SP1 Opinions

[CJM]

I've just installed SP1 (via MSDN) and I'm pleased to say it appears to do
the trick...or at least so far so go.

I've just copied a 200MB file from PC to server and it went like a rocket!
In addition, I'm noting a responsiveness in the odd application; for
example, I use Windows Mail to access USENET, and under SP1, I'm in and
starting browsing much quicker - pre-SP1 there would be a slight delay
before I could pick a NG.

Hardly a scientific study, but a few visible improvements and no bugs
spotted... can't be bad.

Anyone else got SP1 installed?

 

[On the Bridge!]

Yes there is an improvment indeed with SP1, but MS is trying to convince us
that VistaSP1 is as fast
as XPsp2... and that is a lie.

Vista with SP1 is "ok" if you have fast enough hardware.. the majority of
big problems have gone away

When I say "ok" I mean its ok.. but still not as great as I would expect
after so much work time and money from MS to make Vista.. I was expecting
something fantastic.

--
What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007..._people_are_really_saying_about_windows_vista

50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free

 

[CJM]

Yes there is an improvment indeed with SP1,

What kind of machine were you installing it on? What changes did you notice?

but MS is trying to convince us that VistaSP1 is as fast
as XPsp2... and that is a lie.

I haven't seen that myself - perhaps you could point out some sources?

Vista with SP1 is "ok" if you have fast enough hardware.. the majority of
big problems have gone away

Indeed, Vista is more demanding than XP, just as XP was more demanding than
98/2000. Such is life.

Personally, I have not had any major problems with Vista.

When I say "ok" I mean its ok.. but still not as great as I would expect
after so much work time and money from MS to make Vista.. I was expecting
something fantastic.

Well, for a start, if it's not your time and money spent developing it, what
does it matter?

It's good, but I'm not sure about 'fantastic'. But then again, I remember
when the original XP came out - it was good but not fantastic. I seem to
remember problems with stability (because of driver issues) and performance
problems. XP improved after SP1 and was probably considered 'mature' after
SP" - I imagine it will be the same with Vista.

 

[C.B.]

I've just installed SP1 (via MSDN) and I'm pleased to say it appears to do
the trick...or at least so far so go.

I've just copied a 200MB file from PC to server and it went like a rocket!
In addition, I'm noting a responsiveness in the odd application; for
example, I use Windows Mail to access USENET, and under SP1, I'm in and
starting browsing much quicker - pre-SP1 there would be a slight delay
before I could pick a NG.

Hardly a scientific study, but a few visible improvements and no bugs
spotted... can't be bad.

Anyone else got SP1 installed?

CJM,

I've been running SP1 on my Vista Ultimate for appx. two weeks. It has
caused no problems and my system is now very fast indeed.

C.B.

 

[On the Bridge!]

I haven't seen that myself - perhaps you could point out some sources?

http://www.winvistaclub.com/i8.html

What changes did you notice?

I have installed sp1 on about 10 machines.. the best way is to do a clean
install..
on all of them there was an increase in performance mainly the data access
and transfer of data from and to the disk... I would say that SP1 is about
10-15% faster overall than RTM

Indeed, Vista is more demanding than XP, just as XP was more demanding
than 98/2000. Such is life.

Vista is far more demanding than XP with no real important innovations and
improvments upon XP.
see the minimum configurations of XP and Vista


Xp:
233 megahertz (MHz) processor
64 megabytes (MB) of RAM
1.8 GB of available hard disk space during installation

Via http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sysreqs.mspx

Vista: 1 GHz >>> 400% MORE than XP!!
512 MB of system memory >>> 800% MORE than XP!!
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space >>> around 1000%
more than XP!!!

Via:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "On the Bridge!"

Vista is far more demanding than XP with no real important innovations and
improvments upon XP.

I'd argue with that, the disk queuing system alone is worth it, as is
the integrated search. UAC, while being a royal pain in the ass, may
finally force software authors to pay attention to minimal security
principles (applications in Program Files, data in the user profile,
documents in the documents directory).

Offloading the GUI overhead to the graphics card is brilliant. I've
personally been a big fan of transparency for some time now, although
depending on your workflow it may or may not be of value to you. I have
several applications configured to go semi-transparent when not active,
and find this to be very useful. "Glass" is of questionable value, and
I've currently got transparency disabled, but Aero is fantastic.

see the minimum configurations of XP and Vista

First, be sure to take a look at the types of machines that were readily
available and their price point when XP and Vista were each released.

Xp:
233 megahertz (MHz) processor
64 megabytes (MB) of RAM
1.8 GB of available hard disk space during installation

Via http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sysreqs.mspx

Vista: 1 GHz >>> 400% MORE than XP!!
512 MB of system memory >>> 800% MORE than XP!!
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space >>> around 1000%
more than XP!!!

Consider the state of computing today, vs when XP was released. Both
minimum requirements reflect very close to the nearest minimal
configuration you can possibly buy brand new at the time.

In other words, there is actually very little change in the relative
system requirements compared against the price to purchase said
components at release.

 

[CJM]

I have installed sp1 on about 10 machines.. the best way is to do a clean
install..
on all of them there was an increase in performance mainly the data access
and transfer of data from and to the disk... I would say that SP1 is
about 10-15% faster overall than RTM

I must say I haven't noticed an outright speed increase (apart from copying
files), but certain aspects appear more responsive.

Vista is far more demanding than XP with no real important innovations and
improvments upon XP.
see the minimum configurations of XP and Vista

The security improvements and the re-engineering of important parts of the
kernel were long overdue, yet these changes are what people are grumbling
about. You just can't please some people.

[actually I'm being hypocritical, because I would certainly have implemented
UAC better/differently]

Xp:
233 megahertz (MHz) processor
64 megabytes (MB) of RAM
1.8 GB of available hard disk space during installation

Via http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sysreqs.mspx

A modest spec from 2001.

Vista: 1 GHz >>> 400% MORE than XP!!
512 MB of system memory >>> 800% MORE than XP!!
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space >>> around 1000%
more than XP!!!

Via:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx

A modest spec from 2007.

What's the problem? You couldn't run XP on very old machines when it was
launched either. Well actually you could, but it would run like a dog -
almost unsable.

Thus if you have an old machine now, I wouldn't recommend upgrading to
Vista, but if you buy a new (vista-compatible) machine, I certainly would.

 

[Diamontina Cocktail]

Actually quite the opposite with 64 bit ultimate. A dramatic slow down in
every way and it is now doing strange errors it didn't ever do before, too.

 

[Diamontina Cocktail]

I have installed sp1 on about 10 machines.. the best way is to do a clean
install..
on all of them there was an increase in performance mainly the data access
and transfer of data from and to the disk... I would say that SP1 is
about 10-15% faster overall than RTM

Not on Ultimate 64 bit it isn't. A DRAMATIC slowdown from pre SP1.

 

[Diamontina Cocktail]

CJM,

I've been running SP1 on my Vista Ultimate for appx. two weeks. It has
caused no problems and my system is now very fast indeed.

Vista Ultimate 64 bit SP1 actually causes MANY slowdowns and if you check
out Google looking for those terms you will find that to be the case with
many people. I hope MS fix this "fix" soon.

 

[CJM]

Actually quite the opposite with 64 bit ultimate. A dramatic slow down in
every way and it is now doing strange errors it didn't ever do before,
too.

Don't be too hasty to generalize - I'm running Ulimate x64, and I have no
problems whatsoever.

 

[CJM]

I can only assume you are referring to the problem with erroneous 64-bit
device drivers that Microsoft have identified.

I'm afraid there is nothing that Microsoft can do about that - they cannot
fix the 'fix' - the best they can do is give the hardware OEMs a gentle
nudge. On the other hand, if said OEMs still haven't made their driver
Vista-compliant, there is nothing to suggest they will change their attitude
now.

 

[On the Bridge!]

In other words, there is actually very little change in the relative

system requirements compared against the price to purchase said
components at release.

I do not care about relative times and performance. That is of only
historical interest,
I am talking here about practical application today.

I am talking about XP and Vista NOW on the SAME hardware.

XP is far faster than vista will ever be, and vista cannot do much that XP
cannot.

If you are getting new hardware, OK go with vista SP1, but for non geek
people to go get
Vista retail and install it on their "old" computers, is NOT a good idea.

I would say its ok only if you are a tech or computer enthusiast. For the
simple users
Vista is a worthless upgrade and in many occasions it causes too many
problems with existing hardware and software.

 

[On the Bridge!]

you are wrong. Microsoft calls these people "partners" when they need them,
but when it comes to communicating in time for the drivers they abandon
them.

This whole dark story has been revealed in the latest emails that were
unsealed in the latest "vista ready PCs"fiasco, showing how bad Microsoft
handled
the vista development and readiness of the new vista "ecology"

They are co-responsible ....

 

[Diamontina Cocktail]

I can only assume you are referring to the problem with erroneous 64-bit
device drivers that Microsoft have identified.

Nope. Nothing in my machine appears on the "incompatible" list with
Microsoft.

I'm afraid there is nothing that Microsoft can do about that - they cannot
fix the 'fix' - the best they can do is give the hardware OEMs a gentle
nudge. On the other hand, if said OEMs still haven't made their driver
Vista-compliant, there is nothing to suggest they will change their
attitude now.

They better try. The machine was running GREAT on Vista pre SP1. Now it
isn't and there is no driver at fault here - that is to say no driver from a
non-MS company causing this.

Besides, if I were the only one, you'd be justified. If I were only 7 of 9
then I'd be damned good looking but you would still be justified but seeing
I am one voice in the middle of a mass of voices saying the same thing then
there really must be something for MS to consider, wouldn't you say?

 

[Diamontina Cocktail]

you are wrong. Microsoft calls these people "partners" when they need
them, but when it comes to communicating in time for the drivers they
abandon them.

I wouldnt have put it that strongly. I wouldnt say "abandon" but I would be
likely to agree with "ignore for months".

This whole dark story has been revealed in the latest emails that were
unsealed in the latest "vista ready PCs"fiasco, showing how bad Microsoft
handled
the vista development and readiness of the new vista "ecology"

They are co-responsible ....

I would have said that last hyphenated word differently. Still, pre-SP1
Vista wasn't a bad thing for me. I knew a few companies needed to come up to
date with drivers and software updates and such but it was exactly the same
going from 98SE to XP. Therefore it was expected. I distinctly remember
doing an image backup of 98SE and then updating to XP only to find my dial
up modem wouldn't work and I needed to download a driver. At the time it was
my only computer so I had to restore from that image, get the W2K driver for
it and store it on a floppy, do the update to XP all over again and then
install the W2K driver for the modem so it would work. There were many other
problems that weren't there in 98SE that were there in XP too but over time
they disappeared and by SP2 XP was great. Vista had some problems when I put
in the public release on one machine in Feb 2007 and they persisted for a
while but by the time I got my new laptop with Vista Ultimate 64 bit on it,
everything seemed to be running fine. The laptop was FAST, too, from the
moment I go it. The only problems I had back then and still have with some
things today is that they wont work with 64 bit. I got around those and for
the most part, now, the only 64 bit problem that is still there is
Quicktime. It doesn't bug me though. I just load a 32 bit IE7 and it all
works OK again. SP1 Vista is a whole different kettle of crap though. The
boot time is unacceptable. Getting things to load that worked well -
including Outlook 2007 and other Office programs, too - is slow. It
shouldn't have been a massive DOWNGRADE to apply an SP to the thing but it
has been.

 

[Diamontina Cocktail]

Don't be too hasty to generalize - I'm running Ulimate x64, and I have no
problems whatsoever.

On what sort of machine, please? Besides, "generalise"???? Look up the
troubles on Google. You seem to be 1 out of every 100 or so who say they are
going OK with it. I have been wondering if this SP1 was perhaps not the one
they meant to release to the public at the right time but perhaps an earlier
one with problems.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> "On the Bridge!"

I do not care about relative times and performance. That is of only
historical interest,
I am talking here about practical application today.

I am talking about XP and Vista NOW on the SAME hardware.

XP is far faster than vista will ever be, and vista cannot do much that XP
cannot.

That really depends on your hardware. Vista makes far better use of a
higher end PC then XP does, just as XP performs better on higher end
hardware then 2000.

Conversely, if you're running yesterday's computers, you're probably
better with yesterday's operating system.

If you are getting new hardware, OK go with vista SP1, but for non geek
people to go get
Vista retail and install it on their "old" computers, is NOT a good idea.

Agreed. Luckily, stats show that somewhere near 90% of end users never
even attempt an OS upgrade beyond that which Windows Update offers
automatically.

 

[On the Bridge!]

That really depends on your hardware. Vista makes far better use of a

higher end PC then XP does,

No I have tested both on a multitude of comptuers from low end to high end.
XP wins hands down
EVERY time. There is no doubt about this, what you are saying is a MYTH!
There is no significant improvment in Vista that would make it better...
the ONLY thing Vista has is the support for HYBRID hard drives, that are not
yet common in the market.

On the same hardware.. whatever you can throw on the 2 OS, XP is always
faster.

Vista doest even handle multiple cores better than XP, and thats darn right
stupid from MS...
since Vista was released at a time that almost all new computers would have
multiple cores.

 

[Diamontina Cocktail]

I did (64 bit) and it stuffed things up. I would sure wait to install it
until some others have tried it and reported about it if I were you.