When Is A Visaster Service Pack Not A Service Pack?

Microsoft has released a "performance and reliability update" for Vista
users who can't or won't install SP1. Now in its turn, there is
a "performance and reliability update" for Vista users who DID install SP1.

So what makes a "performance and reliability update" NOT a "service pack"?
Does the "performance and reliaility update" turn SP1 into SP1a, or perhaps
SP1.1 or SP1.01? And for those who didn't install SP1, are they now SP0.1?

Why wouldn't/couldn't they install SP1 anyway? Surely after going all the
way from XP to Vista, could a teentsy weentsy service pack really be all
that scary?

<http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/06/25/performance-and-reliability-update-for-vista-sp1-released>

 

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:36:28 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> could a teentsy weentsy service pack really be all that scary?

No.

-ws

 

In article <>, Will Spencer did
write:

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:36:28 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> could a teentsy weentsy service pack really be all that scary?
>
> No.

So why do we need a "performance and reliability update" for Visaster users
who won't install SP1, then?

 

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:11:55 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In article <>, Will Spencer did
> write:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:36:28 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> could a teentsy weentsy service pack really be all that scary?
>>
>> No.
>
> So why do we need a "performance and reliability update" for Visaster users
> who won't install SP1, then?

It was already available months before SP1 came out.

-ws

 

In article <8jj3n90tpngq$>, Will Spencer did
write:

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:11:55 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In article <>, Will Spencer did
>> write:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:36:28 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> could a teentsy weentsy service pack really be all that scary?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> So why do we need a "performance and reliability update" for Visaster
>> users who won't install SP1, then?
>
> It was already available months before SP1 came out.

No, it was released two months after SP1
<http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/05/15/performance-and-reliability-update-for-vista-rtm-released>.

So the question again: why?

 

>On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:36:28 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

Why do you care, it's not like you'll ever touch it. Unless you're like those
anti-porn protesters who despise it but can't keep away from it - just to inform
everyone how "bad" it is of course, nudge nudge....