Vista SP1 Coming In Q1 2008

Many readers sent in word of Microsoft's announcement of the schedule for Vista SP1. The Beskerming blog has a good summary. Up to 15,000 people will get access to a beta of SP1 by the end of September; general release is targeted (not promised in stone) for early 2008. The service pack is said to improve performance and stability, not to add features.

Me'thinks

[MightyMartian]

It's pretty clear now that Vista should not have even been released until Q1 of 2008.

Windows XP SP3

[GenP]

Dammit, screw Vista, where's my SP3 for Windows XP?

The real beginning of Vista

[CellBlock]

I'd bet the release of SP1 ends up being good for everyone. People that already have Vista will have (at least some of) their performance issues sorted out. Then, since Vista won't be as broken as it has been, more copies should sell, leading to better development for it. As much as people say they'll never move off of XP, people said that about 98. It's not that nobody upgrades to the new versions of Windows anymore; they're just (rightfully) a bit more cautious about it now.

Re:The real beginning of Vista

[lupis42]

Maybe if it fixes some of the damnable DRM issues. The big difference that most of see between the "I'll never load XP" people and the "I'll never load Vista" people is that more of the Vista people are switching to linux, rather than staying put.

Re:The real beginning of Vista

[Lumpy]

As much as people say they'll never move off of XP, people said that about 98.

and those people were 100% correct in their decision and did not move off 98 until there was an acceptable replacement. Windows ME was a giant pile of steaming Bovine Feces. I have never meat ONE person that though ME was useful for ANYTHING. Everyone waited for XP to come along to fix it. windows 2000 was for corporations and not for home use so you never really saw it at home. XP was the first time they merged the home and corperate OS lines.

Vista is looking very much like the steaming turd that ME was to many people.

Re:Me'thinks

[kestasjk]

And Linux shouldn't have been released until 2.4, and Mozilla shouldn't have been released until Firefox, and OS X shouldn't have been released until Panther, etc.. It would be great if software was perfect before it got released, but that's just a dream, especially for software that's so widely used.

Re:Memory

[El Lobo]

So you are telling me that if I have 4Gb and no program is running the system should be using only 500 mb? No way... if the computer is idle, the OS better use the rest for, I don't know, indexing, caching, compacting, optimizing, or whatever. Only USE IT and give it back when needed.

This new memory management was introduced for Vista and it was about freaking time somebody though about this.... It's like downloading a file in a 10 mbs cable and using only 5 mbs "just in case" you need to download something else. Of course, ignorant people will just look at the Task manager and open their mounth.. WOW . LOOK AT THAT! The computer is iddle and my memory is full!. Well, Einstein, THAT is just how it should be!

Re:ehhh

[Opportunist]

...if a Windows box has to be insecure in order to be useful, then so be it.

I have no modpoints (and I already posted in this thread), or you'd get your wish granted.

If any computer system, no matter what manufacturer, needs to be made insecure and/or instable to be useable, the system is broken and should get a serious redesign before being released onto the public. Simple as that.

It's not so much that Vista was insecure. More often than not, the user is the attack vector, not a security hole of the system. That won't change, no matter how tightly or troublesome you make the access controls. As long as there are users who can be tricked into clicking and installing, there is a security problem. As long as users don't understand why some "normal" software should NOT require administrator privileges to install (and if the system requires administrator privileges to install normal office software, see the paragraph above), and they simply click "allow" on even the most fundamentally obvious fishy request, there is no security.

As long as users are dumber than the computers they use, UAC is only a nuisance. Not a security feature.

Re:ehhh

[plague3106]

Service Pack 1 won't exactly make Vista more desirable as an OS; but it is a psychological landmark that says "we worked most of the bugs out and we're finally done with it". Businesses may bite; but I'm not 100% convinced that Vista is better than XP quite yet.

People tend to bitch when things aren't working; those that are happy tend not to say much at all... they're doing their work.

This SP full of patches still probably won't prevent people from deleting their Recycle Bin

It doesn't remove the RB, it removes it from the desktop. Big difference. It even tells you how to get it back when it prompts you to be sure this is what you want.

end the UAC nazi tyranny

So when Linux asks for a root password to do administrative tasks, that's good security, but if Vista does something similar, its nazi tyranny? You realize that most applications that trigger this alot are unsigned and are trying to do things they shouldn't even be doing (like writing to Program Files), right? I'm glad its there.. now app vendors will be FORCED to deal with this issue.

let admins do admin things with computers

The whole POINT is to get away from running as an administrator. This is meant to help security; is it really that hard to choose Run As Administrator? Its moving away from the 'always an admin' mentality.

Once MS figures-out a way to make Vista useful without all those annoyances and brick walls, then I may give it another look.

Wonderful. You won't use it until they encourage bad application development practices again. They're trying to get away from the 'run as administrator' mentality, of course there is going to be some pain. But its really the fault of the application developers at this point. I'm glad MS is forcing the issue.

I know I'm going to -1 Flamebait hell for this; but if a Windows box has to be insecure in order to be useful, then so be it.

I'd rather application developers to start writting better applications. Would you run a userland application on linux that attempted to write in /etc and /bin all the time? That would be unacceptable in Linux. MS is trying to make \windows and \program files changes unacceptable too. Complain to your app vendors.

Re:Memory

[geekmux]

Yes, you must be right about USING the memory. After all, there's no other explanation why every Vista machine NOW ships standard with 2GB of memory. After all, memory is free, right? Give me a break man. There's a fine line between USE and ABUSE, and Microsoft has managed to crush it.

Re:Me'thinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Now how am I going to hold people off? My excuse has always been "not until SP1 comes out." I'm screwed.

Easy. "Not until SP2 comes out."

That'll buy you another year, easy.

Re:Me'thinks

[CastrTroy]

That's the problem with Vista though. It was released, it was buggy, and it was still pushed down our throats. It's hard to walk into most retailers and buy a computer isn't Vista. The only way I'm aware to get a windows machine without vista is to shop at Dell, and choose the Business category. It isn't so much the problem that they released it before it was ready, but the fact that the old version isn't on most store shelves anymore.

Re:Rule of three

[baldass_newbie]

With XP, it wasn't really until SP2 that it seemed secure and stable enough.

Oh, really? I wish you could have put a 'YMMV' after that.

Re: Usage

[TaoPhoenix]

I rather like my machines staying out of harm's way unless I want to run my own process. I have a classical Dell NetBurst P4 running XP at work. When it's under 20% usage, it stays quiet. When some silly process jumps in, the fan kicks in, and it sounds like an airplane taking off. Then it won't notice the process went away, so the fan keeps going. It's my "Uh Oh" indicator.

I'd have a hard time with Vista randomly running processes... because I don't trust MS's judgement on what needs to be run. It's also harder to guage how heavy an app really is if you can't simply subtract new usage - old usage because the OS is running garbage processes.

Re:Memory

[Atzanteol]

Oh? Why not? What are *you* doing with that free memory? Nothing, that's what. Why shouldn't Windows use it to cache things that may be used again, like recently opened files and such?

Re:Me'thinks

[Ajehals]

It's pretty clear now that Vista should not have even been released until Q1 of 2008.

Or Microsoft feels that by releasing a service Pack they will boost confidence in an OS that currently (rightly or wrongly) doesn't inspire confidence. There are quite a few people out there who are claiming that they are waiting until SP1/SP2 before jumping, not to mention that XP gained a huge amount of stability with SP1 and even more with SP2(after the initial release issues...).

Personally - I'll stick with Debian.

Re:Can't wait for performance patch

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahahaha. Yeah sure, it is Vista's fault your laptop can't play games. Couldn't have anything to do with the crap Intel Mobile Express 945GM integrated graphics now could it?

Re:Memory

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

BULLSHIT!

I'm running 8 gigs of ram and vista 64. I've rendered things in softimage XSI that required more than 4gigs of ram. The problem is.. VISTA has already decided to cache 4 gigs of ram (FOR GOD KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK)... and then XSI's renderer (mentalray) says "I need more ram" Then the whole system starts to swap like mad because i dont have any available ram.

THANKS TO VISTA 64 !!! and its fucking ridiculous memory management. Why does it need to cache 4 gigs of ram? What the fuck is the point of having 8 gigs, if Vista is going to cache 4 fucking gigs of it!? Might as well run XP32bit.

I dont think MS really has their memory management figured out at all. It may cache for intelligent reasons, but it doesnt work. It causes the system to use the swap file and come to a crawl because it gobbles up all of your memory.

I've litterally been in photoshop, and have seen windows say 0 free for ram because Vista has cached 4gigs out of my total 8. I NEED those gigs... and Vista doesnt release them. It eats up ram like a mother fucker.

I was just thinking of going to XP64.. but the driver support is non existant on that platform.

Re:Memory

[Smidge204]

I understand what you're trying to say, but from a purely performance-oriented view this seems a piss-poor way to do things. I installed extra RAM in my computer so I could run more applications and work with larger data sets more efficiently, not so the OS can sit on it "until I need it" - which takes time that could have been used by the application I actually want to be using. That, and given Window's historically bad memory management, means I don't want Windows occupying all my PC's resources.

So are you also upset if your CPU usage isn't near 100%? After all, what's the point of paying for that fast processor if you aren't going to use it's full potential?
=Smidge=

Re:Oh quityerbitchin

[BenoitRen]

The "RAM is cheap" argument is quite an apologist one, and it encourages wasteful RAM usage. Ever heard of the perpetual upgrade cycle?

Yes, the OS should use RAM well. No, the OS shouldn't use too much RAM.

As you said, the memory requirements double. The problem is, each new Windows version isn't exactly worth that much more RAM. There's no other explanation than intentional bloat for all the extra RAM each successive version needs for barely any new useful features.

Re:Me'thinks

[geobeck]

Now how am I going to hold people off? My excuse has always been "not until SP1 comes out."

Go with "Not until it's secure" or "Not until it runs on your legacy hardware."

Or just mention something about snowballs in that hot place where Billy G gets his ideas.