Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Windows Vista SP1 Hands-On Details 409

Posted by Zonk
from the preview-of-the-preview dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Vista SP1 Hands-On Details

Comments Filter:
  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18, 2007 @03:37PM (#21399621)
    Exciting. Really.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by postbigbang (761081)
      Mod parent up.

      When you guys get excited about a pre-release of a service pack, you're in enormous need of fresh air.

      Parent wasn't a troll. Parent has healthy sarcasm.... on what must be the most enormous news dead night of the year, or perhaps decade.

      Nothing fixes Vista because XP wasn't broken. Lipstick on that pig won't get on your collar. Trust me on this.
      • Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)

        by danielk1982 (868580) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @10:53PM (#21402855)
        >When you guys get excited about a pre-release of a service pack, you're in enormous need of fresh air.

        Why shouldn't people be interested. I use Vista day to day, I'm curious if some of the issues (performance mainly) I came across have been addressed.

        >Nothing fixes Vista because XP wasn't broken.

        Before Vista came out, if the collective was to be believed, XP was pointless, because win2k was the pinnacle of Windows OS. If there's nothing wrong with XP, then use XP.

        (Also there was nothing wrong OSX Tiger what was the point of Leopard? There was nothing wrong with Gnome 2.14, whats the point of Gnome 2.20 .. etc.)
    • Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)

      by mwnyc (1016752) on Monday November 19, 2007 @01:23AM (#21403859) Homepage

      Hooray!

      Windows Vista: The Wow ...starts now!

      Windows Vista SP1: Small improvements in boot time on an HP Compaq 8710p Core 2 Duo notebook ...will be made available to even more testers at a later date!

      I can hardly sleep.

  • Yes, but... (Score:4, Funny)

    by kwabbles (259554) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @03:40PM (#21399639)
    will it allow me to do things like run applications and operate a computer now? :)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18, 2007 @04:08PM (#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.
    • by paganizer (566360)
      I'm fairly certain that when the warez community comes out with a way to completely and totally disable the DRM system Vista will perform about as well as XP home on an anemic computer. or maybe even better.
      But, I have to ask, (excluding those of you with Tablet PC's, because everything I've read indicates that Vista is pretty nifty on them) why?
      Do you really think anything you do will work better on Vista than it would on XP Pro?
      I'm in the "you can pry Win2k from my cold, dead, hands" camp myself. But XP p
      • Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Informative)

        by ctr2sprt (574731) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @07:48PM (#21401669)

        But, I have to ask, (excluding those of you with Tablet PC's, because everything I've read indicates that Vista is pretty nifty on them) why?

        My experience is that it Just Works. Everything is set up with a minimum of hassle and prompting, the defaults are sensible, and most of the eye candy has at least some redeeming value. (Like alt-tab shows you a small version of the windows, which is updated in realtime.) UAC is basically SEWindows, and it gets the same treatment as SELinux does (immediately disabled). But it's hard for me to fault Vista for that, since it is pretty much what every security expert was screaming for Microsoft to add.

        Plus, Vista actually feels much more like it has a unified UI. I'm sure a MacOS user can tell you that the UI is more than just a window frame and menu bar: it's the "feel" of the whole thing that matters. Well, everything that comes with Vista (with a few aggravating exceptions, which fortunately I've never had to use more than once so far) has that "feel." If you've ever used IE7 on XP, you've probably noticed how utterly weird and confusing it is. Well, in Vista, it makes complete sense. (I still don't use it, of course, but I was tempted.)

        I'm not a huge Vista booster or anything. The above makes me sound like I am, but you asked for reasons to use Vista, not reasons not to. But when I have to use the OS -- this computer is mainly a gaming rig -- I like it better than XP. And so long as I don't have to do any serious work, I much prefer it to KDE and GNOME. (For serious work, I need Unix. If I had to make do with screen and Alt+Fn, I would.)

        • Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by baldass_newbie (136609) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @10:21PM (#21402635) Homepage Journal

          My experience is that it Just Works.

          My experience is that it just doesn't. Couldn't get Windows Update to run even sending the update log and system config info repeatedly to Microsoft Tech Support. Seems they couldn't figure it out, either.
          I'm back on XP (at least for gaming) and using MEPIS or OS X for productivity and multi-media respectively.
          But I'm glad it works for you. I really am.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Tom (822)

          UAC is basically SEWindows,

          Ouch, that hurt.

          Sorry, but I know quite a lot about SELinux. And UAC is not even in the same league, it's not even the same sports, so to speak. UAC is an ugly crutch to shove responsibility on the user and ask him questions 95% don't even understand completely. More importantly, AFAIK the technical backend is vastly different and UAC can not ever hope to become an equivalent.

          But yes, security and convenience do not always marry happily. In that regard, they are alike.

    • by PPH (736903) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @07:11PM (#21401413)
      In order to proceed, Vista needs to increment the instruction pointer.

      [Allow] or [Cancel]

  • SP or New OS? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nbannerman (974715) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @03:47PM (#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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by ocirs (1180669)
      "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 it
    • Re:SP or New OS? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pieroxy (222434) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @04:14PM (#21399943) Homepage
      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.
      • by Adambomb (118938)
        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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jacksonj04 (800021)
      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 O
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        I'm surprised they're calling 50MiB a service pack.
        The 50 MB download is probably just the download helper that then downloads the other 7 gigs and lets you resume if your dialup connection gets interrupted over the next several weeks.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by loraksus (171574)
          Parent was modded funny, but the 50mb is essentially a glorified downloader. The full download / redistributable pack will run several hundred mb, but should fit on a CD.
    • by aslate (675607)
      From the sounds of it i got the impression it might be the total Vista directory size after you've installed the update, i can't see how else it could possibly ever be 7GB.

      I would be interested in finding out what they've done to the copy because i have a strange copying issue with Vista. It refuses to copy any large files over the wireless. With a file over perhaps 150MB it will copy the first part, then the copy dialog will hang and say it's unable to finish copying (as if you've turned off the other mach
    • You can throw all of those away - with enhanced DRM in the service pack, you won't be able to play them anyway :^)
    • by westlake (615356)
      The installation requires 7GB of free hard-drive space

      I will take the odds that this is the "everything Vista" RC for the support tech or network administrator who wants to test every possible configuration from Basic to Ultimate.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheNetAvenger (624455)
      Is this a service pack, or a fresh install replacing most of the core files?

      Both... Vista and Windows Server 2008 share the same core like NT always has with the exception of XP/2003 Server.

      So all the work that has been happening at the kernel and even Win32/Win64 level of Windows 2008 Server is also updated and applied to Vista, moving its kernel to be the same as Windows 2008.

      So yes there are some basic SP fixes, but most of the fixes were already a part of the Windows 2008 development.

      Which means Vista S
  • Times (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SnoopJeDi (859765) <snoopjedi@gmaiCOUGARl.com minus cat> on Sunday November 18, 2007 @03:49PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RobertM1968 (951074) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @04:19PM (#21399991) Homepage Journal

      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?)

  • by binaryspiral (784263) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @03:49PM (#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.
    • XP was a huge improvement compared to 98SE when it was released, even before any service packs.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by suv4x4 (956391)
      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.

      As you know, it was released early due to pressure from corporations with running out Software Assurance subscription (they got nothing for, because of the delays).

      Running a big company like Microsoft is like running a big country, and in your politics there are always compromises.

      If it wasn't for dropp
  • Epic Disaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aldheorte (162967) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @03:50PM (#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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by kwabbles (259554)
      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.
  • by usul294 (1163169) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @03:50PM (#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.
    • 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, rele
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by billcopc (196330)
      First let me correct your typo: "Vista is a fairly big shit" ... there, much better!

      It's great that you like Vista, I know quite a few people who do. I personally don't, for the simple reason that Vista is another step in the wrong direction in my opinion.

      Maybe I'm missing something, despite the fact that I'm a system developer and hardware nut, but it seems to me like Windows is a GUI with a bunch of garbage tacked on. The GUI itself is alright, it's all the other junk that gets in the way while accompli
    • by Joce640k (829181) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @08:28PM (#21401949) Homepage
      The big question isn't whether or not Vista is acceptably good, it's that it doesn't do a single thing that XP can't. In many cases it does things worse/slower.

      So is there a reason to upgrade from XP? I don't see one.

      If you hadn't got the Premium version for free would you have paid $400 for it?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by RubberDogBone (851604) *
      It's not whether people understand GUIs or that there are others or like or dislike one or another. Most of them don't care about GUIs.

      They just want their computer to DO what they want. Surf the web, look at pictures of the grandkids, play some games, maybe type a letter.

      You don't need Vista to do those things. XP is good enough and people who don't know about GUIs still know how to use it. Vista changed a lot of things for the sake of change and even more so with the latest Office redo. Tell these e
  • Too late (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dbolger (161340) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @03:54PM (#21399773) Homepage
    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.
  • by WwWonka (545303) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @03:56PM (#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?
  • by Enleth (947766)
    ...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.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ynososiduts (1064782)
    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 e
  • by chowells (166602) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @04:11PM (#21399919) Homepage
    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.
    • 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?

    • by canuck57 (662392)

      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.

      • by chowells (166602)
        "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?"

        Heh, we already use Linux for everything bar one or two things :) For the rest we use Win2k and WinXP, and I don't consider Vista to be a reasonable upgrade path at the moment.
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @04:16PM (#21399955) Homepage Journal
    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?
  • No matter how much you polish a turd, it's still a turd..
    • Not true... (Score:5, Funny)

      by denzacar (181829) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @04:56PM (#21400319) Journal
      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.
      • Are you implying Bill Gates et al. are supermen?
      • Actually, a turd is mostly water, therefore hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Once superman squeezed all the water out, there wouldn't be much left for polishing.

        Honestly, I dont get all this windows stuff. 90 seconds to boot and that's an improvement?
  • by victorvodka (597971) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @04:46PM (#21400197) Homepage
    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.
    • by ErikZ (55491) *
      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.
    • by tknd (979052)

      Nearly all Windows XP computers are configured incorrectly where every user runs as admin. The only places I see Windows XP configured correctly was at my old lab in college where everyone ran as a normal user and not admin and in certain work places. In addition to that, certain pieces of software require you to be running as admin rather than just a regular user making running as a regular user in windows XP a pain in the ass.

      Vista changes that through UAC and the "admin" account not really being admin

  • by rueger (210566) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @04:59PM (#21400355) Homepage
    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.
    • by eebra82 (907996)

      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

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

    Thank the GNODs.

  • by Shemmie (909181) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @05:12PM (#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]
  • MS sometimes releases security roll-ups between service packs or after the final service pack, but they really should do this every quarter if not every month.

    A security roll-up should be nothing more than all of the security patches since the last service pack, minus those that have been superceded, recalled, or otherwise outdated, and minus those that are very recent and not yet "proven in the field." In practice, this means everything more than 30-60 days old minus those that had problems or which were
  • by gerrysteele (927030) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @05:32PM (#21400625)
    I'm biased. I'm a unix/linux user. Have been since 2002 or so. I gradually developed a hatred of windows when, as a windows 98 customer (not a windows user, I paid for it to brceive a service), I got bored having to reinstall my OS. I used XP briefly for a while especially for games and such. Then i Stopped using it. I became a sole nix user. I had no need to play games because I had little to no free time because of work. Recently I've made the switch to ubuntu and also switched jobs.

    This has allowed me some more gaming time. For this reason I bought a nice laptop with a good on board graphics card to play games with. It came with Vista, and that I left on it and dual booted with Ubuntu Gutsy. I bought a few games I'd missed out on in the previous year or two.

    I began thinking its been a while since I actually used windows, perhaps I'm judging it harshly. So i decided to try and give a go as my main OS as much as I could. Much of my work is done by logging into other machines via ssh so I thought I might not miss Linux too much and I knew putty was a very good terminal emulator implementation.

    So, I tried to install Brothers In Arms: Earned in blood. I Didn't get very far. It just did nothing on clicking the installer. Some searching later shows that this game doesn't work on vista. Apparently the system they used to ensure that you dont lend the CD to your friends or such also ensures that it doesn't work on vista. I had similar problems with one other game I bought.

    At this point I was quite happy with Vista aside from that it seemed to have used 12GB of diskspace before i'd even booted it up for the first time. It was shiny and slick. It was fast to boot. I had very little on the local machine itself apart from the games. I'd copied some video files and installed all the games from the Orange Box too.

    I played through all of Portal/HL2/HL2E1 and I'd noticed that start up takes around five times longer than it did in the first week. The same performance crap I had experienced with 98. Same shit, different kernel. Aside from that I found that some days the hard disk would begin to thrash _all_ the time. To get rid of them I had to kill system processes and turn of much talked about features.

    I was getting annoyed. I felt vindicated. It was also starting to crash, It just does it more elegantly than XP. Steam games had weird start up problems involving minimising and maximising a dozen times.

    The internets informed me that Orange Box games work well in wine (which I didn't believe). I've never had a great deal of luck with anything working in wine. But vista was getting beyond a joke and I really thought considering the graphics card I had I should be seeing better game performance. So i thought I'd reinstall my laptop with XP/Gutsy and be done with it. However I couldn't find an XP disk. So I just went with gutsy.

    I couldn't believe how flawless Orange Box games went on. Honestly, wine is a serious engineering achievement. Everything works. perfectly.

    Goodbye Microsoft, and may our only encounters be the ones in which someone pays me large amounts of money to deal with you.

  • Quote from article (emphasis mine):

    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 totalling 1.9GB from an SD Card to the hard drive of the aforementioned HP Compaq notebook.

    An INCREASE in time is now considered a performance improvement? Wow, it looks like Microsoft went beyond redefining "downtime" and is now into redefining faster as slower and slower as fa

  • Vista SP1 should have been in beta the day Vista shipped. Vista SP1 should have shipped no more than 3 months after Vista.

    Leopard just came out last week, and there is already a service pack: v10.5.1 is already out. Most Mac users will never run v10.5.0, because it's already automatically updating itself to v10.5.1 and within six months v10.5.3 will come out on a new DVD and on all new Macs. So Leopard's first-release flaws were caught by early-adopter users and fixed right away by Apple, they are already h
  • by PPH (736903) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @06:53PM (#21401265)
    Should appear shortly. As soon as their systems finish booting.
  • by Trogre (513942) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @07:02PM (#21401325) Homepage
    On a Core 2 Duo? Windows Vista usually takes 1 minute 51 seconds to boot, and a little head jiggle, er, 20 second reduction is supposed to make me happy?

    Something is seriously wrong here. Perhaps not limited to just Vista in this case, but something is badly wrong if modern computers with all their supercomputing glory take four times as long to boot today than they did 15 years ago.

    C'mon guys, get parallel boot dependencies going properly. Yes I'm talking more to the Linux/BSD crowd now.

  • Still being pushed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Trogre (513942) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @07:20PM (#21401471) Homepage
    It's funny the lengths MS is going to in order to hasten Vista adoption. Halo 2 for Windows was released not long ago. That's right, Halo 2. The old game from about 3 years ago that ran on a Pentium 750. Now the PC version is nothing special (as with Halo 1 suitably crippled to make the XBox look good), but it requires, you guessed it, Vista.

    Of course there's no reason the game code actually needs Vista to run and in fact there's a patch (in the form of a DLL) that lets you run it under Windows XP but I just find it interesting how desparate MS seems in obsoleting XP.

  • by HangingChad (677530) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @08:13PM (#21401863) Homepage

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

    If users of Microsoft Windows rejoice over a stupid service pack, users of Microsoft Vista need to get out more.

A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...