Print 128 comment(s) - last by 1078feba.. on Oct 9 at 10:26 AM

Microsoft releases KB941649 hotfix which "improves the compatibility, reliability, and stability of Windows Vista"

When people talk about Windows Vista these days, two things often come to mind: the perceived inferiority to the six-year-old Windows XP operating system (which also just happened to get a new lease on life) and what Service Pack 1 (SP1) will bring to the table as far as improvements are concerned.

In the mean time, Microsoft is proceeding with continual improvements to Windows Vista ahead of the official release of SP1. Microsoft yesterday released a new hotfix, KB941649, which "improves the compatibility, reliability, and stability of Windows Vista."

KB941649 address the following issues:

  • It extends the battery life for mobile devices.
  • It improves the stability of portable computers and of desktop computers that use an uninterruptable power supply (UPS).
  • It improves the reliability of Windows Vista when you open the menu of a startup application.
  • It improves the stability of Internet Explorer when you open a Web page.
  • It improves the stability of wireless network services.
  • It shortens the startup time of Windows Vista by using a better timing structure.
  • It shortens the recovery time after Windows Vista experiences a period of inactivity.
  • It shortens the recovery time when you try to exit the Photos screen saver.
  • It improves the stability of Windows PowerShell.
  • A compatibility issue that affects some third-party antivirus software applications.
  • A reliability issue that occurs when a Windows Vista-based computer uses certain network driver configurations.

If you're running Windows Vista it might be wise to install this latest hotfix to see if it may fix some of your OS woes.

Updated 10/4/2007
Microsoft just sent an email to beta testers informing them that a beta of Windows XP SP3 is now available for download. The update weighs in at 334.92 MB. No other details are available on the update.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So far I haven't experienced problems with Vista...
By iFX on 10/4/2007 11:00:57 AM , Rating: 5
My only woe is that my sound card doesn't work... but no big deal.

I have been running Vista since June of 2006 and have yet to encounter the massive problems that many people have - maybe I am lucky, but something tells me these people had the same problems with XP, 2000, ME, 98, etc, etc. MS can't fix people being dumb.

I don't do anything speacial to my system. I pop the DVD and loan the OS like everyone else. I install my apps and use them like everyone else - somehow I don't have problems... Hmmm. Wonder why?

By FITCamaro on 10/4/2007 11:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm. Wonder why?

You're not an ignorant consumer who runs in fear at the sign of the first problem.

By DeepBlue1975 on 10/4/2007 11:15:13 AM , Rating: 5
Bet you're not a gamer :D (I'm not either)

Most problems with Vista had been about (very) lousy video card drivers, specially for SLI / Crossfire setups.

I didn't fully swith to Vista until I could get a new machine with 2gbs of RAM (I tested the RCs with 1gb and they performed quite good, though I could spot some minor annoyances that I don't see any more in the final version)

The only thing I do not like at all in Vista, though, is the reworked user interface for network settings. No matter how much I keep using Vista, that part still feels awkward (maybe a bit "over the top" as for user friendliness) to me in comparison with XP.

By TomZ on 10/4/2007 11:20:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think the new networking stuff in Vista is great - especially its ability to detect and repair problems. When I first set up my wireless connection, it wasn't working, and Vista's repair detected that the wireless service wasn't running, and it enabled that and fixed the problem. I wouldn't have ever thought to look at that myself. Saved me lots of grief, I'm sure.

By DeepBlue1975 on 10/4/2007 11:27:06 AM , Rating: 4
Yes, the stuff is far more "aware" than XP's.
It's just that I don't like the interface at all.

Every time I need to try something specific, I have to go through much more menus that I needed in XP, that's all what my annoyance is about (one I can certainly live with, otherwise I would have switched back to XP already, which I didn't and don't intend to do anyway)

By Master Kenobi on 10/4/2007 11:32:15 AM , Rating: 4
You do know you can change the UI to XP style right?

By threepac3 on 10/4/2007 12:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think he was talking about the new way Vista moved old menus/dialog boxes locations. For example in Vista to access the old Display properties you must navigate through at least one more menu that was not there in XP.

By Chadder007 on 10/4/2007 12:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I don't like it.

By omnicronx on 10/4/2007 3:17:05 PM , Rating: 3
I have no problem whatsoever of having to go through one extra menu if it means my cousin or little sister can't click on something by accident and change everything. It seems pretty apparent to me most of the menu changes moved options that should not have been so easy to access in the first place.

Changes in vista were not specifically for the power user that knows all, they wanted to simplify the O/S and make it a bit harder to change options that are not changed on a regular basis or need to be touched at all.

Most peoples gripe about Windows is that its not user friendly like MAC OSX. I personally like the changes and do not mind going through an extra menu to get to something i will change once or twice.

If MS didn't change vista to be more user friendly, we would have the same people complaining about the interface and how its hard for some users to comprehend. Double edged sword in my books, I think MS made the right decision though.

By mars777 on 10/4/2007 6:33:31 PM , Rating: 4
Your little sister using her login shouldn't be able to change everything.

She could change settings of her user like: desktop, icons, style.

Not date and time, installed programs (well on unixoids this is ok - doing it in home folders), drivers, network settings and the like.

And then again if she wrecks her user she must delete her profile, using the administrator settings. Or better than that, you do it remotely.

Unix / Linux people know how to fix problems easily by deleting the . from home folders...

But what Windows is trying is make an UI where you have one button and when you press it, its does what you want. Well i call that "utopia". Don't scare people by removing options from version to version, making them more afraid and more dumb to change something.

If you change then you fix. Improve the OS in such way it cant be wrecked up or rendered useless in two months. And if that happens, make it easily fixable.

But "putting less buttons to not wreck the OS" is so... "monolitic"... ah yes that's what their kernel is called :)
It's an all in one bulky kernel.

By Ringold on 10/4/2007 8:13:38 PM , Rating: 4
It's an all in one bulky kernel.

Sort of like.. every major Linux distro! Wow!

Of course, you can roll your own, which you can not do with Windows, but what tiny fraction of the population are we talking about here cares if feature x or y is right in the kernel?

I think I have an answer for that. It's the number of people that install Gentoo from the ground up. In other words, a percentage more easily expressed in scientific notation. :P

I think for people that want things "to just work" and look pleasant, without the simplicity and fanaticism of the Mac world, but actually value their time and dont want to get a computer science degree to operate their OS in a variety of ways then Vista is just right. Tons of tweaks available for those who care, ease of use for those who don't.

By Necaradan666 on 10/6/2007 1:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
Incorrect. It takes the same amount of clicks to get into Display Properties in Vista, eg.

Vista: Right-click once on desktop. Left-click once on menu. Left-click once on Display Properties link. 3 clicks.

XP: Right-click once on desktop. Left click once on menu. Left-click once on Display Properties tab. 3 clicks.

It actually takes one more click on Vista to get to wallpaper changer, but that is only because on XP Display properties opens by default on the wallpaper tab.

By DeepBlue1975 on 10/4/2007 3:02:00 PM , Rating: 3
I have nothing against the Aero style. In fact, I happen to like it quite a bit (I don't find myself using aero flip, though... I try to remember myself of using it but I keep on forgetting, so I guess I'm not gonna keep trying that :D )

I just don't like that some of the advanced network configurations are hidden deeper than they were on XP and the (luckily few) times I have to get there, I do get a bit lost.

I didn't neither try the search feature nor the nice trick described to get "administrator CMD shell", which I'm gonna try as soon as I get home today :D

By kinnoch on 10/5/2007 3:11:33 AM , Rating: 3
by trick do you mean search for it, right click it and select run as administrator? or is there a niftier way?

By imperator3733 on 10/4/2007 9:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you hear that? Vista doesn't have the XP style. Are you confusing that with the XP rendering system for the low-end systems? The rendering system and the theme are not the same thing.

By shamgar03 on 10/4/2007 11:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. It took me an hour to reset my ip address the first time. You have to go through something like 6 menus. I should have just gone to the command prompt and used ipconfig

By Etsp on 10/4/2007 12:02:35 PM , Rating: 5
Ha! Little did you know that if you didn't disable UAC, cmd doesn't give you administrative access.

So if you tried the ipconfig /release and /renew... you would have gotten weird errors. If you have UAC running, use the little search bar at the bottom of the start menu, it works like the run command, except with one little perk...if you hit ctrl+shift+enter it will run cmd as an administrator, without the need to dig through the menus to right-click...or you can search for cmd using the same bar and right-click on it anyway = /

By The Sword 88 on 10/5/2007 12:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
Awesome tip

By BitJunkie on 10/4/2007 1:41:58 PM , Rating: 5
1) Tapping the windows key
2) Typing what you want in the search box
3) Hit "enter"

It's one of the key advantages of Vista, once you get familiar with it, you feel lost going back to XP. Often you only need the first 3 or 4 letters to get the hit you want. Using that you can get to most stuff in 5 to 10 secs, max. You'll also find that "dev man" gets you device manager or "use acc" user account control. If you can touch type it's super quick.

A good tip is that you can use alt+c to accept any UAC boxes if you (sensibly) don't switch UAC off.

By QuantumPion on 10/4/2007 2:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
That is awesome! Would you happen to have a link listing more hidden vista features like this?

In particular one feature that I miss from XP was the tweakui powertoy. I don't like the lag when navigating popup submenu trees. With tweakui you could set the delay to zero.

By BitJunkie on 10/4/2007 2:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
Tweak utility that I tried and uninstalled - because I like the vanilla experience: It worked okay, and probably gives you what you want. Don't shoot me if you brick your PC using it, also there are other options out there.

For tips and stuff you can try the Vista community page here: It might seem like an uncool thing to do but there's a lot of knowledge buried there - particularly in dev blogs.

By BitJunkie on 10/5/2007 6:00:58 AM , Rating: 3
Actually there's so much one can do with Vista Ultimate that isn't even being evangelised in the public domain:

Running as an IIS Web Server

You can use the programs and features ("pro fe" quick search should find that) options to switch on / off windows features - one of which is Internet Information Services, Microsoft's equivalent to Apache, but that uses ASP.NET. This includes a web server and configuration / management suite.

Hardening your System

The security policy ("se po" quick search) utility enables you to harden your system using account policies probably with finer control and faster than linux in my experience. You can also set advanced firewall rules and IP based policies that lock things down super-tight.

Effective Task Scheduling

The task scheduler ("she" quick search) enables you a phenomenal amount of control of scheduling events and the things that can trigger those - again better than crond in linux in my experience.

You can effective set up a fully configured web, ftp and file server without having to go to a dedicated server platform and make it increadibly secure - basically the role that a Linux box would take in the life of most enthusiasts. That's just one usage model - there are so many things under the hood beyond Windows XP that people are going to discover over the next few years. Just install it and start playing around.

By BitJunkie on 10/5/2007 6:11:39 AM , Rating: 2
That should be "sch" to find the task scheduler....

By borismkv on 10/4/2007 2:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
This is great, except that I only have two hands, and in Windows XP I can fix the problem with just the mouse in the time it takes me to move my right hand from using the mouse to typing something in. Windows Vista just increased the amount of time it takes me to fix problems. Granted, I bill hourly, so it's not a HUGE problem, but being able to fix things with just a couple clicks makes my clients realize I'm worth the money. Thus far, the only useful thing I've seen in Vista is the ability to log in to a shared folder using a different username and password than the one you logged into the local computer with. That has been infinitely useful for the customers who haven't gotten that whole Active Directory thing into their heads yet.

By BitJunkie on 10/4/2007 2:52:00 PM , Rating: 4
Well at least you'll be able to balance out your over-developed forearm by using both hands for a change.

By omnicronx on 10/4/2007 3:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
I love it too, much better than run because its right there without having to open anything and it auto completes based on past searches (better than xp did with run although run did autocomplete too).

By The0ne on 10/4/2007 4:56:08 PM , Rating: 1
That sure is an understatement for both Vista and Office2007. So many mouse clicks to do certain things. Very annoying.

By BitJunkie on 10/5/2007 7:03:35 AM , Rating: 2
Could it be that you are confusing the fact that you are on a learning curve with bad design?

IF you really don't like clicking things, press the alt key in office and you'll see the accelerator keys are overlayed on the UI. As you press each key you are taken deeper in to the menu system with subsequent keys being hightlighted.

IF you are as least as smart as a rodent, and you do it enough times each key sequence will stick in your brain somewhere and become habitual. If you are smart and actively learn those combos it might happen a bit faster.

By 1078feba on 10/9/2007 10:26:21 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Vista seems incredibly robust in comparison to XP, hardy even.

But I have to agree on the whole "one more box to get to my destination" argument. I purchased a smallish laptop for my 11 year old son at the beginning on this school year, and this weekend I was doing some basic upkeep on it. It runs Vista Home Premium.

It took me 10 minutes to find the disc defragmenter.

RE: So far I haven't experienced problems with Vista...
By iFX on 10/4/07, Rating: 0
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/4/2007 3:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
What is your sound card?

I have an audigy 2 zs in vista, working just fine till tomorrow (I've sold it, as my ears and speakers aren't good enough to tell the difference between the audigy and the integrated sound :D ).
The drivers are as heavy as in XP, only that not as functional.

By Master Kenobi on 10/4/2007 11:38:18 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a gamer, I just don't use SLI or Crossfire. Single 8800GTX for me. (More than enough power.... and heat output)

Both my X1900XTX and 8800GTX have served me well in Vista 64 without issues.

-Games Played-
-Half-Life 2 (And games on the engine)
-EVE Online
-Half-Life (Original and mods)
-Neverwinter Nights
-Neverwinter Nights 2
-Quake 4
-Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy
-Doom 3
-Tabula Rasa
-Crysis (Multiplayer)
-Warcraft 3 TFT
-Command & Conquer 3
Yea, my games seem to be alright. Performance and framerates are as good or better than when on XP (Using same video card)

By BlitzAceYuna on 10/4/2007 11:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
Forgive the ignorant question, but are there any differences between 32-bit and 64-bit for applications like games? Is a different version required? Any performance hit / gain?

I seem to recall that 64-bit drivers were required should you use 64-bit Windows right?

I think AT posted an article about 64-bit Windows and all that, but I didn't really understand except for the ability for 64-bit to address more memory.

I'm considering upgrading to Vista at the end of year, and might consider 64 bit over 32 bit just for the sake of it provided there aren't too many drawbacks.

By daftrok on 10/4/2007 12:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
64 bit is more "future proof" in a way. You get the full advantage of 64 bit applications and programs, but right now there aren't really many out there. But so long as you are doing this for a desktop, what the hell sure go for Vista Ultimate 64 (just be prepared to pay a considerable amount more).

By Master Kenobi on 10/4/2007 1:47:04 PM , Rating: 1
OEM copies of 64-bit Vista Ultimate run ~$200

By daftrok on 10/4/2007 2:48:09 PM , Rating: 4
OEM copies of Vista Basic is 100 dollars and Premium costs 120. I find 80-100 bucks to be pretty significant.

By SirLucius on 10/4/2007 2:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
The difference between OEM Home Premium 64 and 32 is around $20 on Newegg. There is no difference in price between OEM Ultimate 64 and 32. Both are priced at $179.99. Comparing like products, the price difference is not great at all (or nonexistant).

By Darkmatterx76 on 10/6/2007 3:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
I think I'll be getting Ultimate Full Retail despite the money... I'm concerned that MS will eventually clamp down on people reinstalling OEM's of Vista on new computers and using the "upgrade" trick to avoid having to install Vista Upgrade overtop of a copy of XP. I could be wrong and wasting my money but you never know what a company will do in the future and at least this way I'm 100% covered, even if it does cost me $200 more.

By Melric on 10/4/2007 12:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
I am running 64bit Vista too. No problems at all. The only reason for me to run 64bit Vista is that I have 4GB of RAM. 32 bit systems only allow you to use 4GB, which after deducting the RAM in the video card, limits you to about 3GB. So if you want to use more than 3GB of RAM, you need to move to a 64bit system.

Otherwise, I see no reason to switch from XP. The drivers are more mature, and you will get more features out of things like your sound cards. Vista is also slower than XP for pretty much every game. Not much slower, but it is slower. DX10 doesn't get you much more in the way of graphics - yet.

By FITCamaro on 10/4/2007 9:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
4GB is not a product imposed maximum. It is the limit that a 32-bit system can address. Yes, Windows Server 2003 and other versions spawned off it have some extra code to be able to address more but that required extra programming to make it work.

And 64-bit Vista can address far more than 4GB. As well as XP-64. Now 64-bit Vista does impose some memory restrictions for different versions. 8GB for home basic, 16GB for home premium, and 128GB for ultimate. But what person using a consumer version of Vista is going to have more than 16GB of RAM. And if you have more than 8GB, you're likely not going to be using home basic.

By rdeegvainl on 10/5/2007 2:38:25 AM , Rating: 2
Saving up to build an 8GB machine for myself, can't wait to try it out, but i can't even imagine ever using 128GB of memory, guess i should just wait ten years so i can complain that it is the minumum for windows 2020. LOL

By technohawk on 10/4/2007 12:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
This is one of the biggest misconceptions about 64 bit. Even building the application using a 64 bit compiler is not going to yield any performance gains.

Programs have to be architected to actually use this address space. Calculation intensive programs don't necessarily have huge memory address problems.

This is a horsepower vs. traffic situation. 64 bit allows for more traffic but really horsepower is the same.

The biggest bang for the buck is databases that can now put more than 3gB into memory and instead of having to go to disk for queries they can now go to RAM.

By NullSubroutine on 10/4/2007 8:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it is not complete misconception. When AMD created AMD64 (x86-64) they did not only add 64bit registers they also fixed several problems that have existed in x86 since it was first created. Because of these fixes some software work arounds are no longer needed and some speed is gained from it.

However, you may argue there may not be negligible, but in truth it is at times hard to compare Windows XP, XP-64bit, Vista, and Vista-64 because they typically all use different drivers. From what I have seen the Windows XP 64bit drivers are equally mature compared to XP 32bit and games (even in WOW64 emulation) run faster in XP64.

By Targon on 10/4/2007 2:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
If you have signed 64 bit drivers for your hardware(which may or may not be a problem), you in theory may see some improved performance with 64 bit Windows(even if you are running 32 bit applications). Making sure there are signed/certified drivers is a big question.

Then you have the whole 2 gig max memory size per application thing that makes 32 bit a growing problem. Many people with only two gigs of memory may not realize this, but in 32 bit versions of Windows, no application may take more than 2 gigs of memory without crashing out. It is a problem with the OS that is caused by the four gigabyte limit of 32 bit processors. Even in systems with PAE that let you put more than four gigs of RAM into a machine, 32 bit Windows can NOT handle any application that takes two gigabytes of memory for itself.

64 bit Windows(both XP and Vista) do not have that problem, and applications can take up as much memory as they want, going well past the 2 gig mark if you have it.

My own feeling is that due to the driver problems, unless you buy a pre-built machine that the manufacturer can confirm has signed drivers for everything, 64 bit Windows should only be for those who really are up to the challenge of checking for 64 bit Vista drivers before purchasing new hardware. Keep in mind that 64 bit drivers also tend to have somewhat lower performance in many cases because they don't get the attention that 32 bit drivers do. This doesn't apply to every piece of hardware, but it can apply to many.

By Master Kenobi on 10/4/2007 2:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
Asus has 64-bit Vista drivers for most of its motherboards.

By Cheapshot on 10/4/2007 1:41:41 PM , Rating: 1
Are you a Beta tester? Because a few of those games haven't even been released yet.

By Master Kenobi on 10/4/2007 1:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I'm listed with Microsoft and several gaming companies as a Beta Tester and tend to get my fingers on all sorts of new things before they are released.

By Naviblue on 10/4/2007 2:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
How would one go about getting into a program such as this Master Kenobi?

By Master Kenobi on 10/4/2007 2:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well for Microsoft I'm listed on our corporate TechNet account, and I'm certified in a couple Microsoft fields.

For games I got lucky with the old Earth & Beyond beta and since then use it as a reference point. EA, SOE, and some others now have me on file as a previous tester that is apparently worth keeping around so I get invited to new beta's.

By NullSubroutine on 10/4/2007 8:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
oh man Earth and Beyond thats been such a long time ago....I really wish you could like install the game and run it on your own system or something. While it wasnt a great game, it did have some fun aspects.

By Master Kenobi on 10/4/2007 9:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well, they are working on a way to do just that.....

When they finish or get close to finishing I might stand up a server for a few people and play, it should be loads of fun and I'm sure my rig could handle it.

By NullSubroutine on 10/4/2007 9:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
1 word...SWEET I might run my own lan when I build a Phenom/Barc server sometime next year.

I will have to check that project out.

By Master Kenobi on 10/5/2007 5:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
So far there is no real combat or anything, but you can create a character and fly around space, and use all the jumpgates on the test server.

By Ringold on 10/4/2007 2:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
Feel free to write articles here about them! ;)

Assuming you're not under some NDA or the likes.

Not that NDA's bother DT too often it appears..

By SavagePotato on 10/4/2007 12:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
Those problems are pretty much gone, This has even been reported at sites like firing squad who have done updated gaming performance comparisons.

Being in the position of being an early adopter of vista (bought it on launch day), I can attest to how much the driver situation has improved from then. It's a night and day difference in terms of game performance and compatibly.

Nvidia in particular dropped the ball entirely and was as far from ready as you could be. However they seem to have done an about face. Vista driver development has been seeing constant releases whereas XP driver releases are sparse to say the least.

By KeithTalent on 10/4/2007 1:16:54 PM , Rating: 4
Well I'm a gamer and a Crossfire user and have been for the entire time I've had Vista (several months now) and have had very few problems. In fact I really can recall only one beta that would not start when in Crossfire mode, but that was quickly patched, and heck, it was a beta after all.

It's funny how I always feel as if I am defending Vista to everyone. People that have absolutely no clue (I'm not talking to you DeepBlue, just speaking in generalities) saying they won't go near Vista because it's a nightmare. When I ask them what specifically they are talking about, they usually just say, don't know, but that's just what I have heard.

Now I'm no Microsoft apologist, but I am genuinely happy and impressed with Vista so far and therefore I have no problem voicing my satisfaction, particularly to the uninformed masses that have no idea what's going on.


By Targon on 10/4/2007 2:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't run a Crossfire setup, but with one Radeon X2900XT-512 video card and four gigs of memory, Vista runs decently. It may not be as fast as a Windows XP setup on the same hardware, but I have no complaints.

You have people who want to run at over 1600x1200 with everything turned on out there, and for them, every frame per second may be important, but if you aren't one of those people, then who cares, as long as things run properly without too many drops in the framerate?

Windows Vista Home Premium, 4 gigs of memory, Athlon 64 X2 5600+ on an AMD/ATI 580X chipset(Crossfire Xpress 3200). The driver support isn't bad either since I have an ATI vid card.

Perhaps the people with problems are those with older machines that were upgraded to Vista rather than on a new machine? Or perhaps they have a Creative Labs sound card and the drivers still suck. Who knows?

By CrimsonFrost on 10/4/2007 4:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, I am a gamer. The only game that crashes on me with my 8800GTX is Battlefield 2142. Mind you I am on Vista Ultimate 64-bit. Crysis beta runs great, Bioshock runs great, WoW runs great, the only one that screws up is Battlefield... but that game has always crashed so no surprises there. I've never seen the "nvdkm" driver error that apparently 20% of GeForce 8 users always get either. I suppose I am lucky, or the other people's problems are PEBKAC related, hehe.

By The0ne on 10/4/2007 5:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a gamer as well but there are only 3 that I play mainly now: FFXI, WoW and HoMM3 (heroes of might and magic 3 ^^). The only one that can't cope in the Vista environment is FFXI. I can run multiple sessions (using Windower) in XP on one 22" dispaly are across the 22" and 67" HDTV with no "lag" whatsoever. Go to XP and the game lags even in one running instance. This isn't entirely Vista's fault as SE has to make their game more compatible. Given that choice I'm sticking with XP 64bit for the time being.

By The0ne on 10/4/2007 8:54:43 PM , Rating: 4
People are harping on the video drivers because the problems are there. You might not have it for your specific hardware setup but trust me it's not the same for a lot of users out there. 3dguru drivers are there to enable and address some issues users have. For instance, the current (3 weeks ago maybe) 8800GTS nvidia drivers does not support the proper 1680x1050 resolution for my Viewsonic 22". This is a known issue. The only way I can run Vista in the native resolution is to use drivers that were modified to address it.

I think the latest of latest nvidia drivers have fixed this although I have since installed xp 64bit to test. Will try again this weekend since I'm getting 2gigs more for my system.

And even if the drivers are matured and/or have address many user issues, there's still the problem of having the game actually be compatible to run in Vista. This was the case with FFXI. Initially, FFXI would either not run or would run but you can't see menu names. Contrast was too bright as well. After much delay and arguments, SE did recognize that their game is not fully compatible with Vista and have thus addressed them, to some extent. Even now it lags running in once instance. If I can run many instances of FFXI on XP 64bit and can't even run one instance of it properly on Vista there's something wrong.

Be happy your setup and games are running fine.

By The Sword 88 on 10/5/2007 12:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
I game, given I pay RTS mostly, but I have had no hitches in Vista, it is more demanding on my system but still I like it

By jrb531 on 10/5/2007 11:05:54 AM , Rating: 2
I am a gamer and aside from SLI (which Microsoft admitted they were at least partly to blame) the problem from day one was terrible drivers from Nvidia. ATI's drivers were stable from day one (some issues but at least you could play most games) but my old 6800 Ultra could not run anything.

Today the Nvidia drivers are better but still need some work. When I switched to an x1950 ATI card all my gaming issues went away.

I find it kind of strange that ATI used to have the "rotten driver award" and now that's reversed.

Nvidia makes great hardware (well aside from those horrible 5xxx cards!) but as of last, esp in Vista, the drivers are laggings.

I wonder how many gamers who had issues with Vista in the past months were trying to game with those rotten Nvidia Vista drivers.


By Polynikes on 10/4/2007 11:42:34 AM , Rating: 4
My only woe is that my sound card doesn't work... but no big deal.

No big deal? How on earth is that not a big deal? Do you not listen to music, play games or watch movies on your computer?

RE: So far I haven't experienced problems with Vista...
By iFX on 10/4/2007 11:47:00 AM , Rating: 3
I should have specified my old SB Live! doesn't work - well I have gotten it to "partially" work but wasn't happy with the result. I now have an XF-I which works perfectly.

By BlitzAceYuna on 10/4/2007 12:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
Not really on topic, but I've always wondered why couldn't the CPU be used to process sound?

With the increasing power of processors, why couldn't they be used to process high quality sound instead?

Perhaps I'm confused, do enlighten me if so.

By Etsp on 10/4/2007 12:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the problem is that sound is kind of...analog. Processors work fine in digital, but they have no means of outputting an analog signal without some sort of add-in. Many onboard soundcards use the processor to process the sound, and then convert that digital signal into an analog one and outputs it.

By AlphaVirus on 10/5/2007 11:58:18 AM , Rating: 2
You can do this without a sound card.
Onboard sound anyone?

By Captain Orgazmo on 10/4/2007 12:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
What sound card do you have? Or do you mean on-board audio? You may need to download drivers for it (don't use the drivers that Vista installs automatically... they never work properly). I have on-board HD audio, and an Audigy 2 ZS, and I can use them both thanks to the new audio driver architecture in Vista... couldn't do that in XP.

By hlper on 10/4/2007 12:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
I would be happy to see the recovery time after inactivity, sleep, and the screen saver improve, as well as the start-up. I really do feel like those things have been unacceptably slow, but I agree that my overall Vista experience has been unremarkable (no problems, but not particularly wowed either).

By Blight AC on 10/4/2007 2:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, I've had quite a few issues with Windows Vista and it's not because I'm computer illiterate. I've had Vista since February this year. XP ran flawlessly on the same hardware, Athlon X2 4600+, ATI 1950 Crossfire and 1900 XT, 2 GB RAM, Raptor 150 HDD, pretty much all 5.9 on the performance scale except the processor.

Had an ATI driver completely hose my OS (and not a Beta driver either, an official Vista driver, 7.3 I believe), required OS re-installation (rollback just didn't work), which also required a new key. Once you get the right phone number though, getting a new key is a pretty easy process from Microsoft support.

Those who had nVidia based drivers, seemed to have it the worst though, which I'm glad I didn't at the time, as I like nVidia.

Creative X-Fi driver, again not a beta driver, was causing the OS to freeze, no response at all, just locked up completely on occasion while gaming and some issues with music playback quality too (crackling). Really random though, but more prevalent in Tabula Rasa beta, the latest driver works well though.

The Network.. oh hell.. trying to transfer large files, or just a large amount of files was extremely slow compared to XP. I had been running the Windows Home Server (WHS) Beta, and moving files, like media and music to the WHS was painfully slow. A common complaint for Vista users. There was a patch that addressed this, but I haven't tested it after installing the patch. Oddly enough, it worked quite well when I pulled the files on WHS side, that is, I logged onto WHS and did the file copy from the WHS interface.

Not too long ago, Microsoft had an issue with their WGA authentication server, which caused my PC to report itself as unauthenticated for 5 days. It just happened at the worst time for me, as I was moving, and it happened right before I moved, and didn't have internet at the new place for a few days (Microsoft had fixed it within the day, but it just happned to be bad timing for me). Running unauthenticated is annoying.

Some ATI Official drivers have had issues with Crossfire (flickering, and other issues), but Ati was releasing drivers nearly monthly, and usually fixed the issue, but after driver 7.4, it seems like the ATI drivers were working pretty good with the games I was running.. although flickering with Crossfire enabled happened with the 7.6 drivers. I still get flickering when I bring my PC out of standby and the screensaver stays on, and my PC sometimes won't even go into Standby, or play the Screensaver. I come into the room and hour later, and the monitor is still displaying the desktop.

Windows Updates has a driver update that completely hoses my system. I have a DFI LanParty UT Crossfire board, and Windows Update offers a SATA driver update that causes Vista to bluescreen. The best part about it, is once you select, "Last known good..." as a boot option, once you get into Vista, it tries to automatically install the SATA driver update again. The only option that causes the driver to not break Vista again is the "Ask me later" option, and it will keep asking every time you boot. You have to rollback to before the driver installation, and just ignore that update.

Speaking of which, I was hoping that the Windows Update driver updates that were offered would actually be reliable, but I see that it's still a very dangerous prospect to use those drivers.

There were quite a few times where I was nearly ready to just re-install XP, but, I like Vista, when it works, and at this point, it's performance is similar to XP, and reliability is still improving.

Some things I don't like, having to click OK/Yes 3 times to confirm/approve a File Delete is quite annoying, but I'm using it how Microsoft intended, because I'm mainly interested in the intended end user experience to see if it's viable. Menu options, to get to Display properties and to actually just "Repair" my Network Connection, IMO is overly complicated. But these things aren't part of the daily experience, and can be tolerated for the sake of maintaining it's inherent security features.

Either way, most of the issues I have had were due to it being such a new OS and driver issues, most were fixed by July. So, if your having a pleasant experience, it was because of the folks who Paid Open Beta tested Vista before you.

I work in IT, so, the initial Vista issues were only annoying to me, and not a show stopper. But, I'd imagine, the people that were forced to buy Vista (most people who bought a personal pre-built system from HP, Dell and the like), that is, the average users, would of been more then ready to go back to XP after they could no longer boot their OS for no other reason then installing recommended updates. I knew when I bought it there would be issues, but other folks may not have felt that had a choice. But usually, I'm the guy who doesn't have the issues. Windows XP Service Pack 2, I installed it while it was still causing issues on a few systems. The other thing to remember is, your not the only one who has had a trouble free experience, it's just the one's who do, tend to be vocal about it.

By Ringold on 10/4/2007 2:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
I won't respond to all of it, but that's interesting that you needed a new key. I bought my copies OEM and have reinstalled all of them once (and my main box, this one, three times), and thank the gods it's simply accepted reactivation every time.

Identical hardware, but then again, you reinstalled with identical hardware as well. Weird?

By Blight AC on 10/8/2007 9:08:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I wasn't expecting to need it, considering it was the same exact hardware. However, I was holding off on Activation on Vista till I felt all the features I needed were working (if something big wasn't working I could re-install XP until Vista or the driver support for it was ready). However, after installing Catalyst 7.3, which enabled Crossfire for my cards, and seemed to be working, I was happy and activated, and within the week, it was acting up with BSOD issues.

When I reinstalled, it said my key was no longer valid and I needed a new one. I have OEM as well. I wonder if there is a difference with the version. I have Home Premium, maybe Ultimate is a little more tolerant considering it includes the business components as well.

RE: So far I haven't experienced problems with Vista...
By iFX on 10/4/2007 2:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
Most of your problems seem to be driver related and not related to the OS.

By Blight AC on 10/8/2007 9:38:19 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I agree, that some of it is not directly Microsoft's fault, like driver issues, many of which have been resolved by now.

But there are some inherent issues as well, which is why Microsoft has released more then a couple "performance and reliability" patches. Either way, it's a whole package, because the OS has some issues with certain hardware/drivers ruins the overall experience. The drivers I used were WHQL approved drivers too. Not only that, one of the drivers is directly offered by Microsoft (via Windows Update).

Either way, I am kinda glad that Microsoft pushed Vista by having system suppliers like HP offer it as the only option. It helps spread adoption which helps push the software support for the system.

Now.. if we can get that kinda adoption for 64 bit OS's...

By AggressorPrime on 10/4/2007 4:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
Battlefield 2142 still doesn't work for me; although I was able to get my X-Fi ExpressCard working again with hotfix 929550.

Will test it
By Master Kenobi on 10/4/2007 10:50:18 AM , Rating: 1
Will load 'er up after work, I'm interested in how quick it might boot now.... mine already boots in 12 seconds.

RE: Will test it
By HaZaRd2K6 on 10/4/2007 11:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
As will I. Vista boots a helluva lot quicker than XP for me, so if they can shorten it even more, I'll be a very happy camper. Hopefully they can just make it run a little bit quicker on older CPUs (I'm running an A64 3700+ @ 2.4GHz), although Intel's Retail Edge program should change that problem for me XD (Q6600 here I come!)

RE: Will test it
By DeepBlue1975 on 10/4/2007 11:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
12"? :D
How are you getting those times?
Mine boots fast, but not even close to that (more like 30")

RE: Will test it
By SeeManRun on 10/4/2007 11:19:42 AM , Rating: 2
How is it possible to boot in 12 seconds? Are you resuming from sleep mode, or a complete cold reboot? Mine takes close to 3 minutes to boot up, and am running a dual core 2.1 ghz with 4 gigs (3.5 gigs usable) RAM. I'd like to see lower boot times!

RE: Will test it
By TomZ on 10/4/2007 11:22:14 AM , Rating: 2
I always use sleep mode, and my computer is ready in about 5 seconds after I open the lid. I reboot not more than once a month - usually only when required to due to installation of OS component updates.

RE: Will test it
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/4/2007 11:58:49 AM , Rating: 2
Same for my laptop; sleep works great. However, whenever I use sleep on my Vista desktop, it always wakes up a couple hours later on its own... very annoying.

RE: Will test it
By Master Kenobi on 10/4/2007 11:30:47 AM , Rating: 2
Cold boot. But I'm also using Vista Ultimate 64 with 4 Gigs of ram. Custom rig. 3.1GHz Core 2 Duo.

RE: Will test it
By Etsp on 10/4/2007 12:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
considering it's from cold boot, I'd like to hear about your hard-drives too...

RE: Will test it
By Master Kenobi on 10/4/2007 1:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
2x Boot 74GB Raptors 16mb Cache Raid 1. 2x Slave 500GB WD 16mb Cache also Raid 1.

RE: Will test it
By Etsp on 10/4/2007 3:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
Oh...that could be part of it as well. Many RAID 1 solutions offer near double the read speed of a single disk. And they are raptors... Did you enjoy booting into Xp in under 5 seconds? Or have you not tried yet =P

RE: Will test it
By Master Kenobi on 10/4/2007 9:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, XP boot was around 8 seconds actually on similar hardware. Vista is only slightly slower but it is far more robust too.

RE: Will test it
By buzbro on 10/4/2007 8:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
Cold boot is:

BIOS, 12 seconds
Booting Vista to logon screen, 16 seconds
Logon time after password, <1 second

No complaints with 16 seconds.
Also all my programs start instantly - XP never did this.

E4300, 2GB ram, very cheap HD.

Life after Vista
By audiomaniaca on 10/4/2007 11:32:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a 110% happy Vista user. Boots quickly, works sweet and provides more security than XP and Crap OS.

Running it in 3 different machines (HP, Vaio and Samsung UMPC). No problems in any of them so far.

VISTA rules, and of course, it drives apple fanboys crazy.

RE: Life after Vista
By kextyn on 10/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Life after Vista
By TomZ on 10/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Life after Vista
By mhdomino87 on 10/4/2007 1:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
This is by far one of the more idiotic comments I've heard in quite some time. Parts of the OS was rewritten not all. It shares it's heritage with NT which shares a lot of heritage with VMS.

Also, what do you consider "today's security requirements?" I'd like to know how different security is today than it was 20 years ago. I think what you mean to say is that Windows has done a horrible job with security and they went back and plugged the holes.

Also, saying Linux and OS-X weren't built with "today's security requirements" in mind is outrageous. Security has always been a unix and unix-like operating system strengths. They have very robust user management features and security enhancements. To note, Linux also have actively developed access control architectures that can interface with the kernel known as SE Linux.

Security in any OS is about user permissions to the hardware and filesystem. The same security issues in MS Dos 3.3 is still issues today. How you could think other wise is beyond me. Viruses, root kits, worms and hackers have only so much to worth with.

Your post sounds like you read it off a Microsoft ad.

RE: Life after Vista
By technohawk on 10/4/2007 2:00:34 PM , Rating: 3
You are wrong on so many levels.
The only thing NT shares with VMS is David Cutler and the fact that you can get VMS by shifting the letters of Windows NT.
I learned how to program on a VAX 11-780. Since MS did not actually buy Digital HP did this is not possible. Dave can’t just “remember” a few million lines of code.

I have written C programs on every major operating system release since 1985.
Are you saying an operating system built in 1972 was built to be secure? (UNIX) The lineage of UNIX is a far more sordid than NT.
Lanmanger, SMB and backward compatibility are the sources of lot of security holes in NT based Windows. The fact that WINS and a lot of the other RPC methods have either been completely re-written or completely deprecated is one indicator that the operating system was designed to be more secure.

The biggest source of UNIX security comes from the fact is that it is much harder to write programs for the operating system.

Windows own success is its biggest problem:
Backward compatibility
Ease of Programming
Number of Users
Are the real reason not some fantasy notion that it’s based on VMS or some older platform, it was written to be compatible with DOS code based on it’s code and there is a huge difference.

RE: Life after Vista
By chick0n on 10/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Life after Vista
By audiomaniaca on 10/4/2007 12:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
I know this because I've been using it in three different machines for many months.

Do you think it is not because some people say or because you're a fanboy?

RE: Life after Vista
By kextyn on 10/4/2007 3:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
So just because you've been using it you know it's more secure? I've been using XP since it was released and I haven't had any security incidents that I know of. I'm not saying it isn't more secure but you sound just like a Mac fanboy that quotes whatever Mac tells them about their OS.

And just to make it clear I am not a fanboy of MS, Linux or Mac and I personally use Windows and Linux. I am not making any claims about how secure any OS is.

RE: Life after Vista
By audiomaniaca on 10/4/2007 8:50:00 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, I though that a fanboy was attacking Vista's reputation again, but since you're a XP user, I can explain it to you.

So do I. I've been using XP since it was released. Not only XP, but Windows 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 95, ME (oh, that was great..), WM3, 4, 5, 6, System 7, Irix and so on.

After going through all those systems and because I'm a security professional, I think it broght me to a level where I can make such statement.

Vista is safer than any other MS os released so far and safer than Mac OS.

I'm saying it. I don't trust what other people say, specially if it comes from Apple.

RE: Life after Vista
By mechBgon on 10/4/2007 10:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
And you know this because you tested it or because people say it's more secure?

Based on malware-collection work, I can certainly vouch for Vista being more secure than WinXP in real-life scenarios, both in default out-of-the-box configuration and in absolute terms.

Some further reading:

On average, about seventy percent of the malicious code executed under Windows Vista loaded successfully and executed without a crash or runtime error. Note that malicious code is always looking to latch on to another process, bind to a local port, or modify system critical files; thus, identifying a successful execution does not indicate it fully compromised the victim host. Out of the seventy percent that were able to execute, only about six percent of the samples were able to accomplish a full compromise and an even smaller number (four percent) were able to survive a reboot. The rest did not execute properly due to incompatibility, unhandled exceptions, or security restrictions.

Vista's time has come, and none too soon IMO, in light of today's security landscape. It'll be interesting to see how the bad guys react as Vista adoption widens.

RE: Life after Vista
By Nekrik on 10/5/2007 12:43:02 AM , Rating: 3
"It'll be interesting to see how the bad guys react as Vista adoption widens."

I think it's a given they will eventually develop some succesful attacks but I think you're right, Vista is far more prepared for it. Microsoft has very solid processes in place for dealing with attacks (despite the criticism they recieve from end users) that is far more refined than nearly any other organizations. Mostly this is a result of the endless attacks, the more threats that come the more bullet proof they are able to make the OS. In an abstract way the hackers themselves have really helped make the OS what it is today.

Important - Steam Conflict!
By Proteusza on 10/4/2007 3:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Just installed this update, and found that my sound was no longer working in any steam games. The intro movie played with sound, but the games didnt.

I tested various other games, such as FEAR. Only Steam games seem to be affected.

I'm using Vista Home Premium 64 bit, and I tried out Half Life 2, and Half Life 2 Episode 1. Both were broken. After doing a system restore, they are working again.

Just thought I'd let any of you eager TF2ers out there now - avoid this patch for now.

RE: Important - Steam Conflict!
By Phlargo on 10/5/2007 12:07:58 AM , Rating: 2
I have been able to run Doom 3 and the Bioshock Demo since installing this patch. I have found no adverse effects other than having to re-enter some security credentials around my computer.

RE: Important - Steam Conflict!
By Proteusza on 10/5/2007 5:00:43 AM , Rating: 2
Try a Source engine based game, ie Half Life 2, and let me know if it works.

RE: Important - Steam Conflict!
By rdeegvainl on 10/5/2007 8:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
I just installed the update, and tried half life source, sound works great for me. Maybe it is your sound drivers.

Might be good!
By Aikouka on 10/4/2007 1:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
It improves the stability of portable computers and of desktop computers that use an uninterruptable power supply (UPS).

Strange, I use an APC UPS on my main PC and I never noticed any issues after I started using it. I wonder if it's some sort of problem that comes after installing UPS software, because I just use the default Windows power management application.

It shortens the recovery time after Windows Vista experiences a period of inactivity.

I don't think this is a bug at all. I had an issue like this and it turns out that when you turn the power settings in Vista to always on (I forget the exact term used). I suspected there was some advanced setting that kept turning the HDDs off. Lo-and-behold, even on the "Burn 20 mega-tons of coal a second" power setting, Vista still sets the HDDs to turn off after 20 minutes. This caused random freezes during videos, network drives hanging. Once I turned this off on both of my Vista machines, things ran so much better!

It shortens the startup time of Windows Vista by using a better timing structure.

I really hope this fixes my problem. The only issue I really have with Vista is the insanely long boot-up time. I went from maybe 30 seconds from BIOS screen to Windows XP desktop, but Vista sits at a black screen for at least a minute. I checked the performance logs (you can look at these in the same place as the Event Viewer) and some Profile application is hanging each time Vista tries to start up. I haven't seen anything about this, but since I rarely restart my PC, it isn't much of a problem.

RE: Might be good!
By Spivonious on 10/4/2007 3:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
I always thought the "Always On" setting was if you left your computer on all of the time, not a setting for disabling power management.

RE: Might be good!
By Aikouka on 10/5/2007 8:37:17 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the Windows XP setting using that name disables turning the HDD off after a set period of inactivity. I don't use XP fully anymore so I really can't tell you for sure. I don't think the Vista one is actually called "Always On" now, it has some other name that's slipping my mind. I mean, you have a valid claim, but to me, always on should be system wide and therefore the hard drives should be always on.

By darkcloud2106 on 10/4/2007 1:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'd highly recommend this patch if you have windows vista. it lowered my memory usage from 45% - 22% idle and my pc from 23% - 7% idle which is a huge improvement overall. To get the patch you have to go to

since it isn't on windows update as of now.

RE: Incredible
By BitJunkie on 10/4/2007 2:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for that link, people should be aware it's for x86 users though.

The link for x64 users is here:

RE: Incredible
By rdeegvainl on 10/5/2007 3:54:56 AM , Rating: 2
You win an internets my good sirs!!!!

System unbootable
By Maffer on 10/4/2007 4:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
All right, this update made my system unbootable totally. I installed it manually and that part went all right until the next bootup after restarting system. The loading bar animation just kept looping and looping infinitely with no HDD activity. The bar however kept pausing for short amounts of time while it kept looping over. I hit reset button after 5mins of waiting.

I tried installing this 2 times and both times I had to use Vista setup repair funtion to revert back to previous restore point which worked. This is absolutely the first time I have problems with my Vista 64bit Ultimate installation.

Could this be a driver conflict? Does Rivatuner load the low-level driver at this point of startup as I have the software installed?

RE: System unbootable
By lokeynz on 10/4/2007 7:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
Same here on Vista Home Premium 32bit.
Sits at boot animation and never goes into windows, have left it for an hour so far.

RE: System unbootable
By InsidiousAngel on 10/5/2007 9:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I and one of my friends also ran into this issue. The only thing I could do was boot off the Vista disc, select repair, and let it examine and choose the Restore Point. I also run Vista 64bit Ultimate with 4GB ram, but my friend is running Vista Home Premium 32bit. But my work laptop, running Vista Business 32bit works like a champ with the patch.

I also wondered about Rivatuner as I have it loaded on boot as well, but with 64bit Vista, I have to manually allow it to run as Vista blocks it by default. Any insight would be great.

Big Difference
By Gamingphreek on 10/4/2007 12:20:31 PM , Rating: 5
This Hotfix just doubled my Vista Battery Life. I'm running on a Toshiba M400 Tablet PC and my Battery Life at 100% is now ~2:30. Almost as good as XP was.


Installed, Bootup speed definately increased.
By Acanthus on 10/4/2007 1:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
Q6600 + 4GB, vista ultimate 64.

Shaved at least 3-5 secs off of my already fast bootup. (the optomization seems to be the order that network and sound drivers are loaded when you arrive at the desktop)

Before it would just haphazardly launch the applications in a seemingly random order. It is now definately executing network and sound drivers 1st.

By DeepBlue1975 on 10/4/2007 3:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
How fast were you booting?

Q6600 but only 2gb of ram and vista 32 here.
As I've got a crappy usb dsl modem I've got my network cards disabled, which in XP used to trash my boot times quite a bit.

A Good Article....
By Christopher1 on 10/4/2007 9:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
But I am wondering why the other four updates to Windows Vista that are mentioned on other new sites are not listed on this one.

One of them fixed my Firefox 3alpha9 intermittent crashing problem for some reason, and it was connected with Windows Media Player 11!

RE: A Good Article....
By crystal clear on 10/5/2007 7:34:14 AM , Rating: 2
See above-

"recommended" but not "important"

1GB SP3?!
By Lord Evermore on 10/7/2007 12:07:31 AM , Rating: 3
Now, granted it's a beta, but the Service Pack 3 is larger (nearly twice as large) than the XP installation disc itself?! And it's like 3 times the size of the real OS part of the disc, the i386 folder. Are they just packaging Vista into it?

By crystal clear on 10/4/2007 12:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
M.S. website says-"recommended" but not "important"


"Microsoft recommends that customers who are not experiencing problems wait until they are released as part of SP1, as the fixes themselves may end up being improved through further testing. "

Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Beta White Paper

In addition-

The first update is perhaps the most important: the so-called comprehensive reliability, compatibility, and stability update (KB 941649) addresses a whole plethora of issues, including speeding up the startup time of the operating system (remember when one of the selling features of Vista was supposed to be a faster boot?) and improving mobile battery life.

The second update, an MSXML Reliability update (KB 941833), is designed to fix reliability and application compatibility issues in Microsoft's XML Core Services, a developer toolkit for building XML applications. Most users can probably skip this one for now.

A third fix (KB 941651) is aimed at Windows Media Player 11 and is supposed to improve its reliability. Next on deck is a USB update (KB 941600) that "resolves some reliability issues in the USB core components on the Windows Vista operating system." Finally, KB 941229 is a cumulative update for Windows Media Center (included in Vista Home Premium and Vista Ultimate editions) that addresses a variety of bugs in the new version of the Media Center TV recording and multimedia playback application.

Microsoft gets something right
By Bluestealth on 10/4/2007 1:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
# It shortens the startup time of Windows Vista by using a better timing structure.
# It shortens the recovery time after Windows Vista experiences a period of inactivity.

Addressed two of my big annoyances. :)

By computergeek485 on 10/4/2007 4:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
When i first switched to Vista ultimate i couldnt use internet explorer. It would crash every 3 min or so so i had to use firefox. Now with this update i have yet to have IE crash on me.

Patch Tuesday
By crystal clear on 10/5/2007 7:27:29 AM , Rating: 2
This is an advance notification of seven security bulletins that Microsoft is intending to release on October 9, 2007.

Critical (4)

Important (3)

Assuming Microsoft releases all seven bulletins, users will have dealt with 61 updates so far this year, four fewer than same period in 2006.

user beware
By cheburashka on 10/5/2007 2:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
I installed the hotfix and vista consistantly hung a few seconds into startup. Safe mode didn't work either. I had to perform a restore to bring it back to life.

By shiftgear6 on 10/6/2007 4:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
After installing KB941649 and rebooted... Vista fails to start. It's stuck on boot graphic screen. With boot logging, it's stuck on crcdisk.sys. Safe mode and "Start Last Known Configuration" doesn't recover. I recovered my system by using "Rescue" from Vista DVD. You are warned.

What i like about vista
By radzer0 on 10/7/2007 12:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
Not saying its needed up its deff nice being i work on computers all day long. Install vista and as long as it has ethernet drivers it gets right on and starts downloading the drivers it needs :)

By Derka on 10/4/2007 3:31:43 PM , Rating: 1
Already made the jump back to XP. Between the first install of vista failing, and that install used my activation code, so on the second it wouldn't let me activate, I couldn't get rid of the first version, so 15 gigs were gone. Random other issues got me to go back.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki