×

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 Released

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the how-much-beta-does-one-really-need dept.

Windows 334

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has finally released the final build of Service Pack 2 for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. 'There are a few significant additions that are included in SP2: Windows Search 4.0, Bluetooth 2.1 Feature Pack, the ability to record data on to Blu-Ray media natively in Vista, Windows Connect Now (WCN) is now in the Wi-Fi Configuration, and exFAT file system supports UTC timestamps. The service pack contains about 800 hotfixes.' A list of other notable changes is available on TechNet. SP2 isn't included in Automatic Update yet, but it will be 'during the coming months.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

334 comments

Secure... lol (0, Troll)

joelmax (1445613) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108355)

And now that it is released to the public, Vista SP2 is no longer the most secure OS out there... it was doing so well too... why did they have to release it, its all downhill from here..

Re:Secure... lol (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28108853)

I disagree.

Just installed Vista SP2. Let me tell you it is the most secure and stab

[NO CARRIER]

Re:Secure... lol (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28109285)

That tells you how good SP2 is. Even when his computer DOES go down, the PC manages to save his message, append "[NO CARRIER]" to it, and post it as anonymous. Let's see Linux do that!

Re:Secure... lol (5, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109425)

Windows Vista Service Pack 2 Released

Will everybody please stop calling it Vista SP2? It's called Windows 7 for fuck's sake!

Re:Secure... lol (-1, Flamebait)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109519)

No, it's Windows 6.5. If you had 4 working brain cells, you'd know the worthwhile features aren't available in Vista, except as crippled versions.

Re:Secure... lol (0, Redundant)

kno3 (1327725) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109537)

darn, used up all my mod points, for the love of all that is holy, mod this guy up!

Doesn't make a difference. (-1, Troll)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108357)

No one's using Vista anyway.

Re:Doesn't make a difference. (5, Informative)

Kohenkatz (1166461) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108499)

No one's using Vista anyway.

What are you talking about?? Plenty of people are using Vista. My Website's stats show (For the month of May until today): Windows XP 57.5 % Windows Vista 22.5 %

Re:Doesn't make a difference. (0, Troll)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109205)

Looking at your site, I can see you develop sites for people who don't know any better (than to either get some real professionals or do it themselves). This kind of falls into line with 22.5% of your visitors being Vista users.

I doubt most people have owned a computer for more than a few months before visiting your site, and if they have they wouldn't understand the problems with vista.

Anecdotal evidence is never an apt reply to sarcasm or trolling, you'll just end up looking the fool.

Re:Doesn't make a difference. (4, Interesting)

Chatterton (228704) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109563)

I beg to differ with your numbers:

Numbers of page view per platform on the last 12 month of a little european website:

                          Page Views
Platform                      Sum    %
(blank)               231,944,487   14
AIX                        63,675    0
AmigaOS                     1,399    0
BeOS                        1,145    0
CP/M                       26,258    0
DOS                        28,158    0
Dreamcast                     319    0
HP-UX                       1,405    0
IRIX                        2,535    0
Linux                  10,782,630    1
Macintosh              22,543,401    1
NetBSD                      1,930    0
OS/2                        6,449    0
OSF1                        1,000    0
OpenVMS                       383    0
SCO_SV                         38    0
Slurp                  61,242,836    4
Solaris                 7,625,811    0
SunOS                     197,176    0
Unix (unknown)             67,609    0
WebTV                       2,111    0
Windows                12,050,352    1
Windows 16-bit             11,607    0
Windows 2000          132,118,040    8
Windows 32-bit          6,226,532    0
Windows 95                723,941    0
Windows 98             32,166,513    2
Windows CE                107,696    0
Windows NT              5,474,837    0
Windows Sever 2003     19,986,701    1
Windows Vista          30,442,927    2
Windows XP          1,012,030,914   62
unknown                39,486,905    2
TOTAL               1,625,367,720  100

Re:Doesn't make a difference. (3, Funny)

Saint Fnordius (456567) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108975)

No one's using Vista anyway.

No, but many are forced to tolerate it.

Re:Doesn't make a difference. (4, Insightful)

DigitalPasture (1545473) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109161)

Do you believe everything you read or hear on the net and TV? I've been using Vista 64bit for about two years now. It's the best (released) OS I've seen out of MS so far. Very stable since SP1 was released. Initially, yes there were problems. Most of the issues I encountered were due to Nvidia drivers however, not problems caused by MS. I seem to remember having similar issues when XP was released many moons ago. I still maintain that the only real problem with Vista is the media and users that are too afraid to learn modern tech.

Like Digging Through People's Trash (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108375)

I like some of these fixes on this spreadsheet:
  • The Fc.exe command does not work correctly in Windows Vista or in Windows Server 2008 when the command compares files that differ at every 128th byte of a character string
  • The Fc.exe command does not work correctly in Windows Vista or in Windows Server 2008 when the two files that you are comparing have the TAB or SPACE character around the 128th byte in a character string

I can almost imagine the developer sitting at his desk getting an e-mail from their issue management system that there's a problem with Fc.exe (file compare) ... only to have him realize that his for loop that iterates over the buffer that reads the files should have the while conditions of <= 128 and not simply < 128!

This is forgivable, I code some pretty stupid errors sometimes.

What isn't forgivable is that one of the columns on this bug spreadsheet is "Publicly Available" which implies to me that there is a list I'm not seeing of fixed bugs which would be annoying and probably even non-fixed bugs they purposefully suppress from public knowledge which is alarming!

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (1)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108407)

Oh off-by-one errors. I encounter them a whole helluva lot less than I used to (in my own code), but the odd mistake creeps in every now and then. I think anyone who claims they never make them, or that a professional company should never make them, is either lying or deluded. It's far too easy to make them unless you're doing really simplistic coding and only ever working with arrays.

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108555)

Been there, done that, also found an off-by-one bug in someone else's code that calculated the number of pages for custom pagination in a webapp.

Granted, this was years ago before the whole "shove all the rows at them then have Javascript turn it into pages" mentality came around...

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (2, Interesting)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109051)

Just FYI, it's not 'shove all the rows at them', it's 'use ajax to request the rows you need and don't waste time re-rendering the other 95% of the page - and no cacheing doesn't always work'... well at least when I do it that's how it works.

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (5, Funny)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108655)

Much to my amusement, a colleague of mine once suggested that the conversion from polytheism to monotheism was the result of an off-by-one error :)

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (2, Funny)

readthemall (1531267) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109179)

Everybody who plays (free)Civilization knows that switching to monotheism from polytheism is a good thing.

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28109427)

So Atheism is the result of a divide by zero error? The result as done by hand makes sense: DNE, "Does Not Exist"

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108561)

"What isn't forgivable is that one of the columns on this bug spreadsheet is "Publicly Available" which implies to me that there is a list I'm not seeing of fixed bugs which would be annoying and probably even non-fixed bugs they purposefully suppress from public knowledge which is alarming!"

Hello. Closed source software. I damn well *expect* there to be thousands, if not more, bugs that are not and will never be fixed in Windows until someone "finds" them and posts about them publically, security related or not. I doubt even the militarised versions of Windows have *everything* they know about fixed - it's easier to just say "don't do this" or not include a certain tool/utility/feature than it is to fix it and document it.

Why on Earth would you ever find this alarming, or unforgivable? It's the whole point of closed-source software, so that you *never* know what's going on with the code and (hopefully) never see it.

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (2, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108685)

Hello. Closed source software. I damn well *expect* there to be thousands, if not more, bugs that are not and will never be fixed in Windows until someone "finds" them and posts about them publically, security related or not. I doubt even the militarised versions of Windows have *everything* they know about fixed - it's easier to just say "don't do this" or not include a certain tool/utility/feature than it is to fix it and document it.

Why on Earth would you ever find this alarming, or unforgivable? It's the whole point of closed-source software, so that you *never* know what's going on with the code and (hopefully) never see it.

I disagree.

You could (should) offer a closed source product and still be honest about all the bugs that exist in it to your paying customers. Granted, I'm not distributing my web applications on a scale that Vista is being distributed on but you know seeing these 700 fixes listed out does alarm me. I mean, that really serious bug? The one that puts your Windows 2008 server at risk? Could still be at large without you ever knowing about it.

From Microsoft's end, how do they handle multiple bug reports when users don't have access to a complete list of known bugs so they know to report it?

And maybe it's obvious why they keep them from you--you'd probably flip to a serving solution without that bug. But, as an advocate for transparency, I would expect Microsoft to at least publicize its bugs--especially if they've been fixed in an update. I'm kind of lead to believe that these 700 (on the dot!) bug fixes are only a subset.

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (5, Insightful)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108863)

Expect a whole bunch more to be added to that great spreadsheet in the sky. Then again, I find it pretty funny that DRM, which is quite likely to introduce bug and crippling functionality, is packaged as an "experience update". From TFA (bold mine):

Operating system experience updates

* SP2 improves Windows Media Center (WMC) in the area of content protection for TV.

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109321)

Well, without knowing the detail of that, it might well be a good thing. Most obviously, if it's fixing one of the bugs where your TV path is failing the content protection checks when it really shouldn't.

Yes, DRM is evil, bad and wrong. But stopping it from going off when it shouldn't has to be good, right?

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (4, Insightful)

Unoriginal_Nickname (1248894) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108873)

It's the whole point of closed-source software, so that you *never* know what's going on with the code and (hopefully) never see it.

The industry rule of thumb for a software developer is about 10 lines of code per hour, on average, over the lifetime of the project. According to Microsoft, Windows XP has about 40 million SLOC.

Without business staff, PMs and SDETs, that's 4 million man-hours. That's 1923 full time man-years. Assuming Microsoft pays their SDEs $80,000 on average, those 40 million lines of code cost them $153,840,000.

Why can't the point of closed-source be to put food on the table? If all software is free, what are software developers going to do for a living? Buy an air nailer and become a roofer?

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109095)

Dude, you're forgetting about copy/paste - not everyone like using good OO developing practices damnit... we like to inflate our code quantity by duplicating functions everywhere we can.

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109589)

That's almost certainly low. Looking at it, they take in more than $1 billion a month just on operating systems sales (look under client):

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar08/10k_fr_dis.html [microsoft.com]

That figure is probably going to be higher for 2008 than for 2009, but it will still be healthy in 2009. The discussion there implies that they spent $115 million more on Vista in fiscal 2008 than the prior year (that figure is separate from a $150 million increase in marketing costs), so they actually increased spending, in one year, by most of your entire estimate.

Re:Like Digging Through People's Trash (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109053)

It's the whole point of closed-source software, so that you *never* know what's going on with the code

Really? That's the whole point of closed-source software? Gee, and here I thought it was to make money based on the idea that software, like books, movies, and so forth, is property that is owned by the creator and can be controlled and sold at their discretion.

Hello. Open source software, too. (3, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109515)

"I damn well *expect* there to be thousands, if not more, bugs that are not and will never be fixed in Windows until someone "finds" them and posts about them publically, security related or not"

Hell, I expect there to be thousands, if not more, bugs that are not and will never be fixed in open source software, until somebody -other than those actually responsible for the code- submit a patch.
I'm looking at you, silly little Thunderbird bug #92165 from 2001/Jul/24.

Keeps getting better! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28109501)

Wow, I've been using this Windows Mojave for a while now... it's SO much better than Vista!

The best service pack for Vista (4, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108395)

is Windows 7 RC1.

Re:The best service pack for Vista (0, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109105)

What's the difference? I thought they would be the same...

Oh, and: I don't get that versioning...

Vista = 6.0
Vista SP1 = 6.0
Vista SP2 = 6.0 = Win 7
Makes no sense either way. ^^

Re:The best service pack for Vista (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109507)

Windows 7 has a MacOS style dock bar, whereas Vista SP2 has the Windows 95 style task bar.

UTC Timestamp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28108427)

Can someone please elaborate what this UTC timestamp thing is? With some googling I can just assume it means UNIX timestamp. Can we please not invent new names for everything?

Re:UTC Timestamp? (4, Informative)

Thornburg (264444) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108549)

UTC is a time format, and specifies GMT.

With UTC timestamps, two files written simultaneously in Germany and Canada would have the same timestamp. In Windows, without UTC timestamps, they would have two completely different timestamps, because they would (most likely) use local time.

If you want a more informed source, try Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time [wikipedia.org]

Re:UTC Timestamp? (2, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109573)

It's not quite the same as GMT. There can be a few seconds difference between the two. GMT is based on the position of the sun at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich. UTC uses an atomic clock to count the seconds and has leap seconds added to the end of the year from time to time to bring it back into alignment with GMT.

Re:UTC Timestamp? (2, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108589)

Er... except that UTC timestamp only specifies the timezone, not how it's actually stored.

It's up to libc to know how it's stored and convert it to unixtime as appropriate.

Re:UTC Timestamp? (2, Informative)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108715)

Can someone please elaborate what this UTC timestamp thing is? With some googling I can just assume it means UNIX timestamp. Can we please not invent new names for everything?

"New names"? The entire world has been using UTC as an international standard for timekeeping since before you were born and were calling it UT or GMT for a hundred years before that. Can we please try to learn about something instead of just whinging about it?

Finally, I can torrent from windows (5, Informative)

Nefron (633596) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108443)

SP2 removes the limit of 10 half open outbound TCP connections. By default, SP2 has no limit on the number of half open outbound TCP connections.

I can't believe MS finally (almost) admitted they made a mistake. It may have taken almost as long, in technological terms, as it took the Catholic Church to admit it's mistakes with Galileo, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108583)

Before this change, I could "torrent from Windows" at over 10 Mbps on my connection. You must have been doing it wrong. :S

This is only *half open* outbound TCP connection. At *worst', it will cause a torrent to pick up speed slightly slower, but it won't cap the maximum speed or anything.

Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108973)

A limit on TCP connections is actually a bit of a good thing as many home routers crap out if you open too many. Hopefully it's less of a problem today then when I bought my router 3-4 years back.

Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109289)

home routers crap out if you open too many. Hopefully it's less of a problem today

I tell you sir, it's still a problem. The $30 NAT routers of today are just as big of a hunk of crap as they were 4 years ago, they just increased the profit margins with the lower manufacturing costs that economy of scale has brought to the industry.

Personally, I threw a second NIC in my server, installed VMWare Server, and now run Smoothwall [smoothwall.org] as a guest, routing for my network. I probably would have done this years ago but it took a lot for me to break my love/hate relationship with DD-WRT and it's GPL violating "author," and I finally gave up trying to find good support for UPnP on a Windows-based solution.

Give it a try if you like to torrent stuff, especially while gaming.

Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109375)

It also makes it easier to swap from smoothwall to something else :).

I do something like that, but I don't use smoothwall. FWIW tc's HTB does work quite well in controlling bandwidth.

The main disadvantage I find is, my PC server+modem+etc uses about 100 watts. Whereas an el-cheapo NAT router will use a lot less.

Oh well...

Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109531)

PC server+modem+etc uses about 100 watts.

That was a barrier for me too, but having discovered I really do want to leave the server on 100% of the time, after discovering that running a VM didn't tank the box down (1.75G Ram 2.8GHz P4 Box with Server 2008) and got good performance, which I didn't think would happen (heh), it made sense.

Until I can run everything I need 100% of the time on something like a Sheeva plug, or get a really cheap but capable laptop that'll make a good server (and won't tempt me to use as a laptop), reasonably low-power SFF x86 hardware will have to suffice.

Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28109035)

Before this change, I could "torrent from Windows" at over 10 Mbps on my connection. You must have been doing it wrong. :S.

I think he's one of those self-proclaimed 'Power Users' who disables QoS because he still believes that it reserves 20% of his bandwidth.

Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows (3, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108935)

as it took the Catholic Church to admit it's mistakes with Galileo

Obviously someone watched Angels and Demons last night...

Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109139)

It was implemented for security reasons, as a way to limit the DoS attack made by compromised PC.

Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28109509)

Typical Microsoft. Don't address the disease, just treat the symptoms.

"Hey, our OS is easily pwned, so let's hobble the network connectivity so pwned machines can't do too much damage."

Great idea, you fucking tards. Here's better one: throw out your piece of shit operating system and start totally fresh. This time, try designing the security in from the start instead of trying to bolt it on as an afterthought years later. And provide a compatibility environment via VM for legacy apps for a few years until devs can catch up.

The one fucking thing Apple did that you won't shamelessly copy, is the thing you should copy the most!

Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28109549)

How long did it take for the Catholic church to admit it is (has?) mistakes with Galileo?

Re:Finally, I can torrent from windows (1)

rwyoder (759998) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109603)

I can't believe MS finally (almost) admitted they made a mistake. It may have taken almost as long, in technological terms, as it took the Catholic Church to admit it's mistakes with Galileo, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

I can't believe you would compare MS to the Catholic Church!
One is a marketing company, and the other is a religion...oh wait...nevermind. :-(

Windows Search 4.0?! (3, Interesting)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108455)

Windows Search 4.0?! I HATE that POS. I've made a very deliberate attempt to NOT download this off of windows update, and now if I want to be up to date with my system, I HAVE to install it? Assholes.

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (4, Informative)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108519)

The thing is, you don't actually notice any real difference in how the indexing works with WS4, it's all back-end. It's suppose to be more efficient that the search/indexing code that came with Vista. I know it can be annoying when installed in XP, but since its predecessor was already integrated into Vista it should be an improvement.

If you still hate it, disable the Indexing service.

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108631)

The thing is, you don't actually notice any real difference in how the indexing works with WS4, it's all back-end.

I can't speak to what it's like on Vista, but on XP two things are true:

  1. Indexing beats your system up, and the indexer is NOT good about letting you have it back.
  2. Search can find files with a filesystem search, OR it can find indexed files, but NOT both at once. So if you have a directory which is not yet indexed, you MUST leave your computer idle for a time if you want to be able to search it.

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (1)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108773)

I can't speak to what it's like on Vista, but on XP two things are true: Indexing beats your system up, and the indexer is NOT good about letting you have it back.

I have Vista SP1 installed for playing games the hard drive was thrashing so much it was actually causing stutter in my fps games sometimes until I turned the indexer and the superfetch services off (I actually had to turn off superfetch twice as it ignored me the first time). I don't seem to remember ever having to deal with that sort of issue on XP, so my guess is vista is probably worse for this sort of thing. It would be nice if SP2 alleviated this, but I'm not holding my breath. Incidentally, I find it sort of funny and sort of annoying that there are so many Vista defenders out there, when my own experience is that, yeah it runs well enough, but only after turn off all the crap like this and the graphical effects, and even then it's a little slow for a brand new OS on a brand new computer. On the other hand, with any fresh linux install I also go around removing a lot of the default desktop packages that I don't want, only it seems a lot easier and more transparent in linux, but maybe I'm just used to the linux way and not the windows way.

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109069)

Incidentally, I find it sort of funny and sort of annoying that there are so many Vista defenders out there, when my own experience is that, yeah it runs well enough, but only after turn off all the crap like this and the graphical effects, and even then it's a little slow for a brand new OS on a brand new computer.

Vista Home Basic 64 is a pre-configured Vista with all the crap turned off.

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (4, Informative)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109209)

I can't speak to what it's like on Vista, but on XP two things are true:

Indexing beats your system up, and the indexer is NOT good about letting you have it back.

I have Vista SP1 installed for playing games the hard drive was thrashing so much it was actually causing stutter in my fps games sometimes until I turned the indexer and the superfetch services off (I actually had to turn off superfetch twice as it ignored me the first time). I don't seem to remember ever having to deal with that sort of issue on XP, so my guess is vista is probably worse for this sort of thing. It would be nice if SP2 alleviated this, but I'm not holding my breath. Incidentally, I find it sort of funny and sort of annoying that there are so many Vista defenders out there, when my own experience is that, yeah it runs well enough, but only after turn off all the crap like this and the graphical effects, and even then it's a little slow for a brand new OS on a brand new computer. On the other hand, with any fresh linux install I also go around removing a lot of the default desktop packages that I don't want, only it seems a lot easier and more transparent in linux, but maybe I'm just used to the linux way and not the windows way.

The funny thing is that Vista is slow on a fresh install, but the hard drive thrashing stops after you've used it for a day and it's populated superfetch and the index. It's fine to turn it off if you don't want to do indexed searches and don't want instant load on a few programs at the expense of a day of slowness, but it's also fine to leave them on, because they absolutely stop slowing anything down after that time.

minor correction (0, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108785)

Sorry, I forgot some words: to the statement you MUST leave your computer idle for a time if you want to be able to search it please append "without having to initiate a separate, file-based search". Thank you.

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108959)

One thing we found, was a reg hack that will only load WS4.0 when outlook 2007 is open, and it will only index your mailbox. Our user complaints have dropped to a small fraction since we implemented that fix system wide. Basically, we only use it on our XP machines to do the instant search in outlook, nothing else. Give it a try..

Indexing Service (2, Informative)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109411)

The Indexing Service and Windows Search are not the same thing. I never used Windows Search under XP because I had gone out of my way to learn how to configure the Indexing Service (which is a huge pain in the ass) so that Start > Search would give me indexed results. I never experienced the Indexing Service pwning my machine as you say, though, and I indexed 3+ TB worth of stuff with it.

You have to do heavy configuration in Vista with Windows Search to have it search outside your profile, but once you do, the searches are much faster than XP was, compared to Indexing Service or WDS based searches.

Also, on XP, if you did configure the built-in Indexer to index your stuff, Start > Search would give you results from both in and out of the index, from what I recall. It might be folder-based as to whether or not something not in the index that was supposed to be was included (but was newly created for example, and hadn't been indexed yet), but I can't really remember anymore... been using Vista for too long now :P

Re:Indexing Service (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109533)

The Indexing Service and Windows Search are not the same thing.

That's true, but that truth does nothing to contradict anything I said.

Windows Search 4.0 is an indexed search. It must index your system to provide search results. And one thing it does not let you do is search for anything non-indexed. The process to perform a non-indexed search from the GUI in XP after Windows Search 4.0 is installed includes clicking a link in the Windows Search sidebar, which brings up the classic Search Companion (or the classic/advanced search, if you have so configured Windows) in a new window.

I have certainly had the Indexing Service "pwn" my machine. It is terrible at detecting when the system is actually idle, and it will often decide that it is doing nothing when you are playing a fullscreen game. Thus, gamers typically disable it. However, Windows Search 4.0 is far, far worse.

I don't run Windows right on my system any more (for some possibly transient value of "any more") so it's a non-issue for me; I disabled that stuff in my VM.

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109597)

XP suffers greatly from the lack of I/O prioritization. Indexing under Vista (and later) doesn't have the same wallop, since the indexer is a low-priority item that properly yields to other applications attempting to use a hard drive.

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (4, Interesting)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108905)

I run Vista. index is enabled by default, but one of the first tweaks i did was switch it off, and Windows Search can be uninstalled/hidden.

The indexer runs as a "background" serivce, which is a new type and is supposed only get CPU cycles when the machine is idle. unfortunately, this only works for the FIRST instance of a background process, and there are many cases where more than one can conflict under Vista, and then indexing begins chewing up resources. I had it kick off in the middle of playing games when the CPU was over 80%.

WS4 will NOT be enabled on my machine. I keep the index service, pre-fetch, and several other services forcibally disabled on my machine. When I'm looking for something, it;s either an e-mail, which google or xobni instantly find for me without M$'s help, or it's a file I've properly store and can find myself in 3-4 clicks, or it;s a media item already indexed by iTunes... I don't search my personal machine for random crap, and anything I've ever needed to find on my own machine was ALREADY indexed by somethiung else.... It's a complete waste of resources, a waste of disk space for the index database, and every time you run a major patch, it fucking re-indexes, which for my 400+GB of stuff, takes as long as defragging.

This is not to mention that is also searches inside files, and stores that data in a database in a predetermined location. I have data in docs on my system I'd just as much prefer NOT be in a non--encrypted central repository... contacts, SSNs, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, all go in that database that is VERY easy for a hacker to lift...

If there's a way to uninstall WS4 after SP2, not just disabling it, I will.

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109463)

If there's a way to uninstall WS4 after SP2, not just disabling it, I will.

FWIW, there's no real advantage to going Rambo on system services that you feel have wronged you in the past.... Disabling them really is enough ;)

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108547)

I dunno, in any previous version of Windows search it seems I cannot find anything. For example by the default settings it won't see files in directories that aren't indexed. And even when Advanced search is told to search all files on disk and subfolders despite index, it still can't seem to match a simple filename half of the time.
Having said that I haven't tried Search 4.0 yet, am hoping it's better but maybe it's worse.
So I thought they were assholes before Search 4.0 to be specific.

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109001)

IME I've had better luck searching from the command prompt. Not tried Search 4.0 yet either though.

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (2, Interesting)

Necroman (61604) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108893)

I actually love it for work. The amount I search email and documents, it does a great job. You have to remember that it isn't just a plain txt file search, but it indexes doc and your outlook information. Being able to type in my last name and get a list of 68000 items in 1-2 seconds is pretty sweet.

I've tried Google Desktop as well, but just wasn't as much of a fan. I had a harder time getting it to index properly and do what I wanted. WS4 gives you some pretty fine grain control over what and where it indexes.

Re:Windows Search 4.0?! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28108913)

Well, Windows Search 4.0 can be turned off. This on the other hand cannot:

SP2 improves Windows Media Center (WMC) in the area of content protection for TV.

And that, my friends, is why I never use MS' built in media players. Ever.

Wireless streaming (3, Interesting)

Saba (308071) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108459)

I wonder if they have fixed the throttling bug where if you're streaming media over a wireless link, Vista throttles the connection down so much that it causes buffer underruns and severe clipping. I can't listen to FLACs in VLC unless I set buffering to at least 20 seconds.

Enterprise Vista Deployments (1)

Vandil X (636030) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108485)

I used to work at a company that had a glacial workstation OS upgrade cycle. It took them nearly 4 years into XP's lifecycle to consider XP (they were still deploying Win2K), and XPSP2 changed so many of the inner workings of the OS that the deployment was delayed until mid-2006.

I just wonder if the changes in Vista SP2 will sideline similarly glacial Vista deployments or be a blessing, allowing people to skip Vista for Windows 7.

Re:Enterprise Vista Deployments (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108767)

Many companies do this on purpose. Comcast did not go to XP until 2005/2006 simply because of problems with the custom and vertical apps. And Many of the important servers that generate $10,000 an hour by inserting Advertisements into channels eve still run NT4.

Honestly, when your gear makes you a lot of money, it's ragingly stupid to upgrade the OS until you know it's not going to cost you money with downtime or errors. Like a client of mine that HAD TO HAVE Vista on everything when it came out. We upgraded him and all the CNC machines quit working. He did not understand that Upgrading to vista, even though we told him 5 times, and had the CNC machine maker tell him not to, that it would hose his entire operation. It did. He was down for 3 days. Luckily I had imaged everything so restoring the Drive image saved him a LOT of money.

Some people think the new shiny is better, 99% of the time it is not and staying with the dull old OS is a better solution.

And no Windows 2000 is not more "dangerous" than the new OS. In a firewalled and proper network even windows 95 is 100% safe.

Re:Enterprise Vista Deployments (1)

Tsunayoshi (789351) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109149)

The government agency I am contracted to is just now in the final testing phases for rolling out Windows XP to the desktop.

Yes, XP. They had a Vista pilot last year but due to legacy app issues decided to scrap it and start the process over again with XP.

Re:Enterprise Vista Deployments (2, Funny)

swb (14022) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109593)

You just tipped your hand. "Government agency".

SP2 in A.U. (3, Informative)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108527)

SP2 isn't included in Automatic Update yet

Well, maybe it isn't, but my Vista Home Premium at work "complained" this morning it had a new update, which was SP2, I let it download and play with it, now it's installed and it seems to work ok up to now.

Re:SP2 in A.U. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28108571)

Same with me. I noticed the update icon waiting for me this morning before I even got to Slashdot.

Re:SP2 in A.U. (3, Informative)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108953)

It's being "phased" out. Your machine was one of the lucky 1% that got the update now. My home machine did not have it automatically, but doing a "check for updates now" populated it. I'm waiting a few days to install it however until 1)I get around to making another image backup and 2) other people try it and fail first...

Re:SP2 in A.U. (1)

NuGeo (824600) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109143)

I, too, use automatic updates and installed SP2 that way. I do have automatic updates set to the "Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them" option, though, if that makes any kind of difference.

The funny thing is, when windows update prompted me about a new "important update", it didn't say at all what it was. Just that it was a 300+ something megabyte file, to which I immediately thought "holy shit, wtf could that be". I figured it must have been a service pack, but I didn't expect it to come out of the blue like it did. I saw no mention of it on the news sites. I guess I was expecting some kind of fanfare before its release. Anyway, once it finished downloading and started the install process, it finally identified itself that it was indeed Vista SP2.

Re:SP2 in A.U. (1)

Cigarra (652458) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109233)

Same to me. While all the articles everywhere mention it's "standalone download only, not yet in Automatic updates", it appeared yesterday in the update notifications window. Since I have it set to "notify only", I manually downloaded and installed it. I wonder if it wouldn't be alredy automatically installed if it was configured that way.

BTW, everything seems to be still working :-)

Re:SP2 in A.U. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28109241)

Using Vista, sir? Please give back your geek credentials NOW!

And stop with this "don't tase me bro"!

Not in automatic updates, really? (2, Informative)

Greymist (638677) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108591)

So uhh, what was the 300MB+ item in Windows Updates this morning that I installed? I'm sure it said service pack 2.

Re:Not in automatic updates, really? (1, Troll)

richy freeway (623503) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109223)

But did it install automatically? No, you had to do it yourself. Read the words, they're important.

Renumber Windows 7 then (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108611)

This will make 7 Vista SP3, then.

Re:Renumber Windows 7 then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28109193)

That's both funny and original! lollolololoooooooooool

Windows 2nd SP is the 1st releaseable version. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28108675)

"The service pack contains about 800 hotfixes."

Windows versions become usable after the 2nd service pack, in my experience.

Sad thing is (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109517)

I think the same about my OS X updates.... though it is getting to more than x.x.2 now.

Vista is native to Blu-Ray, gawd I hope this kicks Apple in the pants.

Vista SP2 (4, Interesting)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 4 years ago | (#28108891)

I'm hoping that SP2 doesn't break the functionality of my HTPC like Windows 7 did. I tried Windows 7 x64 RC on my HTPC for about a week or so, but my sound card (X-Fi Extreme Audio PCI-Express x1 slot) developed some major problems that caused MCE to crash and WMP to crash.

I went back to Vista on it. I'm happy enough with the Media Center in Vista that I doubt I'll use Windows 7 on this box in the future, even though the UI of Windows 7 Media Center seems to be a little less "cluttered". My biggest complaint about Vista is the format of the recordings you make. I cannot seem to easily manipulate the resulting recordings very well at all, and I have to rely on MCEBuddy to convert the recorded shows to a format (H264) I can then use on other systems and OSes. ( I know, I know...DRM can suck my salty balls)

From a usability standpoint though, Windows 7 seems superior to Vista in the installation process, as well as the Desktop UI. I am surprised that they don't just convert the installed Vista base to Windows 7 for the simplicity of support. (well maybe not "surprised". it "is" MS, afterall)

sp2 on auto updates (2, Informative)

GooDieZ (802156) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109177)

i just booted vista on my dual boot laptop, and instantly i got prompted to install sp2 from auto-update...

dont care about vista, or any windows, i just never bothered to remove it completley... sigh... damn vendors with preinstalled win$shit

Re:sp2 on auto updates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28109383)

Why did you boot it?
Why haven't you cleared the partition for extra space in your os of choice?
Why is it still in your bootloader?

Earlier Version Not So Good (1)

anomalous cohort (704239) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109237)

I don't use Vista myself but I know someone who does. He had to back out SP2 because it reduced Powerpoint to a crawl. It looked to me like there was excessive HD activity.

FYI, Windows Server 2008 SP2 too (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109291)

Apparently Server 2008 shipped with its SP1 built-in. 2008 SP2 auto-downloaded yesterday.

Hyper-V limited to one guest with SP1? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28109459)

Right now on Windows Server 2008 Standard I've got 3 VMs running on Hyper-V no problem. According to the release documentation I'm now going to be limited to one guest? I can't even find pricing for additional seats. Way to go Microsoft.

It Just Works (5, Interesting)

bigdady92 (635263) | more than 4 years ago | (#28109523)

<b>TLDR: I hated Vista. Loved XP. Use Linux. Installed 64bit Vista. Vista Crashed and burned. Reinstalled with SP2. It just Works.</b>

I've been a longtime XP user. I use Ubuntu and RHEL at work. I use linux and unix. I hated Vista with a passion, thought it was a PIA and had so much config problems. I then bought a new PC (quad core 6GB ram, blah blah) so I figured I'd put Vista on it. First time worked ok. I updated my bios, it blew away my Raid 1. Got irritated and stopped screwing with it. Then SP2 came along in the last few weeks and I reinstalled my OS and installed SP2 over it.

It just works. Works perfectly. So simple to install Vista and simple to install the SP2. 2 reboots and I had everything working. Fixed the RAID issue, fixed the bluetooth issue, fixed some other quirks that drove me batshiz crazy.

I gotta say that I used to hate vista with the passion of a 1000 firey suns. Now I'm like "Well it's not too bad, what's the problem with it again?"
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...