Print 126 comment(s) - last by bill3.. on Mar 20 at 11:38 PM

  (Source: Reuters)
Customers will be able to download SP1 tomorrow; retail versions will be in stores on Wednesday.

Microsoft's long-awaited service pack for Windows Vista is reported to be heading to consumers tomorrow. The RTM version of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) was first released to testers in early February after a lengthy gestation period.

Customers will have two ways to obtain SP1: a stand-alone installer can be downloaded directly from Microsoft's Download Center or users can get the update through Windows Update where it will be labeled as an optional update. Systems that have drivers which are currently known to be incompatible with SP1 will not be permitted to install the update.

"Customers who visit Windows Update can choose to install Service Pack 1. Any system that Windows Update determines has a driver known to not upgrade successfully will not be offered SP1," said a Microsoft spokeswoman.

SP1 already caused problems for some testers who installed the RTM version, so Microsoft is likely trying to minimize a problematic launch for a larger consumer-based rollout -- the last thing that Vista needs is more fuel added to the fire that surrounds the operating system.

Customers will be able to purchase retail-packaged versions of Windows Vista with SP1 already incorporated starting on Wednesday. Those who pick up the retail versions will also take advantage of new, lower pricing that Microsoft introduced late last month.

Microsoft dropped the prices for Windows Vista Ultimate (Full), Windows Vista Ultimate (Upgrade), and Windows Vista Home Premium (Upgrade) to $319, $219, and $129 respectively. Interestingly enough, offers even lower prices for the software on its site at $299.99, $194.99, and $94.99 respectively.

Comments     Threshold

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

By Kefner on 3/17/2008 11:05:50 AM , Rating: 3
I have the RTM version of SP1 installed. I assume this is identical? Anyone know for sure?

By 325hhee on 3/17/2008 11:20:19 AM , Rating: 4
As far as SP1 goes, it's just mostly a cumulative file of all the patches that has been released since it's launch, there maybe only 1 or 2 files that aren't from the updates they've been releasing. Vista has stablized itself in about 4 months since launch. It's just the backlash of it's initial launch that people are still harping about.

And keep in mind, the majority of the people that chant Vista sucks are, Apple users, people that installed Vista and uninstalled it from a day to 1 month of its release, and people that never used it, but keeps saying it, because it's what they "hear".

I know one person that stuck with Vista since launch date, and he said everything, but his Nvidia drivers are stable and running fine, with the exception to that dreaded X-Fi card and 4 gigs of ram.

I just reinstalled it myself. I just wish the classic view I have is a later windows look instead of 95. I hate the new look and I don't use Aero, it's stable, everything works, duo cores are working 20% better than on XP, Vista drivers for my ATI works, Sound Blaster new drivers seem good so far, I haven't crashed yet with 4 gigs, but it's still to early, I haven't done any massive raids, so I can't tell if I'll get the BSoD, but I don't blame Vista, I blame Creative on that, and especially on the XP side, they didn't release a driver since Oct '06 and even their new ones still crashed on me that was released a couple of days ago.

Rant off. Vista is fine, and yes it uses more memory, but it's caching stuff, and manages memory a lot better than XP. And remember when XP first came out, it sucked balls too, it was just as bad if not worse than Vista launch. Look how long it took XP to be accepted.

By noirsoft on 3/17/2008 11:31:35 AM , Rating: 5
You really should turn Aero on if you have a GPU that can handle it. The CPU savings and responsiveness increase are worth it. The computer definitely "feels" faster.

By blaster5k on 3/17/2008 11:42:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the interface actually runs a lot smoother with it on. No tearing either.

By threepac3 on 3/17/2008 12:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
Try it in Classic theme the GPU, CPU and memory savings is worth it.

By B3an on 3/17/2008 1:11:08 PM , Rating: 5
Why would you even care if it saves GPU processing power? Hardly any software uses the GPU within Windows so why not just let Aero make use of the GPU?

I've found that turning on Aero SAVES CPU processing power, as the GPU does a lot of the work the CPU would normally do. Theres been benches on this that prove it too. Simple things like dragging windows around uses less CPU load. It also gets rids of that annoying screen tearing that you get in XP and older Windows OS's.

As for memory it's so cheap now you can get 4GB DDR2 for under $80.

By goku on 3/17/2008 7:34:53 PM , Rating: 5
great you save a few cpu cycles which use little power and then you replace it with a LOT of gpu cycles which use a LOT of power.

How thoughtful!

By leidegre on 3/18/08, Rating: 0
By gramboh on 3/17/2008 11:39:10 AM , Rating: 4
I've been using Vista x64 Ultimate as my only OS since mid January. I have zero problems (with NV 8800GTS 640, 4GB memory, Creative X-Fi). The OS is great, better than XP for sure.

By blaster5k on 3/17/2008 11:55:07 AM , Rating: 4
When I started using Vista, I had some problems with ATI drivers, but that's been resolved for some time. Also had some fluke Windows Update issues that seem to be resolved. Overall, it's been just as stable as XP.

People complain about memory requirements, but I really don't see the issue when you can get 2GB for $30. Vista needs more memory, but it also uses it better than XP did, so once you have it, you'll see better performance.

There is one thing that I'm not happy about with Vista -- the activation. It always tries to renew the activation and I've had that fail on me twice when I didn't even make any hardware changes. I had to call Microsoft, which is a royal pain in the ass. That's what I get for buying a legitimate copy I guess...

By sprockkets on 3/17/2008 12:07:03 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, I will rant. Because I just tried 64 bit vista on a new computer with a 780G AMD chipset, and while it does boot up and the drivers installed, all of Vista's crap is always there to remind me: Needing to turn off UAC, Buffalo's wireless adapter not working for unknown reasons (but works fine on XP), the hard drive is continuously churning away hours and hours after install, having windows update fail on a fresh install and needing to use system restore to fix it since none of the error codes find any solutions on microsoft's web site, tried to watch some video online from netflix, only to have it stutter so much because that damn hdd is still churning away for who knows what, days after the install (it said I had low bandwidth, but since the wireless wouldn't install I used ethernet, so that was just horse manure).

Sure, 325hhee, caching is great, especially when I have to wait for it to cache 1.75GB of stuff into ram that I will not even use, wasting my time as it boots up. And if you will mention that some of that HDD churning is windows doing the indexing of my files, then I will say, not even Linux with Beagle search does the endless indexing anymore.

And no, XP was greeted with joy because for the general public, it gave windows 9x and ME users some much needed stability. And with people now using 7200rpm hard drives, some of that extra overhead was eased. With vista, I guess I need now a raptor or oh that's right, READYBOOST!

Look, Vista will be fine someday. But aeroglass and company does not justify the needless frustration it causes over XP. And SP1 will not be offered if there is a problematic driver? SO, will it actually tell me which one? Knowing Microsoft, it won't.

Yeah, suuurrreee I'll recommend vista to my clients. No way, I've got better things to do than to listen to them wine.

By Targon on 3/17/2008 12:34:31 PM , Rating: 5
You need to treat Vista 64 bit with extra care because driver support will not be very good for a while yet.

Note that Windows XP 64 bit had very little driver support. It took six to eight months after launch for the 32 bit drivers for Vista to really get stable, with a few companies really lagging. Vista 64 bit support will lag, but at least is moving forward. By the time Windows 7 is released, the 64 bit support SHOULD be solid.

The fact that you jumped on the 64 bit version(when you need to ask for it from most companies) shows you SHOULD be ready to handle this sort of issue. You knew going in that you might run into problems that the 32 bit version does not have. So, blame the hardware companies if 64 bit drivers don't work properly for you, not Microsoft.

By sprockkets on 3/17/2008 5:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. But just read this website, oh no,, and they are saying all computers should use it now.

Good thing I have both, legally.

BUT, the driver that I am talking about IS Microsoft's. It is a USB human interface device. This is a Buffalo device which has drivers built into a flash memory part of it. It failed to detect it beyond being a USB Human interface device, and not the network adapter it is.

I already know about the 64 bit debacle. Of course, while you cannot compare the issue with Apple, they will happily gloat about how they do not have a 64 bit issue.

By Etsp on 3/17/2008 12:59:21 PM , Rating: 4
The constant churning of the HDD is really the biggest complaint against Vista that I have. I have already turned off the indexing service and set all my drives to not index, and it persists.

As far as I can tell, it is supposed to be a background service, but on hard drives, "backround" is way different than on a processor. Hard drives have a huge amount of latency, and so switching back and forth between this service and what you want to do causes some serious slow downs. So as a background service it should only be running when the system is completely idle.

If anyone has any idea what it is that is doing it (not the indexing service) then please let me know.

By aguilpa1 on 3/17/2008 1:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
I also have Vista 64, however, i don't use it preferring to dual boot into old XP Pro. I have yet to find anything in Vista that I can't generally do faster on XP, hence no point in switching.

RE: your drive churning. Have you tried run msconfig from the run command. Its still there. You can then see what all processes are currently running and how much CPU they are using. You can then narrow down your culprit. Generally constant drive crunching is as you already checked, indexing, antivirus scans, auto drive defrags and if you have very little memory, auto windows updates and installation will do that.

By AlphaVirus on 3/17/2008 1:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
Check your Task Manager, you might have a task running for certain softwares. Also if you have programs such as DiskKeeper, Mcafee, Norton, or any program that has "real time scanning" then this could be your 'problem'.

I would suggest reading some of this so you can get a better idea of how to find whats accessing your harddrive.

Once you get accustomed to the TM, then you will be able to disable certain services that Vista has enabled but are pointless and you can find processes that you might have running by accident. It takes a lot of time but I would suggest googling every task you have running so that you can get an idea of whats running in the background.

Also depending on how much ram you have, your hard drive could be transfering paging files.

By sprockkets on 3/17/2008 5:37:16 PM , Rating: 4
So instead of waiting for a program to open, we now wait for it to boot up, take forever to load, then open quickly.

Like I said, Linux does this too, but the hdd does not churn after a few minutes after boot. On this new install, it does for days.

If they fix it, fine. But, moving the time to open a program to the beginning of boot doesn't help at all.

I will say though, after a while, it does go away, and it just works. But, XP works quick upon install and it loads programs quick as well :).

BTW, the only program I installed on the computer was VLC, Radeon drivers, and nothing else.

By arazok on 3/17/2008 2:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
It's superFetch, and it's your friend. Probably the best addition to Vista of them all...

By walk2k on 3/17/2008 3:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
Wow it still does that? I thought they would have fixed that in beta.

I tried the beta for awhile but had to delete it (a whole nother nightmare.. had to reformat the drive to get rid of it..) because of that bug. CONSTANT HDD access, day and night, 24/7.. for weeks after installing (so it wasn't just indexing, which I even tried to disable)...

If it still does that there's no way I can use Vista. Not only will it wear out my HD prematurely, all that noise gave me a headache...

By BMFPitt on 3/17/2008 3:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
If it still does that there's no way I can use Vista. Not only will it wear out my HD prematurely, all that noise gave me a headache...
It did that to me for about a week or two after release, then stopped. I recently did a clean install and it hasn't done it again. Never figured out what that was. (It wasn't indexing, I disabled that while trying to figure it out.)

By paulpod on 3/17/2008 5:13:46 PM , Rating: 5
Yes. This is a complete dealbreaker for me also. Aside from slowing down file copies, here is another problem.

I switch between PCs on a KVM. When not monitoring a PC, the disk activity light is what lets me know when a processing job is done on that PC. It lets me know if a video capture is still running. If the machine is idle, it lets me know whether something is running that should not be running.

Any spurious activity throws off this visual cue. There is NO MISSING FEATURE in XP that would make me want to give up this functionality.

Why can't MS give us a disk manager where we can schedule specific periods for OS disk activities? And let us specify programs that, when running, cause all OS disk activity to cease.

By 4wardtristan on 3/18/2008 5:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
start > right click "computer" > left click "manage"

in the lefthand payne of MMC, left click on "reliability and performance" and have a geeze around disk usage...u can expand each section for more details.

By Etsp on 3/19/2008 12:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
For this particular problem, that panel is useless. It shows my "disk activity" at 100%, but in the panel below that would describe this, there is no column that shows how much disk activity a process is causing. The throughput on the disk is nothing to speak of, and that is the only thing that is tracked by the individual processes.

By ToeCutter on 3/17/2008 12:28:26 PM , Rating: 1
Vista is fine

So you've just installed it and already concluded that it's "fine"?

Hmm, okay. Suffer through half a dozen BSoDs (that occur overnight, for no apparent reason), RAID rebuilds and random application crashes (Outlook, MS own app) and share your experiences in a few weeks.

Vista might be "fine" for you, but to imply that those bitching about are at fault for purchasing a shipping product is ludicrous. When MS extends the support for XP and then even allows corp users to downgrade, I think a reasonable majority can conclude that something is very wrong with Vista.

By blaster5k on 3/17/2008 12:35:44 PM , Rating: 1
BSODs are usually indicative of a driver problem. That's not really Microsoft's fault, so saying something is very "with Vista" is a bit ignorant. They can't make every driver vendor get their act together.

By ToeCutter on 3/17/2008 1:18:40 PM , Rating: 1
BSODs are usually indicative of a driver problem.

So, every BSOD is caused by a device driver? Let's assume that's true (which it isn't,). And MS doesn't provide any device drivers for Vista? Each and every device driver for Vista is written by a 3rd party, so we can blame them, right? You should go post in the WHS bug thread with that brilliant logic.

They can't make every driver vendor get their act together.

Really? And exactly what purpose does Windows Vista Logo Program serve?

Here's a hint: The goals of the Windows Vista Logo Program are to help customers easily identify software and devices that have been tested for compatibility with Windows Vista

That's not really Microsoft's fault, so saying something is very "with Vista" is a bit ignorant.

And I provided you with enough information for you to troubleshoot my specific issue and conclude the issue wasn't due to MS code?

Your post demonstrates the very meaning of ignorant. See, you've ignored the facts and drawn a conclusion based only upon your desire to post something... anything just get in on the thread.

By Flunk on 3/17/2008 2:18:23 PM , Rating: 3
Post your hardware specs and driver versions, maybe we can get you fixed up.

By ToeCutter on 3/17/08, Rating: -1
By Targon on 3/17/2008 3:10:32 PM , Rating: 3
You might be surprised at the response you would get if you ask for help, rather than jumping to conclusions about what is going on.

I have been running Vista since July, and while there have been a FEW issues related to drivers and certain applications,it isn't Vista itself that is the source of most issues.

SP1 should fix a good number of problems that people run into, but don't blame the OS if you have driver problems with your hard drive controller(including RAID). The integrated RAID controllers on most motherboards are considered garbage compared to a more "serious" RAID controller as well. Do you REALLY think that integrated can match the abilities or quality of a dedicated product that costs more than $25?

By MaulBall789 on 3/17/2008 3:46:02 PM , Rating: 5
Besides, like I'm gonna come here for help on anything.

Kinda like asking a convicted rapist for relationship advice...

That is flat out foolish to say. Maybe not all of us, but many here who frequent DT are very gifted computer/IT experts. That any of them would be willing to offer free assistance to your problem is pretty generous IMHO.

Your loss.

By Master Kenobi on 3/17/2008 4:10:53 PM , Rating: 3
We have quite a few very knowledgeable IT people posting here on DT that could help with problems people encounter. They need only ask in a post about something they are seeing and I'm sure many people here would be willing to take a crack at solving the riddle.

By ToeCutter on 3/17/08, Rating: -1
By blaster5k on 3/17/2008 2:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
Physical problems with the hardware can also trigger blue screens. I've had that happen from dying hard drives, bad memory, overheating, and overclocking to unstable levels.

I'm not saying that Windows is incapable of generating a blue screen as a result of operating system code, but I highly doubt that's the source of your problems. It's far more likely to be driver or hardware related. Otherwise, I (and others) would be probably be seeing these blue screens too -- but after running Vista for over a year, I only saw one. That was around when I first installed it and it was related to the ATI driver.

The Windows Vista Logo Program isn't meant to ensure everyone's drivers are bug free in all hardware configurations. Think about how many 3rd party devices there are out there. There's no way they can thoroughly test everyone's stuff for them.

Your post demonstrates the very meaning of ignorant. See, you've ignored the facts and drawn a conclusion based only upon your desire to post something... anything just get in on the thread.

My only goal is address what I saw as unjustified hating on Vista itself. I'd say it's fair game to blame Microsoft for other issues surrounding Vista (lack of amazing improvements over XP, file copying performance, etc.), just not this one.

By Spivonious on 3/17/2008 12:55:44 PM , Rating: 3
I've had it installed for three months now (HP x64). So far zero BSODs, and a few app crashes that were fixed by running them with admin privileges (because they were originally designed for 9x). Office 2000 runs perfectly fine, no issues whatsoever.

Things I like:
super fetch - my most used apps load instantaneously, even the slow to load Visual Studio 2008.
aero - much cleaner interface than XP's Luna, and I can choose any color I want rather than blue, silver, or green.
general responsiveness - noticeably faster than XP after the first week.
sleep mode - Comes back with no delay from sleep as soon as I click the mouse. This feature never worked for me in XP, always forcing me to hard reset.
UAC - surprised? Me too, but after I got everything installed and set up, this notification almost never comes up, and then only when something is happening that I should be notified about.

By Master Kenobi on 3/17/2008 1:00:35 PM , Rating: 5
So you've just installed it and already concluded that it's "fine"?

Hmm, okay. Suffer through half a dozen BSoDs (that occur overnight, for no apparent reason), RAID rebuilds and random application crashes (Outlook, MS own app) and share your experiences in a few weeks.

Alright, then I will chime in. I've been running Vista Ultimate-64 (The retail copy) since launch day (so over 1 year and almost 3 months now). I had some problems during the initial load, but that went away as soon as ATI, nVidia, and HP got off their asses and updated their drivers (This was all done by February-March 2007). Sorry but Creative still hasn't pulled their heads out of their asses, I'm aware of the driver problem with them (It sucks, but nothing anyone can do about it).

I have managed to BSOD my system a few times in the past year, twice it was attributed to my graphics driver, and the third time my hard disk failed (I had to swap the controller board to get my data back, melted the I/O chip on the bottom lol). I've had Outlook 2007 crash on me a few times (still does maybe once a month for no apparent reason) but it quickly reopens and does an integrity check and all seems fine.

Now for the record, some things (Star Wars Rebellion, and an old Label Maker) do not function under Vista-64 and are unlikely to ever function under it. But as a skilled Geek I found a nice work around through Microsot Virtual PC (It's Free, or you can get VMWare, same thing). I loaded up a Virtual copy of Windows 2000 (No activation required *hint hint*) I use the label maker and my old games through there instead.

It's not all 100% and green in the Land of Vista-64, but it's pretty good and easy workarounds exist (Virtual PC) for some of the oddballs that you really want to use from time to time.

By ImSpartacus on 3/17/2008 3:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking of getting a stock XPS 630 from Dell and request 64-bit Vista Home Premium. It had 2 GB of RAM stock and I was going to go snag 2x2GB from Newegg for ~90$.

I wasn't sure if their were still driver problems were still present for most things. Good to hear that they aren't.

By Jodiuh on 3/18/2008 2:52:57 AM , Rating: 2
Please don't do this. Base your system build around a nice Intel based Asus, Abit, or Gigabyte board. Unless of course you like severely under cooled computers and proprietary everything.

The Dell XPS line is all about marketing, color, and parting you w/ your $. For example, look at the 1330's plastic toy hinges vs Lenovo's roll cage or wide metal hinges.


By kamel5547 on 3/17/2008 3:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well I've been running vista since RC2 and haven't had a single BSOD. I've had application crashes but they've mostly been games.

Keep in mind this is on x64 edition so I actually have the worst driver support. Sounds liek there is something on your system that ahs a poorly written driver, or some app in the background acting up.

As far as allowing corpo users to downgrade, they did the same thing with XP and 2000. The reality is corporate users develop applications to work with specific platforms (i.e. XP and IE 6) and cannot upgrade without changing the underlying code. It has nothing to do with the operating system not being ready but rather the need to re-write and test items (and possibly pay for application upgrades).

By DeepBlue1975 on 3/17/2008 4:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
Been using Vista for a year and a half now (yeah, I started with the betas and then the RCs).
The early betas had quite a bit of annoyances, but the RC1 was already pretty stable (not talking about good video drivers , specially nvidia ones which sucked big time till approximately Q3 of the past year).

My actual setup with only 2gbs of ram and it runs like a charm (ultimate 32bit version)
Even it runs really great on my wife's laptop (has a t2330 dual core cpu + 2gbs of ram, 32 bit home premium version).
And it ran more than decently on her former single core celeron 1.6ghz based laptop after we upgraded the original 512mb of ram to 2gbs, but it had the home basic 32bit version)

My only minor gripes:

While using p2p software the connection usually gets stall and the only way to cure that is restarting (I don't blame vista but rather my crappy USB DSL modem and its drivers, which already gave me trouble under XP, though different problems than the one I have now). No biggie, though, as when I leave the pc on in a full time fashion, I created a task to automatically restart the machine every 3 hours, so that it can't get a stalled connection a whole day.

Advanced network settings are a bit more burried inside the interface than they were in XP, but it's no big deal as I can search what I want in a way I couldn't with XP, and everything else I can find much faster.

I have some crashes every now and then but then again, when I look at the system's logs the offender is usually a driver, and it usually is the same one (networking), and that happens when I'm leaving the machine turned on for serveral days in a row, but the auto restart every few hours also got almost fully rid of that.

Everytime someone has a crash in a windows machine I would strongly advice to review the system's logs.
What I'm trying to do now but didn't have quite the time to fully step into it, is trying to debug the mini dumps generated after the crashes to see what really is going wrong.

By ToeCutter on 3/17/08, Rating: -1
By Spivonious on 3/17/2008 2:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
Gaming is a few fps slower than XP. Not exactly dramatic. Have you updated your drivers since 2006?

By blaster5k on 3/17/2008 3:12:15 PM , Rating: 3
Uses more memory than XP, but manages memory better than XP?

Using more memory (when you have it) is actually beneficial. It's used to speed application launches and allow for fast file searches. More memory enables better performance with more features.

In an age where memory is dirt cheap, designing an operating system around having a lot of it isn't necessarily a bad thing. That's forward thinking. It's bad only if you're using older/more constrained hardware.

So, why is it that a slim majority of PC users (grossly over-represented here at DT) feel that Vista is the best thing since sliced bread and are so vocal about their curious affinity for "Vista: Windows ME, Second Edition"?

I'm not sure very many people here think it's that amazing, but I think a lot of us do feel it's an improvement over XP. Maybe not as much of an improvement as we'd like, but an improvement nevertheless.

By Master Kenobi on 3/17/2008 4:08:37 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I think the problem is they are comparing XP -> Vista to the 98SE -> XP migration, which was a massive improvement (whole new kernel). The reality is that the XP release offered little improvement over 2000 SP3(might have even been SP4 at the time).

By Necaradan666 on 3/18/2008 1:40:01 AM , Rating: 1
For me returning to XP is horrible, I hang to get home to my Vista every day.

Apart from the things already mentioned by others above I find the small details in Vista are what makes me groan when I have to go back to XP. eg.

When copying a bunch of files and you come across one that is still in use by the system Vista gives you the option to skip it and keep copying the rest of the files. On XP the process would have stopped and I'd have to start copying all over again.

The design of the start menu that doesn't spread all across the screen to the right and then back left when menus get long is way better.

I love the graphical network and sharing stuff, it's all easier to find than XP was

For years under XP after every re-install, I would create a games folder to store all my gaming shortcuts, and I would create a downloads folder for anything that I downloaded to my PC. When I first started using Vista I was amazed to find those folders pre-made for me including nice unique icons. It's like MS were acutally listening for once.

Every 3 months or so I would back up my data and re-install XP because the system was getting slow and clogged with debris. In a year and a half of Vista I haven't felt the need to do so because the PC is still running like a charm

By DASQ on 3/18/2008 1:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm the exact opposite.

I'm utterly apathetic about which I am using. I'm on XP Pro at work. At home I'm on Vista Business. I really have no preference for one over the other. Windows Key + E works on both OS', I can't complain.

The transition between the two was seamless for me. Not trying to sound superior, but I just have no problems adjusting from one to the other.

By timmiser on 3/17/2008 6:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
I've been running Vista now for 4 months and my only complaint is the fact they took away the toolbar from windows explorer! You get used to using something like that for years and then they just remove it really is taking me a while to adjust. To cut/copy/paste files into different directories, it used to be a single mouse click. Now it takes 2 or 3 clicks. :(

Otherwise it has been good. I discovered early on that the registry hack I used to perform since Windows 95 now causes the system to go non-functional. (I used to remove "isshortcut" from the registry to get rid of the little shortcut arrows on the graphic icons. Now it will hose your installation! That worked in Windows 95/98/ME/XP)

My question is, I have always had the aero function on however I don't really know what it does other than allows you to see through the task bars. Anybody can tell me what else it does?

By bill3 on 3/20/2008 11:12:16 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah it's fine. Vista is 100% fine. It's just microsoft hate that causes all the bashing. Sites such as dailytech that hate microsoft of course are the main cause.

Probably 1/4 of dailytech's blogs are some sort of MS bash. It's right up there with promoting Apple, Sony, and piracy among their key causes.

By RamarC on 3/17/2008 12:40:55 PM , Rating: 5
kefner: yes, the RTM (build 60001, Service Pack 1) is the final code and identical to what will be distributed tomorrow.

By Kefner on 3/17/2008 2:06:02 PM , Rating: 3
At least someone answered my original question. How did the response to my question get so far off topic!?!?!? Thanks RamarC

By kensiko on 3/17/2008 9:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ahahah funny :)

Vista HELP ????!!!!
By scorpio1980 on 3/17/2008 12:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering if you fine folks can help me out here...

I was looking into getting Vista for myself. I am a gamer so I would be looking at the 64 bit ultimate version so I would load it up with 4 gigs of ram. However, my dad is looking to upgrade and e uses his pc mainly for internet/home finance use. Would 32 bit home premium be good for him ? Would 2 gigs be enough for the os to run smooth ? I see retailers selling it with 3 gigs in the system...I though that 32 bit os can see ony up to 2 gigs. And i also though that if you installed a 3rd stick of RAM on your mobo, that I would disengage "dual channel" mode for all your RAM sticks? I'm am wrong, just a noob, or both ?

Any help is appreciated !

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By Targon on 3/17/2008 12:50:55 PM , Rating: 3
You may run into driver problems with the 64 bit version. While 64 bit in theory is a good idea, until the drivers mature a bit more, you may run into problems.

Going to 4GB of RAM isn't a bad idea with either 32 bit or 64 bit versions, just keep some things in mind(I will go into this as I respond to your other questions.

Home Premium runs decently with 2GB of RAM for most people, depending on what they use the computer for. Things like Quickbooks or Quicken should be fine with Vista under Home Premium.

The way Windows uses memory is that under 32 bit Windows, the default is to allow applications to use 2GB, the other 2GB from what I have read is for kernel space. This means that as long as your applications do not take up more than 2GB of memory for themselves, you will be fine. The game "The Witcher" had an issue with this where it would take up a bit more than the 2GB, and would crash without any indication of what happened because of this limitation. The patch resolved the issue by reducing the memory footprint to keep it under that 2GB limit.

In systems with 3GB of RAM, many manufacturers use 2 1GB sticks plus 2 512 megs sticks of memory, which SHOULD keep the memory access in dual channel mode. The chipset and BIOS may be a factor if you end up in single-channel mode with that configuration.

Now, there is one additional issue that you should know about. In most systems, the BIOS is configured for a 32 bit operating system. Due to the way memory works in systems, all devices MUST have their memory mapped below the 4GB mark in order for a 32 bit OS to use them. So, your video card with 512 megs of memory needs to put that 512 megs below the 4GB limit. With ethernet, sound, and other devices also having a bit of their own memory, with a single 512 meg video card, the BIOS will see only 3.2GB of RAM.

If you have a 64 bit OS, you can get around this, but if the BIOS does not allow you to map device memory above that 4GB mark, it won't help you. So, you could have a 64 bit OS, but if the BIOS doesn't allow you to re-map the device memory above the 4GB mark, you will still be seeing the lower amount of memory. 3.2GB is still a lot better than 2GB, but it is still a bit annoying. If you go with Crossfire or SLI and have two video cards with 512 meg each, you really will want to go to 64 bit Windows, just check if your motherboard will support the remap of device memory.

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By scorpio1980 on 3/17/2008 12:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
Wow ! Thanks for all of your help ! I hear alot of negative things about Vista, but I remember all the bashing XP got when It first came out. I will give Vista a chance. Hopefully Windows 7 won't make Vista obsolete in 3 years.

Thanks again for the help !

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By bhieb on 3/17/2008 1:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree, hopefully Windows 7 will make it obsolete. I agree with some of the other users, the benefits over XP are just not there (hopefully win 7 they will be). I personally love Vista (have it on a laptop because it was already on it), however I won' pay what they want to upgrade my other computers (new computers that already have it will keep it). There just is not enough bang for the buck, not Vista's fault just that XP has pretty big shoes to fill.

I think that is where everyone gets hung up. It is not that Vista is bad, in fact it is good, it is just that it is not good enough. Had the upgrade been the same $90 we've seen since Win95, I think the opinions would be greatly different. But at the current price it just does not make sense to pay to move from XP IMHO. I know I know the home edition is not that much, but there is the problem. With the exception of MCE, we as consumers expect freebies on new stuff. Sure the Basic, Premium, Ultimate model logically makes sense, but buying habits are not always logical. I perceive Vista as costing $300+, not because I cannot have home basic for less, but because I feel I have to sacrafice to do so. As a typical consumer I expect the same upgrade price as last time with all the goodies that Ultimate offers thrown in for free. Afterall isn't that the point of upgrading to get a vastly better system, not settling for a "basic" one.

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By noirsoft on 3/17/2008 4:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
XP Home upgrade was $99, XP Pro was $199 at launch. The small price increase in the past 7 years, combined with much lower hardware prices actually makes Vista cheaper to upgrade to than it was to go from 98/200 to XP.

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By Chadder007 on 3/17/2008 3:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
I noticed Dell is pushing 4 gigs of RAM now on most of their configurations yet still only offer 32 bit version of Vista.

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By leexgx on 3/19/2008 3:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
one note to all users vista on the 32bit OS Sp1 will no longer report the propper amount of ram that can be used it will now list total ram installed (4gb for e.g) but only 3.25gb will be useable on an 32bit OS,
This may allso be applicable to system that have OnBoard video cards that use upto 256mb of ram so vista may be not telling you how much ram is useable, just total that is bad for users realy that are not so techy (512mb - 64 or 128 for video card turns the pc into an typewriter)
so only task manager can now show the amount of ram that can be used or dxdiag (not sure about dxdiag thought)

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By bill3 on 3/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By bill3 on 3/20/2008 11:38:59 PM , Rating: 1
But I also should say, the transition to 64-bit at retail should occur pretty quickly, in a year or so it shouldn't be an issue. It just sucks that it was an issue right when I was buying a new PC. We are kind of stuck in tweener land. I did see at least one retail PC, a 1100 dollar+ rig, at I think Office Depot that did have 64-bit.

The good thing about 64-bit is the compatibility and driver issues will be forced to be solved pretty quickly, again that RAM cap is really looming over us forcing a imminent adoption of 64-bit, and that's a good thing.

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By ToeCutter on 3/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By timmiser on 3/17/2008 7:00:42 PM , Rating: 1
No DX10 support for you.

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By BMFPitt on 3/17/2008 3:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
I am a gamer so I would be looking at the 64 bit ultimate version so I would load it up with 4 gigs of ram.
If you aren't going to use Remote Desktop or Full Disk Encryption, there's no reason to get Ultimate.

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By scorpio1980 on 3/17/2008 4:08:27 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By Spivonious on 3/17/2008 4:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
If someone steals your computer, they can't access the data without your password, no matter what. Value to the home user? Absolutely zero.

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By Necaradan666 on 3/18/2008 1:48:46 AM , Rating: 2
you also get MOVING WALLPAPER!!!

RE: Vista HELP ????!!!!
By theapparition on 3/18/2008 9:00:20 AM , Rating: 3
Value to the home user? Absolutely zero.

Personally, I don't particuarly want my personal financial information dissected if my computer is stolen.

Please, Microsoft... Please...
By HaZaRd2K6 on 3/17/2008 12:30:16 PM , Rating: 5
Give us enthusiasts a slipstreaming utility! Or offer us free discs (just the disc)! Anything!

I just reformatted over the weekend and had to download hundreds of megabytes worth of updates.

RE: Please, Microsoft... Please...
By Master Kenobi on 3/17/2008 4:12:50 PM , Rating: 3
It will be possible to slip stream, once I nail down the process (with screenshots and whatnot) I plan to write something up about it.

RE: Please, Microsoft... Please...
By Le Québécois on 3/17/2008 4:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
It will be possible to slip stream, once I nail down the process (with screenshots and whatnot) I plan to write something up about it.

Thx a lot for that. While I don't reinstall a lot, having to remove one of my 2GB DIMM every time I install because the OS doesn't like my specs is just annoying...

RE: Please, Microsoft... Please...
By Master Kenobi on 3/17/2008 7:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
It won't be an easy process. I would say if you want the easiest and carefree method, wait about a week or two and look for the Vista SP1 DVD on the usual torrent trackers. According to Microsoft slipstreaming the usual way will blow up the stack and kill your image. Still, if Microsoft is distributing slipstreamed copies of Vista SP1, then there is a way to do it, just Microsoft won't be helping us out. I plan to obtain of copy of the SP1 slipstream DVD and reverse engineer their process.

RE: Please, Microsoft... Please...
By Le Québécois on 3/17/2008 10:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
I will probably sound stupid but I need to ask:

I would say if you want the easiest and carefree method, wait about a week or two and look for the Vista SP1 DVD on the usual torrent trackers. According to Microsoft slipstreaming the usual way will blow up the stack and kill your image.

What do you mean by that? Is Microsoft distributing a legal torrent of the Vista SP1 .iso DVD or do I need to find one...using less than legal means?

RE: Please, Microsoft... Please...
By Master Kenobi on 3/18/2008 8:23:18 AM , Rating: 2
I was refering to the less than legal means. I can get one through the volume license at work to look at, but I can't imagine everyone will have access to something like that.

By Le Québécois on 3/18/2008 1:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well then, I'll wait for your "guide" since I don't have access to volume least not for Vista 64 Home premium, which is the version I bought.

RE: Please, Microsoft... Please...
By Starcub on 3/17/2008 11:49:07 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft now has their own automated tools to help with the process... should be much easier (and more powerful) than it was with XP. This might be a good place to start your research:

By Master Kenobi on 3/18/2008 8:29:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, this was my original thought. The problem is that unlike XP where you could drop it in and use a copy of Bart to stream it all together and even add a boot loader if need be, Vista can not. It requires you to load up on a machine, install the service pack, and then sysprep it and take an image. None of these are simple tasks and do require some technical know how(and tools). It will take me a week or two to do this.

The Missing Up Button
By extechguy on 3/17/2008 3:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
Does SP1 put the up button back in the file browsing window? That continues to make me crazy whenever I want move up to the parent folder of whatever I'm looking at. I'd pay good money to get the up button back. (Anyone know why they took it out?)

RE: The Missing Up Button
By Jason H on 3/17/2008 6:12:13 PM , Rating: 4
They took it out because it would be redundant. With the breadcrumb address bar you can go any number of levels up with one click, and even to any sub-folder of any of those levels with the drop-downs.

RE: The Missing Up Button
By Snuffalufagus on 3/17/2008 8:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
thanks for the post, I'd vote you up if I could.

It's nice to see someone else who doesn't just bitch about it and actually noticed they put in something far more functional. A user who actually knows how to use the OS can get far more places with a single click, and nearly anywhere in two or three if they'd spend just 30 seconds trying to figure it out.

RE: The Missing Up Button
By extechguy on 3/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: The Missing Up Button
By kensiko on 3/17/2008 9:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
Use your money and buy a mouse with 5 buttons, believe me, you won't regret it.

By RedStar on 3/17/2008 11:23:51 AM , Rating: 4
I have the Vista 64 bit business version and had been using Release Candidate one. I took that off two weeks ago because i thought SP1 had been released to public.

Immediately after uninstalling RC1 several huge issues returned:

Playing World of warcraft for a long time (and in an instance) would eventually end up with it "freezing" for as long as 5 seconds while some drive spun up. This would get increasingly frequent until I restarted the game.

Video card (nvidia 8800 gts 320 mb) went back to getting stuck in loop and blue screening [infrequently vs problem solved].

Windows explorer randomly shuts down and restarts successfully.

My reliability chart has noticably plunged since I removed RC1.

The point? I consider SP1 a bigger improvement than reviews have yet suggested! :))))

By Spivonious on 3/17/2008 11:30:17 AM , Rating: 2
I have Home Premium 64 and have no problems (except for the super slow network file transfer, but luckily I don't do that too often). I'm curious if I'll see improvements from SP1.

By Locutus465 on 3/17/2008 11:46:11 AM , Rating: 2
I do have MSDN access, but all I saw MS post there was the image for the slipstreamed vista sp1 discs... Not exactly ideal for someone that just wants to apply the patch to an existing vista installation. I'm going to be installing this on my laptop asap.

RE: Finally
By sprockkets on 3/17/2008 12:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
That is good in a way, since before they said they would not allow slipstreaming. You know, imposing artificial limitations to make people's lives miserable for no good reason, like the stupid cdrom audio imput stuff.

RE: Finally
By Locutus465 on 3/17/08, Rating: 0
Windows 7
By ineedaname on 3/17/2008 3:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
With windows 7 slated for 2010, that's only 1.75 years away. Personally with no huge benefits moving from xp - vista I think I'll just skip it altogether. There are some benefits to Vista but IMO not really enough 2 get me 2 step up. Its nothing that I can't wait 1.75 years for.

I think ppl are just too used to XP to want to bother with vista. Since XP has been around for so long its what a lot of people have just grown fond of. There a few little changes and quirks in Vista that are already enough to throw people back to what they're familiar with instead. For example they took out the search for computer function that was really annoying to me. There's no real big issues that makes Vista BAD but its more like this fondness of XP which makes people not like Vista.

RE: Windows 7
By JustTom on 3/17/2008 10:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
The assumption being Win7 ships on time. Care to make a bet?

I still use XP Pro and several flavors of linux
By Joz on 3/18/2008 2:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
thank you very much and thats all I need.

vista, to bloated, to slow, to hungry and to ugly for my needs.

Now, when 2009 rolls around with Win7, then i'll take a look at that, vista, never.

By rdeegvainl on 3/18/2008 9:57:19 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think Microsoft is looking for the kind of business you have to offer. Especially if YOU are looking forward to a 2009 release of Windows 7.

What's the fuss
By chhimp on 3/17/2008 1:11:38 PM , Rating: 3
I have vista on all three of my computers, which 2 are from Dell pre-installed. I don't see where all the fuss is. The most troublesome issue I had with drivers was with Windows Xp64. I recently loaded my desktop with Vista Ultimate 32 bit and DELL Bios loader and it ran fine for even a hack. The only issue I can think of is when playing C&C3 and it exits the game after 5-8 hours of playing. Issue free on all 3 of my PC. The desktop is a ASUS SLIDELUXE motherbother still running AMD 939 Athlon 3200x2 and Nvidia 7800GT with 2gb of ram. This is a 4 yrs old desktop running everything from desktop applications to games smoothly.

Good or bad...
By encryptkeeper on 3/17/2008 10:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
"Customers who visit Windows Update can choose to install Service Pack 1. Any system that Windows Update determines has a driver known to not upgrade successfully will not be offered SP1,"

I'm curious to know what the percentage is that SP1 will work for Vista users due to this limitation.

Vista. The Luxo-barge of OS's...
By kondor999 on 3/17/2008 4:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
I just received my Dell XPS M1730 notebook with SLI 8800GTX cards. It cost over $4500. I paid a little extra for WinXP Pro. I suppose that says it all for me. XP, at this stage, is simply more efficient: faster, easier to use, takes less time to boot up, everything works.

Vista will get there one day. But what the World really wants, IMHO, is a lean-and-mean version of Windows to which we can add what we want.

Then again, I have a Honda S2000. Maybe I'm just a minimalist, but I prefer lightweight/sleek over cumbersome/feature-filled any day.

Vista reminds me of the SUV's I have to dodge around every day as they lumber about, getting in my way ;-)

Vista is fine.
By SecTech767 on 3/18/2008 9:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
I myself work in a retail store that carries Vista only machines. I am constantly surrounded by Vista and work with it everyday. There is no problem with it. It got alot of bad rap simply because end users tried to run Vista on their XP PCs. Big mistake. Although Vista has much more hardware requirements, its worth it in the long run. Sure its not for power users, but it is much more user friendly. People are afraid of change. Vista is taking the same road ME has. ME was also a great OS but was never really popular. Hopefully Microsoft will pull off some good bussiness tactics and show everyone that Vista works. Thats right, it WORKS.

By Gavric2 on 3/20/2008 8:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
Anybody knows how I can receive SP1 on CD or DVD

By Gavric2 on 3/20/2008 9:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's simple test

SP1 and prices
By Snowy on 3/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: SP1 and prices
By See Spot Run on 3/17/2008 10:54:37 AM , Rating: 5
Ya think?

RE: SP1 and prices
By thereaderrabbit on 3/17/2008 10:57:21 AM , Rating: 2
I'm still not sure why Microsoft decided to come up with so many variants of Vista...

As far as Vista-64 goes, more and more items are working on it. I was thrilled to find that my Webcam now works when it wasn't supported just a few months ago : ) Now if only my Cannon scanner would work.

RE: SP1 and prices
By noirsoft on 3/17/2008 11:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly, there are no more variants of Vista than there were for XP. One at most if you count the 2 distinct XP media center versions as one version. People are just more aware of the Vista versions, and they all came out at once instead of trickling in over time (like the various flavors of Media Center, neither of which was available at XP launch)

The only version of Vista that doesn't have a direct correlation to an XP version is Ultimate, and that fills a useful gap in the XP line -- having the advanced networking features of Pro/Business and the media center features.

RE: SP1 and prices
By ImSpartacus on 3/17/2008 11:46:42 AM , Rating: 3
I agree.
Home basic = Home
Home Premium = Media Center
Business = Business
Ultimate = gap

The true argument is whether Home basic should even exist or not. The other three are totally acceptable.

RE: SP1 and prices
By Mitch101 on 3/17/2008 12:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
I wish they would put out a 5th version.

5th Vista = Media Center Stand Alone.

I'm leaving my current Media PC MCE 2005 because its rather pricey and overkill to buy Home Premium or even Ultimate for a machine that wont do much more than act like a Tivo in my living room.

RE: SP1 and prices
By Master Kenobi on 3/17/2008 12:33:36 PM , Rating: 3
You don't need Ultimate unless your screwing with Remote Desktop or joining a domain. Home Premium has everything you need (and probably more you don't need). Home Premium OEM copies can be had for cheap.

OEM Pricing on Vista (
Home Premium - 99.99 (32 or 64)
Business - 139.99 (32 or 64)
Ultimate - 179.99 (32 or 64)

RE: SP1 and prices
By Natfly on 3/17/2008 1:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
It really sucks how remote desktop was left out of the Home versions. If you want both Media Center and remote desktop you are stuck with Ultimate

RE: SP1 and prices
By darkpaw on 3/17/2008 2:03:58 PM , Rating: 3
Yah that is annoying, but can always use VNC if you really need a remote access option on Vista Home.

RE: SP1 and prices
By Mitch101 on 3/17/2008 2:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
I recall reading if you copy the required files over you can enable it.

Kenobi also good point on purchasing an OEM version.

RE: SP1 and prices
By Master Kenobi on 3/17/2008 6:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
I've never really noticed a difference between OEM and Retail, even after I went through 5 different motherboards and 4 different processors over the lifetime of my XP OEM copy, I still had no trouble reinstalling. Vista has survived one mobo/processor swap, a hard disk swap, and now a graphics card swap. I think as long as you don't expect to get support from microsoft, OEM is probably safe. I think most of the people here are capable of troubleshooting themselves or using google to figure it out.

I will have to look into the remote desktop files though, if its true you need only copy the files over that would be pretty slick.

RE: SP1 and prices
By timmiser on 3/17/2008 7:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
I did a complete upgrade with an OEM version of XP. (Motherboard/cpu which required a new type of memory (DDR2), a new video card (PCIex) with a new hard drive and windows xp oem would not be activated and Microsoft would not activate it over the phone. Because so many times when you upgrade something you are forced to pretty much upgrade the majority of the system, I would stay away from OEM versions.

RE: SP1 and prices
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2008 1:51:03 PM , Rating: 2
The backup utility is another nice feature of Ultimate though.

RE: SP1 and prices
By walk2k on 3/17/2008 1:27:41 PM , Rating: 1
What? No.

There was a whopping TWO versions of XP when it came out. Home and Professional. They later added Media Center, and Professional x64.

There was SIX versions of Vista when it came out, 7 if you count the "Starter" version!

NINE if you count the x64 versions seperately (and that's counting Enterprise and Ultimate only once, even though they too have 32 and 64 bit versions, but they come in the same box...)

1. Starter (32 bit only)
2. Home Basic 32
3. Home Basic x64
4. Home Premium 32
5. Home Premium x64
6. Business 32
7. Business x64
8. Enterprise (both)
9. Ultimate (both)


RE: SP1 and prices
By walk2k on 3/17/2008 1:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
Whoops, actually 6 if you count the "starter" SKU. But then of course there are the "N" versions for the EU that don't include Media Center/Player...

RE: SP1 and prices
By FITCamaro on 3/17/2008 1:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
You can't count the 32 and 64 bit version separately. They're the same version. Don't be stupid to knock progress. In my mind they should have made Vista 64-bit only. If you're still running an original Pentium 4 without the 64-bit extensions or an Athlon XP you could've just stuck with XP.

RE: SP1 and prices
By walk2k on 3/17/2008 3:28:51 PM , Rating: 1
You can count them seperately, I JUST DID.

But to be fair, no they aren't seperate options when Joe Sixpack is at Office Depot looking for a copy of Winders.

TO BE FAIR, these are his options:

1. Home Basic
2. Home Basic (Upgrade)
3. Home Premium
4. Home Premium (Upgrade)
5. Business
6. Business (Upgrade)
7. Ultimate
8. Ultimate (Upgrade)

EIGHT DIFFERENT BOXES! How can anyone honestly say that isn't confusing with a straight face.

RE: SP1 and prices
By BMFPitt on 3/17/2008 3:45:12 PM , Rating: 3
You can count them separately, I JUST DID.
I think what he was trying to say is that it would be stupid to count them separately.
EIGHT DIFFERENT BOXES! How can anyone honestly say that isn't confusing with a straight face.
By not desperately trying to make it sound confusing?

RE: SP1 and prices
By walk2k on 3/17/2008 9:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you can order them seperately. Newegg sells the OEM versions seperately (whoops a whole nother set of versions..). I guess that means they are counted seperately.

I really don't care. I'm not bashing Vista, I actually liked it when I tried it (except for the HDD issue, see above) I just see no reason to spend $2-300 on it, at least not until the drivers are more mature.

RE: SP1 and prices
By walk2k on 3/17/2008 9:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you can order them seperately. Newegg sells the OEM versions seperately (whoops a whole nother set of versions..). I guess that means they are counted seperately.

I really don't care. I'm not bashing Vista, I actually liked it when I tried it (except for the HDD issue, see above) I just see no reason to spend $2-300 on it, at least not until the drivers are more mature.

RE: SP1 and prices
By Master Kenobi on 3/18/2008 8:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
What "Driver maturity" are you refering to? Unless you have some obscure hardware, drivers are fine on both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors.

RE: SP1 and prices
By noirsoft on 3/17/2008 5:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm running Vista ultimate on an original dual core 3.2 ghz p4 (and Home Premium on a single-core 2.4 ghz p4 from 2003) and they run great. Now, both machines have 2 gigs of Ram and Aero-capable gpus and did when they ran XP as well, so no hardware upgrades were even necessary.

While it would be nice to go 64-bit exclusive, there are a ton of machines that run Vista just fine and aren't 64-bit capable. Whether or not Home Basic should have existed (or at least mandated Aero-capable hardware) is a valid debating point.

RE: SP1 and prices
By MScrip on 3/17/2008 1:58:31 PM , Rating: 3
If you're in the market to BUY a copy of Vista off the shelf... you can probably figure out which version is right for you. Housewifes and grandmas aren't buying Vista... it comes on their HPs and Dells.

You shouldn't buy Vista and install it on an old PC anyway...

RE: SP1 and prices
By Ihmemies on 3/17/2008 11:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
Is there any way to know what drivers won't work with SP1?

RE: SP1 and prices
By boogle on 3/17/2008 11:17:57 AM , Rating: 2
Is there any way to know what drivers won't work with SP1?

For whatever reason MS continue to refuse this info :(

RE: SP1 and prices
By Souka on 3/17/2008 12:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
You'll find out after you install....

RE: SP1 and prices
By Master Kenobi on 3/17/2008 12:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
You'll find out when you try to install....

There, fixed that for ya. It will check your drivers during the system scan first step and if it finds any of the drivers that do not play nice with SP1, it will immediately terminate setup and tell you no dice.

RE: SP1 and prices
By tastyratz on 3/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: SP1 and prices
By Targon on 3/17/2008 1:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
The problem isn't with SP1 as much as with certain devices/drivers. If you try to install a full SP1 setup from disc, it will probably work, but will warn you about the driver issue.

I will laugh if one of the major problems is with Creative Labs sound cards, since Creative has been horrible about drivers since the days when Windows XP was first released.

RE: SP1 and prices
By darkpaw on 3/17/2008 2:11:12 PM , Rating: 1
As a Creative fan since the original SB days, their customer support in the past few years had garunteed I'll never buy another Creative product again.

The driver fiasco with Vista was pretty much the final nail in the coffin.

RE: SP1 and prices
By Targon on 3/17/2008 4:35:48 PM , Rating: 1
Then you don't remember the driver fiasco back when Windows XP was new. Creative refused to support the SB Live series of cards back then, and it took them over a year to change their tune and release drivers for XP that didn't have huge problems.

That's the reason I refuse to buy a CL product, and with Turtle Beach being no better these days, I am going to avoid buying a dedicated sound card. Integrated sound is also decent on many motherboards now, so there is less of a NEED to upgrade.

"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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