homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.202.234
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Microsoft / Microsoft Windows OS (XP/NT/Vista/Windows 7/8/9/10)
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: bill

Microsoft Windows OS (XP/NT/Vista/Windows 7/8/9/10) Forum

This 33 message thread spans 2 pages: 33 ( [1] 2 > >     
Windows Vista SP1 Released
Initially, English, French, Spanish, German and Japanese
engine




msg:3565993
 5:57 pm on Feb 4, 2008 (gmt 0)

Microsoft has said that Windows Vista SP1 is released to manufacturing and it should become available on Windows Update and the download center mid March.

OEM partners should start getting SP1 through and you should soon see SP1 pre-installed.

The retail version has also gone to manufacturing, too.

Mid April is the schedule for those users that have chosen to update automatically.

According to Microsoft, this SP includes changes to improve performance and reliablity. For example, up to 50% improvement in performance copying and moving files on the PC and network.

In addition, Microsoft uncovered some problematic driver issues during the Beta stage of SP1 development. These drivers were incorrectly installed and, if you have one these drivers, Windows Update will not permit the automatic install. Users can override this and install the update if they wish. Apparently, the drivers simply need to be reinstalled.

I would imagine that these driver issues will become better known in due course.

 

rj87uk




msg:3566275
 11:38 pm on Feb 4, 2008 (gmt 0)

According to Microsoft, this SP includes changes to improve performance and reliablity. For example, up to 50% improvement in performance copying and moving files on the PC and network.

Thats good to hear, I was switching files from my laptop to my new vista PC and it was very slow to copy and move files. It was horrible, half the time large amounts of files being moved stopped half way through!

ebound




msg:3566320
 12:57 am on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

So my question is, if you were buying a computer today with a windows operating system, would you rather have XP or Vista?

I'm buying a new PC soon and I haven't heard much good about Vista and Dell is offering new PC's with XP installed. Which way to go?

bill




msg:3566331
 1:08 am on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

There's an announcement of this release on the Windows Vista team's blog:
Announcing the RTM of Windows Vista SP1 [windowsvistablog.com]

I notice this comment:
I've personally been running Windows Vista SP1 pretty exclusively for a few months and I've noticed that my systems run faster and more reliably than they did with the "Gold" release of Windows Vista.
Hopefully that indicates some of the performance issues will be cleared up with this release. We shall soon see...

And there is mention of the speed-up of network file copying. Other than that the article does not list a lot of specific improvements we can expect with SP1. However, that's what Microsoft has been saying all along about SP1. A lot of general work has been done under the hood, but they're not introducing new features to the OS.

Keep in mind that a lot of the same criticisms leveled at Vista today (hardware requirements, performance, compatibility) were all leveled at XP when it was first released. It wasn't until XP SP1 and XP SP2 that it became a good solid OS. I didn't see any rush to switch from Windows 2000 either. Vista SP1 will most likely be a step in the right direction for the development of this OS.

webastronaut




msg:3566368
 2:16 am on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

To ebound,

Personally I would go with XP over Vista unless you are really good at dissecting a Windows operating system to make it work for your needs.

I gave my wife a Vista laptop for Christmas and she loves it...
But more than 1 month later I am still tweeking it to work well wireless wise. I like getting free internet access with laptops on the road and Vista is not user friendly.

g1smd




msg:3566375
 2:22 am on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

*** up to 50% improvement in performance copying and moving files ***

Since they crippled it by about 90% in the first place, it seems like it will still be miles worse than 98 or XP if the improvement is only 50% on what it is now.

dakuma




msg:3566422
 4:27 am on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

The speed improvements are nice, and the copy performance was very poor before SP1 (I've been using SP1 beta for several weeks now), but I can't speak to any improvement on stability as Vista is definitely the most stable OS I've used.

IanKelley




msg:3566483
 7:28 am on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

Other than that the article does not list a lot of specific improvements we can expect with SP1.

A bit more detail from MS here [technet2.microsoft.com]. See the "notable changes" section.

bill




msg:3566500
 9:19 am on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

Good link. Thanks.

Here's one improvement I've been looking forward to for quite a while (but forgot about):
  • The Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol (SSTP) [webmasterworld.com] is a remote access tunneling protocol that will be part of the Routing and Remote Access Service (RRAS) platform. This protocol helps provide full-network virtual private network (VPN) remote access connections without challenges that other protocols face when traversing NATs, Web proxies, and firewalls. Windows Vista SP1 will include support for SSTP.

  • webdoctor




    msg:3566592
     11:49 am on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

    I'm buying a new PC soon and I haven't heard much good about Vista and Dell is offering new PC's with XP installed. Which way to go?

    XP every single time.

    I was a Vista beta tester and I've got several Vista licences but I only use Vista when I absolutely have to.

    To sum it up: XP SP2 works great for me, XP 64-bit is even better.

    smartpc




    msg:3566608
     12:11 pm on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

    Windows Vista is to XP as ME was to 98...

    Roll on XP SP3

    np2003




    msg:3566675
     1:25 pm on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

    VISTA is far more superior to XP in terms of stability but alot of old legacy drivers designed for XP, crash it.

    kaled




    msg:3566729
     2:49 pm on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

    VISTA is far more superior to XP in terms of stability but alot of old legacy drivers designed for XP, crash it.

    Are you sure about that? Old "legacy" drivers are typically not needed (since Vista includes drivers for most old hardware and it is normally only run on newish hardware). Also, such drivers are typically unsigned meaning that Vista won't normally load them at all.

    In my experience, Vista and XP are equally stable but Vista is typically 50% slower and has many irrational flaws in it user-interface.

    Kaled.

    kapow




    msg:3566748
     3:02 pm on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

    I'm buying a new PC soon and I haven't heard much good about Vista and Dell is offering new PC's with XP installed. Which way to go?

    XP XP XP!
    There is no way I would get Vista until the fuss and stress dies down (my guess is a year!). I need to get actual work done, and don't have time to figure out fixes for things that work very nicely in the current system.

    ebound




    msg:3566759
     3:09 pm on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

    Thanks for all the feedback. XP it is!

    m0thman




    msg:3566862
     4:56 pm on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

    Interesting array of comments concerning Vista. I'd vaguely considered re-installing my laptop when I get hold of some memory, but I think I'll just leave XP on it for now.

    Hmmm.. and they're gonna borrow money to buy Yahoo? Personally I'd stick their cash under a mattress because this white elephant ain't walking to far!

    visca




    msg:3567019
     7:37 pm on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

    My experience with using Vista since it's launch is generally positive.

    PROVIDING you have decent memory (absolute minimum 2-3GB) and graphics performance (reads: non-integrated and recent generation); and use certified Vista software and hardware. Failing any of those prerequisits is a "you'll get what you get" situation. My experiences haven't been perfect, there are flaws, but no show stoppers that I have seen so far (XP wasn't exactly perfect - that is for sure).

    The biggest disappointments so far were dodgy drivers and support early which has been resolved for the most part; over zealous security dialougs to do simple day to day tasks; and the woeful copying speeds that everyone is so well aware of. I welcome this SP1 if it properly addresses these types of issues, and cleans up other rough edges.

    Tourz




    msg:3567072
     8:44 pm on Feb 5, 2008 (gmt 0)

    What was the official reason for forcing a new OS again? Is there actually anything positive to be gained from it?

    To me -- and I'm sure its been said here many times already -- it just seems to be major bloatware designed to force users to keep upgrading computers.

    Processors have been fast enough for most peoples requirements for a long time. I just reinstalled Win2000 in an old desktop and it's really fast again, runs multiple graphics programs just fine. XP is doing fine on newer computers as well.

    <snip>

    Maybe I'm being too harsh -- only have a few minutes experience with Vista... and MS is just a business trying to profit.

    [edited by: bill at 12:34 am (utc) on Feb. 6, 2008]
    [edit reason] remove politics [/edit]

    g1smd




    msg:3567365
     2:22 am on Feb 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

    I am gradually growing a list of programs that worked on Vista, but when upgraded no longer work, and reverting to the older version is either not possible or still fails to get the program working again.

    I am very wary of the restore function to take the machine back to an earlier state as that doesn't just revert the programs, it also deletes any documents that were created or edited by that software at any time since the chosen restore point.

    That's obviously a bug, and a very serious one at that.

    kaled




    msg:3567375
     3:06 am on Feb 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

    Perhaps Microsoft should bite the bullet, ditch Vista, add UAC and Aero options to XP and call it Windows Vision (with a designation of 5.5 compared to XP being 5.1). Provided they offered a free "downgrade" from Vista, it could prove popular.

    Kaled.

    np2003




    msg:3567380
     3:18 am on Feb 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

    Security is a major step up in VISTA, with Windows updates downloading regular definition updates.

    IE has better phising detection abilities and Outlook Express (now called Windows Mail) has a spam filter that actually works VERY well.

    I think if eevryone ends up installing VISTA, you'll definately see less security issues currently plaguing a lot of user PCs out there.

    kapow




    msg:3567549
     11:19 am on Feb 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

    XP wasn't exactly perfect - that is for sure

    I agree!
    When xp was launched I waited about a year for the vivisection to end, I wasn't going to be Bills guinea pig while he got his product working. Now xp is good and stable, there millions of innocent unwitting Vista users funding the process of making vista stable - with their money and stress.

    Calculus




    msg:3567729
     3:39 pm on Feb 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

    Surprise surprise, few people voting for Vista.

    Well, not such a surprise because it's dreadful compared to XP so you're doing the right thing and going XP.

    Interesting point re the file transfers and copying large files with Vista. This is 2008 but speed is most probably less than it was in 1995 with Windows 95 (is that the name, I forget, it's the first of the new breed of windows anyway).

    I'm amazed that the whole speed thing has not got better over the last decade.

    Another example, when I click on Hotmail.com it most probably takes a good 10 seconds if not 15 to fire up, and this is with a very high speed connection.

    Why is Moore's law not working for us consumers?

    1995 to 2008 is 13 years, so call that 9 x 1.5 years. Processor speed will double (and halve in price) every 18 months. That means that today's chip should be around 8,000 times more powerful than one installed in 1995 but still it takes my super computer about 5 secs to completely load something like Word. Reckon it took the same in 1995, maybe slighly quicker.

    Yes, bloatware and all that but still how much bloat can one put in against the supposed processor speed?

    Not sure if I've got my maths right above, but the concept is valid - we haven't really come that far have we?

    kapow




    msg:3567841
     5:45 pm on Feb 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

    So much 'added value' it turns to crap. Google practically own the web because people like the speed and clean presentation. So why do the big global corps not learn from this? They think if they put something in for everyone it will please everyone. Not true - it dies (think Norton).

    Tourz




    msg:3567894
     7:04 pm on Feb 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

    Sorry for the rant guys -- we had some major telecomm problems here yesterday.

    gpilling




    msg:3568545
     2:33 pm on Feb 7, 2008 (gmt 0)

    Vista has not been a good experience for me. My company has it on the salespeople's laptops and on three other computers. We consistently have headaches with networking them together and other little things like printing, file-sharing etc.

    Also, it seems that many of the business software applications have some struggles working with it. It is interesting to note that our UPS supplied shipping computer only had XP as an option. My wife is at a large university (30,000 students) and they have a ban on Vista at this point.

    Hugene




    msg:3568683
     4:36 pm on Feb 7, 2008 (gmt 0)

    XP was the last Windows I install. I shall never have the unfortune to use Vista. Come to think of it , I should stock up on XP cd's.

    I want to bring Linux in for my parents next; it will be a hard sell...

    kapow




    msg:3568824
     6:32 pm on Feb 7, 2008 (gmt 0)

    Unfortunately I dare not try Linux because professional stuff like PhotoShop, Dreamweaver, FireWorks, MS-Word... doesn't run on Linux. I know there are alternatives to those Aps but I need compatibility with the business world.

    When will Linux be able to run such Aps (smoothly)?

    webdoctor




    msg:3574958
     4:20 pm on Feb 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

    When will Linux be able to run such Aps (smoothly)?

    You could run your apps on Windows inside VMWare on a Linux host. Might that be a first step?

    kaled




    msg:3575103
     6:40 pm on Feb 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

    Linux strength is also its weakness. The fact that it is free (sort of) leads to it being multi-flavored. These combine to mean that there is no real money to fund promotion and developers either have to stay well within O/S boundaries or test on all the popular flavors. And having done all that development and testing, they have to try to sell their software to users that want it for nothing.

    If a single, for-profit, Linux foundation (or whatever) were to emerge it would have a chance but it's hard to see Linux going mainstream unless something huge happens. Remember, being better does not lead to success - superior marketing trumps superior quality almost every time. Think VHS v BETAMAX.

    My understanding of the licenses that govern Linux is limited but I believe that a single, for-profit organization is effectively ruled out. I suspect Google would like to give it a go but I doubt they will.

    Kaled.

    This 33 message thread spans 2 pages: 33 ( [1] 2 > >
    Global Options:
     top home search open messages active posts  
     

    Home / Forums Index / Microsoft / Microsoft Windows OS (XP/NT/Vista/Windows 7/8/9/10)
    rss feed

    All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
    Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
    WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
    © Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved