backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by DeepBlue1975.. on Nov 20 at 4:03 PM


Apple pokes fun at Microsoft's Vista woes in its latest advertisements... again
Microsoft rolls along with SP1 updates

While Apple is using its latest round of TV commercials to further push the butcher knife into Windows Vista -- specifically, Microsoft's decision to extend the sales of Windows XP and allow users to downgrade Vista to Windows XP -- the boys in Redmond are hard at work on the first service pack for the operating system.

Microsoft released the Service Pack 1 (SP1) beta to a select group of testers in late September. The update cured many of the ailments that afflicted Windows Vista since its retail release on January 30.

"Improvements were also noticeable in resuming from Hibernation or Sleep on both my desktop PC and laptop running SP1," remarked Microsoft's Brandon LeBlanc in September. "I discovered copying files from one directory to another is a bit faster. And on my laptop - battery life seems to be improved since running SP1. I have also noticed that transferring files to my shares on my Windows Home Server are a bit faster than they were previously without SP1. Overall performance in accessing my mapped network shares is improved as well."

Yesterday, Microsoft released a new Release Candidate (RC) build (6001-17042-071107-1618) of SP1 to testers. The latest build weighs in at 434.84MB for the x86 version and 734.3MB for the x64 version.

Testers who already have the previous SP1 beta installed, however, will run into somewhat of a roadblock when it comes to the new RC build.

"Windows Vista SP1 does not support build-to-build upgrades," states Microsoft. "Therefore, if you have installed a previously release build on your machine, you have to uninstall this old build before installing the next build of Windows Vista SP1."

Windows Vista SP1 RC is currently available for download from the Microsoft Connect website for current SP1 testers.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Vista Death Watch Article
By Chudilo on 11/16/2007 10:21:05 AM , Rating: 2
The part that everyone is blaming Vista for is the fact that both Linux and Mac OS do not have these huge hardware requirements and yet offer more eye candy on a lesser equipped machine.

For example, the big obvious change in Vista is the 3d accelerated window manager. Well Linux with Compiz or Beryl do a better job without being inconvenient. All the extra pretty graphics actually make the system faster (if you have any sort of a 3d accelerator) in other words a now dated NVidia 6800 will get you running leaps and bounds faster then Vista.

Check out some videos on YouTube of "Ubuntu with Beryl" if that can't make you see that there might be something to it after all, then you are blind.

Well obviously there are more changes to vista then just the eye candy. and that the stuff that doesn't work. Linux has always been more secure and stable the Windows by definition. That that's a given. Yes Microsoft decided to push their .net technology into Vista. and that's where they probably got burned. .NET is still pretty immature. There are lots of things still wrong with it. They though they would be ok, but it turned out that they shot themselves in the foot. And that's the reason for all the criticism.


RE: Vista Death Watch Article
By SavagePotato on 11/17/2007 12:00:33 AM , Rating: 2
I've personaly tested beryl to see what it is about, I think it looks cheesy tacky and cheap. Aero on the other hand doesn't blaringly stand out like stupid wiggling jello windows when you drag them around.

Seriously the way people talk you would think a bloody 8800gtx was neccesary for aero. Stop beleiving the fud, it is not that intensive to run at all.

When you show me that OSX and Ubuntu support the same hardware base and application base as Vista, then maybe that statement might have some creedence.

Linux is never ever going to be a mainstream consumer OS despite how much fans want it to happen it simply isn't, ever, end of story, period.


RE: Vista Death Watch Article
By SirKronan on 11/18/2007 7:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The part that everyone is blaming Vista for is the fact that both Linux and Mac OS do not have these huge hardware requirements and yet offer more eye candy on a lesser equipped machine.


How can you say that? Maybe Linux demands less for the money, but OSX? I am a big fan of my MacBook, but when I payed $1200 for it and it came with 512mb ram, it's performance for price ratio with Tiger was lackluster, to say the least. If I ran several programs at a time my "pretty" interface would slow down substantially. I've since invested $120 in upgrading it to 2GB of RAM and the performance is a LOT better, for obvious reasons. I've also recently upgraded to Leopard, which still runs nice and fast, after a few timely patches provided by Apple.

Here's my problem with your comment. To get my machine running the interface smoothly, especially multitasking, I had to buy a $1200 machine and upgrade the RAM for another $120. Obviously a notebook is going to be more expensive, but to get comparable performance on a Mac with Tiger or Leopard you're still going to pay around a grand. That's ONE THOUSAND dollars for the most basic Mac with a monitor. Shortly after I bought my Macbook I built a system for a friend for about $1000. It has a nice AMD dual core processor, 2GB ram, 320GB hard drive, inexpensive 7600GT video card, AND a 20" Widescreen monitor. It runs Vista Home Premium just fine with bells and whistles, multitasking, etc. When people come in to buy a desktop with Vista, they want to spend $500 for the whole outfit with a monitor. Then they come back in later and complain that Vista runs slow... Same problem with Vista laptops. Customers want to spend $600 on their laptops. The CHEAPEST Mac laptop starts at over $1000, so the hardware had better be superior to the $500 Vista laptop. People who spend a grand or more on a Vista desktop or even laptop now are going to get 2GB of RAM and the faster processors necessary to run Vista without any hiccups.

Point is, you really get what you pay for. Linux might give you more bells and whistles and customizability for your dollar, but lacks the broad support and peripheral compatibility of Windows. I'm not a "fanboy" of either, I just want to see people making fair comparisons, and yours was not.


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

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki