×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows Vista Service Pack 2 Expected Tomorrow

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the tomorrow's-tomorrow's-yesterday dept.

Windows 149

arcticstoat writes "After dishing out a few copies of the beta of Windows Vista Service Pack 2 to select customers in October, Microsoft has now decided to let the general public get their hands on the beta of the service pack, starting from tomorrow. The beta of the service pack will be made available via Microsoft's Customer Preview Program on 4 December, and it includes all the updates since Service Pack 1, as well as a few other bits and pieces. Most notably, Microsoft says that Service Pack 2 'improves performance for Wi-Fi connection after resuming from sleep mode,' and adds the Bluetooth 2.1 Feature Pack, ID strings for VIA's Nano CPU and support for the exFAT file system for large flash devices."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

149 comments

Stigma (4, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#25978743)

Trying to cash in on XP sp2's stigma, they're pushing vista as an aged operating system, that's been through the ropes. Now we've got a mature system, unlike that horrible old Vista RTM, that didn't do well.

Have no fear! SP2 is here! Really, though. It's safe now! It's the standard!

Guys? Guys? Is anybody listening?

Re:Stigma (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25978791)

vista has been stable (relative to XP) for a few months now, where have u been?

Re:Stigma (5, Funny)

conares (1045290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25978869)

Why dont you just tell the rest of us where you are?

Re:Stigma (2)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979579)

I'm not that guy, but I live in Wisconsin, and Vista has been stable for going on 2 years now. I've been using it since release, and it was rock-solid the entire time.

Re:Stigma (3, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979615)

Why dont you just tell the rest of us where you are?

NOTE: the following is purely anecdotal.

I made the leap 1-2 months ago. I have Vista 32-bit as a secondary OS on my MacBook Pro for some Windows coding I have to do on occasion, and I lost my old XP CDs some time ago.

The first day I installed it I had a blue screen when my laptop tried going to sleep, so I disabled the auto-sleep feature. Then a few days/weeks later RedAlert 3 crashed on me shortly after I installed it, and before I patched it.

Save for those 2 incidents Vista has been running stable on my machine. Granted I'm not on it 24/7 but it's been OK.

Whether I'm getting a performance hit, I cannot say. But stability is OK.

Re:Stigma (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25980173)

Tinfoil Hat: I've known several Mac hardware users that have issues in Vista. Couldn't possibly be intentional. Don't you install drivers from a CD provided by Apple?

Re:Stigma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25982765)

Yeah, because Apple makes such quality software for Windows!

Re:Stigma (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25982747)

Posting Anon due to modding in this thread already...
Also anecdotal:
When I used Vista on my laptop, I had to wait for a while before typing after resuming from sleep. If I started typing my password when the box showed up, it'd instantly bluescreen on me. This wasn't fixed in SP1, and I've since got rid of the laptop and use XP on my desktop instead.
Another issue was that 50% of the time it'd bluescreen when I removed an USB device. Also not fixed in SP1.

Re:Stigma (2, Interesting)

squallbsr (826163) | more than 5 years ago | (#25982485)

Apparently there isn't enough Cheese In Colorado because my Vista machine does nothing BUT crash (Ubuntu 8.04 and 8.10 run for months on end).

The longest uptime I got with Vista (Home Premium X64) was 8.5 days. Then an update installed, rebooted and I needed to do a DVD recovery to get it to boot again. It has managed to stay running for 4 hours before bedtime, I guess I'll see if it is still running when I get home...

Re:Stigma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25979587)

On Slashdot, frothing at the mouth while compiling a kernel wearing sweatpants and a stained, grey t-shirt.

Duh.

Re:Stigma (1)

atamido (1020905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979983)

vista has been stable (relative to XP) for a few months now, where have u been?

The show stopping bugs I mentioned a year ago [slashdot.org] are still in Vista, even after SP1. I never experienced similar issues with 2000 or XP.

Re:Stigma (1)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980799)

Not being able to find the network panel is a "show stopping bug"? I agree its in a weird place, but come on...

Re:Stigma (2, Informative)

atamido (1020905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25982703)

Did I mention not being able to find the network panel? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

I mentioned that I've encountered many issues, and then offer details to two major usability issues (users being unable to deal with wireless networks, and some settings being literally impossible to find in the user interface without third party direction).

I then offer details to a show stopping bug. There are others, but I didn't feel the need to detail every bug I've come across, just to state that there are several serious bugs that haven't been resolved.

Please read more carefully in the future before trying to mock others.

Re:Stigma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25982737)

Yes?

Duh.

Re:Stigma (3, Insightful)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#25978831)

I have to disagree. SP1 really did make some big improvements, at least as many as SP1 did for WinXP. Yes, Vista has its problems. But show me one version of Windows that didn't have any at release. Obviously it's not as mature and smooth-running as XP yet, but it's getting there, and a lot faster than XP did.

Re:Stigma (2, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979261)

I dunno. I run vista. I have yet to see even close to the same performance that I did with xp. Oh hang on a second, I have to restart 3 programs that mysteriously went "white," and then reset the video subsystem timeout so it doesn't crash next time I load a game.

I don't think sp2 will fix these issues. A 3 mb file copy is still as long as a 300mb file copy in xp for me.

Re:Stigma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25979427)

A 3 mb file copy is still as long as a 300mb file copy in xp for me.

Sounds like you have something else going on with your system. Either that or you're one of the people on Slashdot who make things up about Vista so that you get modded 'insightful' or 'informative'.

Re:Stigma (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25980351)

A 3 mb file copy is still as long as a 300mb file copy in xp for me.

Sounds like you have something else going on with your system. Either that or you're one of the people on Slashdot who make things up about Vista so that you get modded 'insightful' or 'informative'.

or, in extremely rare cases when a mod has common sense, 'troll'!

Re:Stigma (4, Insightful)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980181)

I dunno. I run vista. I have yet to see even close to the same performance that I did with xp.

And that's exactly the same thing people said about winXP when they compared it to Win98. Win98 needed a whopping 128MB of ram to run well, 256MB was the most you needed for, well pretty much anything. Then WinXP came out with a minimum requirement of 128MB, and everyone complained about it. Understandably so, because as any relatively savvy person now knows, 128MB as a "minimum requirement" for XP means all the eye candy and special features turned off running exactly one program at a time with no strictly essential background processes running. Antivirus is not an exception. In fact, 1GB is generally the minimum you want for XP to work well for normal use. That's eight times the original minimum requirements. I'd wager if you put 8x the minimum required memory in your Vista box, you'll get all the performance you could wish for.

That said, don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Vista fan. I use it at work, but my home computers still run XP. I'll be the first to admit Vista is still going through some growing pains. But it's not as bad as the sensationalists want you to think, and it's come a lot farther in the same time span than WinXP did after it was released.

Re:Stigma (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#25981543)

I'd wager if you put 8x the minimum required memory in your Vista box, you'll get all the performance you could wish for.

Unfortunately I don't have that many RAM slots in my motherboard, so its kind of a rhetorical solution :(

Re:Stigma (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 5 years ago | (#25982379)

Didn't XP have a minimum requirement of 64MB? Well, you did need 128MB to actually do something with the OS.

Re:Stigma (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980801)

I don't think sp2 will fix these issues. A 3 mb file copy is still as long as a 300mb file copy in xp for me.

So you'd rather a lie that the file copy is fast over the truth that the file has actually copied?

Re:Stigma (2, Interesting)

TClevenger (252206) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980075)

This isn't "at release." It went to RTM a bit over 2 years ago (11/2006), and went to worldwide release two months later. There has already been a service pack. I recently installed the MS-recommended version of MSN for somebody on a brand new Alienware machine running Home Premium, and the included version of Windows Messenger, a userland app, send the machine into a bluescreen-equivalent reboot cycle, something that userland apps shouldn't be able to do. Recently, it has come to light that there's a vulnerability in the Vista-native "route" command that can crash the system, or worse, allow buffer overflow exploits. This is the safer, more reliable Windows?

Re:Stigma (3, Insightful)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980269)

And they're still fixing those kinds of bugs in WinXP, which has been out 7 years now. It's quite fair to say that Vista with SP1 is in better shape than XP was with its SP1.

This is the safer, more reliable Windows?

Come on. Don't embarrass yourself. Everyone on /. knows you don't run Windows for safety and reliability.

Re:Stigma (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979563)

If they were trying to do that, they'd have left it at SP1, because XP SP1 was rock-solid. Hell, the first few months of SP2 were worse than SP1.

Re:Stigma (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25982489)

Oh common now. It's Mohave -not Vista.. haven't you heard.

On a side note, I wonder what people would say if a couple of modern Linux distro's adopted the default XP desktop back ground and asked people what they thought of the new windows or which version they thought was better. They could say it's code name is Sahara.

Wireless on resume (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25978747)

Most notably, Microsoft says that Service Pack 2 'improves performance for Wi-Fi connection after resuming from sleep mode,

Thank God, that really annoys the shit out of me.

Wow, MS actually fixed something! Who would've thunk it?

Beta SP? (5, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#25978753)

Who is crazy enough to install a beta Microsoft service pack?

Re:Beta SP? (4, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25978867)

Umm... Beta Testers?

And admins that want to find out how strongly they want to discourage installation by the users on release day.

Re:Beta SP? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25979017)

Exactly, the desperate beta testers who always need the newest updates and admins who are inherently all insane to begin with.

Re:Beta SP? (2, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979675)

And admins that want to find out how strongly they want to discourage installation by the users on release day.

What kind of admin lets their users install Service Packs on their own?

Re:Beta SP? (2, Interesting)

Hafnia (590482) | more than 5 years ago | (#25981117)

I do .... and i bet i'm not alone. My primary function as an engineer is keeping MRI and CT scanners running , i work for a private company with 40 employees. So our total IT staf is 1 full time Administrator and me. I do support and administration in an office of 15 people besides my real job. A lot of firms have this size and don't have the resources to micromanage PC's. Anyway ... we are still on XP and not even beginning to consider Vista , but we might consider Redmonds next offer - by that time i guess we have to phase out XP ... unfortunately !

Re:Beta SP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25981159)

My kind.

Re:Beta SP? (1)

Sentry21 (8183) | more than 5 years ago | (#25982085)

Admins shouldn't be 'discouraging' Vista SP2. They should be installing it or prohibiting it. None of my users have permissions to install Vista, and if any of them did and it broke something, then their wasted time would be their fault, not mine.

Re:Beta SP? (2, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25978923)

Installing Windows Vista Service Pack 2 (Beta) ...
Processing...
Oops, an error was found, there is no C: drive anymore.

See? You install a beta, they remove for you Windows, you install Linux, problems ended. It worked!

Re:Beta SP? (1)

pwolf (1016201) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979155)

It might work better then the final RC because not all the "Features" have been implemented.

Re:Beta SP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25979209)

Who's crazy enough to install Vista is the real question!

Re:Beta SP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25979227)

IT departments. Not on production machines, mind you, but on test machines specifically intended to catch quirks etc. that they want to be aware of so that when the real, non-beta service pack is made available, they will already have a better idea of what to expect and be able to roll it out faster.

Re:Beta SP? (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979363)

The one beta service pack I looked at recently was VS 2008. The big thing I really need out of beta software is the ability to back out fast, and the uninstall instructions for VS 2008 SP1 Beta were positively frightful. The only simple way to back out was apparently a disk wipe and clean reinstall of Windows and then VS 2008, so Microsoft rather limited the supply of clueful beta testers.

Re:Beta SP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25979477)

Who is crazy enough to install a beta Microsoft service pack?

They tried recruiting people at Bellevue but they didn't have any takers. One person claiming to be the captain of the Titanic showed interest until some one explained Windows Mojave was actually Vista at which point he went fetal and started screaming about ice bergs. It was then decided it made more sense to release it to the general public.

Re:Beta SP? (1)

Vapon (740778) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979543)

if your company partners with Microsoft you get pricing etc benefits if you beta test for them.

quite a few companies have test environments where they can test things such as beta service packs and any actual service packs before it goes live as well.

Re:Beta SP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25979779)

Who is crazy enough to install a beta Microsoft service pack?

The same people who installed the beta OS.

New Filesystem? (2, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25978781)

OK, so they have added a new filesystem for external flash drives...
What about filesystems for the C: drive? It's not like using other filesystems will allow so much interoperability that it encourages switching away from Windows.
So what's wrong? The NIH-syndrome?

Re:New Filesystem? (1)

77Punker (673758) | more than 5 years ago | (#25978975)

It's not a full-blown new filesystem; it's still just a new flavor of FAT.

Re:New Filesystem? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979019)

Can XP/2K read it? If not, it would be kinda useless for most people.

Re:New Filesystem? (1)

77Punker (673758) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979051)

This may be one more facet of their plan to make XP and 2k irrelevant. If their old OS won't support the new hardware, it's time to upgrade!

Re:New Filesystem? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979373)

External flash disks? Like SD cards and compactflash? Yeah, using the new filesystem will most likely work with Cameras/Phones/... I don't think it's going to roll...

Re:New Filesystem? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980387)

I believe it's tied to a new version of WinCE, so as long as you're just transferring between a WinCE device and Vista, you should be okay.

Otherwise, normal fat as usual.

Re:New Filesystem? (5, Informative)

Foobar_ (120869) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979445)

You can copy the two driver files (%systemroot\system32\uexfat.dll and %systemroot%\system32\drivers\exfat.sys) from a Vista installation into the same place in Windows XP or 2003, and by adding a few registry entries (search the web for "exFAT File System Driver", I will not link to random blogs here) you enable full support for it.

This trick works right now with Vista SP1. <tinfoilhat>MS could still disable the drivers from executing on anything lower than Vista in a future update</tinfoilhat> but you should still be able to use the present driver revision to access exFAT on XP/2003.

Re:New Filesystem? (2, Informative)

Curate (783077) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980913)

Actually TFA is incorrect. Vista SP2 does NOT add exFAT, as exFAT was already added in Vista SP1.

Nothing new for Media Center (3, Informative)

vivek7006 (585218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25978815)

It was rumored earlier that they would add tvpack-2008 with SP2, but that's not happening. So no support for un-encrypted QAM, no support for mixing and matching ATSC and QAM channels. Sucks..

Re:Nothing new for Media Center (2, Informative)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979247)

As a user of both, the best new thing for Media Center was probably MythTV. I shudder to imagine going back, and am sorry I resisted the temptation for so long...

Re:Nothing new for Media Center (0, Flamebait)

scubamage (727538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979987)

However they did add 1029922 shiny new types of DRM, and a free proctological exam to boot!

Re:Nothing new for Media Center (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980229)

tvpack... QAM... ATSC... QAM... ?!? I must be drowning in either acronym or duck soup as I have no clue what you are talking about.

Re:Nothing new for Media Center (3, Informative)

Detritus (11846) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980507)

ATSC is the standard for digital television broadcasting in the USA. It replaces the old analog system, NTSC. QAM is the standard used by the cable television industry in the USA for digital television and other data transport over coaxial cable.

Re:Nothing new for Media Center (2, Interesting)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 5 years ago | (#25982397)

Too bad the local cable company has started to encrypt all their QAM streams (outside the legally required OTA channels). No more watching your neighbor's on demand programming either.

beta (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25978817)

The beta is expected tomorrow. The story title forgot that word.

Re:beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25978915)

Yes. There is a huge difference between SP2 and SP2 Beta. I shit my pants when I read the headline. Then when I saw the word Beta I shit my pants again, although this time it was for a different reason.

About time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25978823)

Finally, double glazing for windows vista

first post! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25978849)

post

Whoop dee doo (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25978859)

EPIC FAIL

Re:Whoop dee doo (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25979739)

You're a shit-eating queer.

Please? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25978901)

Fix the misleading title.

Re:Please? (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25978987)

Yes. Misleading summaries are bad enough but now we've got ridiculous titles too? Is slashdot turning into a tabloid? I might as well go read the national enquirer or something. I can learn about how Elvis invented the computer as we know it after being dropped off by space aliens in the middle of what is now silicon valley.

Re:Please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25979161)

In Soviet Russia the computer invented Elvs

I thought everybody on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25978943)

I thought everybody on Slashdot hated Microsoft and used either Mac OS X or Linux. So why do you guys still tell us about whatever Microsoft is doing? (or in this case, speculation as to something they're going to do, which only affects Windows Vista users in particular).

Re:I thought everybody on Slashdot (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979091)

We are IT. We must support our users. Those users are using Windows. OK, so they are largely using XP, but resistance to Vista in the business is waning as current boxen grow old and get replaced by machines that don't have XP drivers. Knowing things like the fact that a service pack beta might be coming allows us time to set up a box today for testing tomorrow.

Re:I thought everybody on Slashdot (2, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979151)

So why do you guys still tell us about whatever Microsoft is doing?

Because it's not politically correct to point and laugh at slow kids.

Re:I thought everybody on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25979595)

A lot of us are also software developers. We often develop software for your typical user to buy, which means we need to write it for the Windows flavors (including Vista). That means some of us need to use those systems for work.

yey (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25978969)

first?

Fix the performance problems damnit! (1)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979231)

Seriously... Can't they fix Vista's performance problems already? I/O is a huge step backwards compared to XP. Many people have complained. Why don't they profile and fix the damn thing already?!

Re:Fix the performance problems damnit! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25979553)

Seriously... Can't they fix Vista's performance problems already?

What performance problems are you experiencing in your SP1 Vista?

Re:Fix the performance problems damnit! (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980023)

Agreed, especially when it comes to games (and supporting older games). I spent a whole day tracking down drivers for each part in my new laptop so that I could install XP and ditch Vista due to Vista's crap performance with games. Other than that it was alright, nothing HORRIBLE, but nothing stellar either. The last straw for me though was when I installed Diablo 2 and once you log onto battle.net with it the game drops to about 2 frames per second. That was when Vista went bye-bye.

Re:Fix the performance problems damnit! (5, Informative)

Cowmonaut (989226) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980043)

You sir do not seem to know what you are talking about. I've played around with Vista quite a bit. I still prefer XP on my laptop but that's because I'd rather have my Vista license for my desktop PC. (I don't pirate. If I don't want something I don't buy it.) On my desktop I have 0.2% of my CPU in use with 1.2GB of memory in use when my system is in what *I* consider "idle".

System Specs: Intel Q6600 Quad Core, 8GB DDR2 RAM (Crucial), x2 8800GT w/ 1GB RAM each, XONAR D2X Sound Card, 780i-SLI motherboard. I have currently two 500GB WD hard drives running as a JBOD RAID using SATA.

For applications I have Pidgin (with several chat accounts running) and Steam with full Aero eye candy turned on. A simple static background with the world at night and the Windows Gadgets on the right hand side monitoring my CPU and Memory usage. Typically I have 2-3 browsers open with 5-12 tabs open in each (different reasons). I'm seeding several torrents for various files (all legal) pretty much at all times via uTorrent and I only reboot my PC once a month when I update Vista.

Oh and I have AVAST! running, which I'm about to replace with AVG free again. I keep hearing how they no longer update the definitions in the free version, but I keep getting them on my XP so what the heck, I'll use it until I can't. I really don't like AVAST! as I have to turn it off when playing FarCry2 (causes lag from open file checks that affects my look speeds) but I don't have to turn of AVG.

My CPU usage at idle is at 0.2% and my memory usage is at about 1.2GB. This is according to Process Explorer and Task manager, not the stupid widgits on my desktop (though they say about the same). The usage only goes up when I'm playing a video game.

Before you cry out that there is a lot of memory in use, most of that is being held "ready" for other programs as they require more memory. Vista does that. It is actually a good thing. Just means faster access times for the program.

So yea. I'm positive 98% of all the Vista hate is irrelevant now unless you have 1GB of RAM or less. If you have 2GB and can run DirectX 9 you have no issues with Vista, or shouldn't be. There might be an exception to it:

My laptop came with Vista Home Basic (32-bit). Vista ran like a dog. The laptop specs were not bad (2GB RAM, AMD64 dual core turion, and an ATI video card sharing the system memory) but it was noticeably just bad. I have an OEM of Vista Ultimate x64. I was deciding between throwing XP x64 or Ultimate x64 on the laptop so i tried the Vista Ultimate for 30 days.

I am now certain that whatever Microsoft did to remove "features" such as Remote Desktop and Aero from Vista did more than just remove those features. The performance difference was INCREDIBLE. Vista Ultimate absolutely flew.

To be sure I tried installing Home Basic again. DELL includes OEM install discs now and puts the bloatware and drivers on separate discs. No more image CD/DVDs thankfully. Performance was still noticebly worse when compared to Vista Ultimate x64.

Personally I think they screwed up the registry a bit. Anyone who has made a mistake there knows only a full install ever gets the PC right again afterwords and all sorts of unexpected things happen when stuff goes wrong there. I just don't have any hard proof, but then neither do most people who seem to complain about Vista beyond their PCs only having 1GB or less of RAM.

For the curious I settled on XP x64 on my laptop. Partly because I had the license already and partly because I fell in love with it after using it on my old tower. That's a solid 64-bit OS, and has been since 6 months after its release when the drivers came out for everything.

Re:Fix the performance problems damnit! (2, Interesting)

cowwoc2001 (976892) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980183)

CPU? Who cares about the CPU?!

I was complaining about I/O performance. It's so bad in Vista is drags *everything* down. Windows uses preemptive multitasking so different tasks gets fair access to the CPU. The same can't be said for the hard-drive. All it takes is one rogue process to take down the entire machine by loading like crazy from the HD.

Unfortunately for us, some of the built-in Vista services are exactly such rogue processes.

Take a look at Superfetch and the indexing service. Both are *way* too aggressive! The HD loads for 5-10 minutes on boot-up and anytime you change a file on your hard-drive from that point it will load 5x more than it did under XP.

Vista kills hard-drive performance. Hands down!

Re:Fix the performance problems damnit! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25981643)

Anon as I've given out mod points in this story..

If you load the Resource Monitor after you've booted and expand the Disk category, you'll see that the superfetch stuff being loaded is set as "Background" priority. If you load something yourself and order by reads or response time, you should find whatever you just loaded jumps to the top, as it has "Normal" priority.

Works fine for me - while the disk may be going crazy after Vista has booted, it's still responsive.

Idle CPU use is irrelevant. (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980979)

The additional I/O overhead in Vista, which seems to be partly related to internal mechanisms to prevent "wiretapping" media streams by kernel components, is hardly going to show up in idle CPU overhead. I can not comprehend the confusion in the mind that would lead to someone supposing otherwise.

Late? (0, Redundant)

Dr.D.IS.GREAT (1249946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25979539)

I thought these kinda patches come out on tuesday... even for the desprate and insane...

**** it, im installing OSX on my pc. giving up on vista... or maybe one of them leaked Windows 7 Iso's.. something...

Dr. D

Does anyone remember what happened for SP1 Beta? (1)

ravepunk (754155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980295)

I, for one, will NOT be installing any beta service packs from Microsoft and I'll be recommending my company do the same. If you were unfortunate to test the SP1 beta, you'll recall that you were forced to re-front your machines after the beta period was over. Until Microsoft guarantees that it will provide a reasonable upgrade path from the beta to production, there is no point in testing until this becomes public.

Re:Does anyone remember what happened for SP1 Beta (2, Insightful)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25982723)

Stop the presses, everyone, a real world expert, ravepunk, has spoken, and he is putting his foot DOWN. No-one in his company will be installing the beta of SP2 after his horrible experiences with the first SP beta, because he had to re-install machines to upgrade to SP1 fin... wait, what? You're the decision maker for a company in this regard, and you decided to place a beta service pack for something as fundamental as the operating system on actively in-use machines, and were shocked to find that there maybe have been changes between the beta and production release that couldn't easily be reverted? I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that you expect "upgrade path" trouble-free beta installs of an OS, or that perhaps you don't have a test machine/network/virtualization and felt compelled to install this on production machines, or that seemingly you think your actions played no responsibility in any of the above.

I don't care what SP release it's at... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25980397)

...I'll buy it only when I can easily crack the fucking "product activation" bullshit, and not a second before.

Bluetooth (1)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980475)

Ok, does this mean that vista will finally let me use my stereo Bluetooth headset to listen to winamp? I bought this thing for music, only to find out vista doesn't do stero a2dp, I think it is... Apparently having that is up to the chipset driver writers. I got a dell BT keyboard/mouse combo, which is a rebranded Logitech one... doesn't work out of the box. From what I've read you can download alternative drivers for the same chipset (widcomm) that are from another manufacturer (toshiba) or you can try your hand at 3rd party drivers (blue soliel) but you have to pay. Have you ever seen a DEMO DRIVER! It times out after 5MB of data has been pushed! Oh, and this 2.1 stack has been out for a while now, but only to OEM's who wanted to package it for customers. Well, Dell didn't seem to think it was worth it, neither did logitech. So, I can't really tell if it's going to help me or not. Frustrating.

Re:Bluetooth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25982655)

Driver issues, in Windows? Surely not! That's the be all and end of Windows, isn't it? It's amazing compatibility. I mean, in Linux it's a pain in the frigging ass to get things like blue-tooth and wifi working, which is why nobody aside from beardy nerds use it. Windows on the other hand is the last bastion of user friendliness:

From what I've read you can download alternative drivers for the same chipset (widcomm) that are from another manufacturer (toshiba) or you can try your hand at 3rd party drivers (blue soliel) but you have to pay.

Sounds like a piece of cake, I'll get granny to do it. How hard is it to explain that over the phone to an octogenarian?

How about a new meme? 20xx is the year of the Vista on the desktop.

Home, OK.. Work, not so much... (1)

slakdrgn (531347) | more than 5 years ago | (#25980619)

I've been using vista at home since RTM. Was having issues until my most recent reformat in July. Now Vista runs happily on my main home machine (C2D E8300 w/3GB RAM and 6mo old Motherboard) and my mediacenter (AMD x2 5000+ 3GB RAM and some HP motherboard). I've had issues here and there but mostly related to either old software or hardware that has no updated drivers.

At work though, its a different story. Using the management console to connect to 2k3 servers is, well, odd. Missing options (like properties so you can reboot via advanced settings on the Terminal service crashes), annoying updated admin tools that really don't seem to be meant for 2003 and again, incompatibility with various older business applications. Also have this pain with the USB dock for my Lenovo X300. The USB dock is connected to a usb lan device and vista will at times not identify the network until I disable and reenable. New drivers haven't helped. Not sure if its a Vista issue with USB or just bad driver implementation.

Personally, I think they should move back to XP or XP-like with some vista upgrades for business. Like back in the day when you had business and home versions of windows (NT days). To me, it makes more sense.

This is beta?? BETA??!?! (2)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#25981049)

I don't get it. Why are people installing beta software?

Beta should be for beta testers. If a company releases beta software and you're silly enough to install it, you should expect it to run...like beta software. For an OS, that means you should assume it will destroy your system and eat your data. Are you installing this on a disposable "test" machine?

Honestly, Given the sorry quality of released software, I can't understand why people are rushing to blow up their computers with _pre_release software.

Tags (2, Funny)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25982155)

Can someone explain why "masturbation" is a tag for this story? Is this an inside joke or something?

Re:Tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25982293)

Because this story, like all Microsoft related stories, is basically an opportunity for the /. community to jerk off all over each other in ecstasy as they try to top each other with overused jokes.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...