Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vista SP1 Coming In Q1 2008

Posted by kdawson on from the quicker-than-XP's dept.

Many readers sent in word of Microsoft's announcement of the schedule for Vista SP1. The Beskerming blog has a good summary. Up to 15,000 people will get access to a beta of SP1 by the end of September; general release is targeted (not promised in stone) for early 2008. The service pack is said to improve performance and stability, not to add features.

4 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Me'thinks by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's pretty clear now that Vista should not have even been released until Q1 of 2008.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Windows XP SP3 by GenP · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dammit, screw Vista, where's my SP3 for Windows XP?

  3. Re:Memory by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    BULLSHIT!

    I'm running 8 gigs of ram and vista 64. I've rendered things in softimage XSI that required more than 4gigs of ram. The problem is.. VISTA has already decided to cache 4 gigs of ram (FOR GOD KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK)... and then XSI's renderer (mentalray) says "I need more ram" Then the whole system starts to swap like mad because i dont have any available ram.

    THANKS TO VISTA 64 !!! and its fucking ridiculous memory management. Why does it need to cache 4 gigs of ram? What the fuck is the point of having 8 gigs, if Vista is going to cache 4 fucking gigs of it!? Might as well run XP32bit.

    I dont think MS really has their memory management figured out at all. It may cache for intelligent reasons, but it doesnt work. It causes the system to use the swap file and come to a crawl because it gobbles up all of your memory.

    I've litterally been in photoshop, and have seen windows say 0 free for ram because Vista has cached 4gigs out of my total 8. I NEED those gigs... and Vista doesnt release them. It eats up ram like a mother fucker.

    I was just thinking of going to XP64.. but the driver support is non existant on that platform.

  4. Re:Memory by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I understand what you're trying to say, but from a purely performance-oriented view this seems a piss-poor way to do things. I installed extra RAM in my computer so I could run more applications and work with larger data sets more efficiently, not so the OS can sit on it "until I need it" - which takes time that could have been used by the application I actually want to be using. That, and given Window's historically bad memory management, means I don't want Windows occupying all my PC's resources.

    So are you also upset if your CPU usage isn't near 100%? After all, what's the point of paying for that fast processor if you aren't going to use it's full potential?
    =Smidge=