I had a blog post earlier asking why some users had not installed SP3 for XP.
Anyway, the question here is similar: For those users of Windows Vista who haven’t installed SP1 or SP2, why? I receive many crash logs where the user is still on Vista “RTM”, and I can’t think of any reason for someone to be two service packs behind in their updates. For the upcoming v3.5.2, I plan on adding telemetry so that I can get real numbers on this, similar to how I am able to get statistics on OS version, CPU bitness, and locale.
In fact, there are two questions…
- For those who are still on Vista “RTM”, why are you two service packs behind? Why haven’t you installed SP1 or SP2?
- For those are are on Vista SP1, why haven’t you installed SP2?
Part of the reason for asking this question should be obvious: I want to require SP1 (or even SP2!) as a minimum for Vista users (this would not affect XP users). This will reduce my test matrix, and give me more time for other things (like new features, and drinking beer).
paint.net blog 
It’s obviously for every Russian user:
1. Internet traffic is expensive. There are users without regular Internet access.
2. Piracy.
3. Computer dummies. If you turn off windows update for users than you get more control and less phone rings; security problems don’t bother anybody.
Sore subject. Windows Update crashes when I try to install SP1 😦
I agree. There are no problem to install a SP.
On my work machine I didn’t install SP2 yet since I didn’t want to wait around half a day for it to install. I figured it would take about the same time to install Win 7 and the necessary development tools so I postponed SP2 install and will probably replace Vista by Win 7 instead of installing SP2.
Also Vista SP2 brought relatively few changes that weren’t rolled out with individual updates before, very much unlike SP1.
Ah, people usually are to lazy. OR they are just users and are afraid.
The primary reason is piracy. I agree Vista users should level up to SP1 at least. Great software by the way.
Ah yes, the service packs. I once added a check for the latest service pack in the install condition of our software.
After getting a lot of flak from angry users who didn’t want (could?) install the latest SP, I changed it into a non-blocking warning. Ironically I now still get flak because occasionally people still try to install that old version of our software. People just don’t want to upgrade 🙂
I was on Vista SP1 for a while and tried several times to install SP2. The install always failed with a cryptic error message. I didn’t want to wipe my computer clean and start over. So, I gave up and installed Windows 7 instead.
Computer not being mine. For instance, at school, work, uni, internet cafes, etc. And at some of these places they really don’t care about updates and security holes.
And then, there are users who really don’t know what an SP is and why they should bother…
myroslav hit the nail on the head, mostly.
For every 10 PCs that I “fix” for friends and family, 8 of them are outdated and takes me 2-3 hours, on average, to get them up to speed. When I ask them why they haven’t updated, most say “Updated? What’s that?”
People DO NOT read TFM.
“I want it working NOW and I do not want to expend any effort or thought.”
Maybe you can start REQUIRING the updates in order for PAINT.NET to be installed. A nice simple explanation that their system in not up to date may be sufficient. Nothing too complicated, otherwise you lose them.
“If it works, don’t fix it!”
For example I won’t update my wife’s laptop to SP2, because it is issued to her by the company and managed by the company. I won’t risk disrupting her work for some theoretical benefits.
I’m not sure that you should “REQUIRE” users upgrade to the latest SP. From a purely ideological point of view, it would be great, but I think in reality for every one person who DID update to the latest SP you’d get 10 who just don’t bother to install. After all, installing a whole service pack “just” for Paint.NET is probably a lot to ask!
Now, as for “why”, I’d probably side with Clifford and others on this point. Most people look at that little “there are updates available for your computer” popup and just click the “X” button to get rid of it. They don’t CARE about “updates” since it already works. It’s only when things stop working that they call us and we have to go through all the updates and so on for them (well, we probably don’t HAVE TO, but it’s that obsessive-compulsive nature that all computer geeks have in some amount that forces us to sit through all the updates :p~)
I recently found that one home PC hadn’t been updated to SP2, and that was all because the admin account rarely gets logged on.
It seems when the login is a non admin account the default setting is that (some?) updates won’t be applied.
I’d expect lots of people who’ve had Vista set up for them by someone else might be in the same position.
Dean -“Now, as for “why”, I’d probably side with Clifford and others on this point. Most people look at that little “there are updates available for your computer” popup and just click the “X” button to get rid of it. They don’t CARE about “updates” since it already works. It’s only when things stop working that they call us and we have to go through all the updates and so on for them”
Can you see the contradiction here – it only works until it doesn’t – and then applying the SP makes it work again……
Anyway, as far as my workplace is concerned, “What’s Vista?”!
Maybe you shouldn’t require the latest service on XP/Vista that came out last week, for example. HOWEVER, maybe require the latest service pack as of 6/12 months before your latest release of Paint.NET.
If a service pack has been out 6 months and you’ve not applied it, that may be somewhat common. But if it’s been out a FULL 12 months and you’ve not applied it…that’s unnecessary.
In your description as to ‘why’ the service pack is required to install Paint.Net, just inform the user the SP has been out for 12 months and has great benefits such as security fixes, etc that will not only allow Paint.NET to run better but also their operating system as a whole.
Just a thought, anyway…
I have always wondered about this as well. It seems silly to not update. I just read an article where people were all upset because Office 97 causes problems under Windows 7. I just don’t understand why people never update anything…
Though Kiril’s suggestion about bandwidth makes sense in some countries…
Matt: Never change a running system. If all works fine why bother? And I’ve seen enough things that break with an update/service pack/whatever so far. Especially companies are traditionally reluctant to upgrade.
I installed SP1 installed but no SP2 because I have retired Windows Vista in favor of XP, due to hardware requirement problem. If I one day upgrade, I’ll install Windows 7.
Machines under my administration run without any problem with SP2.
All of my things are up to date, but i will admit that some people are afraid to upgrade.
Personally I think you should make it a requirement if you feel you’d prefer your requirements. As I understand, this was a graduate project endorsed by Microsoft to highlight their newest .Net technologies. If that is the credo then I’d say it only makes since to have the requirements that give an overall experience indicative of the most recent Windows environments.
Besides- This community is only a small sample in the world of Windows users. This wouldn’t cripple the world if you specified requirements.
Andy, in your second sentence, the key word is “was”. Paint.NET is not a project that is overseen by Microsoft, even though I myself am a Microsoft employee. I do take more into account than the desire to showcase the latest technologies — I must also be mindful of those who are not yet in possession of them, even if acquiring them is via a free download.
I think that you should require SP2, if it makes your job in anyway better or easier plus you would be helping many people out by alerting to them that it exists…
SP1 and SP2 make vista amazing.. i can’t think of why someone wouldn’t install them (also arnt they only like 100-200mb?)
Unless there’s something you want to do with Paint.NET that won’t work without SP1/2 I would consider just making it explicitly clear at installation time that the product is unsupported if not running the correct service pack. However I don’t think you should actively prevent installation on a non-supported version.
Well, believe it or not, there are people who still run on dial-up. >.> I know of at least one.(I hate to make this comparison, but it’s the only one I know that’s kind of appropriate in this case.) And, like roaches, if there’s one you see, there’s a hundred you don’t.
On some machines it was impossible to install Vista SP1 or later for a long time because of missing or crappy drivers.
i.e. Lifebook T 4215 from Fujitsu Siemens.
Installation of Vista SP1 failed for a very long time due to crappy audio drivers (Sigmatel).
And they didn’t even get around to offer working Bluetooth drivers for Vista yet. The drivers they offer (Toshiba v5) will crash your explorer every few minutes.
-> Version 6 would work – but where should the average user get this information from…
On my multi-boot system, it took two attempts of installing Vista SP2 that failed before last Friday I read cbs.log and found out that I had to make the Vista partition active before Vista SP2 could update the bootloader! After doing that the Vista SP2 install finally was successful!