced machines use 7). I used to use a cool utility called Clickflick to build out customizable beehive-like clusters of buttons that would do whatever I wanted. I could pop them up whereever I wanted with keyboard shortcuts in combination with mouse clicks, all completely customizable, even ran macros that I created. However with each successive release of Windows that utility became more and more difficult to run and I finally gave up, it wasn't worth the trouble or I couldn't get it to work period.

What I do now is have a folder on the desktop with a shortcut in the task bar that contains shortcuts to my most used programs/utilities. That folder has a few subfolders for things that are nicely categorized but not much used. It's nice because I can get to the things I use most without having to go through all the hoops that the Start menu puts you through and I can order them alphabetically. Microsoft somehow (HOW?????) does not exactly order them alphabetically even when you click "Sort by name." Not only that, Windows handling of the Start menu functionality is SLOW, convoluted, and to me often confusing. My method is quick and accurate. I still sometimes go to the Start menu, but I don't often have to.

Of course, my most-used programs (8 or 10 of them) have shortcuts in the Task Bar. On my XP machines I have a shortcut to my programs/utilities desktop folder. I haven't found a way to put a shortcut for it on my Windows 7 machines, which seems wacky.

Edit: Well, I Googled the problem and found hits showing me how to make that shortcut, I'd never have guessed how. How to Pin a Folder to the Taskbar in Windows 7 & Windows 8. Why I can't just drag and drop the folder or a shortcut to it to the taskbar like I can in XP I don't get.

 

[Ketchup]

.....Microsoft somehow (HOW?????) does not exactly order them alphabetically even when you click "Sort by name." ....

I have to agree with you here. As "adjusted" as I am getting to 8 (and 8.1) this is baffling to me as well. Since they have a sort by category option, I fail to understand why alphabetically still insists on subdividing by category. And some time with 10 implies that this is not about to change either.

 

[mvbighead]

I think Microsoft could save themselves a lot of time and effort if they just improve upon what works.

My idea would be:
Keep the expirations, but take what people like (7 for example) and make an ever-so-modest improvement on it. Call it a new OS. Use the time saved to compile quarterly updated ISOs for customers. Use the rest of the time saved to focus on business customers, where most of their market is anyway.

Stop wasting time on the mobile market, which they don't (and probably never will) have a strong hold on anyway.

But they won't. They still can't get over that there is a market they lost out on, and will spend forever trying to get a corner on.

Here's a thought Microsoft - spend your resources making your stuff work better with their stuff, and focus on not losing what you have.

1) Windows 7 is more or less an optimized version of Vista. From a GUI perspective, there is very little difference.

1a) They can only make minor improvements for so long before people realize they are paying $100 for a new OS that doesn't look any different than the last one.

2) The mobile market they HAVE to get involved with because EVERYTHING is going that way. Remote support from a tablet/phablet for example. By staying out of the market, they are avoiding the largest growing share in the market. Does that at all sound like a good business strategy?

3) The thought that they'll never penetrate that market is naive. They may never be the major player that Apple/Android is there, but their software is sooo common to so many that they'd be stupid not to target it.

 

[mvbighead]

Hi Mem, I think we all know that you are very open to change. However, the reception of Windows 8 should tell you that most of the population is not. Is it an "old" style? Yes. Does it work? Yes.

I'll give you an example: I do IT work for the retail industry. One of these retailers just went through a major system upgrade: registers, controllers, servers, staff computers, everything. When upgrading the Fujitsu uscan system, the entire application had to be re-written, but in the end, the gui looks exactly the same as it did before, even the voice is exactly the same one that was used since the system was released 20 years ago. The latest system offers more functionality than the older systems for sure, but many customers wouldn't even notice.

Why? most people don't like change, and Windows 8 is just another example of this fact.

The idea that people don't like change is most definitely not uncommon, but in the technology market, avoiding change allows for business to suffer a major impact 3-5-7 years down the road.

Every person that avoids the inevitable eventually becomes unneeded. My last job had a guy that was dedicated to MSAccess XP. The idea of moving to MS Access 2010 was like pulling teeth. And the idea of building a proper app with a SQL back end and proper front end even more so.

Why move away from what works??? Because you tend to get improvements with the new software be it visual, performance, or security. And security is generally the prevailing factor. If MS wants to make money, they'll continue to develop new products and eventually cut support on the old ones to get people to move along that path as well. There is no reason for them to support an OS for 10+ years like they did with XP, and it certainly doesn't net them any financial gain.

I won't suggest that people should become early adopters of each release, nor would I say that you have to make the jump to each and every release. But to stick with one and avoid change altogether for extended periods of time is going to cause someone to see a major deadline thrust upon them, when they could have been wise and attempted to move along with newer releases.

Personally, I tend to agree with the every other release approach from a business standpoint, EG - XP -> Win 7 -> Win10. Current enough for each's lifetime with enough time between releases to have a steady platform on whatever the business may be.

 

[cubby1223]

1) Windows 7 is more or less an optimized version of Vista. From a GUI perspective, there is very little difference.

1a) They can only make minor improvements for so long before people realize they are paying $100 for a new OS that doesn't look any different than the last one.

2) The mobile market they HAVE to get involved with because EVERYTHING is going that way. Remote support from a tablet/phablet for example. By staying out of the market, they are avoiding the largest growing share in the market. Does that at all sound like a good business strategy?

3) The thought that they'll never penetrate that market is naive. They may never be the major player that Apple/Android is there, but their software is sooo common to so many that they'd be stupid not to target it.

While all those items above are true, it still doesn't equate to a fact that Windows 8 was a good move.

Windows 8 is a disaster. If you use a keyboard and a mouse Windows 8 is a god-awful interface that should be trashed, buried, and never again see the light of day.

Apple has iOS for their mobile devices. You know what they did with the macbooks? They retained their interface from previous OSX releases that is designed primarily for keyboard & mouse usage.

 

[cubby1223]

Every person that avoids the inevitable eventually becomes unneeded. My last job had a guy that was dedicated to MSAccess XP. The idea of moving to MS Access 2010 was like pulling teeth. And the idea of building a proper app with a SQL back end and proper front end even more so.

...

Actually, supporting legacy systems is a VERY lucrative job.

Businesses most certainly grow to large to even begin consider updating systems. Do you have any idea how many mainframes from, say, the 90's, are still used in some of the largest institutions in this country? Why? Because so much of their business flows through the systems it is disastrous, if not fatal, if there were even a single day of disruption.

What is the one constant with new systems? New bugs to be worked out. A good friend of mine does software consulting for one institution for which about every single day $1+billion dollars flow through the software.

It's all fine and dandy to scream upgrade at every opportunity, but that just means you're not involved in anything mission-critical.

 

[mvbighead]

While all those items above are true, it still doesn't equate to a fact that Windows 8 was a good move.

Windows 8 is a disaster. If you use a keyboard and a mouse Windows 8 is a god-awful interface that should be trashed, buried, and never again see the light of day.

Apple has iOS for their mobile devices. You know what they did with the macbooks? They retained their interface from previous OSX releases that is designed primarily for keyboard & mouse usage.

Yep... terrible. Gawd-awful... Typing this message from a Windows 8.1 workstation with keyboard/mouse.

Honestly, if you take the time to tweak the built in start menu, it makes enough sense. I don't have to dig through a convoluted list of a bunch of stuff I never use. I simply have tiles to the apps I use enough and want quick simple access to (IE - snipit).

Between my home Windows 7 box and my work 8.1 box, I prefer 8.1. I'll stick with 7 at home because it still does everything I need it to, and is still supported.

 

[mvbighead]

Actually, supporting legacy systems is a VERY lucrative job.

Businesses most certainly grow to large to even begin consider updating systems. Do you have any idea how many mainframes from, say, the 90's, are still used in some of the largest institutions in this country? Why? Because so much of their business flows through the systems it is disastrous, if not fatal, if there were even a single day of disruption.

What is the one constant with new systems? New bugs to be worked out. A good friend of mine does software consulting for one institution for which about every single day $1+billion dollars flow through the software.

It's all fine and dandy to scream upgrade at every opportunity, but that just means you're not involved in anything mission-critical.

Lol. Mainframes? They're about the only exception to this rule.

Software vendors completely stop supporting outdated operating systems. Linux, Windows, Mac... they all eventually cut ties and say it's time to move on.

I won't once suggest (and even eluded to it in my prior messages) that one should upgrade at EVERY opportunity, but to stick with software that is over a decade old is simply lazy. I've seen vendors hold companies back to IE8 because their app 'won't work with anything else.'

And while supporting legacy systems such as a mainframe can be lucrative, supporting a legacy Exchange 2003 environment is beyond pointless when there are far better systems that are actively being improved on the market.

Suffice it to say, I work for a service provider and we have a customer who is using Exchange 2003 by their choice. Support is difficult, cumbersome, and data loss is general possible and nearly likely as supporting that system becomes difficult when MS won't take a phone call and the backup platforms have phased out support for it long ago.

You can tell me all you want about a consistent software platform being the answer to longevity, but it truly is not. Linux LTS releases are typically good for 5 years. MS supported XP for roughly 13.

Lastly, running a multi-million dollar business on 15 year old gear that very few engineers know how to support is simply a point of accepting too much risk. At some point, that system is going to go down, and the odds of bringing it up can become very slim.