backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 77 comment(s) - last by wentman.. on Mar 24 at 10:54 AM
Microsoft gives consumers a crack at Windows Vista

As reported by DailyTech yesterday, Windows Vista SP1 is now available for download from the Microsoft Download Center.

The long-awaited service pack for Microsoft's latest consumer operating system is available in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. The 32-bit download weighs in at 434.5 MB while the 64-bit download is a bit larger at 726.5 MB -- both versions include English (US), French, German, Japanese, and Spanish (Traditional) languages.

SP1 ushers in a number of updates for the Windows Vista operating system including the following:

  • Adds support for new UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) industry standard PC firmware for 64-bit systems with functional parity with legacy BIOS firmware, which allows Windows Vista SP1 to install to GPT format disks, boot and resume from hibernate using UEFI firmware.
  • Adds support for Direct3D® 10.1, an update to Direct3D 10 that extends the API to support new hardware features, enabling 3D application and game developers to make more complete and efficient use of the upcoming generations of graphics hardware.
  • Adds support for exFAT, a new file system supporting larger overall capacity and larger files, which will be used in Flash memory storage and consumer devices.
  • SP1 addresses issues many of the most common causes of crashes and hangs in Windows Vista, as reported by Windows Error Reporting. These include issues relating to Windows Calendar, Windows Media Player, and a number of drivers included with Windows Vista.
  • Improves the performance of browsing network file shares by consuming less bandwidth.
  • Improves power consumption when the display is not changing by allowing the processor to remain in its sleep state which consumes less energy.
  • Improves responsiveness when doing many kinds of file or media manipulations. For example, with Windows Vista today, copying files after deleting a different set of files can make the copy operation take longer than needed. In SP1, the file copy time is the same as if no files were initially deleted.
  • Improves the copy progress estimation when copying files within Windows Explorer to about two seconds.
  • Service Pack 1 includes supported APIs by which third-party security and malicious software detection applications can work alongside Kernel Patch Protection on 64-bit versions of Windows Vista. These APIs have been designed to help security and non-security
  •  ISVs develop software that extends the functionality of the Windows kernel on 64-bit systems, in a documented and supported manner, and without disabling or weakening the protection offered by Kernel Patch Protection.

A full list of updates/fixes related to SP1 can be found on Microsoft's Windows Vista TechCenter.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
should I
By orphen193 on 3/18/2008 4:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
hmm been running vista just fine for the last 4 months should I update to SP1 yet or give it a bit more before..




RE: should I
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/18/2008 4:12:00 PM , Rating: 5
I've personally been running various iterations of beta and RC builds of SP1 since around August. I've never encountered any problems.

I'm currently running SP1 RTM on my desktop with no issues and installed it on my GF's new Toshiba laptop on Sunday -- again, no problems.

However, YMMV.


RE: should I
By cubdukat on 3/18/2008 6:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
For some bizarre reason, SP1 RC-whatever (whichever one became available late last year) works just fine on my laptop, but my home system is all but completely borked since I installed it.

Even after disabling Windows Search and Superfetch, the HD still churns away so much that I can barely watch anything in BeyondTV, and it also locks up my system occasionally.

I'm gonna try the official SP1 tonight, and if it doesn't improve things significantly within a week, it's gone.

It's times like this I wish all of my hardware had Linux drivers because Vista would be off my hard drive but quick. There's no excuse why coders getting paid crazy money can't create code that tight. And before the flaming starts, I'm not necessarily a Linux fanboy--just someone who hates paying crazy money for shit that should work the first time but doesn't. I just wanna plug it in and go; is that too much to ask?


RE: should I
By LatinMessiah on 3/18/2008 9:35:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
However, YMMV.


What the heck does this mean?


RE: should I
By hinchesk on 3/18/2008 10:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, YMMV.
What the heck does this mean?


It means you're broken the golden rule... ever hear of google? Hundreds of millions have tried it, loved it.


RE: should I
By LatinMessiah on 3/18/2008 10:09:48 PM , Rating: 5
What's a Golden rule?


RE: should I
By Rike on 3/19/2008 10:20:17 AM , Rating: 2
Who ever has the gold makes the rules.


RE: should I
By rupaniii on 3/18/2008 10:40:38 PM , Rating: 3
Your Mileage May Vary, likely picked up from browsing Slickdeals.net too much.


RE: should I
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/19/2008 8:07:10 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
likely picked up from browsing Slickdeals.net too much.

More like reading overclocking articles too much.


RE: should I
By BMFPitt on 3/18/2008 4:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'd feel better if WHS would let me back up my system, but I'm gonna install anyway...


RE: should I
By Souka on 3/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: should I
By BMFPitt on 3/18/2008 5:15:07 PM , Rating: 5
In case you were being serious:

- No, I can't backup my Vista64 system
- The bug doesn't affect backups


RE: should I
By OpaqueBubble on 3/18/2008 5:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
Why won't WHS back up your system?


RE: should I
By OpaqueBubble on 3/18/2008 5:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
OK - i understand - Vista 64


RE: should I
By chizow on 3/18/2008 4:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the hot fixes in SP1 were rolled out previously, so there's not that much new stuff in SP1. There are some entirely new/tweaked features though that aren't in any hot fix and only in SP1, like UAC changes and some file transfer fixes. I've been running SP1 Beta since January and didn't have any problems with it. One semi-surprising experience was uninstalling SP1 Beta actually worked and didn't cause any problems or flakiness. Installing SP1 RTM right now as I type this.

As for performance relative to XP, it still falls short in some areas, most notably graphics/games and file and network transfer/copy speeds. This SP and a few prior hot fixes did a lot to improve transfer/copy speeds to close the gap with XP considerably, but chances are Vista will never fully catch up to XP in DX9 games. For me Vista 64 more than makes up for the shortcomings with improved memory performance and features.


RE: should I
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/18/2008 5:01:57 PM , Rating: 5
Vista 32 is kind of like taking a step back. Frankly I would have prefered if they made Vista 64 only, but at least this is a "transition" to get 64-bit windows front and center for all the software/hardware suppliers. I'm hoping Windows 7 will be 64-bit only but I have been hearing that it will also have 32-bit flavors.


RE: should I
By inighthawki on 3/18/2008 8:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. Many people constantly complain about the lack of 64-bit drivers as well, yet from experience, there are actually very few things without vista-64 compliant drivers, and all of the hardware with drivers appear to work fine. The only devices I have not seen 64-bit drivers for yet is unsupported hardware.

I think vista-64 has done an excellent job transitioning from 32 to 64-bit, and windows 7 could complete the process. Vista has done a great job preparing the market with 64-bit drivers, and i don't think it would really be that bad for a 64-bit only OS.


RE: should I
By Targon on 3/19/2008 7:04:30 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't the lack of drivers automatically make those devices unsupported? Sorry for being a smart-ass, but if there WERE drivers for those devices, they would be in the supported list.


RE: should I
By just4U on 3/19/2008 10:48:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Vista 32 is kind of like taking a step back. Frankly I would have prefered if they made Vista 64 only,


You know, after reading some of what people had to say on that subject here at DT ( thru their forum posts) I decided to try Vista64. I was really leary about it as I'd heard horror stories about 64bit support in xp, and to a lesser extent vista..

But you know, after using it now for over 6 weeks I have to say for anyone out there that's moving to Vista.. just go 64bit. You won't regret it in the end. It plays all the games and programs I normally use and does it quite well. While I haven't noticed huge performance leaps in games I find my programs are much more snappy on start up and the responsiveness of the system in general has improved by a noticable margin. Yep, I like it and I recommend it!


RE: should I
By gochichi on 3/19/2008 5:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
I agree about Vista, and Vista 64-bit. Vista has gotten beat up too much, it's a fine OS. It's a transition that always happens, lesser hardware will do best on the older platform but the newest (actually new tech not just "new") systems are really starting to benefit. I have friends that complain about Vista and they have literally never used it. They just say "I heard"... it's just way too popular to bash it. Mac OS X was in a complete slumber when it came out. It was only until 10.3 that people started saying "oh yeah, this is cool actually"... but that's years later. Steve Jobs put it best about OS transitions... and sadly for him the transition to Vista is way smoother than the one from OS 9 to OS X (by leaps and bounds!) I think the transition to Vista is over. Microsoft has a nice way of keeping SO MUCH backwards compatibility... it's one of my favorite things about MS, but it's also what keeps them from making awesome strides.

I had my issues about Vista 32-bit existing, but now I have come to grips with it. It's just a transitional product, and a product that is going to sell a lot of computers in the future years. Why? Becuase pre-packaged boxes invariably come with 32-bit Vista... or as I like to put it: An outdated OS. This is fine for laptops, but it is really bugging me out about desktops. Quad-Core desktop and 32-bit OS, 3.5GB memory ceiling... this is NOT OK.

I think that "64-BIT" is going to be prominent in future advertisements and this will sell computers. The deal is, the market needs a transitional product b/c Vista is installed on computers that will definitely not benefit from 64-bit. The bulk of the eMachine crowd won't even go through the trouble of upgrading 128MB to 512MB which actually makes a huge difference, why would anyone expect them to move up from 2GB just because the hardware can? 4GB is a ceiling that advertised computers are running into all of the time now. 4,5,6 GB of RAM is a gray area where you don't gain that much from 64-bit. It's really only after you install 8GB that you solidly start to feel the benefits of going 64-bits. And 8GB is a lot more memory than most of us are willing to buy.

I like the sound of 64-bits... past the transition. After the leap between 3GB to 8GB (literally, that is the required jump) it's going to be cool to see 8GB, 12GB, 16GB configurations and so on. The OS is there, the hardware is there (for 8GB that is) but I don't think the consumer is there AT ALL.


RE: should I
By ChronoReverse on 3/18/2008 5:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I do consider the current state of Vista gaming to be "fairly competitive" though. Generally speaking you won't lose more than 5-10% compared with XP.


RE: should I
By walk2k on 3/18/2008 5:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
hmm I don't know... people spend hundreds of dollars on crazy water-cooling systems and such to get an extra 5-10%...


RE: should I
By darkpaw on 3/19/2008 9:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
Hobbies are a lot different from actual use.

People that spend big bucks to push their frame rates from 100 to 115 do it for the bragging rights mostly, there is no real world advantage to it.

Most people are not going to notice if their FPS drops from 45 to 40 using Vista.


RE: should I
By gochichi on 3/19/2008 5:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
Vista should go along with a new gaming rig (kind of funky to spend $250.00 on an OS for your old computer if you ask me... or even $110.00)... so most of us will not be feeling any sort of decrease at all, but rather a huge increase. Graphics cards have evolved nicely during the last 6 months, it's kind of "cry baby" to focus on a HYPOTHETICAL loss of framerate from Vista.

Having a huge graphics card and completely wasting it when you're not playing a game... that's the real crime. This is clearly a win for Vista... I don't understand how people can say that the "gamer" is better off with ugly, childish looking XP over Vista... that is just ridiculous.

For my money, I'd rather my 8800GT make my OS flow super nice and loose 2 fps during play. For most games you're either way set to go, or far from set to go. Meaning, if I were playing Quake 3 on Vista I'd be getting something like 300fps instead of 330fps (for arguments sake) and who cares? For Crysis, well DirectX 10 is Vista... but leaving that aside, you might be dealing with 17fps or 12fps. Crysis doesn't tell me "go to XP", it tells me "wait until 2009 or late 2008" for hardware to come out that can run it.

About that new hardware... TOTALLY DESIGNED WITH VISTA IN MIND.

Just to beat a dead horse. Windows Media Center uses my video card to decode HD recordings... which offloads my CPU in a huge way. Yet another way in which a graphics card is more useful and put to better use in Vista over XP.

Vista is more graphical, a graphics card does more under it... if you use logic it's hard to fault Vista for much.

Vista is designed to harness more computing power, it's just an elaborate saddle for a bigger horse. You shouldn't be using a huge saddle on a pony. The harness should be such that it puts the power under your control, and I think Vista does a good job of that.


RE: should I
By omnicronx on 3/19/2008 11:42:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For me Vista 64 more than makes up for the shortcomings with improved memory performance and features.
Yet 32bit apps in vista 64 are still subject to a 2gb ram per process limit ;) Vista 64 is only faster with 64 bit apps..


RE: should I
By walk2k on 3/18/2008 6:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
Amazon already has Vista with SP1 for sale.

http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_link_6398362_2?ie=...


RE: should I
By crimson117 on 3/18/2008 7:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
for pre-sale, that is:

quote:
Availability: This item will be released on March 19, 2008. Pre-order now! Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0013O54OE/


RE: should I
By AnnihilatorX on 3/18/2008 7:54:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Gift-wrap available


I'll take that


RE: should I
By 3kliksphilip on 3/19/2008 11:40:04 AM , Rating: 2
The only problem I have with Vista is that it takes about 5 seconds to load up a movie file, which makes piecing together a 3000-clip long holiday video an aggressively abysmal anal task. Is this fixed?


RE: should I
By gochichi on 3/19/2008 5:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting. Some things are absurdly slow on Vista... I grant you that. But video editing has always been a system hog, I don't think there's anything new there.


RE: should I
By 3kliksphilip on 3/19/2008 7:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
I know that video editing is, but I'm talking about loading a 15 MB file. I was trying to browse through my holiday pictures about an hour ago and was stressed by the fact that it takes a good 5-10 seconds to load each and every clip. I've now installed Service Pack 1 and have reinstalled the latest Nvidia 8800 drivers, and it's still slow. I know that XP was faster than this. I'm sure it'll be fixed some time, I just hope it's soon.


Better or Worst
By MrPerez on 3/18/2008 4:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
Billion dollar question here is, does it perform better than XP? i would like to see benchmarks with this public release.

I been using Vista, i cant complain much about it because i will eventualy get used to it just like when XP came out it was trashed all over the place and now everyone loves XP and not Vista, nothing new there.




RE: Better or Worst
By VahnTitrio on 3/18/2008 4:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
From what I've read it won't help performance all that much other than a few specific situations. Really with a new system the performance loss isn't noticed by the end user when going from XP to Vista. I'll happily trade off those couple FPS that are above my monitors refresh rate anyway for some of the more subtle changes that make things easier/quicker. Adding a shared printer took only a couple minutes between Vista PC's, but it took me a couple hours to figure out on XP that my printer was not a BrandX 2000, it was called a BrandX 2000 Series.


RE: Better or Worst
By therealnickdanger on 3/18/2008 4:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
Do I get the billion dollars despite how I answer? :P

Vista will likely never beat XP in every category when it comes to speed, but I sure do like it more than XP. You'll likely have to wait for SP2 for any significant streamlining of OS operations... but we might see Windows7 by then...


RE: Better or Worst
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/18/2008 4:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
Performance is a matter of perspective. "Performance" is the speed vs features/abilities. Just because its the fastest, doesn't mean its necessarily getting it done as good.


RE: Better or Worst
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 3/18/2008 5:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
Is it faster than windows 98 or Windows 3.1?


RE: Better or Worst
By therealnickdanger on 3/18/2008 6:50:36 PM , Rating: 3
Not on a 486.


RE: Better or Worst
By AlexWade on 3/18/2008 5:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
Performance is still not up to Windows XP, although it does improve some things. I find memory usage to be down by about 10% in the 64-bit SP1. File copies are indeed faster than non-SP1 but still not as fast as a command prompt or XP. And it still suffers from the green ribbon of death, that is to say painfully slow disk read operations.


RE: Better or Worst
By bgm063 on 3/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: Better or Worst
By GoodBytes on 3/18/2008 6:45:08 PM , Rating: 3
No mater how light Vista can be, it will be always slower than XP, for the simple fact that XP is based on the very old NT core. (Well Vista as well, but a lot of it's core has been re-done). So in results company were able to make proper fully optimize drivers, specially that XP was released since 2001, and is near identical to Windows 2000. You might need to wait until end of Windows 7 life o start seeing the same performance as XP with the same hardware, if it is able to run Windows 7/8 perfectly fine, and that company such as Nvidia or ATI to keep trying to improve the driver for you (until that time) old devices, which probably won't be the case other then "Ok, guys let just make drivers for the new Windows for our old hardware just so that a picture shows up and is capable of drawing a cube or two." Witch is the case currently with many video cards, motherboards, etc... So in reality any new OS, no mater how it end up (good/bad/Miracle/WinMe), any newer OS, witch actually does have significant changes (unlike XP) will have this problem.

However, if more and more user switches to Vista 64-bit, we will a greater number of games and software that supports and uses dual core and are in 64-bit, and now you will see a real nice performance increase over XP.

So the best thing you can do, is get Vista 64-bit (witch IS better than its 32-bit counterpart) and show company that you want to use the full potential of your ~>1500$Cdn 64-bit multi-core computer, that you are tired being limited to a 32-bit level with 3.5Gb of RAM.


RE: Better or Worst
By TSS on 3/18/2008 10:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
ya thing is, that's still kinda up for discussion, wether it's better or not.

i remember when windows XP was released, my mom asked what i thought of it. i thought it was an unstable piece of crap and she could better get windows 2000. now that vista's here, i'm of the opinion that vista is a unstable heap of crap (not completly unfounded if still a little exaggerated), and your better off getting XP, but worse off getting 2000.

honestly looking at the features and remembering what MS promised way back to bring in the first SP (remember Monad? or better the new replacement of the command prompt), it's still kind of a let down. it's more the usual collection of bug fixes with some snazzy though tiny new features.

i'm betting on the same thing as happened with XP. first SP wasn't dazzling either, second one was a lot better.

oh, and for in the future.... windows 7 is a piece of crap. get vista.


RE: Better or Worst
By rupaniii on 3/18/2008 10:46:26 PM , Rating: 1
If you want to run a network, database, etc, grab 64bit Linux, it's less hassle and has less limitations.

If you want to run games, with memory being cheap, get 8gigs of DDR2 800 and Vista 64bit.

If you want the best compatability, stick with XP 32bit, but, soon, maybe this year, you'll be wishing for high end games you had 64bit. Right now, you need 64bit for Crysis, it really gets happy when it can eat more ram. MS should just eliminate Home and Home Premium, and have a Media Center and and Utimate at a bit lower prices.


RE: Better or Worst
By Yawgm0th on 3/19/2008 4:53:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you want to run a network, database, etc, grab 64bit Linux, it's less hassle and has less limitations.


Err, less hassle? Maybe if you only want to run applications that happen to have an RPM for your version of your distribution... If your distribution has RPMs at all... Otherwise, compile everything from source yourself and hope it works. If it doesn't, figure out which of its eighteen dependencies you don't have, go get them, and then install the dependencies' dependencies, and so on. It's a vicious cycle, and far from a non-hassle.

Oh, and do everything from a terminal once you need to do something the GUI lacks, which will be immediately if running a "network, database, etc,." And for the record, 64-bit driver and application support is only marginally better in Linux than Windows. In fact, 64-bit Windows Server 2003 works amazingly well. It's got a decent amount of driver support from major OEMs, and it is extremely fast and stable.

For the record, I use Slackware 12 and Backtrack 3.0 on a regular basis and enjoy them. But, I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who can seriously look me in the face and tell me Linux is "less hassle" than Windows. Installing a program in Linux is often more hassle than fixing even the most complicated problems in Windows.

quote:
If you want to run games, with memory being cheap, get 8gigs of DDR2 800 and Vista 64bit.

If you want the best compatability, stick with XP 32bit, but, soon, maybe this year, you'll be wishing for high end games you had 64bit. Right now, you need 64bit for Crysis, it really gets happy when it can eat more ram. MS should just eliminate Home and Home Premium, and have a Media Center and and Utimate at a bit lower prices.


What nonsense is this? Crysis is limited to by modern GPUs, not RAM consumption or the user space allocation limit in 32-bit Windows. I would not say getting 4 2GB modules of DDR2800 is cheap, either.

Home Basic and Home Premium serve very specific purposes very effectively. Ultimate serves a niche market very well, but the average consumer does not need, want, or even have use for most of its extra features. Microsoft intentionally charges more for it since those few who are well-versed sufficiently in its feature set that feel they have a need for it will be willing to pay for it.


RE: Better or Worst
By Proteusza on 3/19/2008 6:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
Totally agree.

I've set up databases and webservers on Windows and Linux (Ubuntu, Red Hat and Debian).

Windows is much, much simpler. Yes, its more bloated, yes it is not always as stable when its running. But its a million times easier to administer than Linux.


RE: Better or Worst
By MandrakeQ on 3/19/2008 6:27:41 AM , Rating: 2
Why use a distribution that does not have a decent package manager or updated repos? I can understand the need for compiling when you need kernel support for something, but you shouldn't have to to compile even the most common programs from source.

apt, yum, urpmi, yast, etc. are your friends. With these in place, installing programs is just a matter of finding a good repo with packages you want, and a simple one line command. When you compare this to the typical ten step windows install, I think it does take less time.

Note that if you are truly bound to a specific distro that lacks this user friendliness, I completely agree with your statements.


RE: Better or Worst
By Proteusza on 3/19/2008 6:41:32 AM , Rating: 2
With windows you dont even need to use the command line or install dependancies. Install SQL Server, and it installs everything you need. And you have a GUI that tells you what is going on.

And yes, the command line is a tool of yesteryear.


RE: Better or Worst
By MandrakeQ on 3/19/2008 6:58:27 AM , Rating: 2
I find it takes longer most of the time to use the guis that come bundled with the various distros for package management, but I guess that could be the easier method some times.

With the extra time it takes to configure and set up MySQL after the rpm install, SQL server is probably easier to install in Windows.

I wasn't referring to SQL servers specifically though. I was just pointing out that installing programs on Linux shouldn't have to be such a grueling task each and every time.


RE: Better or Worst
By Proteusza on 3/19/2008 7:04:46 AM , Rating: 2
I think when you get going with apt-get, individual programs can be installed quickly, and usually resolve dependancies themselves.

But sometimes they dont, and then you need to search repositories for the right packages and hope they work.

I tend to always prefer GUI installations - they can present more information and allow for more interactivity.

The other problem is that Linux, unlike Windows, has several different and usually incompatible ways of installing packages. Setting up a BugZilla website is quite different under Red Hat than Ubuntu (actually a lot easier under Ubuntu). I also prefer the windows GUI for managing website configuration - eg access, restrictions, ports etc.


I can't see it
By jkresh on 3/18/2008 5:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see it under windows update on my desktop or laptop (both vista ultimate, desktop is 64, both legal copies). I know if you have certain drivers the update might fail so it won't show up, but I think its strange that I can't see it on either system (considering they have almost no hardware in common)




RE: I can't see it
By Chapbass on 3/18/2008 6:09:21 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, i cant either on my laptop.


RE: I can't see it
By GoodBytes on 3/18/2008 6:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
If I remember correctly you need to perform 2 updates before SP1, available trough Windows Update. (Probably you did them, just saying).

And to avoid a overflow of server, I think Microsoft does enables big groups of user to have SP1 at a time.

OR, they are doing some sort of last minute bug or test fixing for the online update, as the setup is different.
I know it will be a lighter (smaller in size), as it get the proper sub-version of SP1 depending on your computer setting detected by windows update. For example, it won't download all the languages if your system is in English, etc...


RE: I can't see it
By arazok on 3/18/2008 9:57:51 PM , Rating: 3
I had the same issue (I had the pre-requisites installed). Just go to windows download and grab the 400MB+ install.

SP1 will not show in Windows Update if you have hardware with a known driver problem. Microsoft is trying to get these vendors off their asses. I read that some of the known offenders are Audigy 2/4 cards and integrated AC97 chips. I think that covers about 75% of the desktops out there, so I’m already predicting the “nobody can get SP1” articles.

As an Audigy owner, I can attest to the horrible support from Creative. They have released one driver for Vista since launch, and it’s actually the beta driver from Jan 07 with a refreshed compile. I’d be fine with that, but it doesn’t work. THEN, they release ‘Alchamy’ drivers for Vista which is the only way to get the card to work and they charge you $10 for it. I could almost (not really) handle that, but even this is flaky.


RE: I can't see it
By johnsonx on 3/18/2008 11:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
It's there for me in Windows Update, downloading now. Only 66Megs.


RE: I can't see it
By johnsonx on 3/19/2008 12:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
and..... drumroll please..... it failed to install. Code 800736CC, as of yet undocumented in the linked Windows Update help. Oh well.

Perhaps I'll download the full SP1 package and try installing it that way.


Finally!!!
By Locutus465 on 3/18/2008 4:48:15 PM , Rating: 1
Ugh, been waiting for this for a while... I hope to see some improvements in my laptop. At the very least the fast file copies are going to be the bomb.




RE: Finally!!!
By MaulBall789 on 3/18/2008 5:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
I recall reading a blog here at DT that the early SP1 RC's file copy speeds were actually slower! I sure hope this has been remedied. Installing SP1 on laptop right now. Keeping fingers and toes crossed.

By the way, SP1 download from Windows Update was only a hair under 70MB. Running Home Premium for just over a year.


RE: Finally!!!
By Locutus465 on 3/18/2008 9:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what version the publicly available beta was, but it was deffinatly faster in that version. In fact, copies for the most part were generally instant with exception of copying big files to a different physical disk. I did hear a rumor that USB external hard drives are supposed to slow down, I didn't notice that in the public beta but who knows when the bug may have been introduced.

As far as the final code, I only just installed it now. One supprising thing I noticed (was not expecting this) but Aero seems snappier. I never noticed any such thing in the public beta, but then again I installed that on a desktop with an overclocked athlon x2 3800+ and geforce 7800GT. I just installed the final (32b) verison on my laptop with geforce go 7150M. Areo seems quite a bit faster on this machine, which is welcome (assuming I'm not just seeing things, or there being extenuating circomstances).


RE: Finally!!!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/19/2008 8:15:58 AM , Rating: 2
No, I think your right. Aero seems to responding faster than before (it was already pretty fast on my machine but I digress). Download and install was flawless. I notice it dorked my sound up, I had to unplug each of my sound devices (I have 3) and plug them back in and remap (using the HD Audio Manager) which device was in which jack, upon which time it worked like a champ. My Memory Meter seems to be a bit lower. I was using on average 36% of my 4GB of Ram with just background stuff and Trillian/Steam up. Now it seems to be down around 28-30%. No big deal, but hey Ram is always good.


RE: Finally!!!
By Locutus465 on 3/19/2008 11:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
My sound was also messed up after I installed SP1, but I actually had a driver update that had been sitting in my windows update list for quite a while so I attributed it to driver changes in SP1 and an early audio driver. At anyrate, installing the audio driver update immidiatly reenabled sound on my laptop and all was well.

One other odd thing that happend is that even though IIS (web services portion) is set to auto start on my laptop, it didn't after installing SP1 (i only ever hibernate on this machine, so I've only done the 1 reboot since installing SP1). I manually started the service with no issues, but I thought it was odd that it didn't seem to autostart.


Help with RC1
By dflynchimp on 3/18/2008 8:25:24 PM , Rating: 1
I have RC1 installed, and now when I try to install the official version it says it detects that SP1 is already installed...anyone get the same problem?




RE: Help with RC1
By StormEffect on 3/18/2008 8:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
If you read the instructions...

YOU MUST UNINSTALL RC1 BEFORE INSTALLING SP1!

Go to your uninstall area in the control panel.
Uninstall RC1.
Restart.
Install SP1.


RE: Help with RC1
By dflynchimp on 3/19/2008 12:51:48 AM , Rating: 3
that's the problem. I can't find my installation of RC1 in the Programs/features thing...


RE: Help with RC1
By Ixion on 3/19/2008 6:03:24 AM , Rating: 3
Click view installed updates in the left hand pane, it should appear in that list as Windows service Pack. It takes a good while to uninstall but you'll then be able to install the RTM version.


Just bricked my laptop.
By kusala on 3/18/2008 11:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
I do not even know if this is possible. I was installing SP1 and it got to where it had to reboot it restarted and went to black screen no bios no nothing left it on for 2 hours like that and nothing. Rebooted and hard drive turns for a few seconds then dies no screen or anything.

Coincidence?




RE: Just bricked my laptop.
By Locutus465 on 3/18/2008 11:39:51 PM , Rating: 3
Almost certianly, Vista SP1 isn't going to be modifying things at the hardware/firmware level, microsoft can't realistically do that.


RE: Just bricked my laptop.
By Xerio on 3/19/2008 10:46:37 AM , Rating: 2
I second that. Although Vista is an operating system, it is only software. There is more than likely an issue with the BIOS. Try resetting it. If that doesn't work, call the manufacturer of your motherboard or computer. This is a harware issue.


RE: Just bricked my laptop.
By noirsoft on 3/19/2008 5:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
I just installed SP1 and on the first reboot my BIOS reported an error reading the system date/time. Luckily it allowed me to enter a new time or continue (I chose the latter) and the system came up with a date of July 07, 2006 (Vista time-machine!) Setting the system clock in the control panel and rebooting again fixed all the problems my antivirus programs were complaining about (your subscription has ended, or more accurately, this program has not been released yet!)

So, as one random guess based on my single point of data, your time may be borked, and your bios can't handle the fact. Try pressing F2 or whatever key enters your bios setup sfeen and see if that helps.

Good luck.

SP1 also did not show up in my automatic Windows Update queue, and maybe this is why. I wonder if my Mobo wasn't 100% compatible with the upgrade process (but seems fine once I fixed the time manually)


I'm gonna wait at least a couple of weeks
By bravacentauri83 on 3/18/2008 7:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'll install it since Windows Update will bug the hell out of me, but I'm gonna wait just in case there are some compatibility issues with other forum members on here or other sites.




By Targon on 3/19/2008 7:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
From what I have read, as long as you have all the previous updates installed before you install SP1, you should be fine. There was one update in particular that was causing problems that is not directly a part of SP1. If that one update gets installed as a part of installing SP1, then you may run into problems.


Wow 726.5MB?
By gochichi on 3/19/2008 4:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
Man oh man. Is that going to replace existing files and free up some space or does it just add nearly a gig to a "basic" Vista install.

That's a whole lot of MBs. I'm not running out, and I'm not even running low... it just worries me. How can things really be more efficient by being so much larger?

I would venture to guess the next version of Ubuntu will be distributable/installable by CD (the current one is). Granted it expands to a bigger installation than would fit on a CD.

In the next version of Windows, I would like to see the OS be a completely modular portion of the computer. As in Partion A (say 20GB) has Windows 2009 core files, Partion B (say 20GB) has the personalized details of the OS and this portion must be compatible after upgrades, and then finally your bulk info and other apps. Just a thought. Then again, bloating OS installations are fine by me so long as they work.

You know, I like Vista a lot. I actually think it's the best OS out right now. It's unfortunate that the eye candy isn't more useful and I still wish someone would successfully duplicate Expose for Vista. My PC has the horsepower, Vista has the graphics horsepower, why can't we see an update to the GUI? How about offering up "themes", like official Microsoft themes that let you choose how your desktop actually looks like and behaves.

The main problem Microsoft has is that it's user base is not a "fan base" and so they don't get cool stuff like Linux does. I think compiz is sweet, and I have to believe that Microsoft could come up with something better. There are things money can't buy, a better looking, more useful GUI for the hugest OS platform isn't one of those things.

I venture to guess that there are legal issues/ branding issues to copying those ideas and they are depending on individuals to copycat Mac OS (the visuals) and they just aren't up to the challenge.

There is something to be said about the Linux crowd, they make some fantastic software and features and charge little or nothing. The Microsoft crowd charges for every mediocre piece of software they come up with. I am not judging, I am a mediocre (at best) programmer and I like charging money, money is fun.




RE: Wow 726.5MB?
By noirsoft on 3/19/2008 5:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's more that MS has to walk a fine line between innovation and not alienating people who like the old way. Look how many people about the minor changes in the GUI from XP to Vista, and imagine how many people would scream if they tried a radical re-design.

Linux seems to be optimized for allowing an individual to customize their experience for their own preferences, at the expense of any sort of standardization across distros. Windows seems to be tied to the opposite. You should be able to sit down at any Windows PC and know how to find everything (assuming the same Windows version) -- but at the expense of individual customization. Third parties do fill that gap nicely, if that's what you want (WindowBlinds, etc)

Of course, with Linux it's kind of like getting every known third party app bundled with the OS, for good or ill.


Not needed on Vista 64 Business?
By Orlando on 3/19/2008 5:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
I run Vista 64 Business and after manually checking for Updates via the Control Panel, SP1 showed up. I initiated the installation but it failed... 3 times. It would get to 12% downloaded and fail.

I rebooted... just because Windows likes that.... and now Windows Update doesn't have any Updates for me.

I checked the My Computer properties and DO NOT have SP1 installed. I thought SP1 was for all versions of Vista. Am I wrong?

HW: Asus M2A-VM HDMI, AMD Athlon X2 6000+, 4 GB RAM, 320 SATA II hard disk.




By Snuffalufagus on 3/19/2008 6:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds like the innitial download may be corrupt. Try going to C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution\Download and look for the file related to the SP1 download. Move it to a different place (Desktop is always good), reboot, and then try the download again.

Can't promise this is it but it has helped a few people.


By crystal clear on 3/19/2008 7:26:55 AM , Rating: 2


Today, you can now download Windows Vista SP1 via Windows Update. For those of you eager to receive the benefits of Windows Vista SP1 - you can now do so! We've seen quite a bit of questions in our comments so we want to communicate as much as possible surrounding Windows Vista SP1 and today's release to Windows Update as we can.
For those of you happy to wait - sit tight because SP1 will start downloading to PCs automatically beginning in mid-April (Remember, this happens only if you have your Windows Update configured to automatically download updates and SP1 will automatically download but not automatically install). But if you want to get the benefit of a year's worth of improvements right now, go check Windows Update today...(Hit the Start Menu, All Programs, and select Windows Update).

If in running Windows Update you do not see Windows Vista SP1 listed, there are a number of good reasons for this (Eight in fact, see the whole list). Below are a few of the most common reasons why you might not see SP1 on Windows Update:

You have not yet installed all the prerequisite packages you need for Windows Vista SP1. To install them, visit the Windows Update control panel and click on "check for updates."



http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc...

For driver issues-

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=948343#method5




vista
By garigolleo on 3/21/2008 9:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
I hate vista, everything about it. It runs so slow on my intel quad 3GB ddr2RAM 500GB SATA2 system. It comsumes so much ram, for example i have 512ddr3 on my video. Vista puts up 512 of my ram for video. ?? I don't need that. I don't need shared ram for video! The vista OS runs slow and crashes often, even on a cold boot. Windows xp sp3 is the way to go people, runs excellent, fast and VERY reliable. Who cares about the "eye candy", and worry about a solid OS (NT).




Vista SP1
By wentman on 3/24/2008 10:54:23 AM , Rating: 2
What else is there to expect from Microsoft. With Microsoft's previous track record with which started with WINDOWS ME and is seemingly following them through WINDOWS XP and now in WINDOWS VISTA. All my fellow enduser comrades cant really be expecting any better of Microsoft. Lets sit back and enjoy the ride and see whats next in this SERIES with MICROSOFT. Curtains Up , Cameras On and ACTION.




Will see if its different...
By michal1980 on 3/19/08, Rating: 0
"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki