Beta
×

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 SP1 Hands-On Details

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the preview-of-the-preview dept.

409

babyshiori writes "Users of Microsoft Windows Vista can rejoice in the fact that Microsoft just released a preview of the Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Release Candidate! The build is the lead-up to the actual service pack, which will be made available to even more testers at a later date. 'In our early tests with the beta, we saw some small improvements in boot time on an HP Compaq 8710p Core 2 Duo notebook. Before SP1, the laptop took 1 minute, 51 seconds to boot. After the update, that figure dropped by almost 20 seconds. Microsoft is also touting improvements in "the speed of copying and extracting files," so we tested a few of those scenarios. We noted a slight increase in the time required to copy 562 JPEG images totaling 1.9GB from an SD Card to the hard drive of the aforementioned HP Compaq notebook.'"

cancel ×

409 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21399621)

Exciting. Really.

Main changes coming with SP1 (5, Informative)

phillips321 (955784) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399625)

Ask Slashdot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21399749)

I posted this question to Ask Slashdot, hoping for a good selection of answers and viewpoints, however the story has not appeared on the Slashdot front page yet, and I am short on time, so I will ask here now.

I am staying with German relatives, and one of them has a female friend that I would very much like to have sex with. Being German, I think the shortest route to a guaranteed fucking is via her sense of humour. So, in the toilet this morning I shitted and made an appalling, grotesque odour, and thought of warning the other people in the house about the smell I had made by joking 'ich habe Zyklon B in der toilet gemacht'. Would this be a wise thing to say, or would the humour be taken as being insensitive?

Re:Ask Slashdot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21399995)

Well it depends. Is she a history buff?

Re:Ask Slashdot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400265)

I don't know if she's a history buff, but I can tell you she'll be buffing my pylon some time tomorrow night.

Yes, but... (4, Funny)

kwabbles (259554) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399639)

will it allow me to do things like run applications and operate a computer now? :)

Service packs: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21399881)

Doing the work to install
the fixes to the OS in the
same way as they always have because the one
thing they've never done
over the decades,
and we know it, is to thoroughly check
over an initial release
again and again to make sure that it's good enough
and therefore we are all
expecting that there will be many
different service packs to fix the
results.

Re:Service packs: (2, Funny)

Tiny Fist (1153051) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400043)

Dude, your poem doesn't even rhyme.

Re:Service packs: (1)

statikuz (523906) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400345)

No its one of those "poems" where you just write some prose and toss in line breaks .

Re:Service packs: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400325)

Very clever. I doubt many people will get it, though.

40 second boot time an improvement? (1, Interesting)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399653)

With modern technology and many billions of dollars in development costs, you would think someone would figure out to save an image of a just booted system and only rebuild it when configuration changes. Granted, the restored image will need to reopen files, restore network connections and deal with changed removable devices. But that's where those billions of dollars come in...

Re:40 second boot time an improvement? (4, Funny)

kailoran (887304) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399735)

Maybe we could even have the ability to write the memory conents to disk before turning the computer off, so when turned on again, it would resume where we've left off. I'd call it "hibernation".

Re:40 second boot time an improvement? (0)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399947)

and that just leads to memory leaks from buggy software.

Re:40 second boot time an improvement? (3, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399743)

Yes, well, one would think so, but it turns out that the ability to extract revenue and spend billions isnt what drives progress or encourages development.

It turns out competition is.

So much for granting monopoly rights to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts'.

Re:40 second boot time an improvement? (3, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399913)

40 seconds? I wish. Where did you get that number from? The article talks about how the startup time has been cut down from 1:50 to 1:30. Also, I seem to recall Bill Gates talking a few years ago about how they were going to get the startup time to like 30 seconds or so. Now we're "impressed" when it only takes 3 times that...

Re:40 second boot time an improvement? (1)

vought (160908) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400061)

I'm astonished it takes that long. My experience with XP Pro on my Mac Pro (2 x four core 3.0GHz Xeon) is about 40 seconds. Mac OS 10.5 on the same system is about 32 seconds. And on my 2.4Ghz Mac Book Pro, booting 10.5 takes only 28 seconds, for some reason.

1:30? Are you kidding? What the hell is so wrong with Vista that it takes so long to boot? Don't they cache anything to disk?

Re:40 second boot time an improvement? (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400153)

XP can boot much faster than 40 seconds on modern hardware. I've seen it boot in less than 15 seconds on PC hardware that is semi-equivalent (modern CPU, > 1GB RAM, fast SATA HD) to your mac pro. I've also seen it take over a minute. Boot times are heavily dependent on the drivers that load. Some drivers have a habit of sitting around and doing nothing while initializing, which holds up the entire boot process.

And 1:30 for Vista? Well that would be nice. I've only run Vista on my work PC which is an Athlon64 3000. It takes FIVE MINUTES to boot.

Re:40 second boot time an improvement? (2, Interesting)

pdusen (1146399) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400381)

They must be using goofy hardware. Vista never takes more than 45 seconds for me to boot, unless you count the 15 seconds in which I have Grub sitting up beforehand.

Re:40 second boot time an improvement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400405)

1:30? Are you kidding? What the hell is so wrong with Vista that it takes so long to boot?
Nothing, and it doesn't. It takes about 45 seconds on my PC, which compares very favourably with over 1 minute for Ubuntu.

But who really cares about boot times nowadays? It takes about 5 seconds for either OS to wake from sleep.

Re:40 second boot time an improvement? (1)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400177)

A lot of that is the BIOS though, you have to admit. EFI should fix that, but it'll be a while before boards start to support it. My understanding is that support is (Finally) included in SP1, on x86-64 architectures.

Re:40 second boot time an improvement? (1)

r3m0t (626466) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400241)

They redefined "shut down" as "go to sleep", and therefore redefined "startup" as "wake from sleep", and therefore managed to get it into something approaching 30 seconds.

SP or New OS? (4, Interesting)

nbannerman (974715) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399693)

From TFA;

According to Microsoft, typical load times for the final version should range from 30 to 60 minutes. The installation requires 7GB of free hard-drive space (some of which will be reclaimed after the installation isn complete), though the finalized install file itsel is expected to be a 50MB download via Windows Update.

Is this a service pack, or a fresh install replacing most of the core files? Really, should a service pack take that long to install, and require that much space? To put it into context, after a year of use, this XP machine's Window's directory totals somewhere in the region of 3gb.

Looking at my current Vista laptop, I wouldn't be able to install the SP without removing some of my music files first...

Is this a joke?

Re:SP or New OS? (2, Informative)

ocirs (1180669) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399827)

"finalized install file itself is expected to be a 50MB download via Windows Update." Microsoft's compression algorithm will be damn impressive if it can compress 7GBs of data in a 50mb download. I think most of the space is used to make copies of critical system files and such, which will probably be deleted when the installation process is over. I would imagine that Microsoft will decrease the space requirement when they release the final version, probably making copies of many unnecessary files since its just a release candidate.

Re:SP or New OS? (4, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399943)

It is not a joke. It is a preview. Not even a beta. Whining on the HDD requirements at that stage seems a bit stupid, really.

Re:SP or New OS? (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400173)

I dont know how you got modded insightful, its pretty clear that the parent was not concerned with the fact that it is so large, but that the size infers a lot about the magnitude of changes.

I think he is more questioning how much of these changes are rollbacks to the "old way" of doing things rather than "the way would thought would be good enough". If not, well that would be my question =).

Re:SP or New OS? (-1, Troll)

Erris (531066) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400271)

It is not a joke. It is a preview. Not even a beta. Whining on the HDD requirements at that stage seems a bit stupid, really.

I could say as much about Vista. Your point?

Re:SP or New OS? (0, Troll)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400433)

You could, but you didn't. I'm confused, Twitter, why wouldn't you take a chance to rip into "M$"?

Hrm, lack of substance in a twitter comment, shouldn't really be surprised.

Re:SP or New OS? (2, Interesting)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400023)

I'm surprised they're calling 50MiB a service pack. Weren't XPSP 1 and 2 much larger than that? Or is it more of a 'Service Pack' which changes a few graphical tweaks, and happens to be released at the same time as another 300MiB worth of critical updates? All that said I've just upgraded to OS X 10.5.1, which was (as far as I can tell) a few fiddling little bug patches somehow bloated to over 100MiB. Perhaps the amount of space taken is inversely proportional to the actual improvements made to the OS.

All OS-slating aside, the 7GiB is probably only used for the RC because it won't have its backup sequence optimised. Service Packs back up everything they're changing before writing, so they can recover the system if broken mid-flow. 7GiB is probably the entirety of every folder which may be changed, as opposed to the release which will have a much more narrowed down set of things to copy. XPSP2 needed far more space available than it actually took up, and also took 30 to 60 minutes on most machines. A lot of that was taken up with making a backup and verifying the installation - so if you don't mind running the risk of hosing your system (Insert joke about Windows being pre-hosed) then I'm sure it could be made a lot slimmer and faster.

Re:SP or New OS? (-1, Troll)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400057)

I'm running ubuntu-desktop and a fair share of applications with Qt dependancies:

BlueParrot:~$ df -h
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1             9.2G  4.6G  4.2G  53% /
varrun                316M  108K  316M   1% /var/run
varlock               316M     0  316M   0% /var/lock
udev                  316M   84K  316M   1% /dev
devshm                316M     0  316M   0% /dev/shm
lrm                   316M   34M  282M  11% /lib/modules/2.6.22-14-generic/volatile
/dev/sda5              15G  4.9G  8.9G  36% /home

If you don't count the music files in my /home directory, Vista's minimum requirement exceeds my total usage, even with a plethora of applications ( Inkscape, Amarok, LyX, ... ). Funny thing is, I have wine installed, so I actually have a fair share of the windows API included in this install. It seriously makes me wonder what Vista uses all its space for.

Re:SP or New OS? (-1, Troll)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400117)

Ok, I just realised 7GB is the amount free you need to install the service pack, the minimum requirements for the actual Vista install (without SP1) exceeds my entire HD usage, and that includes several gigabytes of music... I mean, I realised it was bad, but what the fuck?

Times (3, Insightful)

SnoopJeDi (859765) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399723)

Don't trust the times this article points out too solidly, they certainly don't sound like they were derived using proper statistics. More likely, they probably just booted it up once before installing the SP, timed it, and then booted it up after, and timed it.

Could be wrong, but whatever, let's party, SP1 is near!

Re:Times (5, Insightful)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399991)

Could be wrong, but whatever, let's party, SP1 is near!

Not to sound too much like a troll or anything, but until it is downloadable, I for one will not consider it "near".

SP1 was scheduled for release this past summer (from MS announcements shortly after Vista Consumer release).

SP1 was then delayed to "by the end of the year" (from comments made a month ago)

SP1 (from MS's latest comments which you can find here: http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/071115vistaskip/ [itworld.com] ) is now scheduled for release in Q1 2008.

I guess "near" is a subjective thing... but as of right now, it seems they really have no real release strategy... until it is done, I am not betting on "near" or even "sometime soon"

What really interests me is that they are quite well aware of the need to address these issues quickly if they want to see a greater adoption of Vista by businesses and/or home users considering upgrading - yet the release date, for a Service Pack that only addresses some of the issues, keeps slipping.

Yes, I agree it is a good thing that they don't release the SP till it's ready - but it kinda scares me that they need to put in so much time to fix the issues that they are addressing - and scarier still, that in trying to do so, their release date keeps slipping... it kind of makes me think that when they looked at the issues and underlying code, they collectively said "Wow, this is really a mess... we need a LOT more time than we thought if we are gonna fix this" (well, I think doubling the release time is a LOT more time... though considering their recent OS release schedule, they may disagree).

It makes me seriously wonder how severely wrong some of their programming decisions (or "push it out the door, ready-or-not" decision) with Vista really were - and how adequately a Service Pack can really address those issues. (is this gonna be just another band-aid?)

Re:Times (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400115)

Between Mythbusters and computer rags, the number of people getting paid to "test" things without even using the basic techniques learned in high school science is amazing. Is it so hard to do a few trials, and report results with the appropriate number of significant figures?

I also love how they tested file copying speed...from a SD card, the fastest of which are still about 1/4 of the speed of your average hard drive.

Typical OS timeline (5, Insightful)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399725)

This is really nothing new, Windows 9x, 2k, and XP were all turds when they were first released. Driver maturity, application refinements, hardware improvements, and service packs all make the experience more tolerable.

But I'm sick of the status quo and expected a much better OS when Vista was first released. If it took 9 months of driver development and OS improvements - then it shouldn't have been released 9 months early.

Re:Typical OS timeline (1)

Scruffy Dan (1122291) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400233)

Hardware/software makers only seriously work towards eliminating all the issues with a new OS after it has been released.

Re:Typical OS timeline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400315)

I don't know, but probably the expectation was "hey, maybe this time they learnt with past mistakes".

As for the rest, yep, I agree, they should have waited till they had a marketable product (and seeing how they were forced in so many ways to give "downgrades" to XP - from XP licenses to patchs on Vista only games to run in XP - it clearly shows they hadn't).

Epic Disaster (4, Insightful)

aldheorte (162967) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399733)

Vista is a not an epic disaster because of:

1. Performance.
2. Security.
3. Anything that early technical adopters care about.

It it is an epic disaster because of:

1. Lack of backward compatibility (software and hardware).
2. Non-technical people being aware of (1).

Therefore, testing whether files copy 2% faster is like exhaustively examining a bolt in a tanker that has run aground and split in half.

Re:Epic Disaster (2, Funny)

kwabbles (259554) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399759)

Hey now. If we can get enough people focusing on just the bolt, and get them all excited about it - well, they'll just forget about the rest of the tanker.

Re:Epic Disaster (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399839)

And for those reasons you cannot blame Microsoft for being an epic failure. It's the 3rd party vendors.

Re:Epic Disaster (1)

Verte (1053342) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400045)

Why not? They broke a perfectly good [well.. working] API.

Re:Epic Disaster (4, Insightful)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400225)

They actually tried to fix a perfectly broken API, full of gaping security holes left over from the innocent, pre-internet days of the early 90s. This work started with XP SP2, which you may recall also broke a lot of software.

But will it increase sales of Vista? (5, Interesting)

usul294 (1163169) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399739)

Thanks to all of the issues with Vista, its got a bad reputation. It requires a modern computer, yet most people are happy with what they have, and don't have any reason to migrate to Vista. I am actually extremely satisfied with Vista, but I got Vista Premium from my school, so I didn't pay directly for it. I also have a fairly beefed up computer (3 GB RAM). The problem isn't bugs or boot times, its running times, Vista is just about as fast on 3 GB RAM as when I has 1 GB RAM and was using XP. Now that I've gotten used to it, I like the way Vista does things. But again, people like me don't decide Vista's success, its people who went out and got a $600 computer 5 years ago, and have only known XP. What percentage of people who use a computer today ever used Windows 3.1? Windows 95 through XP are very similar in terms of operation. Vista is a fairly big shift, and getting millions of people who only understand one set of GUIs to change GUIs is an almost impossible task.

Re:But will it increase sales of Vista? (1)

ACS Solver (1068112) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400361)

The GUI shift could well be bigger (maybe it will with Win7). Anyone who's worked with Win95 knows to launch applications through the start menu and to move folders through drag&drop in explorer windows. I've only used Vista briefly but much of the basic GUI your average user is familiar with is still in place.

You can't compare the XP-Vista change to the 3.1-95 change. 3.1 didn't have a start menu and didn't have a close button in the upper-right corner of every app. People had to, quite literally, relearn how to start and close applications. So the basics haven't changed with Vista.

Re:But will it increase sales of Vista? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400503)

Windows 3.1? I would even go with windows 3.0, and I have to say: me, my father, my mother, my brothers, my aunt (my fathers sister), my cousins (that I'm certain of in my family).

Present day:
Me - dual boot Linux/XP on desktop, Mac OS 10.4 on laptop with XP on a VM (work related... couldn't get wine or darwine to start the apps I need).
My father - XP on his laptop; Win2k at the company workstations, linux at the backend server.
My brothers - they work with my father, so ditto.
My mother - Stoped at Win95... Solitaire is as far as she goes with computers.
My aunt and cousins - XP

And I've bought a new computer a couple of months ago and kept XP. My father renewed the pc's in the company (mostly the laptops) and explicitly asked for XP.

And I have a colleague with one of the latest HP laptops, Vista ready, and I see how she struggles with it. Heck, even I lose my patient when I have to ask her to get me something out of her computer... Vista is awful in terms of performance, at least in her computer.... And I work with a VM with XP on my macbook and have several Toad sessions, java apps and several other stuff running at the same time (not to mention stuff running in Mac OS) and still have better performance then she has on her HP with Vista.

.275 is old news. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21399747)

It's been available since late September.
The new version is .658.

How I crashed pre-SP1 RC Vista (1, Offtopic)

blueworm (425290) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399755)

The system in this anecdote was a high-end, AMD-based notebook. I can't remember the exact spec's (is that a valid contraction? "specs" just seems so dirty).

I opened 27 Internet Explorer windows with msn.com inside, resized them all randomly, and then jammed away at the keyboard -- rapidly mashing the keys responsible for Flip3D! In short order, Windows Explorer crashed and the snazzy new error reporting system appeared.

Re:How I crashed pre-SP1 RC Vista (1)

xeoron (639412) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399835)

Love your mode of testing. But anyways...have they fixed the audio influences network load bug yet? Not that I use DRM music, but curious to see if they saw that as something that should to be fixed.

Re:How I crashed pre-SP1 RC Vista (3, Informative)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400573)

DRM had nothing to do with it. In order to make sure that non-multimedia I/O and processing didn't overwhelm the I/O and processing needed for content (audio and video), processes and I/O are prioritized. Multimedia runs at the highest priority. From what I remember, Microsoft said that it could only affect gigabit network connections that are running at full speed (basically never on a desktop PC). I think they said they're going to tweak the behavior so it can decide better whether non-multimedia related processes and I/O should be limited. Additionally, there was a bug in the method used to decide how much bandwidth should be allocated to a network connection. The total bandwidth allocated for network connections was equally split across all network adapters even if you had say a gigabit adapter connected and an wireless adapter that wasn't. This caused the issue to show up more often than intended because oftentimes the gigabit connection was getting cut in half without a real reason.

All that said, I think the idea of prioritizing multimedia is fine but there should be a method to turn it off (perhaps a registry setting).

Re:How I crashed pre-SP1 RC Vista (1)

Scruffy Dan (1122291) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400293)

I counter you anecdote with one of my own

I did the same thing with a low end HP laptop at best buy. It wouldn't crash, and even after having 30+ windows open everything was pretty smooth.

Too late (5, Interesting)

dbolger (161340) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399773)

I bought a new computer shortly after Vista was released. My old PC had been getting on in years, and when it died I picked up my current laptop to replace it. I was a bit uncertain about using Vista since I had heard so many bad reviews about it, but it came pre-installed so I figured I would give it a go. After a few months of using it, I realised I was right to be worried. At least on my laptop, it was slow as hell, and buggy. It would freeze for no reason, and crash out of programs that XP had run without a hitch. Several of my friends had similar experiences. I considered going back to the store and requesting a tech have a look at it, but having worked in a similar place myself, I figured they wouldn't be able to do anything that I hadn't tried myself (and at the very best, they would send it away to be "looked at" and I would be sans laptop for a few weeks). So instead, I uninstalled the OS, and reinstalled XP SP2. My machine is now flying along and hasn't crashed since.

The desktop that died on me had been running Windows 2000 for over five years, after which I upgraded to XP when I friend offered to give me an install CD he no longer needed. I ran 2k for that long because it met my needs, and was more stable and powerful than the versions of Windows I had used previously (3.11/95/98/ME). The only reason I switched was out of curiosity, and with SP2, XP became the best Windows I had ever used.

I wasn't curious about Vista, but because of circumstances, I ended up trying it anyway. It was an absolutely terrible experience, and I am so glad to be back to my nice, stable XP. So, there's a lesson for Microsoft to learn. They had an opportunity to get a user onboard with their latest OS, but they blew it so badly, that I am now likely to keep on using XP for the next five years, and if I need to switch operating systems then, I am more likely to go with Linux, or buy a Mac.

Re:Too late (1)

MagicAlex84 (991508) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399843)

I dunno, I recently bought a Dell with Vista on it, and so far my experiences with it have been mostly positive. Once I shut off UAC I didn't have to grant it permission for everything, and now it's pretty much just XP with a new interface.

Re:Too late (1)

gordgekko (574109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400109)

Same here. I had to replace my desktop a few weeks ago and it came with Home Premium. I initially intended to wipe the drive and install XP Pro but gave Vista a chance. I don't know if I prefer it to XP Pro but as an OS Vista is pretty solid. It flawlessly ran every single one of the apps that I rely on and has been stable (so far).

Just my experience...

Re:Too late (1)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399865)

too late is right. They already have your money that was spent on that oem copy of vista. i bet they would rather you buy it and not use it than use it without buying it.

just wondering... (5, Funny)

WwWonka (545303) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399801)

Before SP1, the laptop took 1 minute, 51 seconds to boot. After the update, that figure dropped by almost 20 seconds.

...does it also now display the XP logo at startup?

still way behind xp (1, Offtopic)

Jeff1946 (944062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399805)

I got a new Dell 630 laptop. 1.8 GHz 7100 Core 2 Duo, which same as reference system. XP is ready to go in 40 secs from a cold start. My disk drive is 5400 rpm. I still remember the good experience of going from Win 98 to XP. From what I've read XP is happy with 512M memory whereas Vista needs at least 1G minimum. Doesn't anyone at Microsoft have enough pride in their software to do thing right? Latest version of Excel has math error. What more can I say.

Apple must be seriously considering porting Leopard to PCs, if you were buying a new PC which would you prefer Vista ready or Leopard ready?

Re:still way behind xp (1)

sykopomp (1133507) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399895)

XP runs pretty acceptably on 256mb systems (although most apps don't). 385mb and a 900MHz processor is, in my experience, an acceptable computer for running XP + word processor/web browser.

Re:still way behind xp (2, Informative)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400251)

I have a 256MB XP SP2 system, basically stock, in my office. Your definition of "acceptable" and mine are very different. Simply having Firefox and Word open, with a couple windows each, and swapping between the two causes pageouts and enormous delays.

XP is acceptable for basic use with 512MB. Not 256MB, IMHO.

Now Vista, on the other hand, doesn't even seem truly happy in 1GB. I have 1GB and 2GB Vista systems that I use, both with reasonable or better CPU power. The 1GB system is slow and prone to pauses. The 2GB system runs just fine; in 2GB I'm perfectly happy working in Vista, once it finishes its initial indexing operation. The security improvements are nice, and the interface is prettier and more effective than XP's godawful nightmare by a significant margin, but I really don't see enough improvement to justify 4x higher memory requirements. Of course, when 2GB of RAM costs under $150, I guess it doesn't matter that much.

Re:still way behind xp (2, Informative)

sykopomp (1133507) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400397)

I meant to say that XP can actually run by itself, with small apps, on 256mb of RAM. Having either Firefox OR Word running on a 256mb system is pretty awful, seeing as they're both memory-hogging monsters. Having both? Pretty silly. On the other hand, with ~380mb of RAM, it ends up working pretty well. I manage an office full of low-mem systems, and once we got barely past 256mb, stuff started working pretty decently, overall.

Re:still way behind xp (1)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399945)

Apple must be seriously considering porting Leopard to PCs, if you were buying a new PC which would you prefer Vista ready or Leopard ready?
you got apple all wrong.

If you were buying a new computer would you prefer vista ready PC or leopard ready Mac?

This is the question Apple wants people to ask themselves.

In other news... (3, Funny)

Enleth (947766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399841)

...the new ToiToi portable toilets fature violas at the bottom of the tank, supposedly to cheer up anyone who happens to fall inside.

The question is, does this make any difference?

Just Installed.. (2, Interesting)

ynososiduts (1064782) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399871)

I installed Vista just to test it out to see what was so bad. The first thing that struck me was that the boot times are so long, and my HDD activity LED is blinking constantly. I have a high end PC too*. What really blows my mind is how long it took to develop this POS. A 20 second improvement wouldn't be much of an improvement. With my specs and good programming it should boot IN 20 seconds.

* Core 2 Duo E6750 at 3.2 Ghz, 2 320 GB Segate Baracuda SATA II HDDs, 2 GB of Crucial DDR2 800 at 1xxx Mhz (forgot exacts), P35 Gigabyte DS3, and a Nvidia 8800 GTS.

Re:Just Installed.. (4, Informative)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400125)

Disable Indexing.. It drove me nuts when I installed it on a "test system" at the office. Between the indexer, and the defragger trying to access the disk when it thinks you don't need it, it seemed to drop the overall speed significantly

Spell check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21399897)

PLEASE. It matters on words like "isn" - is that an IS or an ISN'T?

I hope this isn't foreshadowing.

File Copy slowdown in Vista (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21399915)

My experience is that copying large files (hundreds of MB or more each) across a network is very slow, copying several hundred JPEG files which are relatively quite small is not a good test. It has been speculated that it is the "baked in" DRM of Vista scanning these files that increases the time. If true, I doubt the DRM would scan JPEG files, as these files are pretty small.

Re:File Copy slowdown in Vista (1)

nwoolls (520606) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400001)

Slow network file copying has nothing to do with DRM and is already fixed in a public hotfix. People who actually use the OS (and therefor have the ability to give firsthand impressions of the OS and not just regurgitate the popular negative opinion) would know this.

Windows XP SP3 please (5, Insightful)

chowells (166602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399919)

Personally I'd much rather they get around to releasing XP SP3.

Vista isn't on my personal radar, nor of my employers. But installing a fresh XP and having to install 80 odd updates is a PITA.

Re:Windows XP SP3 please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400171)

Haven't you learned by now that when MS releases a new OS version the support for the old version degrades to mostly lip-service ?

Re:Windows XP SP3 please (0, Troll)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400261)

Oh shut up. Name another software vendor still supporting and releasing updates for a 6-year-old operating system.

Re:Windows XP SP3 please (2, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400367)

It wouldn't surprise me if IBM still does for their mainframe stuff. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if they still offer support for old System/360s and older AS/400s.

Re:Windows XP SP3 please (5, Informative)

sgbett (739519) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400385)

now would you beleive it!

6 years ago...

http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-01-05-001-04-NW-LF-KN [linuxtoday.com]

Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:01:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds torvalds@transmeta.com
To: Kernel Mailing List linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: And oh, btw..

In a move unanimously hailed by the trade press and industry analysts as
being a sure sign of incipient braindamage, Linus Torvalds (also known as
the "father of Linux" or, more commonly, as "mush-for-brains") decided
that enough is enough, and that things don't get better from having the
same people test it over and over again. In short, 2.4.0 is out there.

today ...

http://kernel.org/ [kernel.org]

The latest 2.4 version of the Linux kernel is: 2.4.35.4 2007-11-17 17:44 UTC F V C Changelog

Re:Windows XP SP3 please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400413)

Debian?

Re:Windows XP SP3 please (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400213)

At last count, last time I installed XPSP2 from scratch, a few weeks ago, it took something like 105 updates to bring it up to current. THank god for WSUS, thats alot of bandwith. Way back in the windows 2000 times, they would release "rollup" patches, that would perform the work of 30 or so patches in one. Why have they not had them for XP?

Re:Windows XP SP3 please (1)

sabrex15 (746201) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400311)

I would imagine its because Windows 2000 didn't have Automatic Updates.

Re:Windows XP SP3 please (1)

Aarondeep (90981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400221)

Maybe your organization should look into slipstreaming and creating your own XP install with recent updates. RyansVM pack anyone?

It will be released... (1)

Jon.Laslow (809215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400465)

...right around the same time as Vista SP1, if not sooner. XP SP3 is also in Release Candidate Status, and (based on my testing, anyways), is *almost* totally ready for release. A few minor things to take care of, but it's looking really good.

Re:Windows XP SP3 please (1)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400491)

Vista isn't on my personal radar, nor of my employers. But installing a fresh XP and having to install 80 odd updates is a PITA.

Why not install Linux on a desktop, show them that it is easier to pick up on Linux as the buttons are in the right place? Or switch to Macs. Or in at least provision for it. That is only buy equipment known to run Linux so if Microsoft sticks to sliding XP prematurely into the unsupported bucket you have options.

Re:Windows XP SP3 please (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400495)

It is indeed a PITA, but one that can be minimized if you're the kind of fella that installs XP all the time. I keep a RW disc handy with a customized XP build (using NLite). Every once in a while I take a few minutes to integrate the latest hotfixes, so I end up with an always-current disc ready to install.

It's a huge time saver when you consider the 100+ installs I do in a year (no, not on the same machine!)

90 seconds considered good? (3, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21399955)

Macbooks can boot into Leopard in about 30 seconds, and we can start our 7 year old Linux boxes at work in less than a minute....how does Microsoft get away with this kind of stuff?

Re:90 seconds considered good? (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400051)

When I still ran Winblowz on my laptop, I relied on hibernating it when I was finished with it for awhile, but now that I've switched to Ubuntu, I don't even bother standby or hiberation, as the darn thing boots so fast, about 1/2 the time Windows on the laptop took to come out of hibernation... Essentially about 45 seconds from a power-on.. course I've tweaked the startup a bit, shut off unneeded startup services, etc... Long live Ubuntu!!!

Re:90 seconds considered good? (0, Troll)

imbaczek (690596) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400113)

Unfortunately Ubuntu guys screwed up bigtime in a much more severe way. See the laptop hard drive bug [linux-hero.com] .

Re:90 seconds considered good? (2, Insightful)

dal20402 (895630) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400159)

... and my Macbook Pro will come out of standby in about 1 second (plus however long the wireless handshake takes). Plus, it's reliable enough that if I put it into standby I *know* it will come out. I basically never reboot or hibernate. No need to futz around and remove functionality just so I can open my laptop and be working more quickly.

Why haven't either Microsoft or the makers of any Linux distro been able to get standby right? Mac notebooks have been like this since OS X came out in 2001.

Re:90 seconds considered good? (1)

idiotwithastick (1036612) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400245)

My Vista laptop comes out of standby in a couple of seconds (less than 5). I highly doubt your computer boots in less than that time, hell, it probably doesn't even POST in that time.

You are about to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21399977)

You are about to install SP1 for Vista

  This service pack will give you minor performance and security improvements. Of course all the major annoyances you have learned to love by now will remain untouched.

[Cancel] [Allow]?

What I really want to see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400017)

Is a head-to-head comparison between a pre-SP1 Vista install, a Vista SP1 install, and an XP SP2 install on the same hardware, especially if the software to compare is graphics and disk intensive. Vista versus Vista SP1 is fairly useless, because the majority of people running Windows today don't have Vista. SP1 better? Better than really bad might still be worse than XP. And if MS can't manage to roughly equal XP SP2 in terms of performance after waiting a whole Service Pack to address obvious problems, then what's the point to ever upgrading?

Re:What I really want to see... (1)

oldenuf2knowbetter (124106) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400455)

I'd like to see that comparison myself. In fact, I'd like to see a series of common software products and benchmarks run in that comparison - not just those that have "tweaked" to take advantage of some zippy new feature in the latest graphics card supported in Vista but not XP.

Fact is, I'd like to see similar comparisons run between a stock 32-bit single processor system (maybe at 3GHz) and a 32-bit dual-core system (maybe at 2.4GHz) - each running the same speed memory and disks. And definitely not running two copies of the benchmark software and adding the results in an attempt to convince me that running two copies of Photoshop simultaneously will give me faster editing of one a single image.

My experience with multiprocessor systems suggests that with a 2-CPU system 1+1 does not equal 2 CPUs when computing performance except for software very specifically written for such an environment. Or for users who want to run a compute-intensive video editor while simultaneously compiling software. And even then not if some other resource is the limiting factor.

I suspect that the huge majority of users will usually see better performance from a single 3GHz CPU than from two 2.4GHz CPUs. And they won't see anything at all from adding more processors.

wow... they are getting desperate... (0, Troll)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400031)

fancy previewing the service pack... are they really that worried about people drifting off to greener pastures or sticking with XP

But.. (1)

ConcreteJungle (1177207) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400063)

..does it play Linux?

rejoice, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400169)

Users of Microsoft Windows Vista can rejoice in the fact that Microsoft just released a preview of the Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Release Candidate!

Well whoop-de-fricken-doo.

Polishing a turd leaves you still with a turd (1)

Blahbooboo3 (874492) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400181)

No matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd..

Not true... (5, Funny)

denzacar (181829) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400319)

Being comprised of mostly carbon atoms, if you polish the turd long enough at the right pressure and temperature - it will turn into a diamond.

Superman could do that.
Only I don't think anyone would like shaking hands with him later.

what is the case for running Vista? I forget (3, Insightful)

victorvodka (597971) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400197)

I know it's new and it's got some user interface changes, but for the stuff I do with a computer, is there a reason I should be running Vista, or that I shouldn't uninstall Vista from my next computer and upgrade to the light, fast, relatively DRM-free OS known as Windows XP? So far no one has presented a compelling case for using a OS that runs slower and requires twice the memory of XP. It could be I'm missing something really really super important here. Is it that we're just supposed to run whatever is newest? Because by that logic we should vote for whatever presidential candidate is youngest.

Re:what is the case for running Vista? I forget (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400313)

Because XP 64 is even worse than Vista 64, and we're all going to be moving to 64 but OS's in the next few years. With any luck Vista will be mature enough by that point.

Re:what is the case for running Vista? I forget (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400321)

64 bit allows you to go over the 4GB limit that 32 bit OS's have. (Which is normally 3GB.)

Some people need more memory. Some don't.

I want to know if Vista is the slowly corroding mess that XP is. Which forces you to reinstall XP every year to keep things snappy. And in some cases, functional.

Re:what is the case for running Vista? I forget (1)

Falstius (963333) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400515)

No, it doesn't slowly corrode like XP. Vista instead begins as sluggish corroded mess ... and stays that way.

Some content please (2, Insightful)

rueger (210566) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400355)

Woe be those who criticize Slashdot editorial practice, but was that about the most pathetic "review" that you've ever seen? For those who haven't read TFA, all of the comments here about boot times are because that the only substantive thing mentioned in the article. Really:

Microsoft says, the service pack beta improves stability, performance, and reliability when reactivating a machine from Hibernate or Suspend mode; enhances device-driver support; increases security; and adds support for new standards such as Extended File Allocation Table (intended to enhance flash storage on notebooks, not desktops). ...

... we saw some small improvements in boot time on an HP Compaq 8710p Core 2 Duo notebook. Before SP1, the laptop took 1 minute, 51 seconds to boot. After the update, that figure dropped by almost 20 seconds.

... We noted a slight increase in the time required to copy 562 JPEG images totalling 1.9GB from an SD Card to the hard drive of the aforementioned HP Compaq notebook.

In another test, we used Nero 7 Ultra on an Acer Aspire 5630 Core 2 Duo laptop to add files to a disk image. After we installed SP1, The notebook built the disk image about 7 percent faster.
Yes. That's it. Nothing more. I don't know who to complain about, the article submitter or the Slashdot ed that approved it.

Re:Some content please (1)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400543)

Woe be those who criticize Slashdot editorial practice, but was that about the most pathetic "review" that you've ever seen? For those who haven't read TFA, all of the comments here about boot times are because that the only substantive thing mentioned in the article.
I don't know what planet you're from, but there's a huge difference between 20 pages long Anandtech reviews and a news post on a medium-sized PC magazine. I say news post - not "review" as you put it - because it is located in /news/column/. Its purpose is only to bring the news without going in-depth on the topic.

You say that only a few comments were of any substance, which is true. But what do you expect from a news item? And was it not important news to current and future Vista owners? I use it and I certainly found this news item important.

Yes. That's it. Nothing more. I don't know who to complain about, the article submitter or the Slashdot ed that approved it.
Obviously, this news is important to a lot of people. There are millions of Vista users out there and I'm sure a large portion of us are fine with just raw numbers from a short news post rather than a 20-page article. Remember, there's a shitload of news on Slashdot that you don't give a fudge about, but what made you think no one else finds it interesting?

Great News (1)

MrCopilot (871878) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400383)

But ftp.microsoft.com isn't in my apt.sources list.

Thank the GNODs.

Boot time (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400423)

Are you serious? It takes a notebook over a minute and a half to boot Vista? And to think I was getting annoyed with my 40 seconds from power on to KDE desktop (which includes me typing my login). I'd actually have to get to class early just to give it enough time to be ready take some stupid notes.

Blocked program at start-up (3, Informative)

Shemmie (909181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400461)

I have to say one of the most broken features (from a design POV) is the blocking of start-up programs. Great, so users are secured against programs that might start up without their permission or knowledge. Great, so I can right-click on the tray, scroll to the blocked program, and left-click to start it up.

However - where the Hell is the checkbox to remember my choice?.

Having to do this on every boot is crazy. It was funny that this issue was on the "Windows 7 Wishlist" - it should've been one of the first updates out the door after RTM, and at the latest, SP1.

In case anyone still has nightmares about this, there is a work-around apparently - http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=0&p=6509411 [slickdeals.net]

Why I hate vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400561)

I've seen a lot of complaints about vista, but haven't yet seen anyone write about my favorite whine: The toolbars are locked down on the browser window. I assume they did it because they don't want competitors like google toolbar taking up valuable toolbar space. You can't add 3rd party tools to either of Microsoft's existing toolbars (as you could in previous browsers). Instead, you must add a completely new toolbar. Apparently Microsoft hasn't learned a thing from all of the lawsuits from previous similar acts.

More ranting:
    I can only imagine the microsoft design team contemplating the new toolbar layout-- "Let's remove the customization that we were so proud of 10 years ago - let's force the user to have a search window even if it's useless, and let's lock the refresh button somewhere near the middle of the screen. And the history buttons on the left. And all the other useful buttons must take a whole new toolbar row, but we can't share that with any third party tools. And finally, let's move the wavey flag from the upper right corner to somewhere on the left side, and turn it into a donut so it's hard for the user to tell that it's moving at all."

I'm sorry. I'll shut up now. Please mod me to 0.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>