Vista SP2: Microsoft to push via Windows Update in 'the coming weeks'

Vista SP2: Microsoft to push via Windows Update in 'the coming weeks'

Summary: Microsoft still isn't saying anything more about why Vista SP2 still isn't available yet on the Microsoft Download site, but company officials are telling customers that Microsoft will push SP2 automatically via Windows Update "in the coming weeks."

TOPICS: Windows, Microsoft

Microsoft still isn't saying anything more about why Vista SP2 still isn't available yet on the Microsoft Download site, but company officials are telling customers that Microsoft will push SP2 automatically via Windows Update "in the coming weeks."

A couple of days ago, I wondered aloud why Microsoft still had yet to provide anyone other than MSDN and TechNet subscribers with Vista Service Pack (SP) 2.

Microsoft released to manufacturing Vista SP2 and Windows Server 2008 SP2 on April 29. Microsoft made SP2 available to MSDN and TechNet subscribers over the past couple of weeks. Company officials have said that Microsoft plans to make SP2 generally available in the second calendar quarter of this year.

In a May 20 posting to the Microsoft Update Team Blog, Microsoft officials said SP2 for Windows Client and Server will be "available in the coming weeks on the Download Center (DLC) and also through Windows Update and WSUS (Windows Server Update Services)."

Business users who aren't ready for SP2 to be deployed automatically to their machines can use the Microsoft Service Pack blocking tool to postpone the SP2 update from being deployed to their PCs and servers.

Update: There's seemingly official word over on TechNet as to the due date for SP2:

"Microsoft will release Windows Vista SP2 to the Download Center and through Windows Update on May 26, 2009. Automatic Updates are scheduled to begin on June 30, 2009."

Thanks to Nick Clark who found the Vista SP2 due-date information and blogged about it on May 22.

Topics: Windows, Microsoft


Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for 30 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • shame it takes so long

    It a shame it took an article to make them see the light.

    Steve Ballmer needs to step down.
  • Really Mary Jo?

    Patch Tuesday anyone?
    • Do you mean

      you think they will push Vista SP2 out on the next Patch Tuesday, which is June 9? Otherwise, not sure what the "really" means here... Thanks. MJ
      Mary Jo Foley
      • Patch Tuesday, or maybe slightly later

        The WU/MU version will likely still have to have componentized installer so that it has the adaptable download size. That's likely why service packs are not immediately available on the first Patch Tuesday after OEM's get it, even though the bits are done.
        • if Microsoft's intention all along

          was to make SP2 available the second patch day after RTM, why not just say that? Seems like it would be a lot more useful than the vague "some time before the end of Q2." I know, I know: We are in the age of "less information is more" for Windows customers.... MJ
          Mary Jo Foley
          • Do you suspect a bit of downplay with this service pack?

            After all, I would expect most people that have decided to deploy Windows Vista probably already have, and the few features added don't mean a whole lot to consumers.

            Is this a case of "too little, too late" for Vista in favour of Windows 7?

            Anyone with Automatic Updates turned on already has the important stuff from SP2.
      • Some people might see this as some magical fix

        This isn't "Windows 7 for Vista".

        Windows 7 seems to be better optimized for Atom CPU's and has a much less-agressive disk cache which leaves more memory free for applications, especially for low RAM systems (less than 2GB, which is pretty much the minimum on typical mainstream systems). Vista was designed for higher-end hardware before netbooks became popular. Both run with similar performance on modern hardware, that is to say, a Core 2 generation CPU with an average of 2GB of RAM. Vista just doesn't scale well for low-power systems, whereas Windows 7 does. In the mid-to-high-end, the performance is very close though, as most benchmarks show.
  • RE: Vista SP2: Microsoft to push via Windows Update in 'the coming weeks'

    Oh that's right. Check. ;)
  • No more nanofacts please

    As a forthright colleague of mine once said after having been forced to listen to a particularly inane management brief:

    "Please don't waste any more of our time with nanofacts."
  • Underpromise and Overdeliver

    I understand the need to underpromise and overdeliver, but I wish they would at least be more descriptive. The coming weeks window is overly broad and could even be a month out from now.
  • I have sp2

    and it really did nothing for me? Did it?! Unless its all "under the hood" crap that really wasn't needed to begin with.

    But I really do not have to many complaints about windows vista like most of those people who have never even used it do.

    • You won't see many major changes

      There isn't any real "under the hood" stuff. It's mostly just previous updates consolidated into a single patch. There are a few new features but they are mostly minor. The performance and compatibility improvements have already been rolled out via separate updates, and they weren't even exclusive to SP1. Most people assume SP1 was "the big fix" but it wasn't. The performance updates came months before.
      • It seems to require SP1 before you can install SP2

        At least that was the error I got trying to
        install on a virgin Vista system.
    • I have Vista and HATE it.

      Well, STBA2009... I have had Vista 64-bit since last summer and I hate
      it. Vista OS conflicts with every program I need to operate except for
      MS Word. That's pretty pathetic. Try to run HP software with it and
      you have a major war on your hands. I spent 3 days on the phone
      with HP tech support last summer getting Vista and HP software to
      play nice. Had to dump about 50 % of the HP software off the
      computer..after giving myself permission to do so. Now, I'm trying to
      get a brand new straight-out-of-the-box printer--HPM1522nf--to
      simply speak Vista. Three weeks later and over 10 hours on the phone
      with HP tech support and no luck. HP has decided it has to be their
      printer so they offered me a USED REFURBISHED printer in place of my
      brand new 3-week old printer.


      On the other hand, can my Mac talk HP? In a heartbeat. Can my Mac
      start up fast? Faster than lightning. Does my Mac OS conflict with
      ANY program software? No. Is my Mac reliable? ALWAYS. Can I easily
      fix any issue that comes along? Oh Yeah. Is Mac tech support the
      best there is? They have been since Mac was born and continue to
      this day to be the best. And they speak English as a first language.

      Mac will always be the superior OS because the very heart of it is and
      will always be purer than Windows-based OS's.

      The world was sold a major headache with Microsoft Operating
      Systems. So sad. I'm sure this latest-trumpeted update to Vista will
      do nothing for me as well, STBA2009.
      • Re:I have Vista and HATE it.

        That is not a Vista problem. I have an HP printer with HP software and a Vista computer and it runs flawlessly.

        Your problem is with HP. Point the finger where it belongs.

        Macs have nothing to do with this topic, so go somewhere else with the Mac talk.
      • It's HP, their Vista support blows.

        I don't know why I ever switched from Epson but after HP's complete lack of support for hardware that was only 8 months old to run on Vista, I now remember why. After fighting and fighting with HP's so called Vista drivers dropped all of it and went back to Epson.

        I bought a CX200 and it installed flawlessly and with a driver that's less than HP's very common 100MB ones. Not only does it work, but all functions do as well as it is a MFC. My LaserJet 3380 MFC alas was nothing more than a glorified laser printer after HP conveniently decided that they're not putting out Vista drivers.

        Same fate was met by my once beloved ScanJet 4850. Apparently Windows knew how to use it but HP's own software didn't! Again HP's "Vista" driver was a complete joke. My Epson scans no problem from any program.

        So to heck with HP, my Vista and Epson setup works great. (..and yes, I do have a unibody MacBook as well. It rocks too.)
  • Vista Stats Will Skyrocket From June-December

    Beginning sometime in June (I think it's late June), if you buy a PC with Vista on it you will get a free upgrade to Windows 7 (or a free downgrade to XP).

    Watch for a story from ZDNet sometime late this summer or early fall skewing the numbers on Vista, because I am holding off on a new laptop and office machine until that date. They will use that as an opportunity to say "See, Vista wasn't as bad as people thought"..not "Vista sales boost in anticipation of free upgrade on Windows 7 release".
    • Even on machines built for Vista?

      Does this mean Windows 7 will run on machines "built for Vista?" Last
      sumer, two weeks after I got my new PeeCee with Vista installed on it, I
      called Gateway and asked if I could dump Vista and install Windows XP
      Pro on the machine and was told "no way--it won't run on that machine;
      it was built for Vista."
      • Even on machines built for Vista?


        Machines that were built for Vista will run Windows 7. They told you you could not run XP because they did not provide XP drivers for that equipment.
      • Why bother?

        Why bother with a "PeeCee" when you seem to have all kinds of luck with your Mac - if it seems to run all your programs fine and your printer, why did you even waste money (and time) on a "PeeCee"?

        I really wish that some posters could stick to the issue at hand instead of throwing in their "2 cents" about how much Windows blows, Mac's are superior and Linux is the 'be all and end all' for the PC platform. We know Windows isn't perfect but coming here and ranting off-topic solves nothing and is counter productive. Now look what you've done, you made me go "off-topic".