Vista Service Pack One Almost Here

arogier writes "After numerous delays and an actual release reversal, the official release date for Vista service pack one has been set for Tuesday, March 18th on Windows Update and Microsoft Downloads. It will be released as an automatic update on April 18th. 'It's unclear so far how a February snafu will affect SP1's roll-out. Last month, after Microsoft pushed a pair of prerequisite patches to users, some reported that their machines refused to finish installing one of the fixes, then went into an endless series of reboots. Several days later, Microsoft pulled the update from automatic delivery, said it was working on a solution and promised it would "make the update available again shortly after we address the issue."' It would be a good time for those planning to adopt early to perform requisite backups and locate their restore media."

Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version.

[spintriae]

You can't steal something that's being given away. And your complaint is equivalent to walking into a restaurant, ordering a meal, then complaining that they didn't immediately bring you the uncooked ingredients.

Re:Somehow...

[FoolsGold]

Like I said elsewhere, SP1 is somewhat significant because a lot of people have stated they will move to Vista once the first service pack arrives. Now we have to see if that will actually happen.

I won't comment on the DRM because it really isn't as serious as a lot of Slashdotters think.

Re:Somehow...

[nixeagle]

Random stuff does not break. Look at the emergency patching and releasing of the kernel that all distros had to go through a while back to fix the VM splice bug.

All those distros managed to push a replacement kernel in a matter of hours/days that did not adversely affect user systems that I could tell.

Likewise, this patch of an operating system that you pay for ought to work as smoothly as the free one. I'm not really sure how comparable the two are, but it is interesting that the linux distros were able to pull a hot fix like that without too much user consternation.

Re:Doesn't matter!

[FoolsGold]

Download the Vista Loader (also known as a softmod):

http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/03/10/vista-loader-20-oem-bios-emu-crack-softmod-update/ [mydigitallife.info]

I know it would be the Slashdot way to convince you to move to Linux instead, but fuck that - you wanna use Windows, this will help you continue to do so. :)

Re:Moment of truth...

[sunami88]

Now to see how many "I'll wait for SP1 before moving to Vista" people actually follow through.

That was, they'll wait for SP1 to pass judgment. Not wait for SP1 then blindly buy.

Re:Somehow...

[sunami88]

... I can't help but pity those poor Vista users. What should be simply the release of a patch has become a major "event" which people actually have to prepare for and which, from what I hear, is even causing something quite similar to mild panic. But then again, you do get great DRM for your troubles.

I don't have mod points, so bring on the Flame bait mods. What do you call the Mac OS distribution system? Updates or epiphanies.

I just want an accurate frame for your post, Mac troll or Linux user.

Re:Backup - but do backups work properly yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I used to use 'dd' to make backups of my Windows XP partitions back when I dual-booted with Linux. It's amazing how effective fundamentally ancient Unix tools are...

Re:Somehow...

[unbug]

And this is different from a new kernel version how?

One big difference is that the Linux kernel (which is the one you mean, I presume) is usually updated in much smaller increments which means that every single update has less chance of breaking things. Another big difference is that kernel updates only update the kernel, not X, KDE/Gnome/whatever and all those programs which your system won't run without. These are updated separately which, again, means that there's less chance of breaking things.

Re:It's faster

[El_Muerte_TDS]

I'm using Vista on a brand new Dell XPS. But the problem solution center didn't help me in any case. I had 3 BSODs so far (since mid Januari 2008), and the solution center thingy never gave a usable information. So I've stopped using that thing.

As for UAC, I've put that into silent mode because it annoyed the hell out of me. I know it's meant to be obstructive. But I need to use a couple of legacy applications. The UAC blackout thingy actually wrecks havoc with multi screen setups and DirectDraw applications. Or at least, it did for me. It would have been nice if it didn't nag me every time I started an application which I pre-configured to be run in administrative mode. That would at least solve some of the problems I have with UAC.

XP SP3?

[SeaFox]

When is XP SP3 coming out? I need to do a reformat of my machine. I have the all-in-one SP2 installer and I don't want to have to download all the stupid patches between SP2 and today separately.

Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version.

[clang_jangle]

If your Vista experience is so trouble-free then why are you even thinking about file transfer speeds (a well-known trouble point for Vista)? I certainly never think about that, haven't needed to in years...

No there's plenty

[Sycraft-fu]

I've been using Vista 64-bit since not long after it was released and I'm quite satisfied (I'd have moved back to XP if I wasn't).

The reason people slam it so much here is because they badly want it to fail. It is predominantly FUD.

The echo chamber effect is a big reason you hear so much. Someone has a bad experience with Vista, or perhaps just makes one up, and writes/talks about it. Thsi then gets repeated by people who hate MS and want to see Vista do poorly. You discover that these people have never actually used Vista, they are just repeating something they heard somewhere. So it sounds like there are more people having problems than there is.

Of the people I know that have mostly bad things to say about Vista, I'd say at least 90% have never actually used it. They "Read about it somewhere," or "Some guy they know told them," and so on. They have no experience with it, other than perhaps having seen it on a computer. They are simply repeating stories. Of those that have used it and dislike it, almost all of them actually have an issue with something else, that they are blaming on Vista. For example a coworker was pissed because his DJ hardware/software combo didn't work. Ok, well check compatibility first, and that isn't a Vista issue. It doesn't support Linux either.

Another problem is people who try to run it on insufficient hardware. This happens with basically every Windows release that I can remember. I remember all the complaints that Windows 95 didn't run well on 4MB of RAM, even though that was the minimum. The response was, of course, yes that's the MINIMUM, not the "gets good performance" amount. Same deal with Vista, people have old systems with insufficient hardware, particularly RAM (since not that long ago RAM was real pricey). They install Vista and find it doesn't perform well, and thus get angry.

All in all, you can just expect to see continued Vista hate on /. and other sites like it for some time. I also expect that it won't matter. Most people will get Vista as they get new computers, and it'll slowly become the dominant Windows since it'll work just fine for those that get it.

Vista is much slower

[Per Abrahamsen]

Having bought a new Dell laptop with Vista on that's lower spec than my work machine (policy is to update desktops later this year), my laptop almost always feels far more responsive.

Most likely, your old machine had accumulated crap over time, and resinstalling XP would have given an even larger speedup. Vista is far less responsive on my Thinkpad X61s than XP was on my Thinkpad X40, comparing them side by side. Only the cpu bound tasks like compiling are faster, due to the faster hardware.

"I see something real bad happened; do you mind if I see if there's a solution online?".

Yeah, whenever my own programs crash I get that one. It doesn't find any solutions though, I still have to debug my own code.

It did once claim to have found a solution to system crash, pointing to a Lenovo page that did not exists.

UAC is top too; I like to know when a program is gonna try and change my system (some try that you'd never think would - denied).

That is the one thing I like about Vista. I think of it as the Microsoft answer to "sudo". It was annoying at the beginning, where you had to press yes so many times. Makes me worry about whether it will have the intended affect, or simply teach people to press "yes" whenever they see a pop-up.

It's an upgrade without a doubt.

Most people at my work who have "accidentally" ordered new PC's with Vista have ended up asking the it support guys "downgrade" them to XP. I have been stubborn though, waiting to see if it gets better with time. It does, but nowhere near enough to compensate for the initial drop in productivity.

No comment.

[WK2]

I won't comment on the DRM because it really isn't as serious as a lot of Slashdotters think.

I won't respond to your comment, but DRM is BUILT-IN to the Operating System. How much more serious can it get?

Re:I got the, er, "early adopter" version.

[CmdrGravy]

Not quite, a better analogy might be that it's like going to restaurant and recieving a mediocre and unsatisfying starter and main course and when it comes to pudding being told that the pudding isn't ready yet and if they were to serve it to you immediately you might get ill and die. Nevertheless even hearing this advice you then break into the kitchen and gobble down the partially cooked pudding rather than taking the perfectly sensible option of going to the lovely homely Penguin tavern next door where they're serving wholesome, nutritious and filling meals for nothing, and with free beer.

Re:Moment of truth...

[dreamchaser]

Nope, there are a few more of us. I use various OSes for various things. Vista is not all that bad on a machine with sufficient power.

Re:Moment of truth...

[gravis777]

You are not alone. I LOVE Vista. The only machine I have had issues with vista on is my work laptop, and that is due to some crappy Intel graphics driver. However, they released a new version a couple of weeks ago, and I have not had any issues with it since then. Get this, I have had programs that stopped working in XP but work just fine in Vista. Go figure. No, I am triple booting on my home machine (Vista 64 Business, XP 64 Pro, and XP Pro) and dual booting on my work laptop, and pretty much just boot back into XP for those one or two odd programs that do not work right in Vista, and as they are programs I so rarely use in the first place....

Point is, you are not alone

Re:Updates? Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, like it's his fault the patches don't work. Yes, he's got his windows updates on automatic instead of manual, but that's not related to whether the patch works or not. Lots of people are having problems with them. The guy's just unlucky enough to have issues with both.