Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista Service Pack 2 Released
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has finally released the final build of Service Pack 2 for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. 'There are a few significant additions that are included in SP2: Windows Search 4.0, Bluetooth 2.1 Feature Pack, the ability to record data on to Blu-Ray media natively in Vista, Windows Connect Now (WCN) is now in the Wi-Fi Configuration, and exFAT file system supports UTC timestamps. The service pack contains about 800 hotfixes.' A list of other notable changes is available on TechNet. SP2 isn't included in Automatic Update yet, but it will be 'during the coming months.'"
I'm hoping that SP2 doesn't break the functionality of my HTPC like Windows 7 did. I tried Windows 7 x64 RC on my HTPC for about a week or so, but my sound card (X-Fi Extreme Audio PCI-Express x1 slot) developed some major problems that caused MCE to crash and WMP to crash.
I went back to Vista on it. I'm happy enough with the Media Center in Vista that I doubt I'll use Windows 7 on this box in the future, even though the UI of Windows 7 Media Center seems to be a little less "cluttered". My biggest complaint about Vista is the format of the recordings you make. I cannot seem to easily manipulate the resulting recordings very well at all, and I have to rely on MCEBuddy to convert the recorded shows to a format (H264) I can then use on other systems and OSes. ( I know, I know...DRM can suck my salty balls)
From a usability standpoint though, Windows 7 seems superior to Vista in the installation process, as well as the Desktop UI. I am surprised that they don't just convert the installed Vista base to Windows 7 for the simplicity of support. (well maybe not "surprised". it "is" MS, afterall)
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
I run Vista. index is enabled by default, but one of the first tweaks i did was switch it off, and Windows Search can be uninstalled/hidden.
The indexer runs as a "background" serivce, which is a new type and is supposed only get CPU cycles when the machine is idle. unfortunately, this only works for the FIRST instance of a background process, and there are many cases where more than one can conflict under Vista, and then indexing begins chewing up resources. I had it kick off in the middle of playing games when the CPU was over 80%.
WS4 will NOT be enabled on my machine. I keep the index service, pre-fetch, and several other services forcibally disabled on my machine. When I'm looking for something, it;s either an e-mail, which google or xobni instantly find for me without M$'s help, or it's a file I've properly store and can find myself in 3-4 clicks, or it;s a media item already indexed by iTunes... I don't search my personal machine for random crap, and anything I've ever needed to find on my own machine was ALREADY indexed by somethiung else.... It's a complete waste of resources, a waste of disk space for the index database, and every time you run a major patch, it fucking re-indexes, which for my 400+GB of stuff, takes as long as defragging.
This is not to mention that is also searches inside files, and stores that data in a database in a predetermined location. I have data in docs on my system I'd just as much prefer NOT be in a non--encrypted central repository... contacts, SSNs, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, all go in that database that is VERY easy for a hacker to lift...
If there's a way to uninstall WS4 after SP2, not just disabling it, I will.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
TLDR: I hated Vista. Loved XP. Use Linux. Installed 64bit Vista. Vista Crashed and burned. Reinstalled with SP2. It just Works.
I've been a longtime XP user. I use Ubuntu and RHEL at work. I use linux and unix. I hated Vista with a passion, thought it was a PIA and had so much config problems. I then bought a new PC (quad core 6GB ram, blah blah) so I figured I'd put Vista on it. First time worked ok. I updated my bios, it blew away my Raid 1. Got irritated and stopped screwing with it. Then SP2 came along in the last few weeks and I reinstalled my OS and installed SP2 over it.
It just works. Works perfectly. So simple to install Vista and simple to install the SP2. 2 reboots and I had everything working. Fixed the RAID issue, fixed the bluetooth issue, fixed some other quirks that drove me batshiz crazy.
I gotta say that I used to hate vista with the passion of a 1000 firey suns. Now I'm like "Well it's not too bad, what's the problem with it again?"
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
I beg to differ with your numbers:
Numbers of page view per platform on the last 12 month of a little european website:
Page Views
Platform Sum %
(blank) 231,944,487 14
AIX 63,675 0
AmigaOS 1,399 0
BeOS 1,145 0
CP/M 26,258 0
DOS 28,158 0
Dreamcast 319 0
HP-UX 1,405 0
IRIX 2,535 0
Linux 10,782,630 1
Macintosh 22,543,401 1
NetBSD 1,930 0
OS/2 6,449 0
OSF1 1,000 0
OpenVMS 383 0
SCO_SV 38 0
Slurp 61,242,836 4
Solaris 7,625,811 0
SunOS 197,176 0
Unix (unknown) 67,609 0
WebTV 2,111 0
Windows 12,050,352 1
Windows 16-bit 11,607 0
Windows 2000 132,118,040 8
Windows 32-bit 6,226,532 0
Windows 95 723,941 0
Windows 98 32,166,513 2
Windows CE 107,696 0
Windows NT 5,474,837 0
Windows Sever 2003 19,986,701 1
Windows Vista 30,442,927 2
Windows XP 1,012,030,914 62
unknown 39,486,905 2
TOTAL 1,625,367,720 100
I'm not sure it was a mistake, at least not in Microsoft's view, once you consider the reason why it was implemented and the (probable) reason why they've removed the limitation.
The reason why it was implemented according to various sources was to limit the damage of all those infected Windows machines spamming networks looking for new vulnerable hosts to infect, and also, slow down the rate at which they would cause bedlam. By enforcing such a limit, the aim was to impede an infected machines ability to propogate the infection; of course, we're primarily talking the nasty to catastrophic Windows worms we've seen in the past from gaping truck-sized security holes in critical system components.
However, if you look at Vista, you'll note that contrary to what some people would like you to believe, the exploitability of the OS has gone down drastically versus XP, in particular, with regards to worms. This is of course due to several reasons: better OS security architecture, defence-in-depth (DEP/ASLR/etc...), properly enforced user permissions, the list goes on. Take the most recent Conficker worm as an example. Vista infections will almost certainly be a lot lower, for one, the exploit path that uses the MS08-067 vulnerability that forms its primary exploit vector can not be exploited anonymously on Vista and newer machines. The vulnerable code is still present unless patched, but it requires valid user credentials.
At a guess, I'd say Microsoft came to the conclusion that the TCP limit was no longer necessary on Vista, as the improved security of the OS made the need for such connection limitations redundant. On the other hand, I'll be surprised if they ever remove it on XP, because no matter how much you patch it, it is fundamentally more insecure by its architecture than Vista. And if they don't remove the limitation on XP, I'd argue that's quite telling as to the motivation and reasoning behind removing it on Vista only.