Slashdot Mirror


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."

82 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. "Clippy" is back . . . by StefanJ · · Score: 5, Funny

    . . . and now he's mad.

    Um. Seriously. I'm glad there's a service pack out. But I'm going to wait a few weeks and see if it causes USB drives to melt, or sends your life history to the Ministry of Total Information Awareness.

    1. Re:"Clippy" is back . . . by GeckoAddict · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ok that's funny.... somehow I just pictured the clippy busting down the door holding a rocket launcher as the move voice over guy says something about 'Back for revenge'

    2. Re:"Clippy" is back . . . by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 5, Funny

      You writing a letter? Okay. You want me to help? Okay. Say hello to my little friend!

  2. hmm... by drik00 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have a very bad feeling about this.

    OR

    I feel a great disturbance in the Force. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened. ...its a toss up.

    --
    Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
  3. So how long do I wait? by More_Cowbell · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Seriously, I have it downloaded already but I don't want to install until a prudent amount of time has passed. I am one of those that would prefer to let the brave early adopters report any serious flaws. Given that this is one of the more anticipated updates, will the time I need to wait be reduced as many rush to install?

    A day? A week? Two?

    Keeping in mind my only reason to install is annoyance with current Vista performance; I have no critical reason to update.

    --
    Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    1. Re:So how long do I wait? by snl2587 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would wait at least a month to make sure any major holes weren't opened up or major compatibility issues introduced. That should probably be enough.

    2. Re:So how long do I wait? by gQuigs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait until DNF is released.

    3. Re:So how long do I wait? by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait until it shows up in auto-update in a month would be my advice. That should give plenty of time for the tech rags to post glowing reviews of how it revolutionizes computing, solves world hunger, and cures male pattern baldness. Likewise, it will give Slashdot plenty of time to report that it makes computers crash, steals peoples' wallets, has sex with their dogs, and sets their house on fire.

      You know, the usual Microsoft software update cycle.

    4. Re:So how long do I wait? by dg5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Torch it and throw it into rubbish along with Vista. Any OS that needs 2GB of RAM to run (slowly) is not worth a penny.

    5. Re:So how long do I wait? by cyclocommuter · · Score: 4, Informative

      If your reason for installing is only for performance, Vista SP1 will probably disappoint you. On the other hand I have installed it on 2 laptops and one desktop and the only problem I had was with an HP Printer driver that stopped working. All I had to do was to go to Control Panel, remove the printer, then add the printer back again and that fixed the problem.

      Honestly, I did not find any major improvement performance-wise nor stability-wise as my machines were already running relatively smoothly pre-SP1. There appears to be minor improvements in boot times, shutdown times (though I do this maybe once a week per PC/laptop on average); plus getting in and out of sleep, especially for the laptops, appears to go smoother.

    6. Re:So how long do I wait? by DaveWick79 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know /.'ers like to discount MS's beta process as a bunch of rubbish. But the beta process is there to eliminate the brave earlier adopter problems at actual launch time. And traditionally it has worked.

    7. Re:So how long do I wait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, just like with that prerequisite patch for Vista SP1, which - hold on, I need to reboot, Vista just installed an update.

      OK, like that prerequisite patch for Vista SP1 that - hold on, Vista found a new update and is installing it.

      Anyway, like that prerequisite patch for Vista SP1 that - wait, it needs to reboot again.

      Right, like that prerequisite patch for Vista SP1 that - hold on, Vista found a new update and is installing it.

      As I was saying, like that prerequisite patch for Vista SP1 that - wait, it needs to reboot yet again.

      So anyways, like that prerequisite patch for Vista SP1 that - hold on, Vista found a new update and is installing it. Wait, I think that's the same patch as last time.

      Where was I? Oh, right, like that - dammit, it's forcing a reboot again. Hold on.

      So remember that prerequisite patch for Vista SP1 that caused - DAMMIT, NO, I DON'T WANT TO TRY TO INSTALL IT AGAIN!! ...

      Right, that Vista SP1 prerequisite patch that caused endless rebooting for the lucky ones and killed Vista for the unlucky ones?

    8. Re:So how long do I wait? by AJWM · · Score: 4, Informative

      But the beta process is there to eliminate the brave earlier adopter problems

      No, see, that's what an alpha release is for. Beta releases are supposed to be damned near final, what in these days of release grade inflation is now called a "release candidate". This is why "/.'ers like to discount MS's beta process as a bunch of rubbish"; because for those of us that remember, it is.

      "And traditionally it has worked as an alpha process"

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      -- Alastair
    9. Re:So how long do I wait? by yourfnmom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait... makes my computer crash? Now that's where I draw the line.

    10. Re:So how long do I wait? by kpainter · · Score: 3, Funny

      I just installed SP1. It is GREAT! File transfers are almost instantaneous. Better yet, it seems very sta

    11. Re:So how long do I wait? by bigdanmoody · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Waiting to install SP1 will not change the code you have downloaded. Whether you install it immediately or a month from now will do nothing to change the service pack. I guess I don't understand your question, or why it was modded "Insightful."

    12. Re:So how long do I wait? by BigBlueOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ya know, just a few years ago it was such a pain in the tukas to deal with Linux upgrades ... dependency hell ... "why can't Linux installs just *work* like my Windows installs do?". That wasn't that long ago, ya know.

      Now it's just the opposite. Installing Microsoft stuff is such a royal pain in the bazonga compared to Linux that I just stopped dealing with it. I'm sick of worrying about what "patches" and "service packs" I've applied and which I haven't, what impossible-to-remember-URL I'm supposed to go to for the patches, whether this service pack breaks this while it fixes that ... forget it!

    13. Re:So how long do I wait? by sudotcsh · · Score: 2, Funny

      The last Windows service pack I downloaded crashed my house, stole my computer, had sex with my wallet, and set my dog on fire.

      I think I may have done it wrong.

    14. Re:So how long do I wait? by nmg196 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't need 2GB of RAM. It runs fine with 1GB of RAM. People who don't know how Vista works simply assume it needs 2GB because they notice that if you give it 2GB it uses it all. They fail to notice that if you give it 4GB it also uses it all. For some reason, people put lots of RAM in their computer and then hope that all the new RAM will remain free. Vista chooses to use it to speed up your system (mainly by caching). If you have a problem with that, use a less clever OS like Windows XP.

  4. Poor Vista. by Missing_dc · · Score: 5, Funny

    "After much prevaricating and slipping out then pulling back, the first service pack for Windows Vista....."

    sounds like an awful lover.

    --
    How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    1. Re:Poor Vista. by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      sounds like an awful lover.

      Awful or no, somebody will most certainly be getting screwed.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    2. Re:Poor Vista. by zienth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Consider the company's name. Do the words "micro" and "soft" sound like they go with a great lover?

      Zienth

  5. adoption rate by AdamReyher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm more interested to see how this affects the adoption rate ... or doesn't. It's been said businesses have been waiting for SP1 to make the move. The question is: was that all just talk or is it going to actually happen?

    --
    The Computations of AdamR
    http://www.adamreyher.com
    1. Re:adoption rate by handsomepete · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For the company I work at the issue is hardware - while some of our PCs would probably run Vista somewhat ok a lot of them won't and we can't really afford to either a.) increase support costs by having a constant stream of "slow PC" calls or b.) do a complete desktop refresh in less than 2 years. If there was some sort of tangible advantage we'd probably try to find the budget, but no one has pointed one out to us yet. So we'll either ride XP to the end of its days (or to Windows 7, whichever comes first).

      Like a lot of companies we've talked about switching over to an alternative OS, but having the usual triad of Microsoft entrenchment (Exchange + Office + AD) makes that an unnerving undertaking for our size.

  6. List of issues with Vista SP1 by atari2600 · · Score: 5, Informative
  7. Service Pack 1... Not impressed so far. by og_sh0x · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I use Vista at work because I'm going to need to know it eventually. Microsoft probably won't offer XP forever. Among many other problems that I eventually fixed before the service pack, I had a problem with my sound not working so I installed Service Pack 1. It fixed the sound problem, then broke my network adapter. After removing the service pack, the network came back but the sound broke again. And it's over an hour to install and another hour to uninstall.

    1. Re:Service Pack 1... Not impressed so far. by joshuaes · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Microsoft probably won't offer XP forever."

      Windows XP Professional 'Direct OEM and Retail License Availability' ends June 30, 2008. And 'System Builder License Availability' ends January 31, 2009.

      http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

      So, Microsoft isn't going to offer Windows XP in a few months. As far as an OEM license goes.

      --
      "While you're watching the quiet ones, a noisy one will fucking kill you!" - George Carlin
    2. Re:Service Pack 1... Not impressed so far. by Bragador · · Score: 5, Funny
      The Pirate Bay will continue to offer Windows XP for a long time to come.


      I wouldn't panic if I were you...

    3. Re:Service Pack 1... Not impressed so far. by atari2600 · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3221 states that End of Life (extended support retirement) for Windows XP is (in) 2014.

  8. Re:Possible Tags by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't forget the slew of jokes that Vista SP1 will just reinstall XP...

    --
    stuff |
  9. Re:Auto upbreak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work in the IT field, use Vista 100% on my laptop and have several clients.

    I snagged SP1, the latest pre release build and it has been fine.

    Things seem 'faster', copying files, something that use to take weeks now takes as long as it should.

    I still get the random spoolsv crashing for no reason but that was there before SP1.

    None of my applications break although I don't use anything custom or home grown or vertical.

    The install took a while - three stages with I believe a few stages each. I made a backup of my data prior just in case it went blue. No problems with the install/patch.

    captch: robbed

  10. Another Microsoft Success by stevedcc · · Score: 4, Informative

    I tried the (two) public betas on my Vista Ultimate 64 partition. They all failed to install at 19%. I reported it on the forums, tried to send my logs to an email address they said they'd set up, and even identified which file was supposedly "corrupt" (the one it was installing actually).

    For my trouble, I've been ignored, and I'm now going to have to reinstall the ENTIRE OS because some small part of it is supposedly corrupt (systems works fine) and they won't let me just fix that. Lovely. My Ubuntu install is so much better, I wish I didn't need the vista one.

    --
    todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
  11. I've been using it for a few weeks by Coopjust · · Score: 5, Informative

    I grabbed the X64 update from Microsoft's OEM website a few weeks ago.

    First off, SP1 is a massive improvement. It installs a lot of bugfixes (including ones not released publicly before)... and it improves other stuff quite a bit. Disk performance is much better- you could argue that copy and paste tasks should not be slowed down by the speed of the OS, but it's improvement.

    Overall, my Vista install rarely runs into errors- maybe one or two non-system apps are hanging a week. UAC got less annoying (it wasn't that bad to begin with).

    It took an hour to install on my PC, and I didn't run into any issues. I think it helps Vista a lot. Honestly, I prefer Vista on newer machines; it's RAM heavy requiring 2GB+ to run well but RAM is very cheap nowadays and the x64 version works quite well; I had no driver issues personally.

    (I still recommend backing up though. I always back up before a major update, whether it's XP, Vista, OS X or Ubuntu).

    1. Re:I've been using it for a few weeks by ddrichardson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      requiring 2GB+ to run well

      No matter how many times I see this it blows me away. This isn't an anti Microsoft bash - this is a serious efficiency issue - we have gone from a suggested 8Mb for WFWG 3.11 (1992/93 UK) to 2Gb in a generation. That's a massive jump considering that most users are still muddling about with a web browser and a word processor. I know that processor speeds etc have also increased exponentially but I can't help this nagging feeling that it's down to lazy coding.

      --
      A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
    2. Re:I've been using it for a few weeks by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 2

      There's more than one generation between 3.11 and Vista. I'm not really defending Microsoft, I think the requirements for Vista are outrageous, but intellectual dishonesty doesn't really serve anyone.

    3. Re:I've been using it for a few weeks by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I must agree with you there. I once browsed the web and checked my email (with GUI programs), as well as viewed videos (from a CD encyclopedia) on a 486 75Mhz machine with an 80Mb hard drive an 6Mb of RAM.

      My new computer has a processor 48x faster (just by a megahertz comparison - I'm sure it's actually even faster in the real world), has 341x the RAM, and has roughly 13,107x the hard drive space.

      What does the average public use their machines for these days? Browsing the web and checking email. Why is it that our hardware is now orders of magnitude faster in theory but still does the same basic stuff? I can understand some things taking the extra power. Video compression, 3d gaming, compiling source code, etc, should all take a lot of horsepower, but the most basic computer tasks shouldn't take the resources they do. Glancing at task manager on this machine here at work Firefox is currently using 157MB of RAM. Like I said, I once browsed the web on a machine with 6MB total memory.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:I've been using it for a few weeks by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While in theory a lot of what you say is true, look at what's happened in that generation. We've gone from no spell checker to an integrated spell checker you run when you're done to automatic spell checking with auto complete and auto correct all done in real time. The same for the grammer checker and a url/email address parser. Browsers now use not only html, but css and heavy javascript. Firefox now has the ability to use plugins and tabs.

      The problem isn't bad coding, it's that features are inherently slow. To implement real time spell checking requires a lot of processing power, especially if you can type over 5 characters a second. Think about that for a minute. Remember how long spell checking used to take as it went through the document? It used to take 5-10 minutes for a medium sized paper when I was in HS. Now it can spell check the word that I'm typing multiple times per second and get through the document in around 5 seconds while still bundling in more real time functionality.

      I remember when a medium quality video on a computer doing nothing else would have long pauses and not be able to play smoothly. Now I can play music while watching a youtube video through a program running inside my browser with no pauses whatsoever, and that's while streaming it online (which also takes processor power). I can watch youtube videos while playing an intensive game on year old hardware with two monitors running through the video card; that's something I couldn't even dream about a few years ago.

      The reason that programs appear slow is because they add features that are more processor intensive than they appear to the naked eye. Plugins are extremely inefficient. Real-time spell checking requires looking up in a dictionary multiple times per second with a lot of wasted effort. Going from 800x600 to 1260x1024 is nearly doubling the number of pixels. CSS is very processor intensive. Features have been pushed on so many fronts it's mind boggling.

    5. Re:I've been using it for a few weeks by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't believe the parent was talking about a technological generation, but rather a genealogical one. Those are 20yrs, so in fact, in LESS than a generation we have gone from 8MB to 2GB.

    6. Re:I've been using it for a few weeks by westlake · · Score: 2
      No matter how many times I see this it blows me away. This isn't an anti Microsoft bash - this is a serious efficiency issue - we have gone from a suggested 8Mb for WFWG 3.11 (1992/93 UK) to 2Gb in a generation.

      Tell me why it ia inefficient to make the maximum use of RAM when RAM is cheap.

    7. Re:I've been using it for a few weeks by avandesande · · Score: 2

      Why not think of it this way, 8mb of ram(92) was 300 or 400 hundred dollars. Currently 2GB of ram is 30$. Sounds like an improvement to me.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    8. Re:I've been using it for a few weeks by NamShubCMX · · Score: 2

      I agree. But 8M in 93 was +400$. I just bought 4G of RAM that is about 20x faster for 109$ (not a deal...) I dont really care about numbers as much as what it cost me to run a computer. Also, not many people used a web browser in 93 (www is born in what? 91?) and a single big 24 bits background image on a website (one of the many you have in tabs) can take well over 3M of internal memory... That is not talking about any of the other useful things we do with our computer now. I personally believe coding is a lot of a tradeoff between maintainability and performance. RAM is cheap, programmer time is not...

      --
      We've always been at war with Eurasia.
  12. Learn a lesson Microsoft!!! by get+quad · · Score: 4, Funny

    Few people play Quake 4 today as it was released roughly 1.5 years before it was ready for retail, then Activision expected the public to become guinea pig beta testers for a half-assed product. Microsoft should take a lesson, as Vista has become the same laughing stock as a video game for the exact same reasons. In other words, software companies need to make this quip their gospel: An Old Bull and a Young Bull were standing at the top of a hill overlooking a large meadow full of cows. The Young Bull says excitedly, "Let's run down there and fuck us a cow!" "No, son", says the Old Bull, "let's WALK down there and fuck them all."

    --
    "To err is human, to mod Funny divine."
  13. Slow install by doodzed · · Score: 5, Informative

    Do not start the update procedure unless you do not need your machine for a while. On stage 2 of 3 on a fairly beefy box(5.1 vista experience) and it has been chugging for about 15 min and shows 2% done.

    At least my mac is up.

    --
    It's not the size of your stack that matters, it's how you push and pop
    1. Re:Slow install by Kenshin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I still don't completely understand why SP1 takes 4 times as long to install as Vista itself.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    2. Re:Slow install by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because the SP1 install has to run on Vista.

  14. Oh noes by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Run for your lives! Seriously is this just like any other patch Tuesday or should I get in my mom's basement now and hunker down for a few weeks.

    J/K. I'm always in my mom's basement.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  15. I have successfully installed Service Pack 1. by MOMOCROME · · Score: 4, Interesting

    went smooth as silk, even on the more complicated Vista Ultimate.

    why do I mention it? well. this thread will be full of nasty, snarky lies. maybe i can balance things out a bit and thank the windows team for an update well done.

    now if they could just turn their attention to the fail that is 'windows ultimate extras', that would be perfect.

    1. Re:I have successfully installed Service Pack 1. by ashridah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I personally like the disinformation about SP1 being pulled or delayed that was blatantly incorrect (it was stated that it would be mid-march when it was announced at the start of Feb, and shock, it's now mid-march, and it's been released)

      But still, not like the facts matter to The Register or Slashdot anymore... if they ever did.

  16. With apologies to Slayer... by rob1980 · · Score: 4, Funny

    God Hates Us All.

  17. Bugs by Category by headkase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Vista Service Pack 1 rolls up 551 bug fixes which are broken down by category in that link. Many of these fixes were not available before even through more advanced sites such as MSDN or TechNet. So, now that SP1 is out the trend to watch for is if it actually spures adoption or just passes by unnoticed. I for one welcome..., err, did buy Vista because SP1 was imminent for it as my primary purchasing reason. SP1 incrementally improves Vista and through the simple realities of OEM distribution like it or not within a few years Vista will probably be at least 40%+ market share.

    --
    Shh.
  18. Shock Horror by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've been running it for a couple of weeks now, and yes, shock horror it does work just fine.

    The system feels more responsive, and stuff happens as it should. This is the Vista that should've shipped, but where Vista has suffered Windows Server 2008 has gained; all the initial frustrations have been fixed in SP1 for Vista and Windows Server 2008, so consider Vista RTM a beta kernel for Win2k8. It is after all, the server market Windows isn't 95% prevalent in after all.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
  19. Re:Auto upbreak. by xstonedogx · · Score: 4, Informative

    Where does the GP say "stellar performance" and who is "everyone else"?

    SP1 installed very easily for me. Everything the GP says agrees with my own experience, except for the spoolsv crashing. The only issue I had at all was having to change the screen resolution back. As an added bonus, Bioshock now runs without crashing every 5-10 minutes.

  20. Re:Auto upbreak. by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Things seem 'faster', copying files, something that use to take weeks now takes as long as it should."

    Does Internet Explorer feel 'snappier'?

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  21. Re:Auto upbreak. by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Things seem 'faster', copying files,

    To hell with 'seem' - post benchmarks.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  22. Re:Auto upbreak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    SP1 RTM has been available for quite some time from the technet site. We've been using it for quite awhile now. BTW, the spoolsv issue is with an HP Print driver, generally from a print server. You need to get an updated hpbmini.dll - minor rev 16 and greater will work. Older versions don't understand an OS that starts with version "6" and just crash the spooler. You can delete the driver using printmanagement.msc.

  23. Re:Auto upbreak. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    something that use to take weeks now takes as long as it should.

    I still get the random spoolsv crashing for no reason but that was there before SP1.
    Man, you make Vista sound really great. I'm gonna run out and buy a copy!
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  24. Re:Possible Tags by Bryansix · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't forget the slew of jokes that Vista SP1 will just reinstall XP...
    Too bad it doesn't...
  25. Re:Auto upbreak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Stellar performance, and totally against what everyone else says."

    You mean the 9 out of 10 people that don't actually use Vista but happily parrot every sensationalist headline they run across?

  26. Re:Auto upbreak. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Agreed!!!
    Wow... You registered just to post that?
  27. We want XP-Service Pack 3 by John+Jamieson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most people would care a lot more about XP-SP3.
    Lets hope that with this Vista SP out, MS will release XP-SP3.

  28. Re:Unfortunately... by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read all those Win2008 makes a better desktop than Vista, and on a x64 system, so I gave it a try.

    Compared to Vista x64 with SP1, Win 2008 ran all my software, was full x64, and the drivers worked for vista. Sound, Video. Codecs worked. Boots quicker, file system ran smoother, files copied at normal speeds.

    Even vista after sp1 is still a dog... And god, I hate the new file explorer, I've had to revert back to Directory Opus..

  29. Not only is SP1 out, it's also open source by sokoban · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here's the source code: /*
    TOP SECRET Microsoft(c) Project:Longhorn(TM) SP1
    Estimated release date:2008
    */
    #include "win95.h"
    #include "win98.h"
    #include "leopard.h"

    char chew_up_some_ram[10000000];

    void main () {
    while (!CRASHED) {

    if (first_time_install) {
    make_10_gigabyte_swapfile();
    do_nothing_loop();
    search_and_destroy(FIREFOX | OPENOFFICEORG | ANYTHING_GOOGLE);
    hang_system();
    }

    if (still_not_crashed) {
    basically_run_windows_xp();
    do_nothing_loop();
    }
    }

    if (!DX10GPU()) {
    set_graphics(aero, very_slow);
    set_mouse(reaction, sometimes);
    } // printf("Welcome to Windows 2000); // printf("Welcome to Windows XP");
    printf("Welcome to Windows Vista");

    while (something) {
    sleep(10);
    get_user_input();
    sleep(10);
    act_on_user_input();
    sleep(10);
    flicker_led_promisingly(hard_disk);
    }

    creat_general_protection_fault();
    }

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
  30. Re:Auto upbreak. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Things seem 'faster', copying files, something that use to take weeks now takes as long as it should. ...
    Re:Auto upbreak. (Score:-1, Informative) .. Somebody with first hand experience posts something that goes against public (but not first-hand) opinion gets modded down. Let's motivate those with personal experience to get passionate with their comments!

    Nice use of mod points, gentlemen, that's how Microsoft 'shills' are born.
    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  31. Another coat of shellac by RedMage · · Score: 4, Interesting


    I find it interesting that operating systems are more and more being treated like applications. Traditionally the OS was responsible for managing resources (Disk, Memory, etc.), controlling security, and coordinating activities (queues, jobs, etc.) Today the Windows OS is responsible for browsing the web, playing music, recording TV, and plotting world domination (OK, I added that last one...) Why should these things be included in the "operating system" mix? I would argue that even a windowing system is borderline (see X).

    --
    }#q NO CARRIER
    1. Re:Another coat of shellac by Shados · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mostly because more and more, computers are being treated like appliances... So anything basic that it cannot do straight out of the box, or by installing only ONE package, is something "missing" from a user's point of view.

  32. Re:Auto upbreak. by Two9A · · Score: 2, Informative

    Before anyone gets all riled up on this, it's a repost of a repost of an old troll. I can't find the original or the repost right now, but this text is exactly the same, right down to the use of "486/66".

    At least take the time to update your trolls, son.

    --
    xkcdsw: the unofficial archive of Making xkcd Slightly Worse
  33. Re:Auto upbreak. by JebusIsLord · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I had the exact same experience. Posting under my own account, because frankly I don't give a flying fuck what the dogmatically Anti-MS moderators (priests) think.

    --
    Jeremy
  34. DNF by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait until DNF is released. My first mental "expansion" of DNF was the term used in result listings in athletics when a runner abandon the race: "Did Not Finish".

    On second thought, from context it seems that you meant Duke-Nuke'em Forever.

    Then again, maybe the two meanings of DNF aren't that different.

  35. Huh? by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Funny

    or sends your life history to the Ministry of Total Information Awareness. Why would Microsoft send your life history to Google?

  36. Re:Auto upbreak. by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Informative

    Benchmark? I'd imagine it's a fairly long ordeal to really and accurately benchmark file copying, unless you want "It took about 3 seconds to..." Plus, you'd have to have a non-SP1 computer that has exactly the same hard drive fragmentation and everything... it's not like you're benchmarking a game with GameSpot and have x amount of computers to spare for exactly that purpose...

  37. Re:is vista that bad? by ChaoticCoyote · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it is not "that bad."

    Could it be better? Yes.

    Should it have been tested longer before release? Yes.

    Is it as bad as people say on boards like this one? No.

    I just bought a brand-new HP dv6768se laptop from Best Buy, upgraded the Vista Home to Vista Ultimate, and am sincerely happy with the system. My HP 8020n has been running flawlessly for many months. Both systems were built for Vista, came with Vista, and have run nothing else.

    Oh, Vista has its problems -- the annoying slowness of file copies and deletes being chief among them. But I can sit down and make a bitch-list for my Gentoo and Ubuntu systems as well; my friends with Macs have their own pet peeves with OS X. I love my Linux systems; I love my Vista machines. As with everything in life, nothing is perfect, and whether or not you like something or someone is largely based on your desire to be annoyed.

  38. Vista: It doesn't have to be painful... by ndykman · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been running Vista for about 16 months now. (Got it from MSDN, etc.). I ran both 32bit and 64bit editions, on two kinds of hardware. It's been a bumpy ride sometimes.

    If at all possible, use the x64 edition. Yes, some OEM make this a pain, but try. Given this, my next suggestion seems obvious. Get more memory. The more, the better. I'd rather have 8G of DDR2-533 than 2G of DDR3 uber-awesome overclocked OMGBBQ ram, because caching works. If on an Intel integrated graphics, turn down some of the Aero stuff. Duh. If possible, just buy a cheap 8400GS, because even that will help.

    SP1 helps. Some things are faster. Of course, I'm not seeing some of the problems others are. I recently shipped some ISOs over from machine to my server (Win 2008), and it just flew. Got about 600Mb over a 1Gb switched link.

    All in all. Not one blue screen on the desktop, a couple on the laptop due a older bluetooth driver. Things seem plenty responsive and fast, but there is a breaking in period. Sure, it isn't "awesome", but ME it sure is not.

    Be patient! Indexing and the prefetching stuff takes time, but it does work. I use Outlook (okay, I know, I know) a lot, and it fired up faster and faster after the first day or two.

  39. Re:Auto upbreak. by HeavyAl · · Score: 2, Informative

    I use Vista on my Dell laptop since getting Linux to sleep and recover is still too spotty for my tastes but so far this is my experience with SP1:

    • Started Install at 2:04 PM PST
    • grind, grind grind
    • Finished at 2:32 PM PST
    • Process list reports dwm.exe (the 'window manager') is using ~27 megs rather than the 33 it was using previously
    • Shutdown/Reboot time has diminished by around 5 seconds .. nothing to write home about as I don't reboot often anyway
    • Switching between wired/wireless seems to pick up the networks faster and with less fiddling - previously Vista had trouble at times switching between the two and I would have to run their diagnostic tool to reset the ip
    • There is a 'screen flash' present at login that was not previously apparent. Could just be a matter of waiting til everything settles down and might just need a defrag after all those files were updated
    • Yep, O&O defrag reports the system went from 1.3% fragmented before the upgrade to about 8% fragmentation after

    Overall, I don't 'feel' much of a difference. I copied a couple 1 gig isos across my network and the speed was fairly similar to what it was before - the calculation time was less, but the actual copy was almost the same but that could be due to other loads on this network right now (no, I'm not going to qualify that).

    I cant say for certain but it looks like there might be one or two more services installed now that werent there before. Have to do a bit more research on that but contrary to what others have said this update does not appear to have re-enabled services that I previously had turned off such as windows search.

    It will be interesting to see what other reports we get on this as it gets pushed out to the main stream users next month.

  40. Re:Auto upbreak. by chubs730 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps digg was down?

  41. Re:Auto upbreak. by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Man, you make Vista sound really great. I'm gonna run out and buy a copy!

    He probably just has a lousy printer driver. I've never had spoolsv crash. (Oh and spoolsv crashing probably doesn't affect his system, it probably just restarts itself but posts a message saying it happened.) (I have seen a couple other services fail and restart themselves.)

    Meanwhile, just the other day I saw this post:

    Ubuntu 7.10 won't start up 'kernel panic' ...been running Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy Gibbon" for about a week. I got this message on startup yesterday.

    [ 17.894410] RAM DISK: ran out of compressed data
    [ 17.894466] invalid compressed format (err=1)
    [ 17.895094] Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on unknown block(0,0) ...I can't load my computer, I'm currently running off a LiveCD...


    I guess I should quip: "Man Linux sounds really great. I'm gonna run out and install it."

    Vista doesn't deserve the abuse people heap on it. Or, if it does, an equal helping should be heaped onto Linux's and OSX because in my experience, all 3 oses are pretty good, but none are very close to perfect.

  42. Re:Auto upbreak. by sirmonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    at work, on heavily locked down pcs... the dolts in my IT heard that you can seal data with USB drives.... they epoxied the usb connectors, and got all new mice. i kidd you not. its amazes me the idots up top. side note, you want to have fun with your local secuitry personal, bring in a laptop with linux. then when they "must" run a virus scanner, let them run it it wine. its quite funny :-). more so when its IT security :-D haha good times.

    --
    bored? try this http://jadmadi.net/blog/2005/01/27/linux-wine-how-to-running-windows-viruses-with-wine/
  43. Re:Auto upbreak. by tixxit · · Score: 3, Informative

    Vista's file copying, w/o SP1, was so incredibly slow, you really don't need a benchmark to notice its faster either. Copying just seems like its taking a normal amount of time, as opposed to way fucking longer than it ever should.

  44. Don't get me wrong.... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...if Vista SP1 brings it closer to the expectations of its users then I'm very happy for them.

    But why do I still get the feeling that very few people ***CHOSE*** to upgrade to it but just accepted it because it came on their new PC and they couldn't do anything about it because XP had been artificially phased out by Microsoft?

    In my view, those are not good indications that Vista is, in any way, a successful product.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  45. Re:Auto upbreak. by MufasaZX · · Score: 5, Informative

    Luckily today was a slow day at work so I did various benchmark tests both before and after installing SP1. This was all done on my Dell Inspiron E1705 laptop, Core 2 Duo 2Ghz CPU, 2GB RAM, and a freshly defragmented 200GB 7200RPM Seagate HD. Not a mobile Lan Party screamer, but it gets the job done well enough.

    Boot times dropped, both with and without ReadyBoost enabled (using a 4GB 150x SD card) by about 10 seconds, ending up with 1:56 clean and 1:45 with ReadyBoost.

    ATTO Disk Benchmark showed a .

    Copying 1GB of JPG files from one partition to another dropped from 1:31 to 1:09, and to the network from 1:35 to 1:06.

    3DMark06 scores very slightly increased, PCBench05 scores slightly decreased.

    The graphics test in CoH OF went from 59.7/28.8/7.9 up to 59.7/28.9/9.2

    So no huge improvements, but overall things are just a bit more snappy.

  46. Re:Auto upbreak. by Genocaust · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Am I the only Vista user who hasn't experienced any issues at all yet? I haven't even had issues with file copy speed.

    I'll load SP1 on both my machines and post some hopefully uneventful results of how both my PCs still work without issue when I get home from this business trip in three days.

    --
    It could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
  47. Re:Auto upbreak. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Funny
    Anyone who says Vista is competent in any area, or that service pack one makes some improvements, is obviously an M$$$-paid troll.

    Look, we know there are people out there who like Vista, but it doesn't mean anything.

    When I dumped my ex, she found herself another bloke easily, and she's an irritating, fat, resource-hogging beast of a thing as well.

    And unlike the MS boosters, at least her new bf has the grace not to go around bragging about how much he likes being screwed by her.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  48. Re:Auto upbreak. by Samah · · Score: 2, Funny

    It took about an hour to copy my 20 terabytes of porn between physical drives rather than the usual 3 days.
    Pity I lost interest after 5 minutes.

    --
    Homonyms are fun!
    You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.