Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vista SP1 Coming In Q1 2008

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the quicker-than-XP's dept.

Microsoft 254

Many readers sent in word of Microsoft's announcement of the schedule for Vista SP1. The Beskerming blog has a good summary. Up to 15,000 people will get access to a beta of SP1 by the end of September; general release is targeted (not promised in stone) for early 2008. The service pack is said to improve performance and stability, not to add features.

cancel ×

254 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Me'thinks (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412093)

It's pretty clear now that Vista should not have even been released until Q1 of 2008.

Re:Me'thinks (5, Interesting)

rikitikitembo (1146771) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412107)

I'm actually glad it was released early, because now Microsoft KNOWS this fact and also has learned that they cannot force people to use their new software as readily as they deem necessary.

Re:Me'thinks (5, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412757)

...because now Microsoft KNOWS this fact and also has learned...

Historical data suggests this is probably not so.

Re:Me'thinks (1)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413079)

Microsoft has learned...? This is not the first time something like that happens. It will happen again with the future release of Windows.

Re:Me'thinks (5, Funny)

bbernard (930130) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412167)

Now how am I going to hold people off? My excuse has always been "not until SP1 comes out." I'm screwed.

Re:Me'thinks (1)

bigtimepie (947401) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412299)

Go with "not til SP3 comes out."

You'll never have to use MS software again!

Re:Me'thinks (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412367)

Unless they pull an NT4 on us ... :)

Re:Me'thinks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20412655)

Why the FUCK are my Slashdot RSS feeds not working in Firefox today? I went to all the trouble to download this Fireshit and now this garbage doesn't work. Typical open source crap. Back to Internet Explorer and the real internet for me. I'm done with this knock off wannabe firefox detritus.

Re:Me'thinks (1)

CraniumDesigns (1113153) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413319)

back to being more open to viruses. back to less functionality. back to a lack of standards compliance. one little thing and you wanna go back to the MS teet. i'll enjoy my firefox usage and let my mind wonder why ANYONE would choose IE when their are far better browsers out there.

Rule of three (4, Interesting)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412365)

Version 3 is the traditional version to buy with Microsoft products. The first release is a mess, the second one is a guess at improvements (as they typically haven't received good feedback from customers by then), but the third one is typically solid and well-received.

That rule of thumb has worked well with Windows 3.0, Word 3.0, SQL 7 (which was actually the third version after Microsoft bought Sybase), and so on. Service packs are a little trickier. SP2 could be considered the third "release" of an OS. With XP, it wasn't really until SP2 that it seemed secure and stable enough.

I think your excuse was just fine, but off by a digit.

Re:Me'thinks (1)

archen (447353) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412693)

It's not that hard, it's called "look at reality" :) You think windows ME SP5 wouldn't still be crap? Some like Vista, and that's great for them. Personally I hate it and I'd say just wait to see what the next version of windows looks like.

Re:Me'thinks (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20413277)

Now how am I going to hold people off? My excuse has always been "not until SP1 comes out." I'm screwed.
Easy. "Not until SP2 comes out."

That'll buy you another year, easy.

Re:Me'thinks (1)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412865)

It's pretty clear now that Vista should not have even been released until Q1 of 2008.

Why? Because that's when the SP is being released? If you're going to go by that, I guess Linux will never be fit for market.

Re:Me'thinks (0, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413067)

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that Vista was not ready for primetime when it was released. It's not the fact that SP1 is coming out that makes me say that, but the simple fact that it has some rather serious issues, and that another year would have been much more appropriate.

Oh, and fuck those who mod me a troll. Stupid MS-loving wannabes. Go buy some ISO votes in Lithuania, and leave real technical guys to discuss the issues. You lying, no-good, pissing-in-the-swimming-pool shit fuckers.

Re:Me'thinks (1, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413069)

And Linux shouldn't have been released until 2.4, and Mozilla shouldn't have been released until Firefox, and OS X shouldn't have been released until Panther, etc.. It would be great if software was perfect before it got released, but that's just a dream, especially for software that's so widely used.

Re:Me'thinks (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413339)

That's the problem with Vista though. It was released, it was buggy, and it was still pushed down our throats. It's hard to walk into most retailers and buy a computer isn't Vista. The only way I'm aware to get a windows machine without vista is to shop at Dell, and choose the Business category. It isn't so much the problem that they released it before it was ready, but the fact that the old version isn't on most store shelves anymore.

Windows XP SP3 (5, Insightful)

GenP (686381) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412129)

Dammit, screw Vista, where's my SP3 for Windows XP?

Re:Windows XP SP3 (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412183)

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/service packs.mspx [microsoft.com]

It's planned for 1JHCKY 2008...

SP3 for Windows XP Professional is currently planned for 1H CY2008

Re:Windows XP SP3: Maybe (3, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413047)

Notice no mention of Vista SP1 on that page
Therefore, this page is probably being ignored by MS.
IOW: Don't hold your breath for XP SP3

Re:Windows XP SP3 (3, Funny)

WindowsIsForArseWipe (990338) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412189)

Dammit, screw Vista, where's my SP3 for Windows XP?

Hven't you heard

Its called Vista!

Re:Windows XP SP3 (0, Redundant)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413051)

Shhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone, but Vista IS SP3 for Windowns XP!

I wish... (4, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412141)

The service pack is said to improve performance and stability, not to add features.
I hope it'll add a few bugs too. I don't want using this OS start feeling completely alien. :-/

yea.. thanks microsoft.. (1)

joeldg (518249) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412145)

got a new vaio laptop with vista installed..

vista really chews the memory up, I hope they fix that first off..

with all the problems people are having with upgrades, installs and everything else perhaps they should have waited a little longer.
as with most things microsoft though, the computer comes pre-installed and nobody ever bothers changing anything (take IE for example and the fact that web developers in 2010 will STILL be writing sites to work-around two different browsers..

Memory (4, Informative)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412295)

Hmm... Here we go again.....Vista doesn't chew memory upp, for crying out loud! . Vista is USING the memory that is unused. What do you pay for your memory for? To have it unused? If nobody is using it, Vista will just use it damn it!. Don't worry, if some application will need it, Vista's memory manager will give it back.

Re:Memory (4, Interesting)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412423)

Vista has some pretty serious issues with low-memory though... I run a development environment that has SQL Server 2005 and several copies of Visual Studio open, among other things. When memory gets tight, Visual studio, and other applications, just start misbehaving. Right-Click context menus refuse to pop up, or pop up in "incomplete" states (only a few of the selections on them that should be there), and other strange behavior occurs (windows not closing!, dialogs not opening).

I never had this experience under XP. I'd either get out of memory errors, or some other clear notification that something was amiss. In Vista, if you didn't KNOW you were low on memory, you'd wonder what the hell was going on, as there is no indication that any errors are occuring.

I hope this is one of the things they're fixing in Vista SP1.

Window Handles my friend. (3, Informative)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412645)

That's because of window handles, I get the problem all the time in XP. As soon as all the window handles are used up you can no longer create any new windows, the problem is that closing windows doesn't seem to free them up and the only thing to do is reboot.

I would have thought they would have fixed this obvious problem that causes no end of grief to people where I work ages ago. Looks like I'll have to stick the X Windows.

Now, if only someone in Microsoft would realise that forms in Word have been broken since the year . and actually fix them.

Re:Window Handles my friend. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413121)

Are you serious? There's a finite, global limit on how many windows can be created, and the handles aren't reclaimed?

I'm stunned. I don't know how they can even consider Windows a shippable product with that kind of brain-damage in place.

-jcr

Re:Window Handles my friend. (1)

PhilipMckrack (311145) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413229)

I think he means that in some circumstances handles aren't reclaimed. I have the same issue on a laptop that I rarely reboot. After about a month or so of using visual studio and only going to hibernate and not rebooting I start getting the above problems. Context menus not opening, windows not being created, programs not running. No error messages, just things don't open. Closing some windows usually works but after about a month or so it gets really bad. I think in most circumstances the handles are reclaimed, but there is a bug somewhere that does not. A problem still, but not as severe as all window handles not being released.

Re:Window Handles my friend. (2, Informative)

tknd (979052) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413269)

It might be a visual studio bug. I remember VC++ 6 was known to cause some big issues with your OS. Not sure about .net.

I no longer use visual studio but I occasionally run into the same problem. But I do find that closing windows does let me create new ones.

Re:Window Handles my friend. (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413341)

Well after a while Windows can no longer create new windows so I assume there's a limited number of windows handles.
And closing lots of windows only fixes the problem for a little while (for far less than the number of windows I've closed) so I assume that there not all getting reclaimed.

Re:Memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20412925)

Vista requires 1GB of memory to do nothing. This is no joke. It really does. Just opening the desktop and letting it sit there uses 1GB of memory.

Note that, just like Linux, file system cache memory IS NOT LISTED in that figure. That figure represents one thing and one thing only: the amount of memory currently allocated to processes. It includes memory that isn't in active RAM and is currently swapped to disk, which just like all versions of Windows, Vista is retardedly aggressive about doing. (Have 2GB of memory and only 1GB in use? Windows will happily start swapping applications out.)

The irony here is that the 1GB figure may be high because applications aren't actually USING that memory. They may have only allocated it, and Vista may just be reserving it for applications to use when they need to.

In any case, Vista does, in fact, chew up memory. XP used something like 96MB to do nothing. Vista requires almost a full GB. (It's closer to 960MB, ten times XP's usage.)

Re:Memory (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412929)

... Vista is USING the memory that is unused. ...

Memory use shouldn't be at 100%. Nowhere near it, in fact. Generally you buy extra memory to stop it being used up. Memory running at 100%, or close to it, all the time is hopeless as the computer will run like a dog.

Re:Memory (2, Insightful)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413083)

So you are telling me that if I have 4Gb and no program is running the system should be using only 500 mb? No way... if the computer is idle, the OS better use the rest for, I don't know, indexing, caching, compacting, optimizing, or whatever. Only USE IT and give it back when needed.

This new memory management was introduced for Vista and it was about freaking time somebody though about this.... It's like downloading a file in a 10 mbs cable and using only 5 mbs "just in case" you need to download something else. Of course, ignorant people will just look at the Task manager and open their mounth.. WOW . LOOK AT THAT! The computer is iddle and my memory is full!. Well, Einstein, THAT is just how it should be!

Re:Memory (2, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413261)

Yes, you must be right about USING the memory. After all, there's no other explanation why every Vista machine NOW ships standard with 2GB of memory. After all, memory is free, right? Give me a break man. There's a fine line between USE and ABUSE, and Microsoft has managed to crush it.

Think it is SuperFetch you're describing? (4, Informative)

Blahbooboo3 (874492) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412317)

Unless you are saying you need more ram (which may be true), this is why Vista always has all of the memory utilized

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsv ista/features/details/superfetch.mspx [microsoft.com]

SuperFetch

Windows SuperFetch enables programs and files to load much faster than they would on Windows XP-based PCs.

When you're not actively using your computer, background tasks--including automatic backup programs and antivirus scans--run when they will least disturb you. These background tasks can take up system memory space that your programs had been using. On Windows XP-based PCs, this can slow progress to a crawl when you attempt to resume work.

SuperFetch monitors which applications you use the most and preloads these into your system memory so they'll be ready when you need them. Windows Vista also runs background programs, like disk defragmenting and Windows Defender, at low priority so that they can do their job but your work always comes first.

Re:Think it is SuperFetch you're describing? (1)

joeldg (518249) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412455)

the new laptop has 2GB of ram..
just sitting there with firefox open and sidebar running it hovers between 30% and 50%
I suppose that is background tasks..
I checked the site systemrequirementlab.com and there is not a game I can't run but I just wonder about this memory thing..
Usually spend all my time in Gentoo, but got an itch to play some of these new games coming out (Bioshock and world in conflict) so.. gotta do vista for those and in linux if you have 50% of your memory chewed with nothing running.. there is probably a problem.

Re:Think it is SuperFetch you're describing? (1)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412905)

the new laptop has 2GB of ram..
just sitting there with firefox open and sidebar running it hovers between 30% and 50%
I suppose that is background tasks..
I checked the site systemrequirementlab.com and there is not a game I can't run but I just wonder about this memory thing..

Did you actually bother to read up about Superfetch? Obviously not.

Re:Think it is SuperFetch you're describing? (1)

jd142 (129673) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412911)

I've got Firefox, ultramon, two remote desktop sessions, outlook 207, mmc, a few explorer folders, and 4 windows gadgets running and my physical memory is at 57%, 1.14 gb out of 2.

Re:Think it is SuperFetch you're describing? (1)

Rasit (967850) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413093)

the new laptop has 2GB of ram.. just sitting there with firefox open and sidebar running it hovers between 30% and 50%
I had the same complaint the first times I used Vista x64 but then I noticed one thing, ram usage hardly increase when I was using playing games or had Adobe photoshop/Corel Painter X open. As far as I can tell Vista will take about 50% of the total available ram memory but it will start unloading things when it notices that other applications are running.

Re:yea.. thanks microsoft.. (5, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412413)

vista really chews the memory up, I hope they fix that first off..

Here's my unofficial mini-service pack for Vista. :-p

1. Type services.msc in the start menu search box and go there.
2. Open and set "Windows Search" to "Inactive" as its start mode and stop the service, unless you use Vista's search facilities and not a third party tool like Total Commander or Directory Opus, etc.
3. Open and disable "Superfetch" in the same way, unless you trust it to actually make things run faster and predict your usage behavior. Keep in mind that it'll keep caching data to RAM in its "prediction" process. Even data files, not just executables and DLL's. This can be especially nasty when it starts caching 100 MB-sized files you have downloaded with P2P apps because it think you'll run them soon, or something.
4. Try putting in a ReadyBoost-compatible (you probably won't know if it is until you've tried :-p) USB memory stick and have Vista manage it as extra RAM. It's not really RAM-fast or anything (but it doesn't seem to make things worse at least), but especially seeemed to cut a bit on hard drive access. I'm not sure, but it's possible it relocates some of its swap file to it as ReadyBoost kicks in.
5. If you haven't got these installed (you'll notice if it tells you they can't be installed on your OS), download and install these Vista hotfixes performance and reliability [microsoft.com] and compatibility and reliability [microsoft.com] . Among other things included is fixes to the Vista memory manager and many users have reported both cut memory usage directly after boot up, and better 3D benchmark scores. It also fixes the infamous "slow file copy" bug of Vista.

Now try use it for a day or so, and hopefully your hard drive access has been cut. As long as you don't use the Vista desktop search, no disabled services above really impact the ability of Vista to function as normal, and you can always enable them again if you notice no improvement. Something else that access your drive a lot at a few times is the System Restore feature that also runs as a service, but I don't recommend disabling that one since it'll also disable your ability to restore your OS state to an earlier date if, say, an application or driver install would go horribly wrong.

Oh quityerbitchin (1, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412529)

Seriously, Vista likes lots of RAM. That's just how it is. If that's not acceptable, don't use it. However I don't see it as a big deal because RAM is CHEAP. For a new laptop, using DDR2, you are talking $80 for 2GB which will make Vista plenty happy. If you can afford a brand new laptop, you can't pretend like that's an expense you can't handle.

This happens with basically every version of Windows, the memory requirements double. For Windows XP my memory recommendations were 256/512/1GB meaning if you didn't have at least 256MB, I said don't bother, 512MB was what I recommended as a realistic minimum if you had less than that upgrade, and 1GB was what I recommended for good performance overall. With Vista it's 512/1GB/2GB.

Memory has never been something you wanted to cheapskate on, and that's particularly true now given how cheap it is.

So I doubt they'll be "fixing" it's memory usage. Memory is cheap these days and stuff is using it. Also Vista will always eat up all free RAM with it's caching. Empty RAM is wasted RAM. It'll precache programs you run, and free up the RAM as running applications need it. Right now my system is reporting 28 of 4096 MB free, even though I'm running just Fiefox. However of that, 3017GB is cache and can be freed up at any time. That's a much better idea than leaving RAM open just so people can get a warm fuzzy feeling seeing it as free.

They might be able to optimize RAM usage a bit, but I doubt it. New MS OSes always use more RAM, and people always seem surprised. I could see the complaint a bit back when the RAM makers were colluding and fixing prices, but now when 2GB of RAM costs less than a nice wireless keyboard and mouse, I just don't see what the big deal is. Even if you don't run Vista, you should drop more RAM in your system. Apps are not going to start using less, and the biggest way to kill the performance of a fast system is too little RAM.

Re:yea.. thanks microsoft.. (1)

CCFreak2K (930973) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413013)

vista really chews the memory up, I hope they fix that first off..


This is actually a feature, not a bug [microsoft.com] (look under the SuperFetch section).

The real beginning of Vista (3, Insightful)

CellBlock (856082) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412185)

I'd bet the release of SP1 ends up being good for everyone. People that already have Vista will have (at least some of) their performance issues sorted out. Then, since Vista won't be as broken as it has been, more copies should sell, leading to better development for it. As much as people say they'll never move off of XP, people said that about 98. It's not that nobody upgrades to the new versions of Windows anymore; they're just (rightfully) a bit more cautious about it now.

Re:The real beginning of Vista (2, Insightful)

lupis42 (1048492) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412659)

Maybe if it fixes some of the damnable DRM issues. The big difference that most of see between the "I'll never load XP" people and the "I'll never load Vista" people is that more of the Vista people are switching to linux, rather than staying put.

Re:The real beginning of Vista (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412823)

As much as people say they'll never move off of XP, people said that about 98.

and those people were 100% correct in their decision and did not move off 98 until there was an acceptable replacement. Windows ME was a giant pile of steaming Bovine Feces. I have never meat ONE person that though ME was useful for ANYTHING. Everyone waited for XP to come along to fix it. windows 2000 was for corporations and not for home use so you never really saw it at home. XP was the first time they merged the home and corperate OS lines.

Vista is looking very much like the steaming turd that ME was to many people.

Re:The real beginning of Vista (3, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413017)

Bovine Feces
steaming turd

Descriptions from a man named 'Lumpy'.

Re:The real beginning of Vista (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413331)

Well, if the foo shits... ;)

Re:The real beginning of Vista (1)

pokerdad (1124121) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413291)

Windows ME was a giant pile of steaming Bovine Feces. I have never meat ONE person that though ME was useful for ANYTHING. Everyone waited for XP to come along to fix it. windows 2000 was for corporations and not for home use so you never really saw it at home. XP was the first time they merged the home and corperate OS lines. Vista is looking very much like the steaming turd that ME was to many people.

You forget one historically important fact; that ME and XP came out just one year apart. It was really easy for everyone to skip ME because XP was already on the way. A very good arguement can made that MS never really intended ME to be a 98 replacement.

On the other hand it sounds like Vista is here to stay and that the next MS operating system is years away.

Re:The real beginning of Vista (1)

kat_skan (5219) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413035)

Quite frankly, I will be amazed if SP1 actually helps at all. I've had Vista installed on my (admittedly oldish) laptop since about February, and every update only seems to make things worse. I particularly hate whatever patch caused Vista to turn off the freaking file names in Explorer whenever it feels like it.

There's still a dearth of drivers, and using XP drivers is still hit-and-miss. My motherboard uses an ESS Allegro chipset for audio, for example, that disabled and re-enabled every time you reboot. Support for the latest driver for the Mobility Radeon chipset is so bad that I haven't even tried updating since I installed. Maybe someone more adventurous than I can say whether they fixed the bluescreen at boot up, but they haven't fixed anything else, so I kinda doubt they did.

Power management still doesn't work. The estimated time remaining is off by over an hour, and if I suspend to disk Vista loses the ability to tell when the AC power has been connected or disconnected, and it stops charging the battery. If I boot into Ubuntu I experince none of these problems.

Microsoft's own software crashes; namely eMbedded Visual C++ 4.0, which afaik is the last version that can still target CE 4.2 devices.

Whenever there are updates to install it replaces the sleep button with one that shuts the machine down completely. So you have to watch out for the little shield icon if you don't want all your running apps to be unceremoniously killed.

Microsoft rushed Vista, and now it seems like they're rushing SP1. I expect no better than a repeat performance of the release.

Re: Moving Off XP vs Moving *to* Vista... (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413153)

I will *one day* move off XP. However, I am designing a Last-Of-Breed machine to milk XP until it complely caves.

I will not be moving to Vista. My plan has always been to try skip every couple of OS versions if possible. Thus my machine should last into the Windows 7 discussion.

Meanwhile in parallel, it's an open discussion between Linux & Apple. Bazaar vs. Integration. But SP1 "to fix issues" is classic Microsoft "Let's Sell BetaWare".

if (0, Troll)

Chutulu (982382) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412201)

they remove all the DRM stuff maybe the performance would increase....

Sure... (0)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412405)

Yeah right, because the system is using DRM every single millisecond. I hope people just will begin trying to undertand what DRM does and what it doesn't instead for just keeping repeating myths, lies and fud... Yes, Vista has support for DRM operations. But damnit, it's not just like moving the cursor magically invokes some obscure DRM routines.... I would guess that 99,9 % of all the so called performance problems in vista have ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with DRM in any shape and form.

Excellent news (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412223)

Maybe SP1 will include support for component video!

Re:Excellent news (1)

SlowMovingTarget (550823) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412989)

Not likely, component video doesn't support Vista's DRM techniques (can't send HDMI), so Vista excludes it because your PC might "leak" "premium content" that is "protected."

it seems that the standalone image is going to be (3, Informative)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412243)

... 1GB

*agog*

And you need 7GB of disk space? Are you sure this is just a service pack? Bloat!!

Re:it seems that the standalone image is going to (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412313)

If the intention is to fix everything that's wrong with Vista, I'm impressed they got it all into only 1 GB.

Re:it seems that the standalone image is going to (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20412953)

For the record, a bootable live cd image of kubuntu fits into a 700mb disk ... :)

Re:it seems that the standalone image is going to (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413237)

If the intention is to fix everything that's wrong with Vista, I'm impressed they got it all into only 1 GB.
Ubuntu is only 700 MB you know...

Re:it seems that the standalone image is going to (1)

Atlantic Wall (847508) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412485)

My eyes started to bleed when i read the 1GB size. OMFG

Re:it seems that the standalone image is going to (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20412585)

Quit trolling dick head the Beta is 7gb they do not know how bit the SP will be. So an unoptimized version is 7gb not the optimized. Fucking Linux fanboy.

Add stability? (1, Redundant)

__NR_kill (1018116) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412247)

I thought Vista was their stable operating system..

performance and reliability fixes are already out (4, Informative)

Arathon (1002016) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412255)

If you look around the web, you'll find that the main two fixes to be included in SP1 are already out, and have been since the beginning of August.

Ars Technica article about the packs [arstechnica.com]

Finally! (3, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412287)

I look forward to this much-needed update being released in November 2011.

15,000 people will get the beta??? (4, Funny)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412289)

Isn't that more than are running Vista right now?

Re:15,000 people will get the beta??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20412479)

Don't misunderestimate the number of OEM copies of Vista shipping with Dells, HPs, etc. Hurray teh V1st4!

They should release SP2 quickly too (1, Interesting)

skoval (921501) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412301)

since many people said they won't upgrade to Vista till SP2.

I hate this forcing everyone to Vista. It's almost impossible to find a new notebook with preinstalled XP now in Moscow.

Force? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20412677)

People on /. keep using that word, but I do not think it means what they think it means. Neither Microsoft or any of its resellers are forcing you to adopt Vista. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. If you don't want to buy a PC with Vista installed, then simply don't buy one.

Re:They should release SP2 quickly too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20412833)

If you hadn't rushed to an open market economy you would have this trouble.

Get it.... yeah... no.... ah c'mon... you know the words... 'In Soviet Russia...' - ah bugger it.

vista sp1 (1)

scolbert (1122737) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412303)

why even do a SP1? doesn't their update mechanism update the system automagically? what would sp1 include that couldn't be included in the monthly updates they roll? maybe its just a roll up and therefore a marketing thing for biz, you know, now that sp1 is rolled out, you mr. IT guy can safely update all your laptops (of course, then why wait until next year to do this). just doesn't make sense, maybe Microsoft just can't get out of old patterns...

Sammy / better with a MacBook [personafile.com]

Re:vista sp1 (3, Informative)

jd142 (129673) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413003)

Yes, the monthly updates will get most of the service pack. That's one of the two reasons that the windows update version should only be around 50 megs for a fully patched computer vs. 1 gig for the standalone install: sp1 will rollup already released patches. The other big reason is that the 1 gig version has all of the language files included. You won't download the Japanese language versions of the files from windows update if all you need is English. The 1 gig file will let admins push out just one file to client computers, during a downtime period of course, and know that everything that's needed will be installed.

Re:vista sp1 (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413101)

Because I can slipstream it into my original CD, and should i need to re-install, I won't have to redownload all the updates.

Re:vista sp1 (1)

Rasit (967850) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413329)

Because I can slipstream it into my original CD, and should i need to re-install, I won't have to redownload all the updates.
From http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pag es/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.as px [windowsvistablog.com]

SP1 will change a significant number of files; customers cannot apply SP1 to offline Windows Vista images.
and

Slipstream. The slipstream version of Windows Vista SP1 is media that already contains the service pack, which companies can use to deploy the operating system to new computers or to upgrade existing computers. Availability will be limited. Microsoft will update Windows Vista retail media with Windows Vista SP1 slipstream media in the future. Slipstream media will also be available to Volume Licensing customers.
Even if they have not officially stated the SP1 will not be slipstreamable those quotes are starting the make me a bit worried. Luckily first paragraph might simply be badly worded and the second might be referring to free copies of a Vista SP1 dvd so we will just have to wait and see.

ehhh (5, Interesting)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412325)

Service Pack 1 won't exactly make Vista more desirable as an OS; but it is a psychological landmark that says "we worked most of the bugs out and we're finally done with it". Businesses may bite; but I'm not 100% convinced that Vista is better than XP quite yet.

This SP full of patches still probably won't prevent people from deleting their Recycle Bin [computerpe...ance.co.uk] , end the UAC nazi tyranny [microsoft.com] and let admins do admin things with computers [west-wind.com] . Once MS figures-out a way to make Vista useful without all those annoyances and brick walls, then I may give it another look.

I know I'm going to -1 Flamebait hell for this; but if a Windows box has to be insecure in order to be useful, then so be it.

Re:ehhh (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413137)

...if a Windows box has to be insecure in order to be useful, then so be it.

I have no modpoints (and I already posted in this thread), or you'd get your wish granted.

If any computer system, no matter what manufacturer, needs to be made insecure and/or instable to be useable, the system is broken and should get a serious redesign before being released onto the public. Simple as that.

It's not so much that Vista was insecure. More often than not, the user is the attack vector, not a security hole of the system. That won't change, no matter how tightly or troublesome you make the access controls. As long as there are users who can be tricked into clicking and installing, there is a security problem. As long as users don't understand why some "normal" software should NOT require administrator privileges to install (and if the system requires administrator privileges to install normal office software, see the paragraph above), and they simply click "allow" on even the most fundamentally obvious fishy request, there is no security.

As long as users are dumber than the computers they use, UAC is only a nuisance. Not a security feature.

Re:ehhh (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413305)

If any computer system, no matter what manufacturer, needs to be made insecure and/or instable to be useable, the system is broken and should get a serious redesign before being released onto the public. Simple as that.

Exactly why I don't use Vista.

Re:ehhh (2, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413219)

Service Pack 1 won't exactly make Vista more desirable as an OS; but it is a psychological landmark that says "we worked most of the bugs out and we're finally done with it". Businesses may bite; but I'm not 100% convinced that Vista is better than XP quite yet.

People tend to bitch when things aren't working; those that are happy tend not to say much at all... they're doing their work.

This SP full of patches still probably won't prevent people from deleting their Recycle Bin

It doesn't remove the RB, it removes it from the desktop. Big difference. It even tells you how to get it back when it prompts you to be sure this is what you want.

end the UAC nazi tyranny

So when Linux asks for a root password to do administrative tasks, that's good security, but if Vista does something similar, its nazi tyranny? You realize that most applications that trigger this alot are unsigned and are trying to do things they shouldn't even be doing (like writing to Program Files), right? I'm glad its there.. now app vendors will be FORCED to deal with this issue.

let admins do admin things with computers

The whole POINT is to get away from running as an administrator. This is meant to help security; is it really that hard to choose Run As Administrator? Its moving away from the 'always an admin' mentality.

Once MS figures-out a way to make Vista useful without all those annoyances and brick walls, then I may give it another look.

Wonderful. You won't use it until they encourage bad application development practices again. They're trying to get away from the 'run as administrator' mentality, of course there is going to be some pain. But its really the fault of the application developers at this point. I'm glad MS is forcing the issue.

I know I'm going to -1 Flamebait hell for this; but if a Windows box has to be insecure in order to be useful, then so be it.

I'd rather application developers to start writting better applications. Would you run a userland application on linux that attempted to write in /etc and /bin all the time? That would be unacceptable in Linux. MS is trying to make \windows and \program files changes unacceptable too. Complain to your app vendors.

A missed opportunity (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412339)

I was looking forward to SP1 as a way of 'finishing' the obviously unfinished Vista... fixing issues of "old" dialogs mixed with new dialogs, inconsistent graphics, icons, and fonts, updating additional parts of the UI to the new look and feel, incorporation of all the new-look Vista controls into common dialogs and common controls, consistency improvements across the UI, etc.

Instead we get what is basically a "roll-up" of existing patches, along with a few "under the cover" performance and stability improvements. As welcome as those are, it isn't really "enough", imho, and this is a real lost opportunity for MS to drive acceptance of Vista, by actually completing it and polishing the UI and Usability of their flagship OS.

Performance and stability are not features? (1)

argmanah (616458) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412351)

Microsoft doesn't consider performance and stability to be features?

I guess they think that if the software behaves abnormally, "It's not a bug, it's a feature." Therefore, when you introduce performance and stability, they aren't features.

That totally makes sense.

Re:Performance and stability are not features? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413257)

Plese read even the summary again.. it said its not going to ADD features. As in add new functionality. But you go do whatever you need to to mindlessly bash.

You have to love The Register. (0, Flamebait)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412391)

There's nothing like a does of Register reality [theregister.co.uk] to make your morning. "Microsoft promises less-annoying Vista OS early next year" gets right to the M$ money line:

[Vista product manager Nick White] "as always, we're first and foremost focused on delivering a high-quality release, so we'll determine the exact release date of SP1 after we have reached that quality bar."

Limbo, limbo, how low can you go? After six years of development, you would think Vista would at least work as well as XP. It does not because big dumb media companies were the customer, not you. Most of you have given this "little-used operating system" the thumbs down it deserves [slashdot.org] . One more year is not going to make a big difference and you have to wonder if M$ will be able to recover such a wrecked code base. They are not going to give up their expensive digital restrictions but those will never work, what can they do?

Keep going... (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413243)

After six years of development, you would think Vista would at least work as well as XP

After 10 years of development, you'd think XP would work at least as well as 2K.

Skype goes into panic mode (5, Funny)

mbadolato (105588) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412415)

Up to 15,000 people will get access to a beta of SP1 by the end of September


To which the developers at Skype are yelling "HOPEFULLY NOT ALL AT THE EXACT SAME TIME, ASSHATS!" :)

EULA (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412421)

SP1 for Vista also comes with an update to the EULA. All you Vista users are going to read it, right?

Right?

It might require you to hand over your first born to Microsoft to get unlocked high-def video to work, so I suggest reading it.

Yes Vista was Released too soon.... (5, Interesting)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412427)

An interesting nugget of info for you all, seeing as no-one has mentioned this yet....

The update will bring the Vista kernel to version 6.1 [winsupersite.com] . Why is this significant? It's the same kernel version that Windows Server 2008 will be. That means folks, that Microsoft, in effect have used Vista pre-SP1 as a test-bed for their Windows server platform. Servers crashing cause more panic than workstations, and take a guess slashdotters....which market-share are Microsoft champing at the bit for most? I'll give you a clue.....they already own the desktop.

The Vista strategy was "release and fix while in production" and in fairness, 6 months down the line, a lot has been fixed and Vista is shaping up to be a solid platform, but build numbers don't lie.

There, I said it.

Re:Yes Vista was Released too soon.... (2, Informative)

Arathon (1002016) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413007)

It's at least worth noting that Paul Thurrott of WinSuperSite has stated in his new "SP1 Revealed" showcase that he is currently unsure whether SP1 will still include a kernel update [winsupersite.com] .

I expect it still will, and they just left it off their press release, but it does seem a little weird that they wouldn't announce it.

Re:Yes Vista was Released too soon.... (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413057)

but build numbers don't lie.

They do when I'm build wrangler. But then again, I'm actively trying to get someone else to snag that hat off my head.

There's another story on news.com (1)

8127972 (73495) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412451)

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+Vista+service+pack+c oming+in+08/2100-1016_3-6204980.html [com.com]

The thing to note from this article is this quote:

"Vista SP1 will be a large download: Roughly 1GB, based on current test versions. By way of comparison, Windows XP--the whole thing--shipped on a CD, which only holds about three quarters of a gigabyte. Installing the OS upgrade will require 7GB of free hard drive space, though much of that will be returned to the user once the megapatch is applied, Microsoft said."

That conflicts with this statement from TFA:

"DeVaan: It's true that at first glance it will look like a lot is changing, and it's true that there are thousands of files being changed to varying degrees in Windows Vista SP1. However, the first measure of "size" most people will encounter will likely be the download of Windows Vista SP1 through Windows Update or Windows Server Update Services (WSUS), which we predict will be about 50 MB. The second measure of size will be the free disk space requirement for installing Windows Vista SP1, which is currently around 7 GB for the beta, although we will be working to bring this down for the final version as we optimize the servicing algorithms used."

So... which is it?

Re:There's another story on news.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20412553)

Both.
50MB is what will come down from Windows Update.
1GB is the network install version, that has all the languages included, to allow network admins to download it once, and then apply it across their network, rather than having all their computers download the 50MB every time. (Or for applying to computers that aren't on the internet at all).

Re:There's another story on news.com (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412579)

Part of on 1gb big download is updates that have been put up form the time that vista came out.

But still 1gb is alot to down load and 7gb to install is a lot of space.

Will you need 10gb + free space to slipstream it? Will it + a vista install fit a on a DVD5?

Re:There's another story on news.com (2, Funny)

realmolo (574068) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412717)

My guess is that it's 50MB for the *installer*, which then downloads the actual 1GB of service pack files from Microsoft's site.

They're lying, in other words.

Slow is Still Slow (1)

deweycheetham (1124655) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412513)

Unless they remove the bloatware and redesign the architecture to kill the continual directory update process, I think my old Pentium 800mhz with XP and 500mb of ram will still beat my Emachine 2800mhz with Vista and 1 gig of ram in a boot up to a Character Log on to EverQuest Plain of Knowledge by a good 45 seconds as usual.

The Microsoft should be embarrassed by Vista's performance. Everyone who see this at home laughs...

Yay! (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412603)

So that's when the Wow starts!

Yeah, RIGHT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20412663)

"Vista SP1 Coming In Q1 2008"

Which means it'll really be coming in Q4 2012.

The sp should make things much better (4, Funny)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412695)

Because the Vista SP1 simply uninstalls Vista and installs XP.

I wonder (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412819)

If this is related to the news that Windows server has been delayed [informationweek.com] to get more production testing of the kernal?

It's not a biug but a feature (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412887)

The service pack is said to improve performance and stability, not to add features.
So you mean to tell me this SP is going to be bug...I mean feature free? /I kid I kid...

The main upgrade: (1)

Joseph1337 (1146047) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412891)

It will run format x at startup, where x is a partition containing any Windows OS

Wooot! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20412985)

Just one more SP 'til the system's ready for release status!

Add not improve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20413205)

Shouldn't it be "to add performance and stability"...

The positive side of Vista frustrations. (2, Informative)

bearfx (697655) | more than 6 years ago | (#20413311)

I tried Windows Vista. My hardware, while not brand spanking new, is quite reasonable - Athlon X2 3800+ (socket 939) - 4 GB RAM - NVidia 6800 series And Asus says my motherboard is Vista Compatible, but my excursion into Vista failed... Miserably. First, a number of my applications did not work, or they started working and then closed. Next, I started experiencing "driver" related crashes (All my drivers are MS approved). Then, I stopped being able to manage files on my computer (copying between two hard drives at 500K/s...) I updated, I patched, I swapped components, I became frustrated, and I installed Ubuntu. For the months I had Vista, I couldn't run most of the applications I *had* to have, so it made the switch MUCH easier. Since installing Ubuntu, my computer has not crashed a single time. Their are only two things that make me miss Windows - Visual Studio 2005 (my work), and Roboform. I can use other IDE's, but they aren't quite as nice as VS2005. I can use other password managers, but they aren't as functional as Roboform. I miss nothing else from windows. For those who miss the eye candy Vista may or may not offer, depending on how much of your soul you are willing to trade, try beryl.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>