backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 53 comment(s) - last by Christopher1.. on Aug 26 at 12:51 AM

Windows Vista "pre-beta" SP1  (Source: WinBeta)
Microsoft rolls out SP1 for Windows Vista and SP3 for Windows XP

Microsoft is hard at work on Service Pack 1 (SP1) for Windows Vista. Microsoft's latest consumer operating system launched in November and is expected to be used by over 200 million people before the end of 2007.

As is the case with any operating system, Vista is far from perfect. There have been issues with ReadyBoost, copying/moving large files, resuming from sleep/hibernate and Blu-ray playback on numerous systems.

Microsoft addressed a number of these problems in late July through the release of the "938979 Vista Performance and Reliability Pack" and "938194 Vista Compatibility and Reliability Pack." The software packs were originally issued only to Vista beta testers, but are now available to the general public.

Those fixes along with a host of other updates are expected to make their way into SP1. A private beta of SP1 was issued in early July and testers have been pinging ZDNET's Mary Jo Foley regarding the latest builds. According to Foley, each tester that contacted her had a different build number.

"My first guess was the secrecy-obsessed Windows Vista team might be providing different testers with different build numbers in order to trace leaks," said Foley.

This move isn't too surprising considering that the folks at Microsoft weren't too happy with Foley's report on the SP1 beta.

According to AeroXperience, the latest build of SP1 sent to testers was labeled 6001.16549. In addition, WinBeta claims to have screenshots of SP1 which was distributed via an ISO -- 3.07GB for the 32-bit version and 4.3GB for the 64-bit version.

In addition to the SP1 information, AeroXperience also reports that Windows XP SP3 was released to testers (Build 5.1.2600.3180). The download weighs in at 350MB and supposedly fixes over 900 issues with the operating system.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Ajax9000 on 8/7/2007 9:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
It would be good if XP SP3 fixed the "feature" that RAID 1 is disabled (yes I know it can be hacked around).

And no I'm not holding my breath.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=307880
quote:
You cannot create mirrored volumes on computers that are running Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional or Windows XP 64-Bit Edition. However, you can use a computer that is running Windows XP Professional to create mirrored volumes on remote computers that are running Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Advanced Server, or Windows 2000 Datacenter Server. You must have administrative privileges on the remote computer to do this.




By isaacmacdonald on 8/7/2007 10:01:33 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed--OSX has had this obvious/basic feature available for as long as I can remember. Removing this bizarre limitation in XP would produce a generous measure of goodwill.


RE: It would be good if XP SP3 fixed the "feature" ...
By del on 8/8/2007 1:32:18 AM , Rating: 2
It would also be good if they fixed the "feature" where you can't change the default name of the Administrator account. As far as I know, this can't be done. :(


By larson0699 on 8/8/2007 4:00:04 AM , Rating: 2
What? WHAT??

For starts: http://www.nliteos.com


By IvanAndreevich on 8/8/2007 12:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
Why? I always rename mine.


By glitchc on 8/9/2007 11:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
Start > Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Local Security Policy

Click on Security Settings > Local Policies > Security Options. On the right, look for a Policy field called "Accounts: Rename administrator account." Double click on the field to edit it.


By afkrotch on 8/8/2007 12:22:33 PM , Rating: 1
The hell wants to use software RAID?


By Pale Rider on 8/8/2007 2:38:03 PM , Rating: 1
Thats what I was thinking also. Talk about SLOW.


By doctat on 8/9/2007 2:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
software raid 1 slow? gimme a break. you're mirroring a single disk. you may get a very slight ding on write speed, but will actually improve your read throughput.

i've been mirroring my data for years, and highly recommend everyone do it. losing all your data due to a dead hard drive is FAR more painful than the overhead of software mirroring.


By Christopher1 on 8/26/2007 12:48:25 AM , Rating: 2
Better to just have an external hard drive, like I am going to purchase tomorrow.

That way, I can just totally backup my drive.


By Polynikes on 8/7/2007 10:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
What the heck? Is that true? What the heck!


By MrDiSante on 8/7/2007 10:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
No. But you DO need 2 dynamic disks to do it. Point being, here's an article on how to do it: https://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/...
The article in the parent post is probably about the inability to do it with only one dynamic volume or something.
Did I mention I'm writing this off a machine with RAID 0+1? So there goes that theory.


By Tamale on 8/10/2007 2:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
no, he's right. you can't do software raid in xp without a little hacking.. it's ridiculous.


By webdawg77 on 8/8/2007 9:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
How is this true? I'm running XP Pro in RAID 1 right now. I did nothing to "fix" this. I just setup the drives in RAID 1 through the MB / BIOS and then installed Windows.


By Spivonious on 8/9/2007 9:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
I think the OP meant doing RAID 1 in software.


By v1001 on 8/9/2007 11:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
I've got a few things I wish were fixed. I can't wait for the serviCe pack. This OS gets a little choppy and clunky sometimes too. I hope they smooth it out.


Why's the 64-bit version 30% bigger?
By giantpandaman2 on 8/7/2007 8:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
Err, the subject says it all. Genuine question by the way.




RE: Why's the 64-bit version 30% bigger?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/7/2007 9:07:44 PM , Rating: 3
"The rather large ISO sizes may be explained by debug code for this early phase of testing or it may be related to additional drivers (not sure on this one)"

-- WinBeta


By hemming on 8/8/2007 9:28:33 AM , Rating: 3
Brandon,

I'll help you out as to why there is the driver explaination for the 64-bit ISO being larger then the 32-bit version of Vista.

The short answer is WHQL Certification for Windows Vista.

The slightly longer answer is that companies that want WHQL Certification are REQUIRED to produce a 64-bit driver for their hardware. The downside to this is that they cannot produce 'just' a 32-bit. So if they want a 32-bit, a 64-bit driver must be submitted within the next 90 days after the 32-bit driver is.

I'm trying to locate the ms.com URL for the Logo requirements to support this, and will edit this post afterwards to include it.

The only reason that I know about this is because I'm part of a technical support team for one of the top printer vendors in the world, and we don't have 32-bit drivers yet for some products.

Lack of drivers make for some bad phone calls =(


By ZoZo on 8/8/2007 6:15:48 AM , Rating: 1
My guess is that much information which was stored in 32 bits is now stored in 64 bits in x64 executables and resources. Therefore the file size is larger.


RE: Why's the 64-bit version 30% bigger?
By Sahrin on 8/8/2007 7:58:51 AM , Rating: 3
This same question has been asked before (the RTM x64 ISO's were larger as well). There are several theories:

1) 32-bit API's must be included for Compatibility Mode. x64 Includes Win64, WoW, AND Win32. Two extra entire API sets for 32-bit apps.
2) 32-bit user mode drivers (same issue as above, but with user drivers instead of API's - must have two sets to operate).

These two in addition to those mentioned about by Brandon seem pretty reasonable to me. Also there's the, larger number space, larger storage space required - but that's just amateur conjecture on my part.