Microsoft posts fully integrated Windows Vista/Server 2008 with SP2 ISOs

They updated VL customers with new ISO downloads too.

@ken: Since it's been shown that Windows 7 isn't really all that much faster than Windows Vista in most standard benchmarks, and most people on here would still call it "Vista 2.0", I'd say that a comment like that is a bit off-base. Vista SP1 is the stable baseline that many companies are working from right now. SP2 hasn't hit WU/MU yet, and it'll take more testing to deploy that. Windows 7 will need a couple of months to get last-minute wrinkles out, no matter how much Microsoft can plan ahead, and it's still already months away, so it'll be a while before any company deploys it. Vista as it is right now, is mature. Windows 7 isn't even released yet. And XP is so long in the tooth that it needs to be put to sleep. Keeping it up to date is like putting a band-aid on a sabre impalement wound.

"Since it's been shown that Windows 7 isn't really all that much faster than Windows Vista in most standard benchmarks, and most people on here would still call it "Vista 2.0", I'd say that a comment like that is a bit off-base." One of the reasons they call it that is because of the bad reputation Vista has earned over the last couple of years. They hope that by calling it "Vista 2" or "Vista SP3", people will be wary of Windows 7. Here's another change: http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090516/windows-7-native-virtual-wifi-...

Want a faster Win 7, then buy a faster CPU and some more RAM, dangit. Isn't it worth the price to say you the time? Vista isn't slow on either of my $399 laptop or my Mac Pro tower with a 3GHz Quad Xeon. Also, with 7 lower hardware requirements, people should be jumping for joy, especially netbook lovers. Like Paul said, there's no real world tests. Like Wae said, how fast do you think a cheapo computer will be? You get what you pay for. [the only thing left of my $400 after rebate eMachine is the case, the modem and the DVD drive. The other hardware parts died and were replaced. I got what I aid for, a computer that lasted 15 months. It only cost me $100 after rebates to replace the motherboard, PSU, CPU, HD (used an old one from an old computer) and get more RAM]. Wae, how can they believe that 7 is Vista 2.0as 7 has much lower hardware requirements? Jeez, most upgrades go in the opposite direction.

"Or better yet, Windows 98 to Windows Me." For me? AWESOME! 98 sucked, but then I had proper hardware support for Me.

DRWAM "how can they believe that 7 is Vista 2.0" Well, at least we haven't had one say it's built on top of MS-DOS yet. (The last Windows built on top of MS-DOS was Windows for Workgroups 3.11 which was replaced 14 years ago with Windows 95 but I've seen the arrogantly ignorant insist that Vista still uses MS-DOS so I suspect it's just a matter of time)

" how can they believe that 7 is Vista 2.0as 7 has much lower hardware requirements?" Actually, if you read the specs closely, the minimum hardware requirements are the same as Vista's recommended ones. Vista's official requirements were lower, albeit too low IMHO. I know what you mean though - it runs better on lower end hardware that Vista wasn't designed for, specifically Atom-based systems with low amounts of RAM. I just don't believe that anyone should run Windows 7 on anything less than what Vista runs acceptably on. That is, I wouldn't recommend anyone to run on something with less than 1GB of RAM, or less than a socket 775 Intel CPU, preferably something with a 945 chipset or newer. Atom systems will run Windows 7 alright, but I'd have to say that the Z-series chipsets are a letdown when it comes to Aero performance. I'm really waiting for Ion-based netbooks to make the grade before I can say confidently that someone could use a netbook for everyday tasks with a decent amount of performance. Current netbooks can't handle HD video, and that's the major issue I have with them. Video sites are the ultimate Web 2.0 multimedia service, and many are already offering 720p HD video. Most netbooks can't handle that at full screen, so until that changes, I still consider them a bit of a gimmick for the consumer side. I'd say they make better devices for businesses that use intranet-based web services. I'd recommend a netbook to a company looking to offer mobile workers something small that works with light Office duties, or else does all of their work from a SharePoint application. I can see businesses moving more towards self-hosted SharePoint web apps, and locally-hosted copies of the web app versions of Office come 2010. Outlook Web Access already offers much of the functionality of the desktop version, and Microsoft has some amazing SharePoint web app templates that take a lot of data processing and communication tasks into a web browser. What's missing is the web-app versions of Office. And that's all perfectly in-line with what a netbook is for - they certainly don't do consumer multimedia any justice.

"The last Windows built on top of MS-DOS was Windows for Workgroups 3.11 which was replaced 14 years ago with Windows 95 but I've seen the arrogantly ignorant insist that Vista still uses MS-DOS so I suspect it's just a matter of time" Ooooh, but it still supports the CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT files, so it MUST be running on top of DOS! ;) BTW: I do wish that Microsoft had in-built support for mounting ISO's in Windows 7.

lotsa "Somewhere in the depths of your respective basements, you and "Waethorn" are probably still running a copy of Microsoft Bob and pining for the good old days." Sorry to disappoint you but I'm on Windows 7 Ultimate RC and am looking forward to Windows 8. I do have a nice IBM PC/AT Model 339 running Windows 1.0 and a 512K Fat Mac around to remember what things were like when I took the gamble on that new GUI thing back in the mid '80s. Oh, and I did evaluate Microsoft Bob to see if there was a business case for developer or support courseware for it. Bob was actually a nice product for its niche. It gets laughed at by people who never used it and don't understand the needs of really low-end users. Unfortunately it was a little ahead of its time for the hardware and really could have used touch and voice input.

lotsamystuff said: "Think about it this way: how was your experience going from Windows 95 to 98?" Or better yet, Windows 98 to Windows Me. My Take: Have you actually used the beta or the RC? From the ignorance in the comment, I would have to say no. I agree with Leo Laporte from a few Windows Weekly, that Windows 7 is more akin to a modern version of Windows 2000. If anything. You're using the same complaints that every hardcore Mac fan uses with every new version of Windows. Frankly, after 16 years as the top OS, its getting a bit stale by now. Besides, the so called benchmark testing done by PC World and others is really a useless metric when people in the real world can tell the difference. Are you so desperate to pump up Apple that you'd take desperation shots at two guys who really like Microsoft products? Seriously? We know where their loyalties are. Besides, WWDC will be around next month and you guys can actually see what SnowLeopard looks like. Let the damn products speak for themselves. The Apple has definintely fallen far from the tree.

@lotsamystuff "Think about it this way: How was your experience going from Windows 95 to 98?" Absolutely fantastic. I was working with JavaScripts on Netscape Navigator at the time. Every second JavaScript error took down Netscape which took the system with it. I was rebooting all day. Windows 98 was like some sort of Godsend in comparison. Far fewer crashes - plenty nevertheless - but far fewer in comparison. Basically I skipped Windows Me. Instead I went from Windows 98 to Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was fantastic. Stable but not so fast on a Pentium 133 - so I went out and got a Pentium III 450 Mhz - I was actually sad to move to XP from it.

What I find most hilarious about the OS extremists on both sides is that you all say how the other side is "this or that" and that you don't believe that they would act one way or the other...but in reality you are all the same simple minded people that have an unnatural devotion to companies that both make good products and want your money. I'm pretty sure that none of you are currently being paid for that service. It's like the kids today all wearing re AE or Gap logo on all of their clothes. --tayme

hamiltonstallings What you're missing is that tayme thinks anyone who ever has an opinion that differs from his or provides facts that disagree with him is guilty. And, of course, that's pretty much everybody. He likes to post these "all of you are idiots" posts every week or so - I'm guessing as some sort of ego self-reinforcement. We just tend to ignore them.

"What you're missing is that tayme thinks anyone who ever has an opinion that differs from his or provides facts that disagree with him is guilty." Good to have you back, "mikegalos"; we all missed your witty insight. I'm so glad Microsoft let you go.

Thanks mikegalos, for your witty comeback and your attempt to act as a therapist. Wasn't it you who last week asked what gave me the right to act as your therapist? Another double standard on your part. You really do need to visit yours more often. --tayme

@mikegalos - please explain how you, as a self proclaimed evangelist for Microsoft, are any different than some of the regulars here that Paul, and you for that matter, like to label as the iCabal? The only difference that I see is the company that you so fiercly and blindly support. --tayme

Just another typical day at the Supersite.