Why all the secrecy about Vista SP1?

One thing I forgot to mention was that I too, love getting information ahead of time but we can't expect it at the expense of the company or the product.  I hate forgetting things.  Thanks for the comment Joe!

Hi Michael, thanks for the comments.  First off, Microsoft never, nor will they ever even in super secret mode, spring a service pack with only 1 weeks notice.  In fact, Microsoft has told us they are releasing the service pack, theoretically around shipping of WS 2008.  What Microsoft is being really secretive about isn't when or if (just because Ballmer denied it, everyone knew better) they are releasing a service pack, they are just being quiet about what it's going to include.  So, I really don't see what you have to be upset about at all?  Besides, you are correct that many times major server product releases require a service pack before they can install, I can't think of a single major client app that requires a service pack installed.  Well, a couple come to mind now, but those were released a minimum of 6 months post service pack release, so again, I really can't understand what you have to be upset about.  Perhaps you can clarify for me?

Thanks!

Light And Shadow,

First off, thaks for your comments.  Always glad to see some good activity here, but I do have a few questions for you.

First, could you please list for me some mainstream major criticism of Apple not commenting on future products?  I honest can not recall seeing a single one.  The only criticism I recall seeing was over Apple suing bloggers about leaking information and even then that was very tempered and even saw a lot of press praising the move, so I don't even really consider that example very pertinant.

Again, I completely agree that Apple not releasing an SDK with products is ridiculous, but again, where is any major or mainstream criticisms of Apple for not doing it?  I would love examples because maybe I'm just reading the wrong sites.

As far as a mobile device based on WPF or Silverlight?  Silverlight just barely reached a release candidate phase and isn't even a finished product.  But, let's for the sake of argument say that Silverlight is finished.  How would you base a mobile device on .Net 3.0 (or 3.5) and Silverlight?  The thing you have to realise is that Silverlight and .Net are frameworks built upon massive foundations.  You can't just port Silverlight or .Net over to a mobile device.  That's like taking a really good transmission out of your car and throwing it on your bicycle and expecting it to suddely drive like a car.  I could be wrong, but I don't think in the current spec of mobile devices (200mhz proc's with flash based memory typically around 64-128MB) there is any way you could even dream of pulling off a port of that magnitude.  Now, if mobile devices were spec'd to include solid state hard drives, lots more RAM and a much higher end proc then, sure, with a ton of dev work it could be done.  But what are the dis-advantages?  A much bigger, shorter battery life, much more expensive device just to have cool effects?  The pro's definietly don't out-weigh the cons at this point.

Here's the thing us geeks have to keep in mind.  We live in a capalist society (thank goodness!) and everything is about good business.  While us geeks would love to always be in the loop and have really cool toys if it doesn't make logical business sense (in other words produce more $$$ than it costs) don't expect them to do it.

And finally to wrap this up (sorry, this is turning into another blog entry) why do you want a fixed release date for Sp1?  Seriously, why?  All that means is that Microsoft will have to make cuts to what they want to accomplish in SP1 if they release a date, especially when the entire project isn't scoped out yet.  You want coolness and toys, but you don't want to be patient enough to let them do it right?  We in the community need to really think things out before we lash out at Microsoft and decide what's truly important to us.

Hi Michael, thanks for the reply.  I'll reply both to you and the ping back from 4sysops in my post here.

First off, as to why they've given a confirmed release date for Windows Server 2008, that's simple.  It's because they want people to know it's not going to be this year, and to plan it for next years budget.  It's that simple.  Now, not all companies run on a calendar year for their budget years, but with a confirmed early release date CIO/CTO's can plan their budgets.  Why no confirmation on release date for SP1?  Simply because it's not a purchase/budget altering decision.  I know many of you are going to dis-agree with me on this, but I am a CTO, and it's not.  SP1 is not going to affect hardware requirements.  Now, there are other considerations such as roll-outs, etc.  

Now, this leads me to the main complaint that you both seem to have.  That Microsoft is going to only give a day or two notice before SP1 ships.  There is no way that is going to be the case.  We are going know months, I would say a minimum of 3, and I am sure more than that in advance of when SP1 will ship.  They are doing a public beta of the SP for goodness sakes!  That means the SP will be in a public beta for at least 3 months before release.  Besides, why isn't anyone commenting on how great it is of Microsoft to be doing a public beta release of SP1.  That's huge!  And that's tons of warning in and of itself.  I'm sorry Michael but this fear of Microsoft surprising everyone is SP1 is un-warranted, un-founded by track history, and quite frankly paranoid.  It almost seems as though people are just looking for a reason to be upset with Microsoft.

As for Microsoft holding back information simply because they want customers to not wait for it to deploy Vista, who can blame them?  Who's fault is it that Microsoft would be paranoid about a release date for SP1?  It's our fault, us in the industry and decision makers.  100%, our fault.  This notion of 'only deploy after SP1 for any new OS' came from is ridiculous.  My recommendation?  Everyone, take a step back.  Try looking at things from Microsoft's point of view, as a business.  If the majority of you customers have decided they will only deploy your product after your service pack, why even release the product pre-SP1?  Maybe Microsoft should call the RC phase of their beta RTM, and RTM SP1?  (Of course I am being ridiculous here.)  You can only make a product so perfect by RTM, and then you have to wait for the field to show you where you went wrong.  If no one will deploy, yes, it hurts their bottom line, big.  So, can anyone argue that this is 100% our fault?  Let's be realistic folks.

Oops, forgot just one more thing.  Just because SP1 releases, also doesn't mean you have to roll it out immideately either.  And don't tell me apps will require it immideately, because they won't.  It will be 6 months post SP1 release before any business critical app requires SP1.  Now, I could be eating my words on all of my predictions, but I highly doubt it based on my experience and the track record of Microsoft.

That's the thing Michael.  Microsoft doesn't have a release date for SP1.  I am sure they have internal milestones to try and keep the project on track, but there are specific things they are considering a requirement for SP1, and want to make sure those things can/will be done before creating, even internally, a release date.  Microsoft is going to release the date of SP1 as soon as they know what it's going to be.  It's that simple.  In my humble opinion the secrecy of the release date is far more weighted because of development needs than marketing strategy.