Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software Microsoft

Windows Vista SP1 Meeting Sour Reception In Places 501

Posted by Zonk
from the just-a-bit-more-testing dept.
Stony Stevenson writes "A day after it was released for public download, Windows Vista SP1 is drawing barbs from some computer users who say the software wrecked their systems. 'I downloaded it via Windows Update, and got a bluescreen on the third part of the update,' wrote 'Iggy33' in a comment posted Wednesday on Microsoft's Vista team blog. Iggy33 was just one of dozens of posters complaining about Vista Service Pack 1's effect on their PCs. Other troubles reported by Vista SP1 users ranged from a simple inability to download the software from Microsoft's Windows Update site to sudden spikes in memory usage. To top it all off, the service pack will not install on computers that use peripheral device drivers that Microsoft has deemed incompatible."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Vista SP1 Meeting Sour Reception In Places

Comments Filter:
  • by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:43PM (#22800448)
    So, SP1 won't install if there's an incompatible driver present (as opposed to installing and then crashing all the time, or just removing the driver)? That sounds pretty fucking sensible to me, what exactly are we supposed to find bad about that?

    Obviously it'd be better if no such incompatibility existed, but if you have to deal with such a situation, this seems like the best way to do it, by far.

    • How about ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:52PM (#22800554)
      Install and just disable the device?

      Or rather, how about installing the parts that CAN be installed and skipping anything else?

      This is about getting PATCHES in place. Not whether you have an unsupported CD-ROM and, therefore, you will not be allowed to apply the OTHER patches.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Because device drivers never had a negative effect on a new kernel, right?
      • Re:How about ... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:00PM (#22800680)
        Are you kidding? Disabling the device would have users furious, and rightly so. And it may not be possible to skip the parts which are incompatible... but only Microsoft can tell us that one.
        • Ubuntu can do it. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:23PM (#22800958)
          It always amazes me how people can be so defensive about such simple operations.

          Almost every Linux distribution can manage this without any problem. Many of them doing it for free (as in beer).

          And yet you're saying that Microsoft could not. Whatever.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by bigstrat2003 (1058574) *
            No, I'm saying Microsoft MAY NOT be able to. Huge difference there. I don't know if they can or can't, neither do you. The only people who know are the programmers at Microsoft who coded this service pack up, they're the ones who could tell us if the conflicting parts of the service pack can just be cut out or not.

            That's the important thing here, and whether or not Ubuntu, or any other OS on earth, can manage it is 100% irrelevant. The fact that it's possible in another setting doesn't prove it's possible

            • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:34PM (#22801052)

              No, I'm saying Microsoft MAY NOT be able to. Huge difference there.
              And I said that Ubuntu could do it.

              And that most Linux distributions can. For free (as in beer).

              But feel free to claim that a company with BILLIONS of dollars and hundreds of programmers at their disposal MAY NOT be able to duplicate that feat.

              And that's the best you have? :D
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by bigstrat2003 (1058574) *
                For starters, throwing more money at a problem doesn't automatically produce a better solution, so budget is largely irrelevant here.

                And yes, "may not be able" is the best I have because it's the truth. We don't know how exactly what the service pack's code structure looks like, so we can't make an actual judgement as to whether or not the offending portion can just be cut out. Anything's possible with the proper amount of time and effort, but there's a huge difference between "just don't install that par

              • by MrNaz (730548) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:50PM (#22801202) Homepage
                I'm a Slashdotter, and I like Linux as much as any other. It earns me my bread. But seriously, dude, if you think that Linux distro's "Just Work", and all updates never cause dependency or conflict issues, then you're dreaming. Not even Ubuntu's upgrades always go smoothly, especially when you have exotic server hardware thrown into the mix, or obscure or complex packages running.
                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by seifried (12921)
                  Red Hat's do. I know Mandriva also does a pretty good job. Oddly enough the commercial Linux vendors do make sure stuff upgrades without breaking. Which is perhaps why they get paid.
                  • by MrNaz (730548) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @07:29PM (#22802134) Homepage
                    Try either distro with the latest Creative sound card and nVidia graphics card, and if you can get both working with full functionality without the need for a text editor, I shall retract my statement.
                  • by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @07:38PM (#22802230) Homepage
                    Red Hat ?

                    RPM-based Red Hat ?

                    You, sir, are full of shit. Sure, Red Hat tends to be stable when you stick to the base packages. The reason everything is 18 months out of date is because they test the living shit out of their builds, and that's fine. We used to call that Debian, btw.

                    Now, install something non-standard on Red Hat, and you almost have to unless you're doing something extremely simple, and you'll quickly find yourself at the mercy of disjointed updates, and the beloved hassle of virtual packages. This is true of any package management system, but RPM seems to make it just a little more painful than average, being bound to archaic build routines and an intentional lack of "cheating" abilities.

                    I use Red Hat, but all my mission-critical apps are built from source and kept far far away from the package manager.
                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by cHiphead (17854)
                  I think you miss the obvious difference. Run a version of Ubuntu LTS and your updates tend to be reliable and not much differing than Windows XP updates with the occasional snafu. 'Upgrading' by a full version number in Ubuntu can be likegoing from Windows 2000 to XP. Microsoft simply does not have the fast and lose ability or desire to regularly implement full version updates, too much management involved and too much product lifecycle to wring out a few more profits from.

                  Cheers.
              • by xtracto (837672) on Thursday March 20, 2008 @07:02AM (#22805066) Journal
                at Ubuntu could do it

                As other people said, you my friend are smoking something really overkill.

                I have Ubuntu on my laptop, I installed 7.04 and made it work as fine as I could (i had to buy a separate wireless card because the one that came with the laptop did not work... that did not happen in Windows).

                When I upgraded to 7.10, the 3D graphics acceleration which was working with the free x.org drivers in 7.04 just broke up. There is no freaking way in hell to make it work. And I spent two weekends (saturdays AND sundays) trying to make it work, including asking in the oh so good ubuntu forums. My questions just get ignored.

                So yeah, Ubuntu could do it, Microsoft could do it to, and better than Ubuntu or any Linux distro. But it does not happens.

                Now, please pass that shit you are smoking, it really seems to be good stuff.
              • by hey! (33014) on Thursday March 20, 2008 @07:36AM (#22805226) Homepage Journal
                Well, Ubuntu isn't exactly great when it comes to things common laptop sound cards, or certain popular USB wi-fi adapters. If you're lucky, it just works, but the same goes for Vista. But Ubuntu is not particularly good among Linux ditros when it comes to hardware support. I can attest this from personal experience.

                Vista's problem appears to be that drivers often don't exist for "legacy" devices -- that is to say devices that aren't currently being sold but were being sold last week. Ubuntu's problem is that they ship drivers that don't work with their kernel modifications. The solution to most device problems seems to be either to get source for an updated driver and compile it against the Ubuntu headers, or to replace the Ubuntu kernel with a stock Debian kernel. That is, that is the solution if you are lucky.

                I hardly think Ubuntu deserves to be held up as an example of hardware compatibility, if they ship drivers with their distro that doesn't work with their kernel modifications. Microsoft, at least, can justly claim they don't have access to the driver source.

                If you have a couple of different problems with Ubuntu and hardware, and search the net for solutions, you hear the same stories over and over again. The Ubuntu upgrade broke some piece of hardware, but some people had good luck getting the source and compiling it against Ubuntu's headers; others have luck replacing the Ubuntu kernel with the stock Debian kernel. Then you have a smattering of things that people tried and worked for some reason they can't fathom, then there are instructions of the jump-down-turn-around-pick-a-bale-of-cotton variety which might work but nobody real expects them to. Then you have a few lonely voices saying they tried every suggestion and nothing and worked, and does anybody please, please have any ideas of what to try next? Sometimes they get an answer, which is that this sort of thing should be much less common in the next major release, contrary to experience with every prior release since the project's inception.

                Still, I'm using Ubuntu, not because it's perfect, but because it's better for what I need it for. I use virtual machines extensively, and they run more smoothly under Ubuntu X86_64 than under Ubuntu 32 bit or Vista. I can live without sound, although I miss playing music while I work.

                Next time around I'm definitely going back to Debian. They may be slow to get the latest versions of everything out, but when they do it works better. I'd go back to Debian now, but I've spent way more than my budgeted time screwing around with the operating system, and its well past the "educational" stage where you do things like read the ACPI specs to figure out how things work, and into the stage of being a plain old PITA.

                Clearly, Linux is a better operating system in this sense: given that it's mere fantasy that "things just work", it's better to have a single device fail than to have the entire OS unusable. Not that a bad device driver can't cause a kernel panic, but when the source to a driver is available, it's much less likely to make it into a distribution doing something that will bring the entire system down. It might not work -- that takes having the actual hardware in question available for testing.

                I'm not saying Ubuntu is a bad distro. It'd be a great distro if it didn't fiddle with the kernel, then ship that kernel with drivers that don't work with its changes. If there is somebody else taking care of this for you, fine. I think Dell sells machines with Ubuntu preinstalled. But I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anybody who didn't have somebody supporting them who was comfortable doing things like installing custom kernels and the like.
        • Re:How about ... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by UnxMully (805504) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:55PM (#22801256)
          Are you kidding? Disabling the device would have users furious, and rightly so. And it may not be possible to skip the parts which are incompatible... but only Microsoft can tell us that one.

          I'm confused, or perhaps it's the Magners. But why is it that a device that was supported under Vista isn't supported under Vista SP1?

          Agreed, disabling devices would be bad and refusing to install on a working machine is good but did Microsoft take a red pen to the supported devices list in SP1?
          • Re:How about ... (Score:5, Informative)

            by ashridah (72567) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @07:09PM (#22801978)
            Kernel data structure changes.

            The problem with giving people just enough rope to hang themselves is that they want a little slack so that it's not uncomfortable when they're tying the noose and getting on the chair, and get it by taping on their own rope with duct tape.

            See this [slashdot.org] for an example of this. It's a really painful thing, and really makes me feel sorry for people like Raymond Chen [msdn.com] who has to deal with these kinds of issues for pay. (His book's kinda interesting tho)

            Admittedly, a lot of the benefits to the linux driver model is that they *don't* get a lot of third party drivers, which helps eliminate a lot of this kind of problem. It still exists however. Just ask anyone who's trying to debug a kernel with the nvidia driver installed.
          • Re:How about ... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Allador (537449) on Thursday March 20, 2008 @01:10AM (#22803984)

            But why is it that a device that was supported under Vista isn't supported under Vista SP1?
            Because of any number of things:

            1. The driver writer was doing something that was specifically not supported in windows, but for some reason didnt actually fail in the RTM version, but did fail in the SP1 version, as things are tightened up. The driver writer did something wrong, should MS continue to support broken drivers?

            2. The driver writer was relying on an implementation bug in Vista RTM, which was fixed in SP1.

            3. The driver writer was directly modifying kernel data structures in memory. These data structures can change with new service packs. If allowed to continue, they would basically clobber other random memory structures.

            It just goes on like that. This is software business 101 stuff, that Microsoft has been dealing with for over a decade.

            The reality is, most driver authors (and most ISVs in general) are utterly and completely incompetent. They dont read or follow the guidance MS puts out on how to make an application or driver function correctly in windows. They dont follow best practices.

            In the bad old days, MS used to put hacks and special cases in their operating systems to support buggy applications. With Vista, and especially with the x64 version of Vista, they've been alot less lenient.

            This is good in the long run because it forces IHVs and ISVs to clean up their act. But it can cause some pain in the short run.
          • Re:How about ... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ozphx (1061292) on Thursday March 20, 2008 @01:36AM (#22804054) Homepage
            Probably the usual deal.

            Microsoft to Realtek:
            "Heres the driver API!"

            Realtek:
            "Argh this is hard. Fortunately I'm clever and can use this undocumented function."

            (time passes)

            Realtek:
            "Ack, fuck. What happened to my fucking undocumented function?"
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Frizzle Fry (149026)
          It would also make the manufacturer of the peripheral furious (and probably litigious) when customers got furious with them for their device no longer working.
    • by cerberusss (660701) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:55PM (#22800588) Homepage Journal
      There's such a thing as user interaction and graceful degradation. People might want to accept lesser functionality because SP1 would give them things they can't do without. They might view sound as something unnecessary and thus choose to accept a non functioning piece of hardware. Graceful degradation would mean that it's OK to install but the printer will only print in black and white.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by spazdor (902907)
        Or, God forbid, we just ask the user's permission to load a potentially unsafe driver!
        • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:12PM (#22800832)
          I hate to say it, but I tend to take Microsoft's side on this one. If you do that, the vast majority of people won't care and will just click OK no matter what. Just like when their firewall says, "this is a potentially unsafe Web site". They click OK anyway because they just don't care.
          • by spazdor (902907) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:26PM (#22800978)
            That's okay with me. Just warn me about the risks and get the hell out of my way. The point, to me, of those little warning boxes is not to dissuade people from accessing the sites/loading the drivers that they want. The point is just to let the user know that they're now leaving the Supported Zone and entering the shady world of Your Own Discretion.
            • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:35PM (#22801068)
              For me personally, I feel exactly the same way you do. Most people on Slashdot who represent the more knowledgeable segment of the Vista-using population probably do too. But it's a fine balance ... either you leave the machine missing some functionality but still working, or you run a greater risk of blue-screening the thing. It's a tough call, really. Either way, the user ends up fucked but the former at least leaves him running. Given that Windows is the OS of choice for clueless people, that's probably the better way. Maybe it should just ask up front if you're dimwitted or computer-literate. If the latter, then have it do what you're saying.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by spazdor (902907)
                That's fair. I guess I'd be satisfied if the installer refused to load initially, but suggested that you go disable the driver by hand and then try re-enabling it after the upgrade.

                That would at least introduce some barriers for the newbies, without preventing the power users from trying whatever non-standard stuff they want to try.
        • by vux984 (928602) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:22PM (#22800950)
          Or, God forbid, we just ask the user's permission to load a potentially unsafe driver!

          I sense a double standard.

          If someone loaded a driver that was known not to work with a given linux kernel and then it didn't work and caused kernel panics, what would we hear? Something like -- you're an idiot, you brought this on yourself, linux even warned you it was incompatible when you installed it, how much of a dipshit are you? What exactly did you expect?

          The same thing happens on Windows and we'll hear chants of "Vista sucks because it crashes all the time" followed by a slashdot "Amen!" The fact that its crashing because the user loaded a driver Vista warned him not too? Well its still Vista's fault for some reason.

          • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @06:00PM (#22801304)
            I agree with you.

            However I'll note that the double standard partly arises from a "Windows vs. Linux" myth. That is, Windows is supposedly "compatible with everything" and there are "drivers for every device." According to the myth, Windows isn't supposed to have those kinds of problems; only Linux has trouble with "strange hardware."

            For those of us who know that it's a myth (and that both operating systems support a plethora of devices, though obviously not every single one), it's at least interesting to see a concrete example. Windows has driver problems too. In both Windows and Linux, non-existent or buggy drivers can ruin the user experience. And in both cases, if a user loads potentially unsafe software, they must accept the consequences.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by griffjon (14945)
            I blame users for a lot of problems with MS in general. But there's something to be said for a system that manages that careful balance between providing security and not bugging the user so much about potential security threats that they get numbed into clicking OK over and over again. Vista, straight up, is crap. I'm a unfortunately expert Windows user and find Vista more frustrating than I can easily [You're writing negative thing about Windows Vista, allow or cancel?] express in writing. [Using punct
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Allador (537449)
          That exists. Its called the standalone installer.

          The standalone doesnt care if you have incompatible drivers. You're assumed to have figured it out and accept the risks if you install it that way.

          So if you want to risk it, use the standalone installer. If you dont, use windows update.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Idaho (12907)

          Or, God forbid, we just ask the user's permission to load a potentially unsafe driver!

          Yes, you see, this often used to be Microsofts approach to such matters. It doesn't work well (so I'm glad they figured that out). Some of the reasons have already been explained by others in this thread. I'd like to add that basically, the system would be asking a question to which there is no correct answer. "Using this driver may affect your systems stability or not work at all. Continue regardless yes/no?" is a questio

    • .. by suggesting that the 4gb memory stick would operate a lot faster if I put it into a high speed plug which was available on my Dell 2407wfp rather than in the top tray of the Antec 900 case. I hadn't figured that one out myself for some reason.

      Had to transfer files (photos) from my D70s memory card to my wife's USB stick so she could bring some shots to her work. Estimated time before I moved the stick was 15-20 minutes; just moving the stick to the monitor it took 2-3.

      In effect it was saying, hey you g
  • by cjmnews (672731) <cjmnews@yahoo.com> on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:44PM (#22800460) Homepage
    For those of you that do this to your parents and relatives for easier support.
  • A bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Drakin020 (980931) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:47PM (#22800490)

    To top it all off, the service pack will not install on computers that use peripheral device drivers that Microsoft has deemed incompatible."
    And that's a bad thing? The way I see it, this prevents even more problems. Honestly though I have heard great things about the upgrade from many users. Also Engadget was running a story and most of the people that commented had good things to say.

    It's know that anytime an update is released there will always be some problems. http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/19/some-vista-sp1-early-adopters-reporting-problems-how-about-you/#comments [engadget.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:48PM (#22800502)
    Khaaaaaaaan-

    uh, I mean,

    Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaates!!!
  • I've had no problems (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jwsmith00 (262885) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:50PM (#22800520)
    I'm very happy with SP1. I've been very critical of Vista. But now I can say that I wouldn't go back to XP.
  • by urbanriot (924981) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:50PM (#22800522)
    12 blog commentors claim to have had problems installing SP1 and that's newsworthy? I'd be curious to see their system configuration, as I'm so far nine for nine successful installs on various system configurations with no issues whatsoever (in fact, some systems had issues corrected).
  • by ThinkFr33ly (902481) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:50PM (#22800526)
    Dozens? Seriously? So that represents, what, about .0005% of users installing SP1?

    Why is it news that a few dozen people have issues with a service pack installation? Oh, that's right... this is Slashdot.

    Slashdot should just get it over with and change their slogan to "News for people who hate Microsoft. Stuff that we made up."
    • by cliffski (65094) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:58PM (#22800638) Homepage
      well said. I kicked off my sp1 install and went to lunch. Came back to a machine needing 1 reboot, and then back into my work. Later found I needed to reinstall my monitor driver which was apparently not certified. Took 5 mins.
      the fact that a few people might be moaning wildly does not mean the service pack met with a bad reception. This is the only place where it is vaguely an issue.
  • good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by frakir (760204) <ockhamrazor@ y a h o o . com> on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:53PM (#22800562)
    One day I hope to enter a store, pick up a brand new hot game and find a sticker on it:
    "WINE COMPATIBLE"
  • by Toreo asesino (951231) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:55PM (#22800598) Journal

    Iggy33 was just one of dozens of posters complaining about Vista Service Pack 1's effect on their PCs
    Whole 'Dozens' of machines break under SP1. Quick, someone tell Bill to pull the plug!

    There are specific drivers versions that the update will not work with (and will prevent installation until they're updated), and specific application versions that break too. Shocking, it's true.

    Someone remind me how many binary proprietary drivers break in Linux when you upgrade the kernel? All the nvidia drivers come to mind...but I digress.

    This isn't a troll, these are facts...maybe it sucks that drivers are binary proprietary blobs that get shipped with Windows, but because they are, I'd say "dozens" isn't a bad percentage. I've been running SP1 just fine for weeks btw...

    Perhaps the real news here is Vista should've shipped only when SP1 came out? Win2k8 did.
  • by Sitnalta (1051230) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:57PM (#22800610)
    I installed SP1 on my desktop, laptop and several machines at work. There wasn't a single problem. My desktop had an "incompatible driver" and so I had to download SP1 from the MS website, but it installed fine and the driver is also working fine.

    This sort of thing is normal with major OS updates. Even OS 10.5 had some major problems when users upgraded. And, honestly, unless you're like me and testing the service pack for work-related reasons... why are you installing it the day it was released? That's just dumb. At least wait a week.

    My only real beef is you can't slipstream the new service pack into the install disk. That's going to be a pain in the ass next time I install Vista.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by petermgreen (876956)
      A bit of googling seems to show that while MS doesn't officially support slipstreaming it yourself people have found methods that work.

      Also afaict there are official images with it built in though if you don't have MSDN, aren't using volume licensing and don't plan to buy any new copies you may have to resort to pirate sources to get your hands on it.
  • Something is clearly wrong. There are not supposed to be any BSODs in Vista - its supposed to be an RSOD. Perhaps these dozen people installed XP SP1??!!
  • Dozens? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Weaselmancer (533834) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @04:58PM (#22800630)

    'I downloaded it via Windows Update, and got a bluescreen on the third part of the update,' wrote 'Iggy33' in a comment posted Wednesday on Microsoft's Vista team blog. Iggy33 was just one of dozens of posters complaining about Vista Service Pack 1's effect on their PCs.

    Not that I'm backing Microsoft, but if they only have dozens of complaints on something with an installed base that large - then I'd consider the release a rather large success.

    More people had problems downloading the NIN album.

  • ...I have not had any issues with the update. I installed it yesterday, on a mostly fresh install of Vista Enterprise, onto a Dell OptiPlex 745 with 2gb RAM and a C2D 6600.

    I've got our trouble tracking software running (DKHelpDesk), SMS Admin Console (been using it heavily today), Visual Studio 2008, and Office 2007 installed (well, along with Firefox, JavaRE, Adobe Reader, etc).

    'Course, this particular machine is used for business uses and not gaming, but, at least I'm one person without issues (so far).
  • The reason for that, of course, is that I'm taking the "head in the sand" approach to Vista. I deny its existence whenever and wherever possible. And when/where I cannot, I exclaim that it's not compatible with our core software tools (AutoCAD 2005 doesn't work well with Vista) and that there is actually no business case for installing Vista... and there's not. What 'requires' Vista?

    (I also take a similar stand on Office 2007. Fortunately, Microsoft has helped us out by giving out the 2007 format utilit
  • -1, Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xstonedogx (814876) <xstonedogx@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:01PM (#22800690)
    The article is schizophrenic. Rather than presenting a balanced view of SP1, it leads with unsubstantiated complaints as if that is the story, then talks about some facts (which are mostly positive) with some more complaints mixed in. Does it suck or not? This article says yes, but doesn't make a very good case for it.

    "Dozens" of users of unknown levels of technical knowledge (out of millions of users) issued anecdotal complaints.

    "Bikkja" said that "after installing SP1 things seem to go really slow, even though my computer shouldn't have any problems."


    Firstly, is 'seem' a technical term? How do we know whether it went slower or not? Secondly a little reading would have told this guy that SuperFetch was basically rebooted by the install, which will make things slower for those using it until it catches back up.

    Other troubles reported by Vista SP1 users ranged from a simple inability to download the software from Microsoft's Windows Update site...


    There are several reasons for this, the most important that a previous update allows Windows to scan for drivers incompatible with SP1 and prevent download so as not to break the system (which TFA mentions).

    ...to sudden spikes in memory usage. "Went from using 650 MB RAM idle to 1 Gig... I'll be switching back," said "Kurrier."


    So? What is with this obsession with memory usage? Idle RAM has a slightly negative value - it does nothing while still consuming a non-zero amount of energy. How RAM is used is much more important than whether or not it is used. Now, it may be that this guy only has 1 GB of RAM. It could be that this is the result of a problem. But who knows? Not the author.

    Some had 'insightful' comments complaining about increased memory usage. Memory usage is a worthless metric! How memory is usage is more important than how much - and really, would you rather have that RAM in use making your system respond faster, or would you rather have it sit there doing nothing? There's some give and take here, but complaining about memory usage without context is meaningless.

    The feature was plagued by false alarms that flagged thousands of legitimate Vista users as software pirates.


    A legitimate (if unsubstantiated by the article) complaint, but well known before SP1 and really even before Vista.

  • Yep. (Score:3, Funny)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:01PM (#22800694)
    Service Pack 1 is all it's cracked up to be, all right.
  • by BUL2294 (1081735) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:08PM (#22800786)
    Hah! Looks like corporations and end-users like me should wait for SP2 or maybe even SP3!
  • Newflash! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Itchyeyes (908311) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:17PM (#22800894) Homepage
    This just in: somewhere, someone on the Internet complains about something. More at 11.
  • I hate to say it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GlL (618007) <<moc.erutnev-ten> <ta> <lig>> on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @05:32PM (#22801012)
    but the OS actually works now.

    After installing the service pack certain things are incredibly faster.
    1) startup: Before installing the service pack it took my computer (Hell laptop with 1.6ghz dual core AMD processor, 4GB RAM) 20 minutes to become usable. Now I can use my computer within 2 minutes of logging in to my domain. It seems like the indexing that happens actually runs in the backgroung and doesn't interfere with apps that you want to run in the foreground.
    2) Browsing the domain network. Before installing the service pack, I could double-click on Network and watch the green bar slowly crawl across the top until finally after 5 minutes computers would appear. Now it is instantaneous.
    3) Outlook 07 (probably related to the indexing changes). Before installing the service pack it took 5 minutes for Outlook to become usable and half the time it would tell me the local file closed incorrectly and it would now "repair" the file. Now Outlook takes abetween 20 and 40 seconds to be usable and downloading e-mail is much quicker. I haven't gotten the Incorrect file closure message yet either, and I have been opening and closing Outlook all day.

    The new remote desktop removed the stupid login window.

    The only thing I need to check on is if you still can't change IP settings when you first sign on. It used to take 5 minutes to be able to change IP settings.

    The only complaint I have is that installing the Service Pack took alittle over 4 hours.
  • by edwardpickman (965122) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @06:52PM (#22801800)
    Maybe the new Flying Brick screen saver should have been a sign.
  • by Kahless2k (799262) on Wednesday March 19, 2008 @08:23PM (#22802534) Homepage
    I've been using Vista for a while now (I need to know it for work) and have followed the SP1 saga for some time - and from a lot of the posts above, I seem to be one of very few...

    There are a handful of drivers (there is a list on technet I believe, but Im too lazy to dig a link up, but check one of the first posts in the last SP1 post on slashdot) which for one reason or another install themselves in such a way as SP1 makes them inoperable. The solution is to reinstall the drivers after SP1. Microsoft is trying to make this smooth - with Vista's reputation, what do you think would happen when Joe Public installs an update and their sound driver goes bad? Simple solution or not it is only going to hurt the reputation further.

    It is very good to see that at least SP1 backs out cleanly when it sees it cannot complete the update, and from what I have read and heard from customers (mainly Joe Public types) that SP1 is installing without real issue for the majority of people. Personally, I installed last night without any issues - I actually noticed that my machine feels more responsive in a number of areas.

    With that said, it is a service pack.. sometimes there are compatibility issues, look at XP SP2 when it came out but nobody bitches about that anymore; if the negative impact is minimized, then good for them.

    Put away your pitchforks for once.. I've had enough updates on my Linux boxes go wrong that I find the "Evil Microsoft, Linux perfect" comments being hypocritical - but then, this IS slashdot..

    (I know I'll be modded into oblivion because of that last comment, but I had to say it)

Nothing happens.

Working...