Slashdot Mirror


Vista Service Pack One Almost Here

arogier writes "After numerous delays and an actual release reversal, the official release date for Vista service pack one has been set for Tuesday, March 18th on Windows Update and Microsoft Downloads. It will be released as an automatic update on April 18th. 'It's unclear so far how a February snafu will affect SP1's roll-out. Last month, after Microsoft pushed a pair of prerequisite patches to users, some reported that their machines refused to finish installing one of the fixes, then went into an endless series of reboots. Several days later, Microsoft pulled the update from automatic delivery, said it was working on a solution and promised it would "make the update available again shortly after we address the issue."' It would be a good time for those planning to adopt early to perform requisite backups and locate their restore media."

286 comments

  1. I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by arrenlex · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great news, but it doesn't matter to me anymore. I already pirated it from bittorrent. Read that again. I was so desperate to make it work I had to STEAL FIXES for an operating system I LEGALLY BOUGHT. Says a lot about Vista, doesn't it.

    1. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by idiotwithastick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously, they sure took their time didn't they? I might have thought that with the poor reception of Vista they would be quick to push service packs, but apparently something held them up, even some quick fixes would be nice (though at least they still have updates coming through Windows Update). Personally though I'm scared to pirate it from BitTorrent, not because of viruses but I'm afraid it will break compatibility with stuff; one patch earlier this year prevented me from booting into Windows, and it was one of the "Recommended" patches that would automatically update.

    2. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by spintriae · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can't steal something that's being given away. And your complaint is equivalent to walking into a restaurant, ordering a meal, then complaining that they didn't immediately bring you the uncooked ingredients.

    3. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by bkaul01 · · Score: 1

      I got the "early adopter" version, too, but I wouldn't say I was desperate for it, just curious. :) Really, my problems with Vista, other than uninformed Mac users incessantly asking me what problems I have with Vista, have been pretty much nonexistent. I grabbed SP1 just to see if I'd notice a difference on the improved file transfer speeds.

    4. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's more like ordering a meal, then complaining that they DID immediately bring you the uncooked ingredients, hoping that they'll have time to cook it for the people who order later.

      -:sigma.SB

      --
      WARN
      THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
    5. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If your Vista experience is so trouble-free then why are you even thinking about file transfer speeds (a well-known trouble point for Vista)? I certainly never think about that, haven't needed to in years...

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    6. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by wish+bot · · Score: 2, Informative

      New Vista laptop: let me list the woes...

      1. Adobe Creative Suite install fails. Aparently not an uncommon problem. Finding a fix that works...far too long.
      2. Internet Expoder crashes on start-up. Also not a unique issue. Fixed by full reinstall.
      3. Blue screen of death (yes, it does exist!). Happens randomly while idle (twice so far).
      4. Super slow copy to network folder from optical disk.
      5. Enough random crashes when dealing with large files (no problem with similar hardware and XP, with less memory).
      6. The much vaunted "Areo Glass" interface seems mostly bling and little substance. For example, if there is a single login dialouge box in the middle of the screen and no other windows open, it's REALLY difficult to tell at a glance if it has focus or not!
      7. Too much window border in my windows and not enough window. Unmaximised windows seem to have a really deep top-bar.

      Plenty of other gripes. Enough that the difference between this and XP SP2 is day and night, while OS X 10.4/5 is in a totally different league altogether.

      --
      lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
    7. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by sc7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. Good luck with CS3 on Leopard or Linux too. 2. Probably rare. I've instaled Vista on tons of machines, never saw it, so your case is very isolated. 3. Again, maybe you, but overall I've yet to BSOD on Vista. 4. Yessir, I'm hoping this is fixed in SP1 5. I deal with large files (well to me, as large as 20GB at a time), and Vista generally handles them better than Xp or any OS X, although about on par with most linux distros I've used. 6. BLING? I think it's just enough ellegance (spelling?), It's not the overkill that was OS X 10.0-10.3, and it sure as hell doesn't have as much useless "for show" garbage as compiz. 7. I'll give you that, although on my new widescreen, it's almost a moot point. Your last sentence proves you're just looking for every little issue, and are really a mac fanboy. I could pull a LONG list of still unfixed issues in leopard, and even tiger, but maybe I'm just able to realize every OS will have it's issues.

    8. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by uberchicken · · Score: 1

      I was having all sorts of glitches (wireless- and display- related) that eventually convinced me to downgrade to XP; before I did though, Dell remote logged in and fixed a bunch of bios & driver issues. It's like a different machine now. I think the memory usage is still annoying enough for me to downgrade as planned though.

    9. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by William+Robinson · · Score: 2, Funny

      No....It's more like ordering a uncooked ingredients, then complaining that the waiters were wasting time cooking the food unnecessarily confusing themselves without knowing what exactly customer has been looking for.

    10. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it's more like ordering your meal. Then the restaurant takes 5 years to prepare it, all the time exclaiming that it's going to be the best meal ever. Then, when you get it, you find out it's complete crap, and it takes them another year just to get around to fixing it. Even after they fix it, it still isn't as good as the tried and true hamburger, which you could have got without even waiting the intial 5 years.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    11. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Here's my favourite bug. The other day, I had a bunch of windows. Probably about 20, with about 10 tabs open in one of my IE 7 windows (Usually use firefox, but I was testing some webdev). Slowly it started running out of windows that would open. Every time I wanted to open a new window, browser tab, the start menu, or even get this, a drop down box, I would have to close another window. But it wasn't just that, It was slowly running out, so I couldn't just keep my initial 20 windows open, I had to close down extra stuff. I was in the middle of debugging something, and didn't feel like rebooting. So I slowly worked my way down to about 3 windows and then just decided to reboot, as working on the machine was getting completely unmanageable.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    12. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      1. Friend of mine had this problem, quite annoying. She had to open a cmd prompt, register 2 dlls and leave the cmd open during install, that fixed it.
      2. Don't use IE, so not a problem for me
      3. I had 1-2 as well, changed a bios setting and it's been rockstable ever since
      4. Haven't done that, but file transfer speeds have been ok-ish so far, hope they will go faster after sp1
      5. Haven't had that experience and some of the stuff I do is pretty heavy, big files, media editing, heavy games, etc
      6. I switched to the classic win2000 look, no aero in my windows, no sirree
      7. Not really a problem, 24" screen with 1920x1200 resolution helps :)

      Only gripe so far is that Assassin's Creed crashed periodically, but Vista keeps on running.
      Longest uptime til I wanted to reboot, 61 days non stop.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    13. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      Don't hold back, otherwise you'll look like you're making it up.
      Slow network speed is a killer for me (Vista on a notebook networked to a Samba box.. no probs with other OSes - or XP).
      Vista is 64 bit, I have programs that do not work, Cisco client is one but there were a few - I've found work-arounds. Drivers aren't an issue as it was pre-installed
      Notebook came with 512mb ram - shared video...do I need to elaborate? It should be a criminal offence to sell Vista with 512mb ram - now has 1.5 gig and is OK ....
      had trouble installing VS2008, after trying to fix the dotnet framework stuff for 2 days, gave up and did a complete reinstall of the entire OS and put VS2008 on first.
      There are problems with Vista, I hope they'll be addressed (hopefully not by pointing fingers at problems with other OSes).
      I find OS X quite good, it has problems too but it definitely feels better finished - a bit like comparing the linux gui to the Windows gui in my opinion but Windows has it's strenths too - the main one is what you jumped on, lots of apps. My preference is still Linux but then I don't really use all the bells and whistles gui stuff and most of my needs are served by what is on offer with Linux (programming, music composition, recording etc - yes, all of these can be addressed by Windows but at what cost CUBASE, guitar pro, fruityloops etc for a hobbyist? Great apps by the way but I'm more than happy with the Linux offerings).
      My work requires work with VS (which is an excellent IDE, again, my opinion) which is the main reason for Windows with me but it is a reasonable OS in it's own right, like I said earlier, I hope they fix the issues and make it better.

      --
      BM3
    14. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by CmdrGravy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not quite, a better analogy might be that it's like going to restaurant and recieving a mediocre and unsatisfying starter and main course and when it comes to pudding being told that the pudding isn't ready yet and if they were to serve it to you immediately you might get ill and die. Nevertheless even hearing this advice you then break into the kitchen and gobble down the partially cooked pudding rather than taking the perfectly sensible option of going to the lovely homely Penguin tavern next door where they're serving wholesome, nutritious and filling meals for nothing, and with free beer.

    15. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by cheekyboy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      1) CS2 works fine, who needs another expensive update with no benefit.
      2) porn sites do that,but thats whats firefox is for.
      3) Why did you buy a Toshiba laptop dude
      4) You seriously use MS File Explorer? Use 2xPlorer or Synctoy dude.
      5) FIIK
      6) Turn that OREO off.
      7) OSX is just as bad really...

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    16. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great news, but it doesn't matter to me anymore. I already pirated it from bittorrent. Read that again. I was so desperate to make it work I had to STEAL FIXES for an operating system I LEGALLY BOUGHT. Says a lot about Vista, doesn't it.
      I so agree MS totally fucked up the release plan for this SP, especially vs MSDN subscribers, but.. downloading service packs from bittorrent.. if I didn't care about security and privacy at all on a given machine, maybe.. You do realize that these can be pre-compromised/rootkit'ed in a number of ways that you have absolutely no way of ever determining, right?
    17. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by ksalter · · Score: 1

      Vista comes in 32 bit flavor too, you know? 512mb RAM, you can run Vista on it - just need to start looking at shutting down some of the extra features (though the installer should detect your memory and do this for you imho). I haven't had any problems with VS 2005 or 2008 nor have I heard of any - sounds like an isolated problem to your particular install.

    18. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by autophile · · Score: 1

      No, it's more like ordering your meal. Then the restaurant takes 5 years to prepare it, all the time exclaiming that it's going to be the best meal ever. Then, when you get it, you find out it's complete crap, and it takes them another year just to get around to fixing it.

      So what you're saying is, Microsoft needs Gordon Ramsay?

      --Rob

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    19. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by pdusen · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, it's entirely possible to deal with a mission non-critical problem by patiently waiting for a patch rather than bitching across the internet. A bit of slow file transferring isn't enough for most people to justify, or even WANT, to format and install an alternative operating system with its own share of problems.

      (For the record, running Vista w/ Prerelease SP1, dual-booting with Debian Lenny)

    20. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      You aimed your reply at me but it doesn't appear to have much to do with what I said.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    21. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Hacked pirate version of Vista Ultimate online that passes all WGA tests already has all the good fixes already in it.

      Yes, the Pirates are releasing a better version of the OS than the Maker does.

      I dont run it, I tested it looking specifically for backdoors, viruses, trojans, etc... trying to see what kind of infection vectors are out there as this particular torrent had at last 2000 seeders.

      It's clean as far as I can tell, I haven't decompiled the whole thing looking but most of these releases are typically clean. It's the mee-too releases after the fact that typically are infected by some dip-weed trying to get his new pet out on the wild.

    22. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Ahem. CS3 works just fine, natively, on Leopard. After all, Adobe releases Mac versions of most of their apps.

      Not to mention that it is simply incorrect to say that Leopard ever has problems with anything as mundane as a file transfer, no matter how large the file.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    23. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by unbug · · Score: 2, Funny

      the lovely homely Penguin tavern next door where they're serving wholesome, nutritious and filling meals for nothing, and with free beer. I shudder to ask... Exactly what kind of wholesome, nutritious and filling meals are they serving in this Penguin tavern? Please tell me it's not what I think!
    24. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by clang_jangle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I deal with large files (well to me, as large as 20GB at a time), and Vista generally handles them better than Xp or any OS X


      That is an outright lie. You MicroTrolls just kill me. Why do you bother? I mean, do you even know that slashdot is owned by the Open Source Technology Group ? Moron.
      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    25. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      When I first saw that name, I thought you were talking about his other show. In which case, I would say, the don't really need his help.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    26. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by AcerbusNoir · · Score: 1

      the perfectly sensible option of going to the lovely homely Penguin tavern next door where they're serving wholesome, nutritious and filling meals for nothing, and with free beer.

      The only thing they're not telling you is that you have to figure out which ingredients taste the best and then you have to brew the beer yourself.

    27. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by street+struttin' · · Score: 3, Funny

      These analogies are confusing me. Can you explain it again, but use cars this time?

    28. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by archen · · Score: 1

      At #6 I realized that Aero was a failure. If I leave outlook open and my computer goes to sleep, it loses authentication with the exchange server and a dialog for login pops up when I log back in. So I start typing... no focus. alt+tab and type... no focus. After 3-4 attempts I just click on the stupid dialog. I realized that I simply could NOT tell what window actually had focus! Like OS X? Hardly. I can't think of any 3d accelerated options that hinder usability in OS X - most enhance. The only reason I even have aero turned on is in order to build up a tolerance to the default, which I'm sure few will bother to change. I think Microsoft lost track of the point that they were supposed to make computers easier to use, not just flashier.

    29. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Funny

      No problem.

      Imagine if a car goes to a restaurant and having waited ages for it's meal is disappointed when the starter and main course arrive and are foul tasting and inadequate for a car of his appetite ...

    30. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by discogravy · · Score: 1

      all these cooking analogies are too confusing, can someone make a car analogy or possibly something about houses and locked doors? or a locked car? on the information highway?

    31. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by calebleesmith · · Score: 1

      I pirated the fixes and it completely f*d my system up. I hope this one works better than the one I...um...found.

    32. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by pdusen · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? You asked how his experience could be trouble-free with a file transfer speed issue, and I answered your question.

    33. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry to prick your balloon, but you walked right into it. Leopard, in fact, does have file transfer speed issues. Which are often fixed by a simple run into terminal. Which is what I'm finding (relatively) refreshing about OS X. It seems to be easier to fix than Windows. But the issues are, indeed, present.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    34. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Apparently, it's not actually slower, but it appears slower due to the UI changes. The algorithm is apparently more efficient.

      Coding Horror entry on Vista copying speeds.

      Not that I care. I run Win2000 at home because Ubuntu doesn't run properly on my machine.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    35. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had 1 BSOD on my Vista Home Premium edition so far. Worth noting is that I have 3 identical systems at home and it only occurred on the one and hasn't reoccurred yet again. In comparison, I recall having seen 2 BSOD's on Windows XP Professional (and one was related to a failing hard disk).

      Jim

    36. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by Phleg · · Score: 1

      7) OSX is just as bad really...
      Excuse me? OSX windows don't have borders. And since the menu bar is fixed to the top of the screen, the top bar is thin -- about 2/3 the height of Windows, at rough guess. When was the last time you used a Mac?
      --
      No comment.
    37. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      Your "answer" makes no sense to me. The question remains unanswered.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    38. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by holyspidoo · · Score: 0

      To be fair, you would then have to google for an hour to get wifi working with the nutritious and filling meals :)

    39. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

      So, for your meal would you like the Vista Starter burger, Vista Home Basic happy meal, Vista Home Premium meal with fries, Vista Ultimate with the works? Or would you prefer the more satisfying Vista Business combo with large coke, or the Vista Enterprise works meal with the lot?

      Just figure out which one is the best for you and hand over your money. But remember, no refunds. Thanks for visiting.

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    40. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by stubear · · Score: 1

      CS3 has been a complete annoyance on my Leopard Mac at home. The EXACT same source disc at work works fine on my Tiger system. Adobe has a lot of bugs to fix in CS3 for it to be fully compatible with Leopard. On my Vista system, all I had to do is register a couple .dlls manually to get CS3 to install but it runs perfectly otherwise.

    41. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      I was so desperate to make it work I had to STEAL FIXES for an operating system I LEGALLY BOUGHT. Says a lot about Vista, doesn't it.

      It also says quite a bit about Microsoft.
    42. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      http://grumpywookie.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/problems-installing-visual-studio-2008-on-vista-x64/>definitely not isolated - oh and his suggestion did not work. Lots of other examples of that.
      Your suggestion of using 32 bit instead seems a strange suggestion, I bought a 64 bit notebook, I expected it to work with a 64 bit operating system that came with it.
      I have heard others say "you can run Vista with 512mb ram too, I do not use the "pretty stuff", it was dog slow no ifs, no buts, no maybes... SLOWWW...... DOG SLLOOOOOWWWWWWW. Memory is cheap these days, there is no excuse for selling the notebook as it was - not Microsofts' problem by the way - unless they encouraged the companies to sell in that configuration.
      You have just tried covering up some of Vistas problems by:
      a. Suggesting using a different version.br> B. Suggesting I made up how slow Vista (64 bit a least) was and suggesting disabling features is a valid outcome.
      C. You obviously did not search for any example of problems with Vista and VS and brushed off my problem - this does Microsoft no favours, they need people to tell them what is good with their product AS WELL AS what is bad, so they may address them.
      No sign of the OS X issues yet.....

      --
      BM3
    43. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you don't seem to be in the frame of mind to see reason, so I don't think anyone is interested in explaining it any further than they already have.

      One question though: what is it that's got you so upset? You've been extremely rude in this entire thread, and extremely unreasonable as well. To make it worse you keep calling everyone else a troll. What's the matter?

    44. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by jackspenn · · Score: 1

      I am not a picky eater, sometimes I eat with a VIEW sometimes I go to the homely Penguin Tavern and order the ROAST DUCK . just to look at the waiter's face (which is hard to see with the red fedora on his head) as he tells me I have to cook it myself. Better still every time I do this he goes on and on about while it looks like a duck, it is apparently a penguin and he is not entirely sure who made some of the sides as they have an open buffet. Whatever, I'll eat it, big question I have is why is most popular dish on the menu has an African name or hijacked African variant when nothing in it came from Africa.

      Next thing you know people will take at this wholesome tavern are going to take a word like organic that means "carbon based" and bastardize it to mean something else and then try to tell me my genetically engineered carbon based beef is somehow not organic.

      Sorry to be such a dick, but I clearly have somebody has a case of the Monday's and the fact that I literally work off of Braker Lane in Austin doesn't help. I don't need your mods to get over it, I need a printer and a baseball bat and for that lizard in the corner to stop looking at me. Course the way his eyes move around it is hard to tell.

      Now excuse me as I dive head first into that free (as in beer) beer.

      --
      Respect the Constitution
    45. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by starakurva · · Score: 1

      And yet, an even *bett0rz* analogy would be that it's like trying to use the fan belt off of a 1961 Studebaker to affix a poster to your wall, failing miserably, and then writing a letter of complaint to the vice-president of the Leif Garrett fan club in hopes that he/him will send you a discount coupon for a Chinese-language surf lesson. Doorjam hippopotamus!!

      --
      All you need is lurv.
    46. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3. Blue screen of death (yes, it does exist!). Happens randomly while idle (twice so far). From my experience with laptops, "random blue screens while idle" are often caused by a flakey hard drive or hard drive controller. This will blue screen (or equivalent fail) any OS, although Vista might expose this problem more often because of increased hard drive activity from Superfetch, indexing, swapping, etc.

      Of course, a more common cause of blue screens for new operating systems with new driver models is bad drivers. However, the "random while idle" part of your description makes me think it's likely something else.

      6. The much vaunted "Areo Glass" interface seems mostly bling and little substance. For example, if there is a single login dialouge box in the middle of the screen and no other windows open, it's REALLY difficult to tell at a glance if it has focus or not!
      7. Too much window border in my windows and not enough window. Unmaximised windows seem to have a really deep top-bar. These are valid annoyances for some users, but you know the interface is customizable, right? If you don't know how to change these settings:

      6. IMO, the best way to fix this problem (common on low-contrast laptop LCDs) is to change the colors for "Active Title Bar" (make it darker) and "Inactive Title Bar" (make it lighter). These are the terms to search for in Vista Help, MS Knowledge Base, or Google.
      7. The "official" term for the customizable window border width is "border padding." The default is 4. The "really deep top-bar" components (which should be customizable) are "title bar," "menu bar," and "toolbars."

    47. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by bkaul01 · · Score: 1

      If your Vista experience is so trouble-free then why are you even thinking about file transfer speeds (a well-known trouble point for Vista)? I certainly never think about that, haven't needed to in years...

      I didn't say I had trouble with file transfers. I saw a review that mentioned improved performance, and I was curious as to whether I'd see any difference in the speed of synchronizing offline files, etc. Curiosity about claimed performance improvements does not imply trouble.

      For the record, I have Vista installed on two of my four systems: my laptop, and my media center box. Its media center application was reason enough to upgrade to it on the latter; it came with the former. Of my other two active boxes, one doesn't have the video card for Vista and is doing just fine with XP Pro, and the other is a server. Offline file synchronization between my laptop and server is the file transfer event I most often encounter, so while I have no problems and really had no complaints about the out-of-the-box performance, I thought it was worth checking out.

    48. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by bkaul01 · · Score: 1

      CS3 gave me no problems at all installing on Vista 32 - didn't need to register .dlls manually or even tell anything to run in compatibility mode. Don't know about potential 64-bit issues though...

    49. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Even after they fix it, it still isn't as good as the tried and true hamburger, which you could have got without even waiting the intial 5 years.

      You could, but there's a big sign saying that the tried and true hamburger is about to be taken off the menu because it is inadequate for the consumption needs of the modern hamburger eater; in addition, if you get sick eating the tried and true hamburger, you will not get very much help from them with your medical bills (and they won't even apologize.) The tried and true hamburger has needed some new condiments for over two years now, but first they were "coming soon now", then they were "never coming", and now they're "in development" again. (In fact, they just added new condiments to the new meal, which don't seem to have actually made it all that palatable anyway.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    50. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      OSX windows don't have borders.

      This is a bug, not a feature. Last I checked (which admittedly was some months ago) if you wanted to be able to resize a window from any corner you had to install some hack manager thingy, then install some hack, and then use a modifier key to enable resize. This is just stupid, sorry. OSX is great if you want to do everything exactly as Apple declares that thou shalt do it, otherwise it's horrible to use. I had Windows XP, Ubuntu, and OSX 10.4 on my desk all in a row, using Synergy2 to operate them all from one keyboard and mouse (the Linux system, which was by far the most reliable of the three.) OSX was ALWAYS the one which made it had just to uncover a new icon and drag it someplace.

      Your mileage may vary; there are indeed great things about OSX. Unfortunately, most of them are bundled applications.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    51. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by pdusen · · Score: 1

      Ok, how about this: Slow file transfer was there, but he didn't care, so it wasn't a problem for him. Understand that?

    52. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by meimeiriver · · Score: 1

      Not quite, a better analogy might be that it's like going to restaurant, seeing that they 'upgraded' the menu: half of it is only half-baked now, but costs you twice as much.

    53. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by bitserf · · Score: 1

      That does kinda suck - They need to cater for the user crowd who is willing to install bleeding edge, so long as they understand it is bleeding edge.

      Luckily, we have a MSDN subscription arrangement at work so I just pulled it off TechNet. I'd be pissed if I had to pirate a patch as well though.

      I mean hell, if you're willing to do run it and shake out remaining compatibility bugs for them they should be falling over themselves to offer you a copy.

    54. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      I understand that many users only need email and a web browser, and that those users will be easily pleased with a toy-like semi-functional OS. Those are the people MS banks on. But those people are not qualified really to comment on the comparative worth of various OSs, are they? :)

      Real geeks don't need to make excuses to justify their choices, they know they've chosen well. OTOH it's hard not to notice how defensive many of you MS users are. That says a great deal.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    55. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by stubear · · Score: 1

      The first time I installed CS3 I was upgrading from CS2 and I had no troubles. However, I had to reinstall CS3 and because CS2 was no longer on the system, I believe I ran into the problems others are having with the unregistered .dll's. It was a simple fix that ANYONE can do if they can follow VERY simple instructions so I don't think it's a big deal. However, on Leopard, I can't hide most of my CS3 apps and they crash unexpectedly. CS3 on Tiger has SOME of these issues but by and large, it's about as stable as CS3 on Vista and XP.

    56. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by pdusen · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize answering a question with a perfectly legitimate answer qualified as "making excuses to justify" my choices. I am perfectly fine with the choices I've made, both with Linux and Vista.

      What's a little more sad is the person who says "Slow file transfers? How can you possibly not care about slow file transfers!? I knew it! Vista sucks! Windows users don't know anything! No one can possibly go on with slow file transfers! And if you disagree with me, you're just trying to justify your choice! YOU'RE NOT A REAL GEEK! DADDY DIDN'T LOVE ME!"

      Er... moving on.

    57. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      You sure are defensive.

      I suppose all these people are full of crap too?

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    58. Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version. by pdusen · · Score: 1

      Look, it's really very simple. Slow file transfers are there (Pre-SP1). I also don't care. So I'm a happy little boy and, and you're the poor cynical nerd who never gets laid.

      Luckily for me, things I don't care about also extend to your unfortunate situation. Bye bye!

  2. Awesome!! by moogied · · Score: 2, Funny

    Service Pack One is almost ready for release!! That makes it what, three more packs before its ready for release?? Not sure..

    --
    So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
  3. Moment of truth... by FoolsGold · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now to see how many "I'll wait for SP1 before moving to Vista" people actually follow through.

    1. Re:Moment of truth... by Sheen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am probably the only one on slashdot who uses Vista AND likes it. I have had exactly 1 issue with vista since I got it in Jan. 2007, that was a missing driver, which appeared on vendor site Feb. 2007 (webcam). So personally I can't see why everyone is slamming it so much. I will never go back to XP. ( this is not ment as a troll post, im just saying what i think of it.)

    2. Re:Moment of truth... by sunami88 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now to see how many "I'll wait for SP1 before moving to Vista" people actually follow through.

      That was, they'll wait for SP1 to pass judgment. Not wait for SP1 then blindly buy.

      --
      Sex. Drugs, and Unix.
    3. Re:Moment of truth... by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1, Funny

      Come on now Bill, enough with these alias accounts. We know it's you...

    4. Re:Moment of truth... by FoolsGold · · Score: 1

      Don't worry dude, I like it for the most part as well.

      BTW, giving an opinion that counters the Slashdot groupthink is a harmless exercise, so long as you aren't looking for postive karma. :)

    5. Re:Moment of truth... by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't have any issues with Vista. It and other programs crash just as often in Vista as they did in XP. But my problem with Vista is not that it has issues, its that I have to completely overhaul my workflow which I've been using since Windows 95 (and improved it ever since). A simple example is the new explorer thing. It no longer has a drop down box with all the parent directories, it shows some kind of history. Backspace no longer goes to the parent directory. In fact, there isn't even an "up" button, just a "back" button. It's more like a webbrowser than a file explorer. I never browse backwards, only forwards. Besides that it's much like a webbrowser, it doesn't allow be to customize the layout and remove all useless elements. Like the favorite folders, I don't need it, just show be the directory tree. I also needed to hack the registry just so that explorer will keep using list view for all explorer windows (dumb directory profiles).
      And that's just one of my annoyances with Vista compared to XP, others include: wasting memory using seriously heavy weight services (Mobile Device Center (aka. ActiveSync) uses 50MB in total while idle), windows search (it's not that great unless you index everything), slow file operations, even more useless eye candy (including stuff you can't turn off), ...

      But it all boils down to a single question: why would you exchange your XP for Vista?
      So far I haven't found anything.

    6. Re:Moment of truth... by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      I know enough people who didn't switch from W2K to XP-Pro until XP SP2. May be the case here too. That, or when they get a new computer -- as it's not worth the standalone upgrade cost alone for most people.

    7. Re:Moment of truth... by FoolsGold · · Score: 1

      I'd say that's a fair enough comment. I like Vista, but I sure as hell wouldn't pay money for it (not directly at least). If it was pre-installed on my machine, I'd have no problem, but I can certainly understand why people running a perfectly good copy of XP wouldn't see any reason to spend money on Vista.

    8. Re:Moment of truth... by IndieKid · · Score: 1
      You're not the only one. I installed it in April 2007 and although I had one minor issue installing it (missing nVidia drivers for a 'fakeraid' setup), I've not had any issues since. Before I decided to go with Vista I tried out Ubuntu, but for my home use Vista is a lot less hassle.

      I mainly use my home PC for media management (music, videos, photos), Photoshop and the occasional game of COD4 or TF2. Sure, XP might be faster for Photoshop and playing games (although for games the difference is so marginal as to not be noticeable now), but the Windows Media Centre front-end is great if you have a HDTV connected (even Windows Media Player can do decent upscaling with the right graphics card) and Windows Photo Gallery is very useful too.

      I actually find going back to XP at work annoying now; I really miss features like the built in search and the new explorer interface.

    9. Re:Moment of truth... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Informative

      A simple example is the new explorer thing. It no longer has a drop down box with all the parent directories, it shows some kind of history.

      This is one of those things that you really have to spend time with and adust too, because in actual fact, Vista really improved on this.

      If you click on the 'location bar' or whatever its called, it shows you the current path, eg. c:\users\documents\whatver... and has a history drop down of the last several folders. I agree this is sort of lame. There is also a back/forward button which behaves as it would in a browser; and the back/forward buttons aren't all that bad.

      But the real magic is when you have a folder/file in one of the lower panes (left or right) selected, then the location bar displayes a sort of breadcrumb view.
      eg: [myname] > documents > whatever >

      clicking on the myname / documents / whatever will take you directly to that folder. So that's our up button. Not only is there a button that goes 'up one level', but you can also usually go up 2 or 3 or more levels directly.

      On top of that clicking on the '>' bring drop down lists of the folders within that folder... so if I'm in 'whatever', and I click the '>' next to 'myname' I get a list of the subfolders of myname... so without leaving where I am, with 2 clicks I can navigate directly to an 'uncle folder' (alternate child of the parent of the parent). You gotta admit that's pretty slick.

      So we've got easy navigation up one, two, three, or even more levels, as well as directly into the children of any those levels.

      Backspace no longer goes to the parent directory.

      Its now: alt-uparrow

      That's not so bad.

      Frankly, compared to most file explorers I've used including Mac OSX's finder and Windows XP, Vista's is pretty good - once you take the time to learn its quirks and shortcuts.

      it doesn't allow be to customize the layout and remove all useless elements. Like the favorite folders, I don't need it, just show be the directory tree.

      Under [username]/favorites/links you can easily customize / remove any links you find useless, or replace them with ones you'd find useful (as I've done). Unfortunately if you remove all of them its not smart enough to suppress the section entirely; I imagine there's a registry hack for that, but really, in my case a link to documents, desktop, and a couple project folders is actually pretty useful are actually really useful, so I'm actually glad to have them there. And I got rid of the searches, music, and pictures crud.

      I also needed to hack the registry just so that explorer will keep using list view for all explorer windows (dumb directory profiles).

      Actually, there is a checkbox under Tools -> Folder Options -> Remember Each Folders View Settings

      If you uncheck that, it pretty much disables the 'directory profiles' you are talking about, if I understood you right. You shouldn't need to 'hack the registry'.

      But it all boils down to a single question: why would you exchange your XP for Vista?
      So far I haven't found anything.


      I think for most people that's a fair assessment. But when you buy new hardware, unless there is a specific compatibility reason to get XP I'd recommend vista over xp nearly any day.

    10. Re:Moment of truth... by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope, there are a few more of us. I use various OSes for various things. Vista is not all that bad on a machine with sufficient power.

    11. Re:Moment of truth... by Dahlgil · · Score: 1

      I too like Vista. I installed Vista as an experiment a few months after it came out with the full intention of sticking with XP till SP1. While there were a few issues, my positive experiences outweighed the negative by a reasonable margin and I never went back. A year later (i.e very recently), I upgraded my hardware and moved to x64 Vista--again as an experiment. With all the FUD out there about x64 creating all kinds of compatibility problems, I was amazed at how few issues I had. All of my hardware works (even a seven year old film scanner), and nearly all software I've thrown at it--even a few older games that I tried(like Independence War 2 and Ground Control) work perfectly. True, there is no longer a 16-bit subsystem in x64, but for the few 16-bit apps around that I like to use, Virtual PC runs them just fine. Vista has some annoyances, I'll admit that, but none serious enough for me to even consider giving it up. In fact, when I do need to use XP, it does feel kind of "old" now. Naturally, with all the people out there, I don't expect everyone to have my experience, but after having gone from VIC-20-> Atari800-> DOS2.11-> DOS3.1-> DOS5.0-> DOS6.0/6.21/22-> Windows3.1-> WindowsFW3.11-> Windows95-> Windows98/SE-> WindowsME(yuck!)-> WindowsXP-> WindowsVista_x86-> WindowsVista_x64 I can honestly say that upgrading to Vista is pretty much like every other upgrade, some part pain, but mostly a benefit (with the two possible exceptions of DOS 6.21->6.22 and Windows ME.

    12. Re:Moment of truth... by geekinaseat · · Score: 1

      I quite like it too, of course there are things that bug me about it but there are other things that I quite like.

      I do like the new start menu and the new explorer address bar. Just typing the first few letters of any application I want to run is great and beats digging through all programs > accessories > blah > blah to turn sticky keys off after your cat has fallen asleep using the shift key as his pillow

      I don't like how it handles networking, it takes far too many levels of gui to see your network connections, the Network and Sharing Center seems largely pointless to me and also one thing that really bugs me is if vista doesn't think it has an internet connection it wont allow you to connect to a vpn... as far as I can tell whether vista thinks it is connected to the internet is governed by the stars or the tides or something because it certainly doesn't reflect the actual staus of the connection.

      On balance, I do actually prefer vista. I have got used to it now. If SP1 solves any of my gripes then it will be a clear winner for me over XP.

    13. Re:Moment of truth... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      You really haven't spent 10 seconds on Vista, have you?

      It no longer has a drop down box with all the parent directories, it shows some kind of history.

      That's all XP did as well; nevermind that you can click those breadcrumbs and pretty easily move around. This has been a great improvement over the text box (which you can still easily get to).

      Backspace no longer goes to the parent directory.

      Yes, it does.

      In fact, there isn't even an "up" button, just a "back" button.

      Which is easily solved by the fact you can click on the directory in the breadcrumb bar to bring you there.

      It's more like a webbrowser than a file explorer. I never browse backwards, only forwards.

      You never go back to the directory you were viewing previously?

      Besides that it's much like a webbrowser, it doesn't allow be to customize the layout and remove all useless elements.

      True, not a lot of customization regarding the buttons.

      Like the favorite folders, I don't need it, just show be the directory tree.

      So open the Folders view, and resize the Favorites part so it disappears compeletely.

      I also needed to hack the registry just so that explorer will keep using list view for all explorer windows (dumb directory profiles).

      There's a setting that will force that... the same one that has been there since Win9x..

      But it all boils down to a single question: why would you exchange your XP for Vista?

      It's more secure than XP, and finally we're starting to have LPUA. Printing has been greatly improved; where-as XP had many problems that seemed to only be solvable by reinstalling print drivers, Vista has worked flawlessly. I actually like the new look. Windows search is very useful, so I don't know why you wouldn't let it index. Yes, a CD burner is useless unless you actually buy some blank discs as well.. Also it boots even faster than XP.

    14. Re:Moment of truth... by Marin3 · · Score: 0

      having run a low privileged account in Windows for 3 years i can say with Vista i can do almost anything with higher privileges without having to login to the Administrator account. This is major pro for Vista. I also like the ability of having a priority queue for wireless networks. Another pro is that i don't have many 64bit drivers for XP as i have in Vista, so going back is not a option. Plus the system is really stable. It takes a bit to get around with the system since some stuff changed, but that is quite normal for a OS that had 5 year development. I had this issue also with kde4.

    15. Re:Moment of truth... by gravis777 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are not alone. I LOVE Vista. The only machine I have had issues with vista on is my work laptop, and that is due to some crappy Intel graphics driver. However, they released a new version a couple of weeks ago, and I have not had any issues with it since then. Get this, I have had programs that stopped working in XP but work just fine in Vista. Go figure. No, I am triple booting on my home machine (Vista 64 Business, XP 64 Pro, and XP Pro) and dual booting on my work laptop, and pretty much just boot back into XP for those one or two odd programs that do not work right in Vista, and as they are programs I so rarely use in the first place....

      Point is, you are not alone

    16. Re:Moment of truth... by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      It can depend on the computer you run it on. I run Vista on my laptop - not really any issues there. It works pretty decently when I need it.

      On my Windows desktop though (a custom assembled machine), I ran into all sorts of problems. Apparently it doesn't have included driver support for the Promise Ultra66 IDE controller (but XP does . . .), which I have to use to interface 2 of my hard drive (my motherboard doesn't have enough ports for my optical drives and all my hard drives). So, I was without 2 of my hard drives when I first installed there. After trying to install what was supposed to be a working driver from Promise the system wouldn't shut down completely, and after I tried to restart it it hung at the start screen. Restart again, and I boot to the last known good config. It works again, but I still have no support for that controller. So I install my graphics drivers. They work, so good to go. Now I install my motherboard chipset drivers. Reboot, and the system is running like a 486. Takes 10 minutes to boot in, and once I'm in it's virtually unresponsive (it works, kinda, but clicking on the start menu yield the menu like 90 seconds later).

      At this point I just gave up and put XP back on. Like I said I use Vista on my laptop fine, but Vista's driver situation is TERRIBLE on any configuration differing from the norm.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    17. Re:Moment of truth... by Emix · · Score: 1


      This is definitely a fair assessment of Vista. I am currently using Vista Ultimate x64 on my laptop, which was upgraded from XP Pro. Currently, I have been using the system for 10 months without any BSOD problems, and only 1 cold boot due to a Quicktime installation error of all things (although that was a problem with Quicktime conflicting with the Intel RAID Matrix Manager and throwing my RAID configuration in a loop).

      I have been using SP1 for about a month now, due to a release via Windows Update for some x64 clients. I have to say that it is a major improvement. The total time from download to complete install was about 90 minutes. There were zero problems that I encountered. A lot of quirks that annoyed the crap out of me, such as network transfers and extracting zip files with many files/folders have been fixed. Not only has it been fixed, but in my benchmark, speeds for both exceed those of even XP by ~20%.

      Overall, I am pleased with the performance of Vista and have only very minor complaints since SP1. Most of those are really due to vendors that do not properly publish working drivers, but that is not really a MS problem as it is a vendor problem.

    18. Re:Moment of truth... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      It is clear now that Microsoft is scared witless by Linux, and the furious adoption that utter disasters such as Vista are creating.

      Actually, whilst MS have done nothing particularly to open up their proprietary interfaces and standards to Linux and other OSes, I get the impression that they do accept now that Linux "is what it is". I'm sure they're far more worried about the rise of Google and web applications now.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    19. Re:Moment of truth... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Heh, I was one of those people. It looks like I might do the same thing with Vista, especially since my machine has a bunch of older hardware in it that probably has not had a driver update for Vista (not that I've looked really hard yet). Given how some of it was barely supported in XP (BT878 based capture card for instance), I don't have high hopes.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    20. Re:Moment of truth... by W2k · · Score: 1

      Here, here. Vista's been working just fine for me. I even installed it on a 5-year-old PC and it runs fine, albeit not as snappy as on my more modern Dell Precision. It's all-around better than XP in any case. Installed SP1 (got it via MSDN subscription) recently and so far I've had no problems. I have absolutely zero reasons to consider downgrading to XP.

      --
      Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
    21. Re:Moment of truth... by Kaptain+Kruton · · Score: 1

      I am sure you are not the only one on Slashdot that likes Vista. But this Slashdot.... you can't actually admit that you like it.

    22. Re:Moment of truth... by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1
      I (now) know about most of those things. Also, you can edit the favorite folders thingy by simply right clicking the entries and by dropping items.

      The "uncle" selection thing it plain terrible, it's slow as hell. I'm much faster navigating through explorer by using only my keyboard. Alt+up isn't as fast as pressing backspace.

      With explorer in C:
      Doemy ddownfirefo

      kapbr

      Copy pasted firefox-setup-?.exe from "c:\documents and settings\elmuerte\My Documents\Downloads" to "k:\Applications\Browsers"

      Actually, there is a checkbox under Tools -> Folder Options -> Remember Each Folders View Settings

      If you uncheck that, it pretty much disables the 'directory profiles' you are talking about, if I understood you right. You shouldn't need to 'hack the registry'.


      No it doesn't. Every time you open an unknown directory it will apply a profile and simply ignore your "default" settings. So a new/unvisited directory with a lot of images will be opened in thumbnail view, even though you made list view the default.

      See the following blog post on how to really set the default folder view:
      http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/11/08/delete-and-reset-windows-vista-folder-views-or-folder-types-settings-to-default-clean-state/
    23. Re:Moment of truth... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Y'know, foldier view does the same thing. If you are in a directory with many subdirectories, there's a lot of scrolling involved, and if you are just looking at where you are then your eye has to jump around a bit. Also, there are valid reasons for wanting the folder view elsewhere in the filesystem. For instance, you could be seeking to copy files from several directories elsewhere. Finally, the address bar representation is far more compact.

      No, it's just a different way of doing it. For no real reason except to appear different. You're correct on the first, incorrect on the second. Backspace = back is a UI convention that is being pushed across the entirety of Vista to make look & feel more consistent. I'm not saying I agree with it, but declaring there's no reason just doesn't make sense -- if there was no reason, nobody would do it.

      That's moving away from a one-hand operation to a two-hand operation. No, it's a one-finger operation to a two-finger operation (one where the keys actually have a natural symbolic relationship with the action they perform). I don't know about your hands, and I don't have any super-small keyboard where maybe the right-alt button is missing, but this is a one-hand operation for me. Thumb and little finger, actually not very contorted at all on a full keyboard (less so than CTRL-X, CTRL-C, and CTRL-V; moreso than just backspace, admittedly, in that it is two keys).

      Why do I need to use registry hacks to make a simple change to the UI? Agreed, this change should be exposed to the UI. I imagine it was either an oversight, or they were afraid of users accidentally turning off their favourites menu and then being frustrated, so they didn't expose the registry setting.

      ...can turn a brand-new $2100 laptop into just an email machine... A brand-new $2100 laptop of two years ago into an email machine.

      There's this idea floating around, that if a slow machine cannot run it, then a fast machine therefore runs it slower. It seems to make intuitive sense, but really it just doesn't follow. Perceived and actual responsiveness increase non-linearly with computer hardware. Especially for things like Superfetch. Failure on one hardware config does not make the preference demonstrably inferior in terms of performance on anything other than that machine, nor does it even make the overall experience demonstrably inferior (could have worse performance than System 7, but, you get to do more than System 7).

      And if you want to change the way you work whenever Microsoft releases a new product, then by all means, please do that He didn't say that, he recommended it for new PCs, not instantly switching over to Vista on everything.

      I don't like some stupid changes too, like Add/Remove Programs being renamed Programs & Features when the main purpose of the dialog is to Add and Remove Programs (not to mention that even as far back as in XP I always set the control panel to classic mode). But I definitely want to change the way I work on some things, like the inline search, which has, for me, saved more time than Vista has ever wasted (note: I do have a system powerful enough to run Vista well).

      ...don't push your personal preferences onto everyone else... Where did he do that, except in the same sense that you are doing it with this post? Unless you mean the recommendation. In which case it's ridiculous to suggest he cannot make a recommendation just as you.
    24. Re:Moment of truth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of that clicking on the '>' bring drop down lists of the folders within that folder... so if I'm in 'whatever', and I click the '>' next to 'myname' I get a list of the subfolders of myname... so without leaving where I am, with 2 clicks I can navigate directly to an 'uncle folder' (alternate child of the parent of the parent). You gotta admit that's pretty slick. That's a really old thing, and it's been in IRIX for over ten years, see e.g. this screenshot, elegantly combining the editable (and scrollable) text with the possiblility to go up any number directory levels, not just the ones that happen to fit into some arbitrary fixed space. Additionally there's something useful that microsoft may copy in another ten years: there's a drop target on the left of the filename edit field. If you drag a directory in there, the file/open dialog will go there and show its contents.

      I think for most people that's a fair assessment. But when you buy new hardware, unless there is a specific compatibility reason to get XP I'd recommend vista over xp nearly any day. I'd recommend getting Vista Business or Ultimate or whatever other versions allow you to downgrade for free (assuming you can get it for only a moderate increase in price), so you won't have to shell out another $100 if/when you decide to install vista.

    25. Re:Moment of truth... by Slisochies · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for XP SP3

    26. Re:Moment of truth... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Y'know, foldier view does the same thing. And with folder fiew, I can already select multiple levels of heirarchy AND select a folder that isn't even in the heirarchy of whatever folder I currently happen to be in.

      Folder view is really big, and often the 'one folder up' isn't on screen. And one up from that might not be onscreen either.

      No, it's just a different way of doing it. For no real reason except to appear different.

      That's your opinion. I happen to think its a better way of doing it. My productivity has increased.

      No, that's not bad. That's horrible. That's moving away from a one-hand operation to a two-hand operation.

      The new shortcut is logical. And if I've got my hands on the keyboard, really what difference does it make? And if I've got my hands on the mouse, I'll just press the folder above the one I'm in in the 'bread crumb'.

      Backspace was uninituitive, why should backspace go *up*? It should go *back*. And now it does.

      Many people have hand and wrist motion problems, whether it's full disability or just lingering pain/stiffness.

      For you to argue that the new mapping is somehow going to aggravate RSI without demonstrating that the new mapping actually increases hand wrist motion is pretty weak.

      Maybe it turned out that most people go back and forth not up. So maybe using the backspace for back is REDUCING hand write motion.

      Why do I need to use registry hacks to make a simple change to the UI?

      Why can't I have the folder pane on the right? Why can't I get rid of the search box? Why do I have to put up with yellow folders? You can -always- find some feature in software you can't completely control via the settings. Some you can change via hidden settings like the registry, some you just can't change at all. Its true for every piece of software ever written. Deal with it.

      I do have to admit, the pre-Vista file manager is an easy-to-use program, much easier to use than anything I've tried in Linux. But that could be my own expectation of navigating in a text-based format on Linux. Any deviation from what Microsoft had is most likely a step in the wrong direction.

      Lets try a controlled experiment where 100 people who have never used xp use Vista's file explorer for a few years and then get shifted to XP, will they find it an improvement, or will they be annoyed by all the arbitrary changes and some of the missing features? Will they bitch that 'backspace' goes up not 'back' as it shoud? I'm open to the possibility they might prefer XP, but I doubt it.

      From the reports from Microsoft's own executives, Vista does not have the same resource requirements as XP. It is MUCH heavier, MUCH more overweight,

      Yeah and windows 98 ran comfortably in 32MB-64MB of RAM. XPSP2 only needs around 10x that much to run smoothly. I know I'd flip out if someone tried to get me to use XPSP2 with less than 512MB. Vista from XP needs what 1GB min, 2G comfortable? So around double-triple what XP needed? Hardly the end of the world... oh yeah... and it needs a video card with some key features.

      and can turn a brand-new $2100 laptop into just an email machine, instead of a productive tool for getting work done.

      For $1999 you can get a macbook pro, which recently won the 'award' for being the best Vista laptop on the market. My point here is that its not what you spend, its what you buy. You can get a VERY competent Vista laptop for $1000, provided you buy the RIGHT laptop, one with enough ram and an appropriate video card.

      And if you want to change the way you work whenever Microsoft releases a new product, then by all means, please do that.

      I -have- to expose myself to new OSes when they are released because I develop for and support users who use these oses. For the most part Windows has always improved from release to release, and Vista is no exception. 'ME' on the other hand was a true dog. (And even it had a few redeeming features

    27. Re:Moment of truth... by Karem+Lore · · Score: 1
      I have two machines in my house. I have a quad-core 4Gb machine running Vista 64-bit. I have been using Vista for over a year now on this machine and there are some niggles to iron out but nowhere NEAR as many as when XP (and even worse XP64) came out.


      I also just got a Dell D830 that had Windows XP on it and I HATED it. It was slow (new install, admittedly the Dell tools and other rubbish had been added) and un-usable. Upon booting, the load splash screen would switch to graphic mode and then stay black for a good 2-4 minutes before getting to the login screen (clean and new remember). I vowed last week to remove XP and Vista was not a choice on this machine (I have seen it on a quad-core with 4Gb). Ergo I went linux, Suse to be exact...I used to work in a FreeBSD environment and loved that, but Suse Linux went on my D830 with hardly a hiccup. I had to update via a wire to get wireless working (although this may have been not necessary and my own doing)...Oh yeah, my ipod won't connect to Amarok without running in root...My whole working life is in Linux now. I got my VPN to my office, my wireless connection, my openoffice...Fantastic and I don't regret it for a second...I had a little slow-down recently when I was copying 28Gb of music from my iPod to my laptop,

      Cut a long story short, I love Vista over XP...for games...and running my network printer. I love Suse Linux for work!

      Karem

      --
      When all is said and done, nothing changes...
    28. Re:Moment of truth... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      I am probably the only one on slashdot who uses Vista AND likes it.

      Probably not...

      SlashDot was a great place of news and commentary from 1997 to about 2001. You could comment with industry movers in the FOSS world and discuss high minded concepts.

      Sadly, then like when the Web was invaded by AOL, so was SlashDot by everyone's computer genius child that had just ripped WinME off their parents computer and managed finally to get a version of Linux to load successfuly. Welcome to the 98% of the new SlashDot crowd.

      Sadly, most of them have grown up and still don't realize that WinME was considered crap even by Microsoft, and there is a huge technilogical difference between DOS with a 32bit Environment and NT. Heck, most don't even realize that Vista is NT or why that is a good thing.

      Sadly what you find here is an interesting article or two and the rest is pretty much M$ Sucks and *nix pwns all now. But that doesn't mean that some of us 'old timers' aren't still around and are still paying attention to technology.

      I am personally somewhat OS agnostic in the religious war, but have admiration for technology in almost every OS, and in this regard Vista has some OS engineering that is quite impressive. I also believe that for 99.9% of the people running XP out there, Vista is a much better OS on many levels. Even for some Linux, or OS X users, Vista would be a better OS for them if they ever got past the 'MS $ucks!' mentality.

    29. Re:Moment of truth... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      The "uncle" selection thing it plain terrible, it's slow as hell. I'm much faster navigating through explorer by using only my keyboard.

      Hmmm... mine is instantaneous. As are most I've seen. Don't know what to say to that.

      Alt+up isn't as fast as pressing backspace.

      Agreed. However, 'backspace' to go up is:

      a) inconsistent with how backspace works throughout vista; they changed it to be consistent with everything else

      b) backspace to go back is a logical and natural mapping for what that key should do. ie... if some one said to a new computer user 'guess what backspace does' its pretty reasonable they'd guess 'go back' over 'go up'.

      c) going back is a very common task. perhaps even more common than going up. (and in many cases going back is going up), so maybe 'back' should have the easier keystroke than 'up'.

      d) alt-up arrow is also a natural easy to remember mapping, and while its not as fast as backspace, it is, as i said, 'not bad' either.

      No it doesn't. Every time you open an unknown directory it will apply a profile and simply ignore your "default" settings. So a new/unvisited directory with a lot of images will be opened in thumbnail view, even though you made list view the default.

      Ah, you are talking about the auto template discovery, not the per folder views. Turning off folder settings for each folder doesn't make every folder revert to 'list view every time'. It makes every folder revert to 'whatever template vista would apply by default every time'.

      Personally I think the 'vista way' is actually pretty good, but I can certainly not see any reason to force it on people, and agree that the UI really should have exposed the setting for this.

    30. Re:Moment of truth... by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      12 months ago now I brought a dell latitude D820, with Vista Business preinstalled. I was never happy with it, it seemed slow and bloated. With Outlook, 2x Visual Studio and SQL management studio open my memory usage was normally around 2.5gb and the machine was painful to use.

      The performance and reliability updates helped, and I installed the release candidate of SP1 as soon as I could and that helped too but I was still dissapointed and tempted to go back to XP.

      I decided to give vista another chance - I formatted and re-installed, installed SP1 immediately, then all my apps.

      The difference is astounding. I don't know what the problem was with dell's vista installation, but my memory usage is now 0.5-1gb lower than it was under all circumstances. Before after a clean boot I never had less than 1.4gb of memory allocated. Now its 800-900mb. With 2xVS, Sql studio and outlook I am using less than 2gb. Dell's vista image seemed fairly clean... but there must have been something. This was the first time I had not immediately formatted and re-installed after getting a new machine, and it will be my last.

      Overall my machine is much, much snappier and doesn't give me any grief. Vista no longer seems slow and bloated. My frame rates in FSX have also nearly doubled, which I'm at a loss to explain as I'm using the same drivers.

      So, now I'm officially a vista convert. It makes me wonder how many people buy a new machines with a dodgy preinstalled vista image, they find it slow and bloated, so they re-install XP, find it much better and then go out and bag vista.

    31. Re:Moment of truth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like Vista but it is a little unresponsive for my taste. I run Vista Ultimate on my HP with 512Mb of ram and a Pentium 4 processor, I have a Intel 916 GPU and a IDE HD. I use the Admin account for everything and I turned UAC off ( I don't need it because I run Norton 360 and Mcfee AV at same time for max protection). I develope apps in VB 6 and like to download porn and warez off of limewire. I like vista whilst running full graphics. Can anyone shed some light on why it is running so slow?

    32. Re:Moment of truth... by BadOPCode · · Score: 1

      In particularly since upgrading to Vista is most likely not going to work unless you happen to have this years technology for hardware. _MOST_ of the problems with Vista i've seen is people with 1 to 2 year old hardware trying to run it. Sometimes a guy gets lucky and has no problems. Other times... it throws itself on the floor in a fit like a 4 year old with ADS. The other issue is trying to run ancient old Windows 95/98 programs and blaming it on x64 if they have the 64 bit version and than if they have the 32 bit version and it doesn't work there than Vista in its entirety is a piece of crap. This is nothing new. Heck I seriously doubt my old copy of ApplixWare Office Suite will run on the modern Linux kernel. Software gets old and it dies if its not GPL. HENSE why there is a open source software movement. Sucks if your company paid Cisco a kings ransom for admintools that runs on Windows 95. If your company didn't budgeted that, in 5 years this investment is fully depreciated and therefor (very conveniently might I add) junk than they are foolish to spend that kind of money for tools they probably really can't afford. AND/OR shouldn't be issuing hardware/OS upgrades. Me personally. I don't get very excited about any OS. It's just a application database to load programs. If I have a good compiler i'm happy.

    33. Re:Moment of truth... by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that some of what you are seeing is due to some "adjustments" made by SP1. See Vista caches lots of programs into memory and this leads to what appears to be high memory usage. Lots of people scream and wail about how Vista uses SO much memory at boot time - not realizing it's cached programs for faster loading. Why this change wasn't apparent when you loaded SP1 on the intial install I don't know but I do know that many people screaming about the high usage of memory "just to load the desktop" did so out of ignorance. I have a feeling Microsoft tweaked things to either hide this somewhat or has perhaps turned down the caching some. Since it dumps those cached programs when it needs the memory I'm not sure it's fair to call that memory "used" in the first place.

      I run Vista Ultimate 64 on a dual core 4ghz 4GB machine and it's as responsive as I'd expect, I'm not sure I've even seen the file copy issues but will load SP1 tonight to see. I frequently move multi Gig programs so any increase in speed would be welcomed. The woman on the other hand runs Vista on a preloaded Compaq laptop and nearly threw it out the window - till I added a 2Gig stick of memory. It had only a single Gig of memory and probably a shared video card. Whoever came up with that config for a business machine ought to be shot! 2.5Gigs of memory now and I've not heard a peep out of her about it since.

      I'm fairly agnostic when it comes to OS but it looks like at least one or two of my current XP machines are getting wiped for Vista, one of them will go Ubuntu. I'll keep an XP laptop just in case but so far only one program has failed to load on Vista 64 and that was because the programmer refused to sign his driver - oh well.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  4. Backup - but do backups work properly yet? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative

    I believe there is/was a shadow volume copy problem with Vista that prevented complete backups. If shadow volume copy does not work you will not be able to back things up like the registry. Either way a complete disk image will work since you do it from outside of the OS. This can be done with "partimage" on knoppix for free or Acronis and various others for a nicer UI.

  5. Somehow... by unbug · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... I can't help but pity those poor Vista users. What should be simply the release of a patch has become a major "event" which people actually have to prepare for and which, from what I hear, is even causing something quite similar to mild panic. But then again, you do get great DRM for your troubles.

    1. Re:Somehow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is different from a new kernel version how?

    2. Re:Somehow... by FoolsGold · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like I said elsewhere, SP1 is somewhat significant because a lot of people have stated they will move to Vista once the first service pack arrives. Now we have to see if that will actually happen.

      I won't comment on the DRM because it really isn't as serious as a lot of Slashdotters think.

    3. Re:Somehow... by nixeagle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Random stuff does not break. Look at the emergency patching and releasing of the kernel that all distros had to go through a while back to fix the VM splice bug.

      All those distros managed to push a replacement kernel in a matter of hours/days that did not adversely affect user systems that I could tell.

      Likewise, this patch of an operating system that you pay for ought to work as smoothly as the free one. I'm not really sure how comparable the two are, but it is interesting that the linux distros were able to pull a hot fix like that without too much user consternation.

    4. Re:Somehow... by sunami88 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... I can't help but pity those poor Vista users. What should be simply the release of a patch has become a major "event" which people actually have to prepare for and which, from what I hear, is even causing something quite similar to mild panic. But then again, you do get great DRM for your troubles.
      I don't have mod points, so bring on the Flame bait mods. What do you call the Mac OS distribution system? Updates or epiphanies.

      I just want an accurate frame for your post, Mac troll or Linux user.
      --
      Sex. Drugs, and Unix.
    5. Re:Somehow... by unbug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And this is different from a new kernel version how? One big difference is that the Linux kernel (which is the one you mean, I presume) is usually updated in much smaller increments which means that every single update has less chance of breaking things. Another big difference is that kernel updates only update the kernel, not X, KDE/Gnome/whatever and all those programs which your system won't run without. These are updated separately which, again, means that there's less chance of breaking things.
    6. Re:Somehow... by unbug · · Score: 1

      I just want an accurate frame for your post, Mac troll or Linux user. Hmm, so according to you the merit (or lack thereof) of what I'm saying depends on what OS I use. I can't say that I subscribe to that view so I fear you'll just have to take a guess. Just to make it more mysterious, there's at least one other OS which I use fairly regularly.
    7. Re:Somehow... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      ... I can't help but pity those poor Vista users. What should be simply the release of a patch has become a major "event" which people actually have to prepare for and which, from what I hear, is even causing something quite similar to mild panic. But then again, you do get great DRM for your troubles. I think you're reading Slashdot a bit too much. ;-)

      Most people have no trouble with service pack upgrades, as they've been tested a long time before getting released.

      Actually, I think Vista SP1 seem to have had a longer testing period than usual.

      The DRM comment seems like a a non sequiteur; Vista SP1 includes no "great DRM" extras.

      Actually, even Vista RTM makes the DRM thing entirely optional. Those with a brain will just boycott DRM media and avoid it altogether. Like me. Playing pirated HD video on my 50" Plasma. Using Vista.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    8. Re:Somehow... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Informative

      If a kernel upgrade makes your system unstable, rolling back is just a case of selecting the previous kernel from grub.

      Infact there are few systems that would need a full restore, as long as you can get to a tty you can usually rollback any update you don't want (distros vary but it can be done in a debian system)

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    9. Re:Somehow... by dhavleak · · Score: 1

      But then again, you do get great DRM for your troubles. With a poinless swipe like that you lose all credibility - so the lack of merit did not depend on which OS you use.
    10. Re:Somehow... by DrXym · · Score: 1
      I use Vista and I haven't had any major issues with it. There have been some minor incompatibility issues with some apps that I have resolved, and some annoyances like UAC which I have disabled but in general Vista has performed extremely well. The Vista desktop is *much* better than XP's. Performance overall is slightly better than XP though games seem to have lower performance. I have no issue with the quality of Vista compared to any other OS I've used which all have their fair share of bugs and crashes.

      I have had no trouble ripping or burning anything I like on Vista. If there is DRM, it hasn't made the slightest difference to me.

      I do think Microsoft is far too tardy with its service packs. Putting everything out in one monolithic update a lot more risky than incremental improvements. Windows Update shouldn't be just for "hotfixes". There should be smaller releases that focus on specific areas.

    11. Re:Somehow... by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      I know you're just a troll, but what the heck, here are three differences:
      (1) No-one is forced to adopt the latest kernel by the desperate desire to just get the OS to do what it's supposed to do.
      (2) It takes a very special degree of buffoonery to have the money MS has to throw at problems and come up with a solution like Vista. The kernel is thriving on a tiny fraction of that budget.
      (3) If I want to fix Vista myself I can't because it's proprietary.

      Looks like you fail.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    12. Re:Somehow... by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      I see the MS trolls are out in force...

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    13. Re:Somehow... by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most people have no trouble with service pack upgrades, as they've been tested a long time before getting released. Actually, I think Vista SP1 seem to have had a longer testing period than usual.


      Ummm, were you off-world last month when enough people had trouble with Vista SP1 MS recalled it?
      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    14. Re:Somehow... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Another big difference is that kernel updates only update the kernel, not X, KDE/Gnome/whatever and all those programs which your system won't run without. These are updated separately which, again, means that there's less chance of breaking things.

      Only the kernel? No way of knowing if it's broken or not without a reboot and if it is broken then a reboot is probably the worst thing you can do.

      You're living in a dreamworld if you think any sort of update can ever be 100% guaranteed will never under any circumstances break anything. If that was the case, larger organisations wouldn't need change control procedures. This is the same regardless of OS - and more than one Linux distribution has released updates which have broken functionality.

      Though to be fair, it does rather seem that Microsoft have some low standards compared with, say, Debian.

    15. Re:Somehow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just commented on the DRM.

    16. Re:Somehow... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I am the family tech guy and I see a Vista causing issues with older hardware added after the fact to already stable Vista systems. In one instance they had installed a 16 bit soundcard with no support after Windows 98 and limited support in Linux to a Vista system with 24 bit HD sound because their stereo cables were not color-coded. Vistax64 Ultimate runs decent on my system after I turned off some bells and whistles and made it function and look more like a workstation and less like a kiddie computer.

    17. Re:Somehow... by unbug · · Score: 1

      Only the kernel? Um, yes. Kernel updates only update the kernel. Is that controversial somehow?

      No way of knowing if it's broken or not without a reboot and if it is broken then a reboot is probably the worst thing you can do. If it's broken, you just boot back into the previous version. Not a big problem unless it also trashes you disk, but some things you just can't protect against.

      You're living in a dreamworld if you think any sort of update can ever be 100% guaranteed will never under any circumstances break anything. How on Earth did you get the impression that this is what I think? There's a big difference between less chance of breaking, which is what I wrote, and never breaking.
    18. Re:Somehow... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Most people have no trouble with service pack upgrades, as they've been tested a long time before getting released.

      Actually, there is always a big hooha around incompatibility issues with any MS Service Pack - that was even the case for XP SP2, even though XP was all the better for SP2 and that hooha has now died off.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    19. Re:Somehow... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      In case anyone is interested in other OS updates, there's a new ebuild of "Imagemagick" on Gentoo today.

      Ho hum...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    20. Re:Somehow... by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Point I'm driving at is that the kernel is a fairly big thing to describe as "only".

      I think the crux of the problem is that there is an easy, built-in way to keep a known-good version of the kernel around to boot from in the event of everything going to pot. This doesn't hold true for a lot of other things, like X.

      File versioning such as you get in VMS could help - you'd just need a list of which files you need to revert back to their previous version to get back how you were and a framework to do this fairly early on in the boot process.

    21. Re:Somehow... by unbug · · Score: 1

      I'd think a decent package manager would be able to easily downgrade something like X if the update doesn't work. To be honest, I have no idea if it's really always as smooth as it ought to be, but as a naive user, I'd just expect it work.

    22. Re:Somehow... by Psiren · · Score: 1

      Ummm, were you off-world last month when enough people had trouble with Vista SP1 MS recalled it? Stop repeating bullshit. SP1 was never released. The recall was a patch that prepared systems for SP1 via software updates. FFS, this has been repeated ad nauseum.
    23. Re:Somehow... by Rary · · Score: 1

      Ummm, were you off-world last month when enough people had trouble with Vista SP1 MS recalled it?

      The problem was not with SP1, and Microsoft did not recall anything.

      A handful of people had a problem with a patch that happens to be a prerequisite to SP1, so Microsoft stopped releasing that patch via automatic update, although it was still available for manual install to anyone wanting to install it.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    24. Re:Somehow... by clang_jangle · · Score: 0, Troll
      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    25. Re:Somehow... by clang_jangle · · Score: 1
      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    26. Re:Somehow... by Rary · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, did you read the content of that link? It says exactly what I said, but with the addition of a poorly worded headline.

      To quote the article (with some of my own emphasis added):

      Microsoft has stopped automatically distributing a prerequisite piece of software for Vista Service Pack 1, following some customer complaints that it had caused system problems.

      And, to quote my previous post (with similar emphasis):

      A handful of people had a problem with a patch that happens to be a prerequisite to SP1, so Microsoft stopped releasing that patch via automatic update...

      Ignore the headline. Read the article. Start with the first paragraph. It explains that, despite what the headline says, SP1 was not recalled. What was removed from automatic update, but still otherwise available, was KB937287. SP1 itself wasn't actually publicly available yet, although it was available to MSDN subscribers, most of whom had no problem at all with either KB937287 or SP1.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    27. Re:Somehow... by dhavleak · · Score: 1

      (3) If I want to fix Vista myself I can't because it's proprietary. +5, Funny, LMAO.

      So every time Joe user has an issue with the OS, they wade into the code and patch whatever is causing it? For all your consternation on this point, do you yourself have the expertise required to do that?
    28. Re:Somehow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain this then, liar: http://www.news.com/Microsoft-pulls-Vista-SP1-update/2100-1016_3-6231299.html?tag=ne.fd.mnbc [news.com]
      uhm? The first sentence of that article seems to agree fully with the GP you are calling a liar:

      Microsoft has stopped automatically distributing a prerequisite piece of software for Vista Service Pack 1, following some customer complaints that it had caused system problems
    29. Re:Somehow... by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      You are splitting hairs, either deliberately or because you're brainwashed. KB937287 is necessary for SP1, therefore SP1 was pulled.

      How many years did it take those morons to build Vista, and how much longer for SP1? There are so many of you people in denial, but to everyone else it is as plain as the nose on your face that Vista is the biggest turkey out of Redmond since WindowsME. In one or two years I bet they won't even be selling it anymore.

      In fact, all this reminds me a great deal of the WinME debacle, right down to all the fools frothing at the mouth, splitting hairs, and telling lies to defend it. Most likely some of you get paid for it.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    30. Re:Somehow... by ToneHog · · Score: 1

      Agreed, since Windows NT4 Service Pack 1 I have had to make backups of the machine's OS before committing to a Service Pack, as even removing the Service Pack wouldn't resolve the problems that the Service Pack created upon installation. Let's hope, for the sake of the support community, that this will be a repeat of the XP SP2 release, with as little problems as possible.

      --
      Center bodied, omni-minded.
  6. Doesn't matter! by Sukhbir · · Score: 1

    And how about the poor people like us (in majority) who won't be able to use the BIOS Emulation crack anymore? ;)

    1. Re:Doesn't matter! by FoolsGold · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Download the Vista Loader (also known as a softmod):

      http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/03/10/vista-loader-20-oem-bios-emu-crack-softmod-update/

      I know it would be the Slashdot way to convince you to move to Linux instead, but fuck that - you wanna use Windows, this will help you continue to do so. :)

    2. Re:Doesn't matter! by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      You know something?

      I kind of feel for people who use Vista legitimately and either like it or don't like it.

      But I utterly despise gutless idiots who have no courage of their convictions and brag about about how "l33t" they are being able to steal something free of charge meaning that honest users like me have to put up with all manner of stupid protection mechanisms on software, music, etc. etc. because dickheads like you do what they do.

      Please don't brag about being a thief. If you don't want to pay for something that should be bought, then nothing sends a clearer message to whomever made it than just not buying it and not using it.

      And in the case of operating systems, if you don't choose to investigate suitable free or low cost alternatives, then bragging about piracy does nothing more than show your total lack of conviction and intelligence.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  7. A major upgrade by edwardpickman · · Score: 0

    To avoid any confusion with Leopard they made the letters VISTA really big on the background screen. This is a major advance over the smaller lettering in the initial release. To help add a familiar feel they also brought back Clippy and increased the size of it's floating Window. To help the less computer literate Clippy looks sad when Vista finds incompatible software or hardware. When you activate Office Clippy gives you a big thumbs up and add a verbal, "Thanks for buying Microsoft". It's rumored he looks sad if you activate Open Office and gives a little reminder that a study run by Microsoft proves that open source software causes Erectile Dysfunction.

    1. Re:A major upgrade by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      To avoid any confusion with Leopard they made the letters VISTA really big on the background screen.

      Thank god for that! Given the choice of those two evils then I'm afraid it would be "Big Bill" rather than "Small Steve" to whom I would have to offer my rectum for a "right royal shafting"! If there's a warning to direct me in the direction of Vista, rather than Leopard, even better!

      Fortunately, with trusty Linux and a smidgeon of XP, I don't have to choose either of the damned things...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  8. funny by joaommp · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gentoo 2008.0 was schedulled to be released on that same day...

    1. Re:funny by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 3, Funny

      unfortunatly nobody will be seen using the new gentoo until 2009, *begins compiling*....

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    2. Re:funny by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Wow a blast from the past I haven't heard about Gentoo in a while. Sadly enough I never quite got the system with the write specs to get a clean compile.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:funny by joaommp · · Score: 1

      It's a zen thing...

    4. Re:funny by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Mod down (-1, Obsolete hardware).

      A complete "emerge -e world" rebuild shouldn't take more than a day or two, even with a "fully sick" installation on any salvageable system. Unless you're a complete masochist and install OpenOffice.org from source; life's too short for C++.

    5. Re:funny by fast+turtle · · Score: 1
      The funniest thing about the blast from the past is that on the Ides of March (3/20/2008) I'll be wiping Vista Business64 from my drive and installing Gentoo64 even though Vista Business64/SP1 has not given me any major problems.


      Instead the reason revolves around the ability of MS to disable my access to MY creative efforts at anytime and for any damn reason at all and it's that reason I'm moving back to Gentoo though having 4GB of memory is another reason I'm going with the 64bit version instead.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
  9. Re:bah bah bah by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Amazingly, this sounds exactly like the version of Windows I'm currently using, so why would I upgrade?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  10. It's faster by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Having bought a new Dell laptop with Vista on that's lower spec than my work machine (policy is to update desktops later this year), my laptop almost always feels far more responsive.

    Plus, there's other unsung stuff in Vista i've not seen in any OS - the problem solutions centre (not sure exactly how to translate into English); when I got it I had my one and only BSOD in Vista. Shocked, I rebooted and as soon as I was back to the desktop Windows pops up a message saying "I see something real bad happened; do you mind if I see if there's a solution online?". Click Yes, comes back saying "Ah I crashed because of this driver; there's a update to it here which will fix the problem". It's never happened since.

    So yeah, there's reasons Vista is better. UAC is top too; I like to know when a program is gonna try and change my system (some try that you'd never think would - denied).

    It's an upgrade without a doubt. I wouldn't pay specifically to upgrade mind you, but I appreciate the changes as they come anyway.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:It's faster by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm using Vista on a brand new Dell XPS. But the problem solution center didn't help me in any case. I had 3 BSODs so far (since mid Januari 2008), and the solution center thingy never gave a usable information. So I've stopped using that thing.

      As for UAC, I've put that into silent mode because it annoyed the hell out of me. I know it's meant to be obstructive. But I need to use a couple of legacy applications. The UAC blackout thingy actually wrecks havoc with multi screen setups and DirectDraw applications. Or at least, it did for me. It would have been nice if it didn't nag me every time I started an application which I pre-configured to be run in administrative mode. That would at least solve some of the problems I have with UAC.

    2. Re:It's faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Vista may be able to explain why it crashes, but I prefer an OS which is more stable from the start, i.e. Linux.

      And as for programs changing system settings; that's hard to do in linux when you run programs from a user account rather than root. It's not Microsoft's fault that in the Windows software ecosystem, programs tend to do things which affect the whole system, not just their own settings. In linux, programs co-operate a lot more and they have individual settings (per program, per user) unless something is specifically system-wide.

      UAC is a bit of a botch. Unable to implement the notion of Least Privilege in their operating system, Microsoft punts the decision to the end user, who is typically unqualified to decide.

    3. Re:It's faster by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 2, Informative

      XP has something similar to the "problem solutions centre" as well. Like the other respondent, it usually doesn't have anything relevant, and just gives you a generic message like "such and such a driver crashed, go to the vendor's site and see if there's a newer one". I think it comes up as an option in the error reporting wizard, if you choose to send the error report.

    4. Re:It's faster by Jaruzel · · Score: 1

      I LIKE the UAC. There, I've said it. Feel free to stone me. ;)

      Seriously tho, it's a good sanity check. I tend to use all the tools for Active Directory quite a lot, and having the UAC pop up, reminds me that I'm about to do something potentially dangerous.

      -Jar

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    5. Re:It's faster by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

      If it's the 1530, goto the dell site and get the latest everything except wireless; specifically the chipset drivers - which you'll want direct from Intel (install only the driver, not the other thing too).

      Also, it really helps putting the drives in SATA mode, not HCPI mode.

      Oh, and SP1 too :)

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    6. Re:It's faster by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      UAC is a stepping stone to least privledge. Technically, it is least privledge. If the user you're running as is a member of Adminstrators, you get the Continue Cancel dialog when an app really needs to run as admin. If you were NOT a member, you'd be prompted for a username / password that is. It looks like an attempt to get people used to doing SOMETHING when they are about to change the whole system. Which is better than doing nothing and continuing as is.

    7. Re:It's faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UAC blackout thingy actually wrecks havoc

      The word you're looking for is wreak. Wreck means something completely different.

      Your representative from Grammar Nazis Local 121
    8. Re:It's faster by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I see you want to stone Jaruzel.

      Cancel or Allow?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    9. Re:It's faster by holyspidoo · · Score: 0

      It is actually expected for a new OS to demand higher system requirements. I expect it will run slower than XP on the same machine. But I want something in return. Fancy UI and desktop search do not excuse the slow perfomances. When XP came out, a lot complained about the speed also... but in exchange you got a system far more stable than 98. Good tradeoff. Vista is no more/less secure, stable, etc, than XP. Where is what we get in exchange for higher requirements?

    10. Re:It's faster by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I had 3 BSODs so far (since mid Januari 2008)

      IME those are invariably driver issues. That's not a flaw of vista per se though. Doesn't make it any less annoying though. And the only solution is not use the hardware or not to use vista, until fixed drivers are released.

      It would have been nice if it didn't nag me every time I started an application which I pre-configured to be run in administrative mode. That would at least solve some of the problems I have with UAC.

      Microsoft should not allow that. Their are SEVERAL issues with that.

      First its a security hole that malicious software can exploit. They'll just scan your system for programs that are known to need admin mode, and then launch them and crash them, to get admin mode for themselves.

      Second it won't solve the real problem. Developers need to write software that doesn't need admin privs. If they can get around UAC nagging by simply having users create a one time 'run as admin' setting they won't fix their software. But if users complain that their software constantly nags them they will maybe finally be motiviated to fix it. It sucks for legacy apps that will never be updated, but its the only hope that current and new apps will be written properly.

      The UAC blackout thingy actually wrecks havoc with multi screen setups and DirectDraw applications. Or at least, it did for me.

      Again, sounds like driver issues. UAC supports directdraw and multimonitor just fine. I know that many games have issues with UAC coming up while they are running but UAC shouldn't be comming up while a full screen FPS is going anyway. (And games flip out over a lot of things, not just UAC)

    11. Re:It's faster by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      3 BSODs? You might want to call Dell, unless you were installing a driver or something you knew was flaky, even one is considered abnormal, especially if the Diagnotic system doesn't have an answer or solution for a bad driver that is known. Also with Vista, considering you can rip out a video card and put it back in while it is running and not BSOD the OS, if Vista is having a problem this frequent you have a bad piece of hardware or a really bad low level driver. Don't just assume this is normal, call Dell and don't let them pass the blame. Stability is something Vista does do very well.

      The UAC blackout thingy actually wrecks havoc with multi screen setups and DirectDraw applications. Or at least, it did for me

      Video Driver - Update your video driver from ATI or NVidia even if you have to use www.laptopvideo2go.com to get the inf for newer drivers than your mfr provides.

      The UAC 'blackout thingy' is changed is SP1 and can be turned off. (It basically locks the UI, so another app can't try input device trickery to confirm a UAC prompt, which can be done on other OSes like OS X. It is just about how much security you think you need or are willing to deal with the extra steps to have it.) You can also open the policy editor and give yourself and other admin level accounts silent elevation, which leaves UAC on and other non admin level users are still prompted for a password.

      Good luck.

    12. Re:It's faster by bitserf · · Score: 1

      Disable use of the secure desktop for UAC prompts: http://www.pctipsbox.com/speed-vista-turn-off-uac-or-at-least-make-it-less-annoying/ Disclaimer: Yes, it is less secure, use at your own risk, etc etc. But my video card (NVIDIA 7950GT, go figure) is terribly slow at switching from normal to the secure desktop, interrupting *everything* for up to 5 seconds, some times (running the latest drivers).

    13. Re:It's faster by bitserf · · Score: 1

      Correction, its expected of Microsoft operating systems.

      OS X does manage to get faster on the same hardware from release to release.

      Pre-emptive Snarky Response: It was too slow to start with, and they're only now fixing it.

    14. Re:It's faster by msromike · · Score: 1

      Works great for me. I have two accounts a standard user and an administrator account. I swipe my right index finger to login as standard, and swipe my left index finger for elevated privlideges when requested by the OS.

      I tried Ubuntatu with XP running in VM Ware for the apps I HAD to have until I could find Linux analogs. Then I wanted to run a few old games I hadso I just dual boot installed Vista along Ubunutu (still running XP in VM Ware.) I would use Vista only when I couldn't do something in Unbubtu. Then I noticed I was almost always in Vista so I just uninstalled Unbuntu and that was that.

      Pretty painless way to TRY to switch to Linux, just doesn't work for me. I like the way Linux "feels." It feels solid, responsive. The problem is with the actual apps. The OS is great the apps suck. Oh, also driver support is spotty. It took all day to get all of the hotkeys and buttons on my Asus laptop working. (I did it and felt quite proud as I know damn well most people would just blow it off and not user them.)

      If I could run MS Money, Outlook, Call of Suty 4, Mech Commander 2, Rome: Total War, and (I know it sounds silly) most importantly RoboForm then Linux would work wonderfully for me.

      Uninstalled Ubuntu and never looked back.

    15. Re:It's faster by symbolset · · Score: 1

      XP requirements: 300 MHz recommended, 233 required. 128MB recommended, 64MB required. 1.5 GB HD space.

      Vista requirements:1 GHz recommended, 800MHz required. 1GB recommended, 512 required. 15GB HD space.

      Now, let's forget for a moment that Vista doesn't actually work with the recommended specs. After all, XP was a dog at the recommended minimum. A real spec for Vista is apparently 2GHz, 2GB, 15 GB.

      So for 10x the spec what do you get besides a fancy new desktop theme? Anything? Besides a horde of devices that don't work with the new os, I mean.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  11. Wow by arogier · · Score: 1

    I don't know if this is a good omen. My journal post about service pack one made the front page, and I'm planning to put it on my system tomorrow. I'm probably going to look like the world's biggest fecal outlet if it corrupt my system tomorrow and I forget to backup. Then again my plan to back up is just rar'ing my documents and splitting it across several DVD's. I guess I'm going to have to pick up DVD's today. eHow I plan to do the install

  12. Battered person syndrome? by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else look at the title of this article and immediately think of "Battered person syndrome"? I did for some reason. Weird.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  13. XP SP3? by SeaFox · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When is XP SP3 coming out? I need to do a reformat of my machine. I have the all-in-one SP2 installer and I don't want to have to download all the stupid patches between SP2 and today separately.

    1. Re:XP SP3? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      XP SP3 is scheduled for the first half of this year, so in theory we'll get it by 30 June.

      Interestingly, 30 June is when XP sales are supposed to stop, so any official XP SP3 CDs are going to be rare, but there will be 3rd-party tools to slipstream in the service pack.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:XP SP3? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      if you are feeling adventurous you could always try the release candidate of XP sp3 ( http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=114F3599-12AF-42B2-AAB1-B969A62C68A7&displaylang=en )

      I would guess they will put out XP SP3 quietly after all the hooha about vista SP1 has died down.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  14. Rock and hard place. by apodyopsis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One thing is for certain..

    ..after the initial release then pull, the bricked PCs, the host of security issues and the whole general fuck up that MS have done over vista so far I predict a cautious, "if I must", approach from sys admins with every possible protection and back-up in place. This is not going to be a stampede for the latest secure patches. Truly MS has been a shot in the foot release for them.

    Second the poster higher up: it will sure be interested to see how many of the wait for SP1 adopters now follow through and adopt.

    Given the general widely held feeling about the the superiority of XP over Vista I cannot see many people clamoring to do so. But on the flip argument MS will withdraw XP soon to try and force adoption of Vista - this would leave many potential customers between a brick and a hard place.

    No bother to me - I've been linux only at home for ~8 years (so I guess I'm biased) - but we sure live in interesting times.

    1. Re:Rock and hard place. by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It wasn't released-then-pulled. An update for the updater app, which would've allowed people to install SP1 in future, was pulled when it turned out it borked systems. SP1 itself has yet to hit any form of Windows Update.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:Rock and hard place. by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 1

      That's maybe because there were dozens of articles on ways of getting SP1 before its official release and the troubles that some ran into which they weren't suppose to until the official release?

    3. Re:Rock and hard place. by ashridah · · Score: 1

      Nevermind that at least one of those articles that hit slashdot were in reference to a post that was actually talking about one of the early *betas* of SP1 (not even an RC).

      This update is right on time, according to the schedule announced when vista SP1 went RTM.

      Release as optional update and separate download: mid-march (oh, look, it's mid-march right now! fancy that!)
      Release for automatic install via windows update: mid-april (Mid-april isn't here yet, and a lot can happen in a month, admittedly)

      That said, the point about backing up is just *prudence*. But then, all of you slashdot readers backup regularly anyway, don't you?

      you don't? (Okay, so neither did I before installing SP1, but that's mainly due to sane segregation of data and apps on my part) :)

    4. Re:Rock and hard place. by msromike · · Score: 1

      Bricked means that the pre-SP Hotfix rendered the hardware inoperable?

      To me a bricked unit needs to be sent back to the manufacturer to be repaired. If it can be revived at home with a soldering gun, hair dryer, paperclip and a battery then it was not really "bricked."

      So, SP1 did not brick anyones computer for goodness sakes.

  15. No there's plenty by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been using Vista 64-bit since not long after it was released and I'm quite satisfied (I'd have moved back to XP if I wasn't).

    The reason people slam it so much here is because they badly want it to fail. It is predominantly FUD.

    The echo chamber effect is a big reason you hear so much. Someone has a bad experience with Vista, or perhaps just makes one up, and writes/talks about it. Thsi then gets repeated by people who hate MS and want to see Vista do poorly. You discover that these people have never actually used Vista, they are just repeating something they heard somewhere. So it sounds like there are more people having problems than there is.

    Of the people I know that have mostly bad things to say about Vista, I'd say at least 90% have never actually used it. They "Read about it somewhere," or "Some guy they know told them," and so on. They have no experience with it, other than perhaps having seen it on a computer. They are simply repeating stories. Of those that have used it and dislike it, almost all of them actually have an issue with something else, that they are blaming on Vista. For example a coworker was pissed because his DJ hardware/software combo didn't work. Ok, well check compatibility first, and that isn't a Vista issue. It doesn't support Linux either.

    Another problem is people who try to run it on insufficient hardware. This happens with basically every Windows release that I can remember. I remember all the complaints that Windows 95 didn't run well on 4MB of RAM, even though that was the minimum. The response was, of course, yes that's the MINIMUM, not the "gets good performance" amount. Same deal with Vista, people have old systems with insufficient hardware, particularly RAM (since not that long ago RAM was real pricey). They install Vista and find it doesn't perform well, and thus get angry.

    All in all, you can just expect to see continued Vista hate on /. and other sites like it for some time. I also expect that it won't matter. Most people will get Vista as they get new computers, and it'll slowly become the dominant Windows since it'll work just fine for those that get it.

    1. Re:No there's plenty by penix1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of the people I know that have mostly bad things to say about Vista, I'd say at least 90% have never actually used it. They "Read about it somewhere," or "Some guy they know told them," and so on. They have no experience with it, other than perhaps having seen it on a computer. They are simply repeating stories. Of those that have used it and dislike it, almost all of them actually have an issue with something else, that they are blaming on Vista. For example a coworker was pissed because his DJ hardware/software combo didn't work. Ok, well check compatibility first, and that isn't a Vista issue. It doesn't support Linux either.


      I'll ignore the fact that you are doing exactly what you accuse others by repeating hearsay and address the "it doesn't work on Linux either" remark. That would be valid if it ever did in the first place which it didn't. Let's compare apples to apples here. Vista's main competition isn't Linux or OS X even. It is XP. In that context, the program does work in XP and not in vista. It sure is a Vista issue. Say what you like, but that sounds like a Vista sale lost if that is the driving factor for switching for that user.

      Another problem is people who try to run it on insufficient hardware. This happens with basically every Windows release that I can remember. I remember all the complaints that Windows 95 didn't run well on 4MB of RAM, even though that was the minimum. The response was, of course, yes that's the MINIMUM, not the "gets good performance" amount. Same deal with Vista, people have old systems with insufficient hardware, particularly RAM (since not that long ago RAM was real pricey). They install Vista and find it doesn't perform well, and thus get angry.


      Umm....No! They were SOLD on the fact that the NEW machine they bought was "Vista capable" from the get-go when it wasn't. Hence the class action lawsuit. Bait and switch is still illegal in the US at least until the Microsoft lobbyists pay off, er, "contribute to" Congress to change it. There is a big difference between buying a new machine based on the word of the supplier that it will work fine with the new OS and buying an upgrade where it is anybody's guess. That is the difference here.
      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    2. Re:No there's plenty by Linker3000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "The reason people slam it so much here is because they badly want it to fail. It is predominantly FUD."

      Sorry, that's not quite right. I have a negative view about Vista because, having had to install it on a laptop so I can support some of my user base that have Vista, I have had:

      1) The laptop screen saver not waking up *sometimes* and so I have to toggle the laptop in and out of standby to carry on working.
      2) A wifi driver that blue screens *sometimes* on resuming from standby so if 1) happens I may lose my work in progress.
      3) A damn stupid box that pops up every time I run notepad++ warning me about the program.
      4) Mysterious periods of disk thrashing.
      5) Mysterious periods of wifi not connecting.
      6) A need to buy 1GB more RAM to make the thing stop plodding.
      7) RDP sessions mysteriously failing and needing a registry key deleted to get things going again

      Now, I am sure some of these things are fixable with some tweaking or with some patching, and perhaps the wifi issue is down to the chipset company, but the number of hoops my users I have had to go through to make simple things work is extraordinary and timewasting. Unlike XP (or 2000 or NT), rarely has Vista been an 'out of the box' solution to a new install.

      I am very pragmatic when it comes to Vista, but quite simply if you put identical machines running Vista and XP side by side (OK, let's give Vista some more RAM to start) and use them both for a short while, my money's on Vista being more of a PITA to use and less easy to navigate: things that took a few clicks to get to are now buried and we have had to wait for revised or new beta versions of some apps just to get some things going. Some users were on Office 2002 - but Outlook has problems with that so we have had to pay to upgrade some, while others have been moved to a Scalix pilot system.

      Sure, Vista is not a train wreck, but it's a bloody big detour on the road to efficient computing with many rough edges and a cost loading. I know it will get better over time, but when it hit the ground running it was still getting dressed and keeps tripping over its pants.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    3. Re:No there's plenty by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I must admit after hearing for years how fantastic Longhorn was going to be and seeing the 32 bit Vista result I'm bashing it mostly due to disappointment. The 64 bit version also seems to be a step down from the quite good 64 bit Server 2003 that has been out for a couple of years. I don't use the thing I only fix it on the admittedly few installs in the place where I work so I've only seen it at it's worst. The biggest problem I see with it is laptops that really do not have the specs to run it coming with it preinstalled. Another problem is the maximum usuable memory is so close to the floor of the minimum memory required to make it functional in the 32 bit version (not fully compatable with the Pentium Pro and later unfortunately).

    4. Re:No there's plenty by harry666t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, I recently decided not to bash Vista until I see it doing something wrong "in action". I do not own a computer that is powerful enough to run Vista so I had to wait until I can play around with it on someone else's machine.

      Then, one of my friends had Vista on her laptop, and she said she was satisfied with it. I thought, OK, let's see how good it really is.

      The very first thing she was trying to do with her laptop that afternoon: playing a movie. She fired up Explorer, browsed to the right directory, tried to open the file, and... Vista simply pretended that no icon was clicked. My friend explained to me: "oh, it's always like that when there's no internet connection..."...

      Are people getting used to such things in the same way they got used to crashes, unreliability and restarts?... Do they consider it "normal"?... If yes, then we're doomed.

      ---

      A year ago it used to be cool and pr0 and so on to have Linux running Beryl with some Aero theme. I do not know how much these Aero themes resemble the "real" Aero thing, but they were all shitty. I've found translucent borders very distracting, often I stared at them instead of doing work, and it was so until I've switched to something Mac-like (OTOH Mac themes are great). The less transparency you use, the better (but *some* transparency is ok). Look at the Mac, with every major revision of their OS there's a little less transparency here and there...

      ---

      My other friend is a microsoftie :< He's a great guy but he has sold his soul, and became a MS Student Partner (or whatever they call them). He always hyped MS products, etc. He also used to have Vista on his laptop. =)

      Until he himself switched back to XP :P I'm not surprised - as of what I've heard from him, he had to reinstall the Vista thing almost weekly.

      By contrast, my Debian box is withstanding all my experiments since December 2006 without trouble (ok, without REAL trouble until *I* make some real trouble, but then, I'm always able to recover without reinstalling).

      ---

      I've recently had an argument with yet another friend, about OS design and stuff. He also was a microsoftie :> and defended Vista with his teeth and claws, but finally admitted that MS screwed up Vista's internals totally, and that they've lost a great opportunity to evolve the system and make it a Great Thing (tm). He's a Windows 2003 user :P

      ---

      Summing all that up, no, I'm not downgrading to Vista anytime soon.

    5. Re:No there's plenty by maxume · · Score: 1

      The laptop sitting in front of me has a Vista capable sticker on it. I was never really under the impression that it would be a good fit. It was a stupid marketing program, but the information that it wouldn't be the 'full' Vista experience was out there, I knew it, and I was barely paying attention.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:No there's plenty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vista's main competition isn't Linux or OS X even. It is XP. In that context, the program does work in XP and not in vista. It sure is a Vista issue. Say what you like, but that sounds like a Vista sale lost if that is the driving factor for switching for that user.

      Right on the money. I just bought a machine with Vista 64 bit, bumped up to 8GB of ram, nice video card added... Now I want XP Pro x64 and discover I can't buy it! I can get ALL the drivers, vid, chipset, eithernet, disk, .... But can't get Microsoft to sell it.

      It isn't about Linux, it is about people wanting to downgrade and milking us twice. I don't have installable XP media, they are all OEM for other PCs. I can't get 64 bit ether.

      Vista - Veraciously Imparted Source of Time-easting Aggravation.

      SP1 had better be good....

    7. Re:No there's plenty by plague3106 · · Score: 0

      1) The laptop screen saver not waking up *sometimes* and so I have to toggle the laptop in and out of standby to carry on working.
      2) A wifi driver that blue screens *sometimes* on resuming from standby so if 1) happens I may lose my work in progress.
      5) Mysterious periods of wifi not connecting.


      These are all likely due to your crappy wireless card.

      6) A need to buy 1GB more RAM to make the thing stop plodding.

      I started putting 1GB into my systems years ago. Why someone today would only have 512 is beyond me. Times change though, and if you want to keep up with software, keep up with hardware as well.

      7) RDP sessions mysteriously failing and needing a registry key deleted to get things going again

      What key? I suspect it's something specific to your computer, since this is the first I'm hearing of this issue, and I read the threads pretty frequently.

    8. Re:No there's plenty by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Unlike XP (or 2000 or NT), rarely has Vista been an 'out of the box' solution to a new install.

      Can I just add that as a mainly Linux user who "quite likes XP", even XP is totally unusable from a default install with the "kindergarten" default Windows interface it gives you as well as all the other default rubbish.

      Sure, an hour or two later with the "classic" interface in place and a few registry changes to turn off all the sycophantic MS hand-holding, it works pretty good and stays out of my way so I can just use it to do what I need to.

      Fortunately, I've only heard of (and not experienced) the "delights" of Vista's UAC but if nothing else, as XP disappears it just gives me more of an incentive to wean myself off of modern PC games and just go to Linux full time.

      Quite frankly, having repaired a few laptops of friends with Vista on it without having used it myself, my first impression is it's just bloody horrific!

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    9. Re:No there's plenty by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      1) The laptop screen saver not waking up *sometimes* and so I have to toggle the laptop in and out of standby to carry on working. This was fixed in an update, and I think there is also a fix for it in SP1, at least I am pretty sure there was one in the RC that was released back before Christmas

      2) A wifi driver that blue screens *sometimes* on resuming from standby so if 1) happens I may lose my work in progress. Update your drivers

      3) A damn stupid box that pops up every time I run notepad++ warning me about the program. Start Menu, Control Panel, User Accounts, Turn User Account Controls Off

      4) Mysterious periods of disk thrashing. Defrag. If this does not fix the issue, you do not have enough Ram. Just remember, minimum system requirements is not the same as optimal system requirements. 512 Ram is going to constantly hit the paging file on your HD, a gig will be sufficient if you are just running Office 2007, a ticketing software package, and the Internet. If you want to do more than that, go to 2 gig or more.

      5) Mysterious periods of wifi not connecting. You need to update your driver. If there is not an updated driver, yell at your chipset manufactorer. Vista has been out for over a year, release candidates came out in summer and fall of '06, there is no reason why a manufactorer should not have released a Vista driver yet. Pay attention if you are installing it on a 32 bit or 64 bit OS, and while the XP drivers MIGHT work in XP, you will have issues. You need a Vista driver.

      6) A need to buy 1GB more RAM to make the thing stop plodding. Yeah, its annoying, but Ram is cheap. Not saying its an excuse.

      7) RDP sessions mysteriously failing and needing a registry key deleted to get things going again Never had this problem, RDP works beautifully for me.
    10. Re:No there's plenty by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      I think he meant 1GB over the nominal 1GB...
        ie 2GB on the machine is the new minimum now for vista..

    11. Re:No there's plenty by xhrit · · Score: 1

      I am one ov the people that had bad things to say about Vista. I had never actually used it. I "Read about all the bad things somewhere," and "Some people I know told me all the bad things" and so on. I had no experience with it, yet I would repeat the stories.

      Then, I bought my girlfriend a new pc with vista preinstalled, and got to experience everything firsthand: UAC issues, randomly dropping wireless and bluetooth connections, preventing software from installing or functioning, etc. About 3 hours after using the system, my gf was on about replacing with xp. And she would have too, if I had not managed to fix it. I had no experience with it, but already how to fix everything simply from all the stories I had heard.

      I have had plenty ov experience with microsoft - enough to know that any product released by them is going to be second rate consumer grade drool-proof crap, and everything bad that is said about them is going to be generally true.

    12. Re:No there's plenty by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, maybe. I "only" have 1GB total, and Vista runs quite snappy for me.

    13. Re:No there's plenty by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Unlike XP (or 2000 or NT), rarely has Vista been an 'out of the box' solution to a new install.

      Then you must have a short memory.

      There was a time circa 2001-2004 when broadband was becoming common but home firewalls/routers were not (and ISP's were recommending you keep it that way - back then many a tech support call terminated with "If you won't turn off your firewall I can't help you"). XP shipped with no form of firewall whatsoever.

      If you were lucky, your OEM thought to include one. If you were really lucky, it didn't self-destruct after the 30-day trial period.

      Even then, this wasn't that great. ZoneAlarm was to firewalls what UAC is to access control - pops up so many "Are you sure?" notices that sooner or later it was likely to get turned off.

      The average time to rooting of an XP box prior to the release of SP2 was about 15-20 minutes. The default configuration was so insecure that you didn't even need to surf the web for this to happen - just plugging in your cable modem was enough.

    14. Re:No there's plenty by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      XP professional x64 edition was never sold retail for some reason, you can still get system builder packs though.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    15. Re:No there's plenty by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      My brother bought a new laptop last year with Vista on it. Boy, was it slow and annoying. A week later we installed XP on it, and it ran like a dream.

      A friend of mine hates the OS with a passion because, among other annoyances, you can't do anything on it without getting a UAC prompt.

      If Vista is so much better, why is it so much slower and resource-hogging than XP? Sheep will say that it's because Vista is so much better than XP. But that doesn't make sense, especially when you're doing the same tasks you did on XP, without using any extra features. M$ is in love with the perpetual upgrade cycle.

      The only people who have no problems with Vista have bought a top of the line machine with 2 GB RAM and don't use any older applications. And they've probably turned off UAC as well.

    16. Re:No there's plenty by tknd · · Score: 1

      Defrag. If this does not fix the issue, you do not have enough Ram.

      Actually, I think the solution is to disable windows defender. I installed vista on a system with 2gb of ram and noticed the high disk utilization. The performance monitor always pointed to a system process. First I tried waiting because I thought it might be the indexer. Disk accesses did slow down, but not completely. So next I started disabling the indexing services, but the disk accesses were still there. So next I was about to go to vista's superfetch stuff but in the process I came across windows defender. I read that windows defender was basically a lame version of antivirus so I disabled it and now there's a whole lot less disk activity.

  16. Vista slipstreamed with SP1 by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

    If your interested in downloading and installing a fresh copy of Vista with SP1 integrated, be sure to hunt down the ISO (provided by MSDN).

    File Name: en_windows_vista_with_service_pack_1_x86_dvd_x14-29594.iso
    File Size: 2943MB
    MD5: b09267740ddd1a08d80b04ec6bbc232a
    SHA1: bcd715a02739809e477c726ae4b5caa914156429

    So far, I've noticed a fast improvement with Disk IO performance with SP1. I think I'm going to take Vista for another spin now that it feels "faster". It's still a memory hog however. I'd recommend 2GB or 1GB at the very least.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  17. Early Adopters Suffer. by headkase · · Score: 2

    Be glad you didn't buy Vista on day 1. The first six months sucked royally I've read and it's only recently become better. For myself, I bought Vista the day that Service Pack 1 was announced so I missed most of the ... joy ... I got on ship when it was reasonably nice. And about 3 weeks ago ZDNet was kind enough to publish MD5's of the final release MS sent them to evangalize about so I was able to acquire a copy, the MD5's matched so the worst it could be was a key collision and the installer wasn't corrupted so it was legit. It even shows the correct build number in System Information. Now since I didn't jump on ship until after they bailed some of the water out its been a fairly smooth ride for me. And since I installed SP1 I guess it's better - some things like alt-tabbing out of games don't wonk (thats a technical term) the system anymore so all in all its an incremental improvement. And it's definitely a lot less of a shock transitioning from XP to Vista than it was from 98 to XP headache wise.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Early Adopters Suffer. by Ahrel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Was only the first 2 months for me. After Creative released the driver for my soundcard, all was and has remained well since then. I did buy a 2nd GB of RAM though, because I noticed that things opened slower than in XP, but mainly because I was utilizing over 70% of my RAM with Firefox and Foobar open. The biggest problem I experienced with Vista post the good, strike that, working Creative drivers was getting Star Wars KotOR II and Grim Fandango to run.

      Continually, I find myself defending Vista in my circle of peers in class (ironically we use MS Virtual Machine through Vista for our various OS and Network learning needs). In my opinion it's the best OS MS has released yet; and more people I meet seem to dislike it because it's interface is more different than MS has done since the move to 95 from 3.11. XP and Vista do everything pretty much identically, Vista does it more intuitively though, and it does it looking good (which was my primary reason for upgrading, I began using Linux when I learned about Compiz/Beryl and it became commonly stable because I like eye candy).

      There are indeed many horror stories on the net but I've got 3 machines in this house that have been running more stable than XP did for either me or my roommate. And all of the machines in the labs at school have never had a problem yet either. So I continue to wonder what exactly is causing these problems for people. Obviously all the machines at school are identical, but the 2 desktops and single laptop at home all have different hardware and software configurations. *shrug* Guess I'm a lucky one, but I'm glad to read that it's been smooth for you too. Hopefully this will become common as people give it another shot with SP1 coming.

    2. Re:Early Adopters Suffer. by DThorne · · Score: 1

      I agree. I didn't go near Vista until about 2 weeks ago. Apart from the oft-commented on heavy-handed security issues(which are long overdue - its the implementation that's rather stupid), I've had nothing but positive experiences on all-new hardware. I'll be getting SP1 in a few days, I'm sure it will only help. Apart from the file explorer(for which I consider an addon third party replacement should be considered mandatory), I've gone through no more stripping and minimizing than I normally go through on any windows release. I just think it was released about one year too early, that's all.

      Oh, and I would never recommend anyone *upgrade* to Vista. I think it's fine with a new computer purchase, pointless if you're already running XP.

      DT

  18. Don't care by GNUPublicLicense · · Score: 1

    What would we care about this service pack? The only interesting thing about this evil non-GPL OS is when it will be phased out of existence.

    1. Re:Don't care by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

      How about that the 2nd most popular OS in use today is finally getting fixed?

      I'd say a lot of people care.

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    2. Re:Don't care by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      I think if you were to take into account physical number of computers in use today including those infrastructure servers that run within ISPs and out on the Internet, you could probably make a case for a UNIX being second place, maybe even first.

      If you include all manner of embedded OSes in use as well, you may discover that whilst no single OS would beat, say, XP, for sheer number of presences on computing devices, I think you would find that under that definition, there are more computing devices globally that don't run Windows than those that do (especially when you take into account Symbian mobile phones and Apple iWanks).

      In addition, as someone who works in server security, just about everyone I know runs XP, myself included. However, I know of four people running Vista and a dozen who are running Linux, mainly Ubuntu, even if they are only dual-booting it.

      And let me also add that those non-geek Linux users chose to give Ubuntu/Fedora a try whereas those that run Vista had it as OEM on new machines they bought recently and constantly moan about it.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    3. Re:Don't care by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

      Not that I entirely doubt what you're saying, some sources tend to lend more credibility than "everyone I know runs X therefore...".

      At the end of the day Windows is highly prevalent at home (for it's application-range available & compatibility for which Linux can't compete) and at work (for the ADS services for while Linux doesn't even bother competing). You're right it's not suitable for everything, and people that argue otherwise are delusional, but to say it's not got a prominent place in IT is even more so.

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    4. Re:Don't care by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      but to say it's not got a prominent place in IT is even more

      Sorry, at which Slashdot reader are you directing this comment? Because I don't believe I said anything like this.

      What I did say was I refuted the claim that Vista is automatically the "second most popular OS" simply because, in my experience, fewer people are using it than do Ubuntu, for example. Neither did I deny that Windows (primarily XP) is the most popular desktop OS but what I did draw your attention to is the fact that people forget that the core backbone of the Internet is driven by servers usually UNIX based - and no, not necessarily Linux but for the real *BIG* stuff probably Solaris or HPUX.

      Desktop usage is only a subset (and when you take every computing device there is, a *MINORITY* subset) of global computing - and I would refute, again from my experience, that whilst XP *IS* undeniably the most used desktop OS globally, I do not believe that Vista is second place currently, despite what MS's figures would have you believe.

      10% of the world's population owns 90% of the wealth meaning that 10% can afford to buy new PCs every year with the latest OEM OS on it - but for most of the world's population, this is not the case and I suggest to you that in the poorer countries of South America, Asia and Africa, Vista usage will still be minimal.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    5. Re:Don't care by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

      When you consider 99% of pc's sold that weren't mac for the last year came with Vista, it's not so unbelievable....I mean, no one doubts that XP is by far the most popular desktop OS right now, that's only really because it's had 7 years to get there and only recently has Vista started to mature into a realistic replacement. Sure some have kept with XP despite having Vista; most aren't convinced it's solid enough (1 year compared to 7 production airtime), which is fair enough.

      Not only that, despite how much "Vista has sucked" (and yeah, when it first came out, it was pretty awful), how much has Linux progressed in desktop market share? Less than 1%? Ok, so your mates have Ubuntu....I know one guy that runs Linux, and he's a Fedora contributor, so it's not Ubuntu - how much more valid a metric is my claim than yours? None is the answer.

      Don't get me wrong, Linux has it's place; certainly in the lower-powered, more focused operations market like the Asus machine.

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    6. Re:Don't care by GNUPublicLicense · · Score: 1

      slashdot-->news for nerds. stuff that matters

  19. Vista Service Pack One Almost Here by eiapoce · · Score: 0, Troll

    Does this article means that Vista is coming out of Beta?

    1. Re:Vista Service Pack One Almost Here by EyelessFade · · Score: 1

      Nope, Its going out of Alpha and into Beta :=)

  20. Vista is much slower by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Having bought a new Dell laptop with Vista on that's lower spec than my work machine (policy is to update desktops later this year), my laptop almost always feels far more responsive. Most likely, your old machine had accumulated crap over time, and resinstalling XP would have given an even larger speedup. Vista is far less responsive on my Thinkpad X61s than XP was on my Thinkpad X40, comparing them side by side. Only the cpu bound tasks like compiling are faster, due to the faster hardware.

    "I see something real bad happened; do you mind if I see if there's a solution online?". Yeah, whenever my own programs crash I get that one. It doesn't find any solutions though, I still have to debug my own code.

    It did once claim to have found a solution to system crash, pointing to a Lenovo page that did not exists.

    UAC is top too; I like to know when a program is gonna try and change my system (some try that you'd never think would - denied). That is the one thing I like about Vista. I think of it as the Microsoft answer to "sudo". It was annoying at the beginning, where you had to press yes so many times. Makes me worry about whether it will have the intended affect, or simply teach people to press "yes" whenever they see a pop-up.

    It's an upgrade without a doubt. Most people at my work who have "accidentally" ordered new PC's with Vista have ended up asking the it support guys "downgrade" them to XP. I have been stubborn though, waiting to see if it gets better with time. It does, but nowhere near enough to compensate for the initial drop in productivity.
    1. Re:Vista is much slower by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most likely, your old machine had accumulated crap over time, and resinstalling XP would have given an even larger speedup. Most likely it's stuff like SuperFetch in Vista doing what it's designed to do in fact. For once I've got an OS that's gonna use the memory i bought with the machine. That's what it's designed for, and it does it very well. FireFox opens faster than IE6 does in any XP machine; fresh or otherwise. Believe me, Vista is faster if you have the memory.
      And all the palava about Areo grinding systems down is rubbish too; it's all 3d accelerated (read: using hardware features otherwise doing nowt), so that too has no effect of performance. Feels very snappy in fact, especially with SP1 which i've been running for a couple of weeks now - it's the Vista that should've shipped.
      There are some things i don't like about Vista of course; the dumbed down explorer for one, and the higher memory requirements for another, but it does load stuff faster than XP, no doubt.
      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    2. Re:Vista is much slower by andcal · · Score: 1

      And all the palava about Areo grinding systems down is rubbish too; it's all 3d accelerated (read: using hardware features otherwise doing nowt), so that too has no effect of performance.

      I only question this one part of your post. I understand that the GPU is used instead of the CPU to manipulate the 3-d graphics. However, don't lower end graphics systems (ones without a lot of on-board memory) use system memory, so if the graphics card is using more memory than it otherwise would, then less system memory is available for use by the rest of the system?

      --
      --something witty
    3. Re:Vista is much slower by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

      Most likely it's stuff like SuperFetch in Vista doing what it's designed to do in fact. Most likely SuperFetch is what made my Vista machine over time go from intolerable slow to tolerable sluggish. Still much less responsive than my old laptop comparing side by side.

      Believe me, Vista is faster if you have the memory. I would believe your word if I hadn't personally experienced otherwise. My X60s has 4 GiB ram, of which Vista acknowledge the 3 GiB (it would have been polite of Lenovo to tell me that the crippled alpha release quality toy OS I was buying could not use all the RAM I was buying). My old X40 with XP has only 1 GiB, and was still far more responsive.

      Maybe it is different usage patterns, you starting and stopping many small applications, where I just run a few large applications for weeks.

      I still believe the "filled with crap" explanation more, XP never felt slow to me on the old computer.

      especially with SP1 which i've been running for a couple of weeks now - it's the Vista that should've shipped. I hope you are right so my new computer will finally fell like an upgrade, also when I'm not compiling ("make -j 3" rules on the Core 2 Duo, compared to the Pentium-M).
  21. No comment. by WK2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I won't comment on the DRM because it really isn't as serious as a lot of Slashdotters think.

    I won't respond to your comment, but DRM is BUILT-IN to the Operating System. How much more serious can it get?

    --
    Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    1. Re:No comment. by FoolsGold · · Score: 1

      Alright, you've snared me, now I have no choice but to comment I suppose. :)

      The DRM in Vista is not serious if it has little impact on the end user. It doesn't stop me from playing my movies regardless of format, it doesn't stop me playing my music regardless of format, so what's the big deal?

      I've never checked, but I hear it does mean you can't setup a kind of audio loopback ability to record the audio the system makes, but very few people require such capabilities, and hence out of all the potential Windows users, it makes crap-all difference (myself included). If it's a problem, then don't use Vista, simple. Apart from that, I can't think of any Vista DRM that's actually been a serious problem for work or play, so like I said, it's not as serious as suggested.

      The PRINCIPLE sucks of course, but the practical implementation isn't really much of a problem except for a few boundary situations.

    2. Re:No comment. by penix1 · · Score: 1

      You are correct that DRM isn't a problem for unprotected media. It is a blow to fair use backup on protected media though. Try backing up that HD media you purchased and see how far you get using only Microsoft tools (no cheating and using those illegal pirate specials). Try playing back a backup you may have managed to make once the original goes tits up.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    3. Re:No comment. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      I won't respond to your comment, but DRM is BUILT-IN to the Operating System. How much more serious can it get?

      It could be built into the processor in a way that even installing Linux would not allow you to get around it.
    4. Re:No comment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't respond to your comment, but DRM is BUILT-IN to the Operating System. How much more serious can it get?
      This keeps getting repeated around here, always with a glaring lack of specificity. What and how exactly is "built in" in a way it wasn't before and isn't done by fx OSX? Ever tried screenshot'ing a DVD movie in OSX?

      I know of Vista supporting playback of HDCP protected content, which is required to be able to play this content. But this only affects content with the flag set, and would be required of other platforms wanting to support protected HD content as well. I'm just waiting for the explanation when Apple comes out with exactly the same support of this as Vista has.

    5. Re:No comment. by twotailakitsune · · Score: 1

      My motherboard says that it has DRM as part of it, so does my video card, and my DVD drive does not like my changing its regien. The drivers have it programed to "protract" with DRM.
      If most hardware has DRM built-in, what can microsoft say?
      That they will not let, MORE, drivers or hardware to work on vista?

      I copy my DVDs, that I payed for. Vista is more like Linux the XP. What does this say about people liking Linux?

    6. Re:No comment. by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Sure, done. I backup HD-DVD on a regular basis thanks to fire sale prices and I've ripped a BD disk too but the format and lack of tools make it a bitch to do much with yet. 40Gigs for a movie on BD is a little silly too when HD-DVD did it with less than 21Gigs, thankfully they all compress down into the 10Gig range with no discernible loss of quality to my eye or ears.

      Pirate tools? No, I use AnyDVD-HD and while it doesn't YET get past BD+ protection on FOX films prices on those movies are high enough I'm not really interested anyway. AnyDVD purchased from a legit albeit offshore company that I'm sure pisses off the motion picture guys but I do not care.

      BTW *some* of the HD-DVD stuff is apparently not even encrypted. So, with "just" Microsoft tools you can copy the EVO files off and process them just fine with freely available open source tools. UDF 2.5 support is built-in to Vista, so far I've yet to get it working with Ubuntu and people act like trying to do so is criminal. I hope the next version of Ubuntu has it native, my HTPC runs Ubuntu and it would be convenient - especially once more thing can play EVO and M2TS files. Right now I just rip and compress everything on Vista 64 for playback using XBMC on Ubuntu. Ironic huh?

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  22. Been running SP1 RTM by pcause · · Score: 1

    I've been running SP1 RTM for a while and Vista since the betas. I find that SP1 has fixed a LOT of the stability issues and BSODs that I had. Speed on some operation is better, but overall, Vista still seems slower than XP.

    What I have found is that a lot of issues were caused by sleep/hibernate being broken and that most of the remainder are caused by drivers. The discovery data from the Vista lawsuit shows that MS knew they'd broken lots of drivers and that Intel drivers were pathetic. Vista would have been a step forward for MS if they hadn't thrown out all concern about quality.

  23. Updates? Ha! by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

    though at least they still have updates coming through Windows Update

    I applied one of the updates (KB944533) and it killed http. Internet explorer would not open up web pages, but would give the "server could not be reached" error. I was able to ping just fine, and I could reach the page from another computer on the same network. The kicker was that the patch not only knocked out IE, but Firefox as well. Things worked fine after uninstalling the patch. Of course, the patch got re-installed the very next day.

    Yesterday I decided to install some more patches, hoping that they would remedy the bug in KB944533. Nope! In fact, the DHCP client stopped working. I could no longer get anything but APIPA addresses. I uninstalled those patches, hoping to recover, but no dice. I decided to roll back the machine about two weeks, and now it blue screens.

    Now Microsoft isn't the only culprit. A language pack update in Ubuntu is killing a number of my KDE apps (k3b in particular). So I have two machines that I have to run unpatched operating systems on, because patching them causes them to not work. At least I have a choice to ignore the patch with Ubuntu. Windows applies the patches without asking.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Updates? Ha! by MBC1977 · · Score: 1

      May I suggest turning off the automatic update feature? This way you can update Windows as you choose.

      --
      Regards,

      MBC1977,
    2. Re:Updates? Ha! by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

      This way you can update Windows as you choose.

      Sadly, Vista won't run Windows Update for me. And Microsoft could not get it to work, either.
      I'm sticking with XP until I have enough coins saved up for a Macbook Pro.
      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    3. Re:Updates? Ha! by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The common component to all those failures is you.

    4. Re:Updates? Ha! by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      I'm sticking with XP until I have enough coins saved up for a Macbook Pro.
      That's my plan also. I want a Mac. They're purdy.
      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    5. Re:Updates? Ha! by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Took out a student loan for mine... best purchase I've ever made. Windows, OSX, *nix on the same box? Without rebooting? Yes please! ((buy, borrow or steal a copy of Parallels... this should come standard with a new Mac))

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    6. Re:Updates? Ha! by Blkdeath · · Score: 3, Informative

      I applied one of the updates (KB944533) and it killed http. Internet explorer would not open up web pages, but would give the "server could not be reached" error. I was able to ping just fine, and I could reach the page from another computer on the same network. The kicker was that the patch not only knocked out IE, but Firefox as well. Things worked fine after uninstalling the patch. Of course, the patch got re-installed the very next day.

      On our small company LAN I encountered a similar problem but with a stock install of Vista on about 3 newly purchased laptops. The problem turned out to be the fact that our LAN uses a firewall/router and connects to ADSL which requires a lower MTU, and Vista has the MTU fixed at 1500. Lowering it to 1492 (manually - via the command line no less!) on the laptops made the difference.

      Now, we could browse some sites but not others. The amazing thing was most of the Microsoft sites (like msn.com, Hotmail, etc.) wouldn't work but competing services would. Strange brew. :)

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    7. Re:Updates? Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right, like it's his fault the patches don't work. Yes, he's got his windows updates on automatic instead of manual, but that's not related to whether the patch works or not. Lots of people are having problems with them. The guy's just unlucky enough to have issues with both.

    8. Re:Updates? Ha! by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Took out a student loan for mine


      translation: sold my soul to Sallie Mae.

      I'm joking, but just so I don't get sued for slander - it's an analogy for it seemed like a good deal at the time, but the deal doesn't seem so good in the long run (and I did exactly this - 3 years of use, paid for it over 10 years).

      If I had an Intel Mac, I'd probably run the now Sun owned VirtualBox because it's GPL, and therefore no stealing required. The beta in mid-February still had some major open issues, however (broken USB, audio in, and virtualized networking), but I would hope it has progressed since then.
    9. Re:Updates? Ha! by Creepy · · Score: 1

      one more OSS virtualization link I just found: kju

    10. Re:Updates? Ha! by adolf · · Score: 1

      It's not luck.

      He mentions KB944533. Plugging KB944533 into Google returns, oddly enough, this page about KB944533 as the first hit. On this page, is the following:

      Known issues
              You may receive an error message that resembles the following when you try to visit a Web page in Windows Internet Explorer 7:
      Webpage cannot be displayed

      It then links to another article describing the nature of this problem, which it turns out is caused by firewall/antivirus/antispyware/other deeply-infiltrated shit, which in turn blocks the freshly-updated IE from functioning.

      It has little at all by Windows itself.

      So, again: Luck is not a factor here. He's done this to himself, and hasn't even taken the most rudimentary steps toward actually solving it, other than trying to apply random patches in the vague hope that one of them might somehow fix a problem with his antivirus software.

      I feel no pity.

    11. Re:Updates? Ha! by enjerth · · Score: 1

      He's done this to himself, I don't mean to interrupt (well, actually I do) but I have to ask, are you implying that the patches he had applied were not, in fact, distributed by Microsoft for the product he was running and likely came recommended by the updater? Or are you implying that, by having Microsoft Vista in the first place, he was asking for it?

      Because when a product isn't working right, one of the first steps is to see if there are any patches available from the manufacturer/distributer. Most consumers feel that they should at least be able to trust their manufacturer/distributer with providing competent support, and would likely apply any patches that came recommended by them without question. It should work, shouldn't it? To blame a consumer for trusting is to say that the manufacturer/distributer is unworthy of that trust.

      Not that I disagree with you. You just seemed to be saying that, because he didn't read the knowledge base article on the bug to try to remedy the problem first, he was asking for problems. What that implies is much deeper than that and, what you're really saying is, people who use Microsoft software without caution are fools.
    12. Re:Updates? Ha! by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      In an ideal world, these features would speed up the connection a bit. In reality, low-end routers barf on things they don't recognize, and block you off from the IIS 7 running section of the Internet. This has been going on since the beta versions of Vista, so it's a bit strange that a patch would re-trigger this behaviour. In any case, I'll bet a firmware update to your router would fix it just as well, as a properly functioning router should handle packets larger than the MTU of the WAN line without trouble.

      In an ideal world, well hell, I could go on all day.

      In reality however we don't control our router (which is not a low end model, FWIW) as it's part of our corporate WAN and is configured so each site can inter-connect with the other segments of our VPN properly. I'd love to update it, but heaven forbid a lowly neophyte such as myself muck things up. :) (The fact that I understand PMTU Discovery and our WAN tech does not is another matter entirely).

      The problem is though that if these "esoteric features" don't work, they should have some capability to revert to known working behaviour. In this case, Microsoft has decided that larger packets are a Good Thing. On our LAN over the past couple years we've had a mix of Windows 98SE, 2000, XP, Vista as well as a couple flavours of Linux and they've all worked perfectly well across the great Internet without fail. The notion that Vista is so advanced that half the WWW stops working is, well, sorry, patently ridiculous.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    13. Re:Updates? Ha! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Known issues You may receive an error message that resembles the following when you try to visit a Web page in Windows Internet Explorer 7: Webpage cannot be displayed

      To be fair, he can't use google if he can't display web pages...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Updates? Ha! by adolf · · Score: 1

      He's on Slashdot, isn't he?

    15. Re:Updates? Ha! by adolf · · Score: 0

      No. He's done it to himself.

      The problem is that not this particular patch to IE, but the fact that IE was updated at all. This changed the checksum/signature/whatever that the AV software was using to keep track of legitimate programs, which then caused it to have labeled IE as a rogue program. It then, doing the job that he asked it to, removed that program's access to the network.

      It's a computer. It just runs programs. In this case, the user has instructed one program to be updated, after having previously instructed another program to ensure that such a thing should never be tolerated.

      It's just doing exactly what he told it to do. Shifting blame away from the user and the third-party application(s) causing the problem and instead onto Windows might make folks feel better about themselves, but is both nonsensical and counterproductive, and clearly has done nothing to actually solve the problem in this case.

    16. Re:Updates? Ha! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Hmm username adolf, you defend Microsoft on slashdot and your sig is "I feel no pity". I like your style!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    17. Re:Updates? Ha! by adolf · · Score: 1

      Defend? Hardly. I hate Microsoft with a certain passion normally reserved for childhood bullies, insurance adjusters, bankers, and pizza delivery people who show up an hour late.

      But one thing I hate more is when people portray their illogical conclusions as fact. Most of the Microsoft bashing on here these days seems to revolve around warped and impractical expectations, coupled with a firm belief that anything that they've done lately which is different is absolutely wrong -- even if that differing wrongness is corrective of things which they've been previously damned for.

      I have no particular adoration for Vista. I find that it suits my daily (ie: both business and personal) needs better than Linux, but that doesn't mean I like it. Instead, it just means that I hate it less on my everyday laptop than Ubuntu or Gentoo, or even XP.

      Computers these days suck, you know. I used to run a half-dozen big-ish applications under DOS with 640k of RAM, and got everything done just fine. Later, I ran a half-dozen applications under Slackware 2 and OS/2 Warp with 20 megabytes of RAM, and got everything done just fine. Lately, I still only run a half-dozen applications, but it takes at least a gig or two of RAM to make start to suck less than 1995 - no matter what [modern] OS is in use.

      (I'm seriously considering becoming a plumber instead -- at least gravity is a constant.)

  24. Re:normal service? by cloakable · · Score: 1

    Non, non. The only way this would be normal is a bluescreen at the end ;)

    --
    No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
  25. Vista SP-1 by PaulG.1 · · Score: 0

    I loved Vista when I first installed it, then learned to loathe it more and more the more stuff I tried to install. I'm just getting around to tolerating it again and now the SP is due tomorrow. uSoft must be working with the DOD in developing "Marketing Terrorism".

  26. Is it fixed? by OnslaughtQ · · Score: 1

    http://8help.osu.edu/3618.html

    Is this problem fixed? I still have no idea what the hell causes it and the solution is less then ideal. If anyone has any other information they would like to add on this, please do so, because it bewilders me.

  27. Backing up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just make sure your Time Machine backup is up-to-date, and then--

    Oh, wait.

  28. Vista failage by Brian+Kendig · · Score: 2, Informative

    My favorite Vista travesty is that it takes several minutes to move a folder containing several gigabytes of files.

    Let me reiterate: I'm dragging one folder icon into a different folder. An operation which, for Mac or Linux, merely involves rewriting an inode. But for Windows Vista, a dialog box comes up which shows the computer recursively going through every file and directory in the folder I'm moving, as if a file or folder somehow needs its location updated independently of the folder it's in. Several minutes later, my drag has finished being processed.

    I've heard that Vista SP1 improves file handling, so two weeks ago I obtained Vista Service Pack 1 through the MSDN membership at my workplace. But a few minutes into the install, it fails with error 0x8007000d and points me to a tech note which advises me to turn off antivirus (done), run a disk check (done), and then run 'sfc /scannow' which tells me there's some sort of corruption in a system file and that I should look at cbs.log, which I do, and it contains several thousands of lines of messages I can't understand, much less figure out whether they're errors. Near as I can figure, the culprit is that the SP1 installer can't delete a file named windir\ehome\ehres.dll, so I try moving that out of the way by hand, but no combination of things I try can get it to move - Windows keeps telling me I don't have permission to move it, even if I try renaming it from a command shell run as administrator, even if I boot into safe mode.

    I have a feeling, come tomorrow when Vista SP1 is released to the masses, there's going to be more headscratching than celebrating.

    1. Re:Vista failage by bitserf · · Score: 1

      I think the slowdown is because it enumerates the whole tree to do the move - Not sure why. When it eventually does do the move, its instant.

      I just tested with a folder containing 40GB of data. Moving into another folder on the same drive took about 2 seconds all up (99% of the time was spent displaying the dialog box counting how many items are going to be moved).

      Must be something slowing down the count on your machine, anyone's guess why :)

  29. Already on DVD by ThatDamnMurphyGuy · · Score: 1

    I went to the "Heros Happen Here" brain dump last week, just for the free software. Along with server 2008, SQL 2008 and Studio 2008, they threw in a copy of Vista Ultimate w/SP1 already installed.

    And for the record, Vista Ultimate SP1 is slower than XP on my machine.

    1. Re:Already on DVD by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      I went to the "Heros Happen Here" brain dump last week, just for the free software.

      Isn't that kind of like saying "I would have gone on the Titanic, just for the free lifebelt"?

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  30. Re:First by mandark1967 · · Score: 0, Interesting

    My first 3 experiences with Windows Vista (In the form of Vista Home Premium upgrade) were disasters.

    First time it wouldn't install due to me either having 4 DIMMS present or the fact they totaled 4GB (not sure which caused the issue)

    Second time wiped a RAID 0 array and took out my Windows XP Pro 64bit install

    Third time, I had a hard drive crash.

    Since persistance tends to pay off, I decided to throw it on another system. This time, the experience was far more enjoyable.

    The system I installed it on is comprised of:

    Biostar GeForce 6100 M9 motherboard
    AMD Athlon64 4000+
    1.25GB RAM (which I will be upgrading this week)
    Integrated GeForce 6100
    Integrated Sound
    Integrated Network Card
    Memorex DVD+-RW
    (4) Seagate 500GB HDDs
    Hauppauge Win-TV card (1600 model with QCAM and all that crap)

    For those interested, this used to be my SAMBA Box. I used to have Ubuntu 7.10 on it and I used this system as my File Server to store my MP3s and Movies and stuff...

    I originally wanted to use Ubuntu and MythTV, but I couldn't get any of the distros to boot up and install.

    I downloaded Ubuntu 7.10, 8 (alpha), Mythbuntu 7.10 and Mythbuntu 8, and none of these would load up for some reason...

    I can replace the current Windows Vista drive with the one containing my old Ubuntu install, and the system no longer boots up into Ubuntu.

    Mythbuntu 7.10 will not boot the LiveCD unless I use safe mode graphics, and then the desktop display is distorted.

    Mythbuntu 8 sits at the main menu and I am unable to even choose anything (like it isn't detecting my USB keyboard)

    I replaced my USB keyboard with a PS2 IBM and there is no difference. The only configuration change between my working Ubuntu install and this Live CD was the addition of my TV Card.

    It would seem to me that there is some sort of resource conflict between the TV Card but I can't see it using lspci

    With Vista Home Premium, install went smooth, to a point.

    Since my last install of this software was on my main gaming system I couldn't automatically activate it because it had been previously activated on another system.

    I called the toll-free number, talked to the nice Indian woman (Manu, who spoke surprisingly good english) explained that I had to move the install to another hardware platform, and she gave me the numbers to activate it.

    It's been working for the better part of 10 days now and Vista Media Center actually works better than the Hauppauge software did under Windows XP Home.

    Previously, I could record any TV program I wanted but, when I clicked the STOP button, the software would lock up and I had to end the process.

    In Vista Media Center it was easy to set up the Channel Guide and TV Listings, and it all works quite well.

    I'm hoping SP1 doesn't cause more problems than it resolves, and will give it a shot when its released.

    Note to any Linux gurus out there...

    I'd still like to run MythTV on Ubuntu 7.10 so if you have any suggestions how to get rid of the conflict that prevents me from booting the new or old versions correctly, lemme know.

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  31. Out of the Early phase! by headkase · · Score: 1

    Exactly, I'm another random hardware configuration and my: Sony Walkman, TV card, and soundcard worked off of the fresh install. I had to install my printer driver, SonicStage for the Walkman, and my video card driver all of which had Vista builds. From what I read around the 'net I thought I must have got the Magic Disc or something! On the other hand first impressions do count a lot when people are forming opinions and Vista out of the gate did suffer when you consider that although all my stuff just worked® a significant chunk of the millions of other configurations out there didn't enough to give it a bum rap - out of the gate. It's now 1 year later and it's being preloaded OEM style working properly to form longer term impressions.

    --
    Shh.
  32. Vista is a headache... by Pyrophor · · Score: 0, Troll

    I am a tech that has been in the business for many years. When I sit behind a Vista box, my head starts hurting trying to find where everything is at. Microsuck changed so much stuff around that I feel like I need to go back to school to start over. This is total crap. Who was the target audience for this product? Because they sure missed the techs that have to support this monster. Vista remains an acronym for Virus Infections Spyware TrojanHorse and AdWare. Even after SP1.

    --
    PYROPHOR
  33. Vista SP1 fixes many major annoyances by Emix · · Score: 1



    I am currently using Vista Ultimate x64 SP1 on my laptop, which was upgraded from XP Pro. Currently, I have been using the system for 10 months without any BSOD problems, and only 1 cold boot due to a Quicktime installation error of all things (although that was a problem with Quicktime conflicting with the Intel RAID Matrix Manager and throwing my RAID configuration in a loop).

    I have been using SP1 for close to a month now, due to a release via Windows Update for some x64 clients. I have to say that it is a major improvement. The total time from download to complete install was about 90 minutes. There were zero problems that I encountered. A lot of quirks that annoyed the crap out of me, such as network transfers and extracting zip files with many files/folders, have been fixed. Not only has it been fixed, but in my benchmark, speeds for both exceed those of even XP by ~20%.

    Overall, I am pleased with the performance of Vista and have only very minor complaints since SP1. Most of those are really due to vendors that do not properly publish working drivers, but that is not really a MS problem as it is a vendor problem.

    1. Re:Vista SP1 fixes many major annoyances by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1

      Bill? is that you?

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
  34. Not so sanguine by grikdog · · Score: 1

    BFD. I installed Vista. UAC blew up in my face and hasn't been allowed to work since, even though this multi-user machine thinks everyone is an Administrator (but not THE Administrator, which is an obscure account no one discusses) whose desktops lose their user profiles at the drop of a farthing. Odds Microsoft has fixed enough of anything, especially the stuff they can't imagine ever going wrong: Zero.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  35. It's coming, it's almost here! by ShannaraFan · · Score: 1

    Quick! Somebody cue up the "Jaws" theme...

  36. Forget Vista by Britz · · Score: 1

    I want SP3 for Win XP

  37. I actually had a chance to try this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... as I received Vista Ultimate w/ SP1 free from Microsoft at their Visual Studio 2008 release. Alas, I gave it away minutes later.

  38. "...and locate their restore media." by More_Cowbell · · Score: 2, Informative
    Except I don't HAVE any restore media. Brand new Vaio and they refused to provide or sell me a backup copy of Vista like you used to get with XP. Instead they now have an integrated 'backup/restore' partition that supposedly you can use to recover to a particular saved point and time with. Oh, and it reduced my HD space by almost half. Fresh out of the box I have 46GB available on a 100GB drive.

    Granted it does seem somewhat useful; I was able to roll back an instillation when a vpn client gave me a BSOD. However, what am I supposed to do if I CAN'T BOOT TO WINDOWS?

    --
    Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    1. Re:"...and locate their restore media." by arogier · · Score: 1

      I too recently purchased a VAIO, and as of last month they do indeed offer physical restore media. At least on the CR series. It will set you back about $12, but we can always hope safe mode starts. Removing power usually does the trick.

    2. Re:"...and locate their restore media." by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I have a FZ series, but I'll check with them. Sales guy I spoke with at the time (~ six months ago) said not possible for any price. $12 is not an issue for the peace of mind of having the ability to do a fresh install. Hell, I might just do it anyway to get rid of some of the bloat it came with that does not seem to want to go away. (BSOD when I tried to uninstall Webroot spy sweeper)

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    3. Re:"...and locate their restore media." by arogier · · Score: 1

      You have to dig through the site a bit, but its on the VAIO support site. The VAIO update is the fastest way to find the site, but they don't make it easy to find the disks.

  39. Progress! by headkase · · Score: 1

    I upgraded from XP because I have a fairly high spec machine: Pentium D (Dual-Core) @ 3.0Ghz and 2GB ram. It was top of the line when I bought it in 2006 and all I updated for Vista was upgrading the X600 it came with to a HD2600XT for DX10. I would say at the minimum you need a dual-core and 2GB ram for Vista. If it was Windows 95 those specs would be equivalent to a Pentium 100 with 24MB ram (So you could play Quake!, err, I mean Bioshock!)! And so the march of progress goes...

    --
    Shh.
  40. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha!

  41. Well color me confused.... by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

    I was at the Chicago 2008 product launch (Windows 2K8 Server, Visual Studio 2008, and SQL Server 2008.) Part of the pack of free software they handed out was Vista Ultimate Edition with SP1.

    So they're handing it out and yet it isn't done? Yikes.

    --
    The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    1. Re:Well color me confused.... by arogier · · Score: 1

      If your language is English the service pack for Ultimate edition should be "done," but for 31 languages it is planned for sometime around August.

  42. But plenty of what exactly? by meimeiriver · · Score: 1

    No, in earnest, Vista has real issues. Sure, I like it, too: it's pretty, and me likes pretty. :) But, primarily, it's sluggish. Ever tried to delete JBOF (Just a Bunch of Files) in a dir? Say, a hundred or so rar files? It will keep busy for ever before it will finally delete them. That's because Vista is larded with mucho (stealth) DRM crapola. And no, my hardware is more than sufficient: quadcore at 3.2Ghz, 4G RAM, fast SATA II disks, 8800GTX, etc. File copying is horribly slow, too (same DRM shite). But it's stable, I'll give you that. But so was XP.

    1. Re:But plenty of what exactly? by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      FUD, sorry but this is pure FUD. What "DRM shite" exactly are you referring to? Yeah, Vista is so chock full of DRM that I shouldn't be able to rip HD-DVD, BD disks, or even play back high def vid without HDCP - and yet I do. You have made a cause and effect connection that's not valid.

      Does it take too long to copy files or delete them? Yup. Is it DRM? Nope.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    2. Re:But plenty of what exactly? by meimeiriver · · Score: 1
    3. Re:But plenty of what exactly? by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Oh I DO know them and Gutmann is Chicken Little when it comes to Vista! You're talking about a guy who hasn't even actually USED the OS yet goes on and on and on about "tilt bits" he's dreamed up from whitepapers! What a complete crock of crap. If these tilt bits are half the problem he claims I wouldn't be able to play high quality HD video on my Vista box without praying to the DRM gods. And yet I and many *many* others have no problems whatsoever ripping high def video and playing it. So much for reducing the content to the snowy resolution produced from analog TVs huh?

      Gutmann is full of it when it comes to Vista, it's not even funny. How many times is he going change that paper of his? You do know he didn't just publish it and leave it alone right? That it's gone through a few iterations? Every time someone debunks him he throws a fit too, it's a riot. Do a little research for yourself, maybe even USE the O/S, and you'll find that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Pretty damned amusing that every time someone talks about DRM and Vista they trot out his pile of steaming dung like it's gospel neverminding that no one takes him seriously. Think for yourself and do some independent research. He put just enough truth in that document to get people to nod their heads, sadly in the end most of it was worthless FUD.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  43. Already got the full slipstreamed version... by Chris+Brewer · · Score: 1

    Attended the Microsoft Launch Wave 08 event today (Win2k8 Server, SQL Server 2k8, VS2k8) and as part of the 'freebie' software pack giveaway was supposed to be Vista SP1, but as there was an issue with the CDs, they just gave us Vista Ultimate with SP1 already integrated.

    Plus I got a couple of Kingston 1GB flashdrives, so it wasn't all a loss... :)

    --
    Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
  44. Re:First by sg_oneill · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah. Sometimes you just luck out. I've had the reverse problems before. Machines that XP throws a hissy fit at, but linux works great on.

    Maybe you need to try a more conventional debian, and manually configure it. Its possible the autodetection just isn't having a fun time.

    Conversely , kick back a bit and try it later. It could be a driver situation thats just-not-there-yet. Sometimes linux just takes a bit longer.

    Good luck tho. Linux is worth it.

    Now, as for vista. I'm *DAMN* hoping this service pack makes my laptop more same because god damn it this things got some unpleasant quirks sometimes. 1-2 minute epileptic fits when I plug in a monitor? XP never did THAT.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.