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 can almost imagine the developer sitting at his desk getting an e-mail from their issue management system that there's a problem with Fc.exe (file compare) ... only to have him realize that his for loop that iterates over the buffer that reads the files should have the while conditions of <= 128 and not simply < 128!
This is forgivable, I code some pretty stupid errors sometimes.
What isn't forgivable is that one of the columns on this bug spreadsheet is "Publicly Available" which implies to me that there is a list I'm not seeing of fixed bugs which would be annoying and probably even non-fixed bugs they purposefully suppress from public knowledge which is alarming!
My work here is dung.
is Windows 7 RC1.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Isn't that coming out in October?
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
I can't believe MS finally (almost) admitted they made a mistake. It may have taken almost as long, in technological terms, as it took the Catholic Church to admit it's mistakes with Galileo, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
No one's using Vista anyway.
What are you talking about?? Plenty of people are using Vista. My Website's stats show (For the month of May until today): Windows XP 57.5 % Windows Vista 22.5 %
The thing is, you don't actually notice any real difference in how the indexing works with WS4, it's all back-end. It's suppose to be more efficient that the search/indexing code that came with Vista. I know it can be annoying when installed in XP, but since its predecessor was already integrated into Vista it should be an improvement.
If you still hate it, disable the Indexing service.
UTC is a time format, and specifies GMT.
With UTC timestamps, two files written simultaneously in Germany and Canada would have the same timestamp. In Windows, without UTC timestamps, they would have two completely different timestamps, because they would (most likely) use local time.
If you want a more informed source, try Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time
I disagree.
Just installed Vista SP2. Let me tell you it is the most secure and stab
[NO CARRIER]
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.
Do you believe everything you read or hear on the net and TV? I've been using Vista 64bit for about two years now. It's the best (released) OS I've seen out of MS so far. Very stable since SP1 was released. Initially, yes there were problems. Most of the issues I encountered were due to Nvidia drivers however, not problems caused by MS. I seem to remember having similar issues when XP was released many moons ago. I still maintain that the only real problem with Vista is the media and users that are too afraid to learn modern tech.
You should not check your own web site so often... ;)
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I have Vista SP1 installed for playing games the hard drive was thrashing so much it was actually causing stutter in my fps games sometimes until I turned the indexer and the superfetch services off (I actually had to turn off superfetch twice as it ignored me the first time). I don't seem to remember ever having to deal with that sort of issue on XP, so my guess is vista is probably worse for this sort of thing. It would be nice if SP2 alleviated this, but I'm not holding my breath. Incidentally, I find it sort of funny and sort of annoying that there are so many Vista defenders out there, when my own experience is that, yeah it runs well enough, but only after turn off all the crap like this and the graphical effects, and even then it's a little slow for a brand new OS on a brand new computer. On the other hand, with any fresh linux install I also go around removing a lot of the default desktop packages that I don't want, only it seems a lot easier and more transparent in linux, but maybe I'm just used to the linux way and not the windows way.
The funny thing is that Vista is slow on a fresh install, but the hard drive thrashing stops after you've used it for a day and it's populated superfetch and the index. It's fine to turn it off if you don't want to do indexed searches and don't want instant load on a few programs at the expense of a day of slowness, but it's also fine to leave them on, because they absolutely stop slowing anything down after that time.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
That tells you how good SP2 is. Even when his computer DOES go down, the PC manages to save his message, append "[NO CARRIER]" to it, and post it as anonymous. Let's see Linux do that!
Windows Vista Service Pack 2 Released
Will everybody please stop calling it Vista SP2? It's called Windows 7 for fuck's sake!
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
This guy will be modded down, unfortunately. I totally agree, I have been using Vista 64bit for over a year now, it has crashed on me twice in that time. My XP machine is far less stable. Also, because of its 64bit capabilities and its far better use of multiple cores (I have a quad core), I have found a performance increase over XP. Its performance has also remained, even though I have added a large amount of apps to it, it does not seem to suffer from slowing down to a slow grind after a few months of use, like XP does. There are some stupid, irritating features to it, like the UAC, driver signing, aero theme...etc. Luckily all of these features can be turned off. The only 2 problems I have with it is the integration of DRM, and the lack of EAX support (although this is being solved by drivers).
I totally agree, I have been using Vista 64bit for over a year now, it has crashed on me twice in that time. My XP machine is far less stable.
Now, I'm not going to argue about Vista's stability, it's the speed and general bloat I have problems with, but seriously, what the fuck are all you people doing to your XP installations?!
I barely maintain my system at all, much to my disdain, but I haven't had it freeze/crash/BSOD/whatever in the past 3 years (well, a few times, but they don't count because it was faulty hardware, not software) and I torture the hell out of this computer!
Ezekiel 23:20
You, and others, say UAC is horrible. Is that because it is your PC/Laptop and you are the only user?
I think UAC is great. I get home from work and my daughter says "What's your password because I need to install XYZ" and I smile. I can let her do as she pleases on my laptop and not worry about her install the latest Malware, Crapware (iTunes), etc.
The only time I've grumbled is when Firefox auto-updates while she's using it and it can't finish its upgrade without my password. (great engrish Inda)
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Actually there are many good reasons to drive a manual car. Total control on performance, fuel consumption, and generally not being a lazy geezer.
Your head a splode
So your programmers wrote shitty code that failed to follow standards. Other people can write software which runs on Windows 95 through Windows 7 - the fact that your programmers didn't/couldn't is hardly a failing of Vista.
One third of the time? I've watched Vista computers take memory, graphics cards, CPU upgrades and activate and reactivate without issue. If activation was failing 33% of the time on any kind of scale, there would be outrage (of the real kind, not the angry-geek-at-Slashdot kind). "Using your in-house key server" points a bit differently, too. My guess? You're doing something the wrong way. Very much the wrong way.