Vista Service Pack 1 Is Out

superglaze writes "What's to say? After much prevaricating and slipping out then pulling back, the first service pack for Windows Vista has actually been released. It's available for download now via Microsoft's sites, with an auto-update rollout scheduled for next month, and it should hit Amazon's virtual shelves on Wednesday."

Comments

Re:Too late!

[jandrese]

Because chances are "Windows 7" is going to be Windows Server 2009, and basically Vista with some server stuff tossed in (and a much higher price tag).

Re:I've been using it for a few weeks

[Itninja]

UAC got less annoying (it wasn't that bad to begin with)

I am guessing you rarely make changes to your system? I couldn't even install a AV update (daily) without having to approve it several times.

it's RAM heavy requiring 2GB+ to run well

If by 'run well' you mean significantly slower than XP with the same resources. My new Vista machine has 2GB and takes as least twice as long to do even simple things (open Photoshop, enumerate installed software, etc.). I would recommend at least 4GB if you want to same performance you got with XP at 1GB.

It sounds like you are still in the honeymoon stage with Vista. The 'isn't Aero pretty?' stage. I was there once. That was a year ago. Now I am a bitter Linux user.

So what does it break?

[MadMidnightBomber]

Don't mod funny, I am entirely serious.

Re:Auto upbreak.

[sokoban]

Here ya go. And it's not a troll, it's a funnay:

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:Auto upbreak.

[Vectronic]

Ouch... 2 Minutes for a 17MB file?... even with the "if that" addition... thats still insanely long...

HP Pavilion (A6245N), Vista Home (no SP1), ASUS (something or other), Intel Q6600, 2GB DDR3, SATA (AHCI) 3GB/s
- about 500ms "if that", however the dialog takes about 3 seconds to go away...

Dell Dimension (8300), XP Pro, Intel (somethign or other), Intel P4 2.6, 1.5GB DDR2, SATA (IDE) 3GB/s
- about 300ms "if that", dialog doesnt even have time to show up...
- about the same for (Various) Linux OS on the same box...

Something I do find about Vista that is exponentially quicker, is network transfering speeds (LAN)... XP to XP seems (oddly) limited to about 2MB/s... but Vista to Vista, or even Vista to XP... is just over 9MB/s... swapping NIC's and using the same drivers... still the same...