Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Upgrades

Vista Service Pack 1 Is Out 383

superglaze writes "What's to say? After much prevaricating and slipping out then pulling back, the first service pack for Windows Vista has actually been released. It's available for download now via Microsoft's sites, with an auto-update rollout scheduled for next month, and it should hit Amazon's virtual shelves on Wednesday."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vista Service Pack 1 Is Out

Comments Filter:
  • by og_sh0x ( 520297 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @02:55PM (#22786324) Homepage
    I use Vista at work because I'm going to need to know it eventually. Microsoft probably won't offer XP forever. Among many other problems that I eventually fixed before the service pack, I had a problem with my sound not working so I installed Service Pack 1. It fixed the sound problem, then broke my network adapter. After removing the service pack, the network came back but the sound broke again. And it's over an hour to install and another hour to uninstall.
  • Too late! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @02:59PM (#22786372)
    This is great news and all, but personally I'm waiting for Windows 7 - the rumor is that it'll be released in 2009 (that's next year)... so I'm going to put off pursuing Vista, using the (hopefully sound) assumption that Microsoft will have learned from Vista's troubles.

    Why bother with Vista now if I'll need to bother with Win7 in a year???
  • Oh noes (Score:4, Interesting)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @03:00PM (#22786408)
    Run for your lives! Seriously is this just like any other patch Tuesday or should I get in my mom's basement now and hunker down for a few weeks.

    J/K. I'm always in my mom's basement.
  • by MOMOCROME ( 207697 ) <momocrome@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @03:08PM (#22786506)
    went smooth as silk, even on the more complicated Vista Ultimate.

    why do I mention it? well. this thread will be full of nasty, snarky lies. maybe i can balance things out a bit and thank the windows team for an update well done.

    now if they could just turn their attention to the fail that is 'windows ultimate extras', that would be perfect.

  • by dg5 ( 442714 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @03:21PM (#22786680)
    Torch it and throw it into rubbish along with Vista. Any OS that needs 2GB of RAM to run (slowly) is not worth a penny.
  • by DaveWick79 ( 939388 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @03:29PM (#22786786)
    I know /.'ers like to discount MS's beta process as a bunch of rubbish. But the beta process is there to eliminate the brave earlier adopter problems at actual launch time. And traditionally it has worked.
  • Re:Slow install (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kenshin ( 43036 ) <kenshin@lunarworks . c a> on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @03:38PM (#22786930) Homepage
    I still don't completely understand why SP1 takes 4 times as long to install as Vista itself.
  • by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @03:47PM (#22787038)
    I must agree with you there. I once browsed the web and checked my email (with GUI programs), as well as viewed videos (from a CD encyclopedia) on a 486 75Mhz machine with an 80Mb hard drive an 6Mb of RAM.

    My new computer has a processor 48x faster (just by a megahertz comparison - I'm sure it's actually even faster in the real world), has 341x the RAM, and has roughly 13,107x the hard drive space.

    What does the average public use their machines for these days? Browsing the web and checking email. Why is it that our hardware is now orders of magnitude faster in theory but still does the same basic stuff? I can understand some things taking the extra power. Video compression, 3d gaming, compiling source code, etc, should all take a lot of horsepower, but the most basic computer tasks shouldn't take the resources they do. Glancing at task manager on this machine here at work Firefox is currently using 157MB of RAM. Like I said, I once browsed the web on a machine with 6MB total memory.
  • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @04:00PM (#22787204) Journal
    I read all those Win2008 makes a better desktop than Vista, and on a x64 system, so I gave it a try.

    Compared to Vista x64 with SP1, Win 2008 ran all my software, was full x64, and the drivers worked for vista. Sound, Video. Codecs worked. Boots quicker, file system ran smoother, files copied at normal speeds.

    Even vista after sp1 is still a dog... And god, I hate the new file explorer, I've had to revert back to Directory Opus..
  • Re:adoption rate (Score:4, Interesting)

    by handsomepete ( 561396 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @04:00PM (#22787206) Journal
    For the company I work at the issue is hardware - while some of our PCs would probably run Vista somewhat ok a lot of them won't and we can't really afford to either a.) increase support costs by having a constant stream of "slow PC" calls or b.) do a complete desktop refresh in less than 2 years. If there was some sort of tangible advantage we'd probably try to find the budget, but no one has pointed one out to us yet. So we'll either ride XP to the end of its days (or to Windows 7, whichever comes first).

    Like a lot of companies we've talked about switching over to an alternative OS, but having the usual triad of Microsoft entrenchment (Exchange + Office + AD) makes that an unnerving undertaking for our size.
  • by RedMage ( 136286 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @04:06PM (#22787270) Homepage

    I find it interesting that operating systems are more and more being treated like applications. Traditionally the OS was responsible for managing resources (Disk, Memory, etc.), controlling security, and coordinating activities (queues, jobs, etc.) Today the Windows OS is responsible for browsing the web, playing music, recording TV, and plotting world domination (OK, I added that last one...) Why should these things be included in the "operating system" mix? I would argue that even a windowing system is borderline (see X).
  • by moderatorrater ( 1095745 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @04:27PM (#22787526)
    While in theory a lot of what you say is true, look at what's happened in that generation. We've gone from no spell checker to an integrated spell checker you run when you're done to automatic spell checking with auto complete and auto correct all done in real time. The same for the grammer checker and a url/email address parser. Browsers now use not only html, but css and heavy javascript. Firefox now has the ability to use plugins and tabs.

    The problem isn't bad coding, it's that features are inherently slow. To implement real time spell checking requires a lot of processing power, especially if you can type over 5 characters a second. Think about that for a minute. Remember how long spell checking used to take as it went through the document? It used to take 5-10 minutes for a medium sized paper when I was in HS. Now it can spell check the word that I'm typing multiple times per second and get through the document in around 5 seconds while still bundling in more real time functionality.

    I remember when a medium quality video on a computer doing nothing else would have long pauses and not be able to play smoothly. Now I can play music while watching a youtube video through a program running inside my browser with no pauses whatsoever, and that's while streaming it online (which also takes processor power). I can watch youtube videos while playing an intensive game on year old hardware with two monitors running through the video card; that's something I couldn't even dream about a few years ago.

    The reason that programs appear slow is because they add features that are more processor intensive than they appear to the naked eye. Plugins are extremely inefficient. Real-time spell checking requires looking up in a dictionary multiple times per second with a lot of wasted effort. Going from 800x600 to 1260x1024 is nearly doubling the number of pixels. CSS is very processor intensive. Features have been pushed on so many fronts it's mind boggling.
  • by bigdanmoody ( 599431 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @04:50PM (#22787830)
    Waiting to install SP1 will not change the code you have downloaded. Whether you install it immediately or a month from now will do nothing to change the service pack. I guess I don't understand your question, or why it was modded "Insightful."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @04:54PM (#22787888)

    After the recent KDE 4.0 debacle, I think it's better to remain silent than criticise Microsoft and become a bunch of hypocrites.

  • by BigBlueOx ( 1201587 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @05:45PM (#22788538)
    Ya know, just a few years ago it was such a pain in the tukas to deal with Linux upgrades ... dependency hell ... "why can't Linux installs just *work* like my Windows installs do?". That wasn't that long ago, ya know.

    Now it's just the opposite. Installing Microsoft stuff is such a royal pain in the bazonga compared to Linux that I just stopped dealing with it. I'm sick of worrying about what "patches" and "service packs" I've applied and which I haven't, what impossible-to-remember-URL I'm supposed to go to for the patches, whether this service pack breaks this while it fixes that ... forget it!

  • Re:Auto upbreak. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Genocaust ( 1031046 ) on Tuesday March 18, 2008 @08:24PM (#22790320)
    Am I the only Vista user who hasn't experienced any issues at all yet? I haven't even had issues with file copy speed.

    I'll load SP1 on both my machines and post some hopefully uneventful results of how both my PCs still work without issue when I get home from this business trip in three days.

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Working...