Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista SP1 Hands-On Details
babyshiori writes "Users of Microsoft Windows Vista can rejoice in the fact that Microsoft just released a preview of the Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Release Candidate! The build is the lead-up to the actual service pack, which will be made available to even more testers at a later date. 'In our early tests with the beta, we saw some small improvements in boot time on an HP Compaq 8710p Core 2 Duo notebook. Before SP1, the laptop took 1 minute, 51 seconds to boot. After the update, that figure dropped by almost 20 seconds. Microsoft is also touting improvements in "the speed of copying and extracting files," so we tested a few of those scenarios. We noted a slight increase in the time required to copy 562 JPEG images totaling 1.9GB from an SD Card to the hard drive of the aforementioned HP Compaq notebook.'"
Exciting. Really.
http://www.forumpix.co.uk/uploads/1195414376.jpg taken from http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/yes_virginia_there_is_a_vista_sp1.html
This is really nothing new, Windows 9x, 2k, and XP were all turds when they were first released. Driver maturity, application refinements, hardware improvements, and service packs all make the experience more tolerable.
But I'm sick of the status quo and expected a much better OS when Vista was first released. If it took 9 months of driver development and OS improvements - then it shouldn't have been released 9 months early.
Thanks to all of the issues with Vista, its got a bad reputation. It requires a modern computer, yet most people are happy with what they have, and don't have any reason to migrate to Vista. I am actually extremely satisfied with Vista, but I got Vista Premium from my school, so I didn't pay directly for it. I also have a fairly beefed up computer (3 GB RAM). The problem isn't bugs or boot times, its running times, Vista is just about as fast on 3 GB RAM as when I has 1 GB RAM and was using XP. Now that I've gotten used to it, I like the way Vista does things. But again, people like me don't decide Vista's success, its people who went out and got a $600 computer 5 years ago, and have only known XP. What percentage of people who use a computer today ever used Windows 3.1? Windows 95 through XP are very similar in terms of operation. Vista is a fairly big shift, and getting millions of people who only understand one set of GUIs to change GUIs is an almost impossible task.
I bought a new computer shortly after Vista was released. My old PC had been getting on in years, and when it died I picked up my current laptop to replace it. I was a bit uncertain about using Vista since I had heard so many bad reviews about it, but it came pre-installed so I figured I would give it a go. After a few months of using it, I realised I was right to be worried. At least on my laptop, it was slow as hell, and buggy. It would freeze for no reason, and crash out of programs that XP had run without a hitch. Several of my friends had similar experiences. I considered going back to the store and requesting a tech have a look at it, but having worked in a similar place myself, I figured they wouldn't be able to do anything that I hadn't tried myself (and at the very best, they would send it away to be "looked at" and I would be sans laptop for a few weeks). So instead, I uninstalled the OS, and reinstalled XP SP2. My machine is now flying along and hasn't crashed since.
The desktop that died on me had been running Windows 2000 for over five years, after which I upgraded to XP when I friend offered to give me an install CD he no longer needed. I ran 2k for that long because it met my needs, and was more stable and powerful than the versions of Windows I had used previously (3.11/95/98/ME). The only reason I switched was out of curiosity, and with SP2, XP became the best Windows I had ever used.
I wasn't curious about Vista, but because of circumstances, I ended up trying it anyway. It was an absolutely terrible experience, and I am so glad to be back to my nice, stable XP. So, there's a lesson for Microsoft to learn. They had an opportunity to get a user onboard with their latest OS, but they blew it so badly, that I am now likely to keep on using XP for the next five years, and if I need to switch operating systems then, I am more likely to go with Linux, or buy a Mac.
Before SP1, the laptop took 1 minute, 51 seconds to boot. After the update, that figure dropped by almost 20 seconds.
...does it also now display the XP logo at startup?
Doing the work to install
the fixes to the OS in the
same way as they always have because the one
thing they've never done
over the decades,
and we know it, is to thoroughly check
over an initial release
again and again to make sure that it's good enough
and therefore we are all
expecting that there will be many
different service packs to fix the
results.
Personally I'd much rather they get around to releasing XP SP3.
Vista isn't on my personal radar, nor of my employers. But installing a fresh XP and having to install 80 odd updates is a PITA.
Not to sound too much like a troll or anything, but until it is downloadable, I for one will not consider it "near".
SP1 was scheduled for release this past summer (from MS announcements shortly after Vista Consumer release).
SP1 was then delayed to "by the end of the year" (from comments made a month ago)
SP1 (from MS's latest comments which you can find here: http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/071115vistaskip/ ) is now scheduled for release in Q1 2008.
I guess "near" is a subjective thing... but as of right now, it seems they really have no real release strategy... until it is done, I am not betting on "near" or even "sometime soon"
What really interests me is that they are quite well aware of the need to address these issues quickly if they want to see a greater adoption of Vista by businesses and/or home users considering upgrading - yet the release date, for a Service Pack that only addresses some of the issues, keeps slipping.
Yes, I agree it is a good thing that they don't release the SP till it's ready - but it kinda scares me that they need to put in so much time to fix the issues that they are addressing - and scarier still, that in trying to do so, their release date keeps slipping... it kind of makes me think that when they looked at the issues and underlying code, they collectively said "Wow, this is really a mess... we need a LOT more time than we thought if we are gonna fix this" (well, I think doubling the release time is a LOT more time... though considering their recent OS release schedule, they may disagree).
It makes me seriously wonder how severely wrong some of their programming decisions (or "push it out the door, ready-or-not" decision) with Vista really were - and how adequately a Service Pack can really address those issues. (is this gonna be just another band-aid?)
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Being comprised of mostly carbon atoms, if you polish the turd long enough at the right pressure and temperature - it will turn into a diamond.
Superman could do that.
Only I don't think anyone would like shaking hands with him later.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
[Allow] or [Cancel]
Have gnu, will travel.
My experience is that it Just Works. Everything is set up with a minimum of hassle and prompting, the defaults are sensible, and most of the eye candy has at least some redeeming value. (Like alt-tab shows you a small version of the windows, which is updated in realtime.) UAC is basically SEWindows, and it gets the same treatment as SELinux does (immediately disabled). But it's hard for me to fault Vista for that, since it is pretty much what every security expert was screaming for Microsoft to add.
Plus, Vista actually feels much more like it has a unified UI. I'm sure a MacOS user can tell you that the UI is more than just a window frame and menu bar: it's the "feel" of the whole thing that matters. Well, everything that comes with Vista (with a few aggravating exceptions, which fortunately I've never had to use more than once so far) has that "feel." If you've ever used IE7 on XP, you've probably noticed how utterly weird and confusing it is. Well, in Vista, it makes complete sense. (I still don't use it, of course, but I was tempted.)
I'm not a huge Vista booster or anything. The above makes me sound like I am, but you asked for reasons to use Vista, not reasons not to. But when I have to use the OS -- this computer is mainly a gaming rig -- I like it better than XP. And so long as I don't have to do any serious work, I much prefer it to KDE and GNOME. (For serious work, I need Unix. If I had to make do with screen and Alt+Fn, I would.)
The big question isn't whether or not Vista is acceptably good, it's that it doesn't do a single thing that XP can't. In many cases it does things worse/slower.
So is there a reason to upgrade from XP? I don't see one.
If you hadn't got the Premium version for free would you have paid $400 for it?
No sig today...