digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

LEAKED: Vista SP1 analysed in-depth

apcmag.com — We've gone under the hood of the leaked beta of Vista SP1 to find out exactly what it will do for you. One thing we can say right now: **huge performance increase**.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • binorgog, on 08/07/2008, -4/+147Nice change of pace to read something without bashing or hoorays. Good analysis.
    • Demagogue, on 10/10/2007, -17/+29I will definitely second that. I love my vista install, it runs a hell of a lot faster than XP ever did on my machine.
      • donwilson2, on 10/10/2007, -25/+12are you insane?
      • JPDota, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20I don't know about faster or more stable, but I like the new start menu a lot.
      • Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -26/+10Demagogue doesn't know what he's talking about (and the people who dugg his comment). It is impossible to run Vista faster than XP. I suspect Demagogue upgraded his hardware and is falsely crediting vista with the performance increase.
        • chingy1788, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"wrong, it is very possible for vista to run faster." well, anything to back this up? Because we're fielding a mixed environment and Vista's performance even on high-end systems isn't promising when compared to XP in our shop.
          you can use the boot times on my crappy laptop
          Vista - 30 sec
          Xp - well over 1 minute
          Sempron 3k (dont bash me, im poor, go away)
          768MB RAM
          and a fairly slow HDD (transfers at about 27MBps max, due to drop)
          • toxicityj, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I've got 1 GB of ram.
            AMD Athlon dual core 2.2Ghz

            until two days ago it ran XP. then i installed Vista.
            Vista ran faster than XP did. files transfered quicker, programs loaded faster, search was faster, add/remove programs was faster, just everything was faster than XP. so shut the ***** up now, please.
          • MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Ohw, wait I get it. Was it faster than a fresh XP install, or one you installed years ago? With all kinds of extra crap? XP really wasn't slow at all. Ever. Its that anti-virus trail software you were never able to remove, the java-auto-updater-crap, etc.

            How does the speed compare with a FRESH install of XP?
          • GliTCH82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Still faster. Vista runs faster on NEWER hardware than XP does. Vista takes advantage of memory management that is more beneficial to systems with large amounts of RAM, resulting in better streamlined performance than XP on the same system. I don't have any numbers for you, just my personal experience running Vista and XP on a mix of hardware.
          • eviltandem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, it doesn't. Even Tom's hardware did a review. Top end system, 2 new installs. Vista got it's teeth kicked in.
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Well the best way to tell is via fresh installs and timing them.
          But anyway, wait till I blow their minds and show them how Vista and XP are faster copying files and stuff than MS Dos. Its entirely credible that a newer operating system is faster.
          • monkeyboy7706, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2To be honest I think XP is faster than vista on a fresh install. However, to me anyway, Vista doesn't seem to slow down as much over time than XP seems to. Vista seems to handle things better over time.
          • GliTCH82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I cannot emphasize enough how dead-on the comment above me is. I had to reply in addition to digging it up. However, I still think that a fresh Vista install with certain KB updates will run faster on newer hardware than a fresh XP install with the newest updates for XP. Keyword here is NEWER hardware.
        • MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's possible, but not likely. Because the hardware gets better, performance is LESS important. The functionality people expect increase, so code maintaince becomes MORE important. Often (but not always) it will be the case that very optimized code is more complex and prone to bugs.
      • Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7No it's true, I've been running Vista a *long* time and it really is faster. Aero makes the desktop faster, superfetch makes it faster, readyboost makes it faster.
        It really is faster.
        • drouk1556, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Aero makes the desktop slower. It uses more resources than the standard grey theme.
          • Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It uses more RAM but the benefit is that the graphics processor composites everything making response time so much quicker. Plus, it's more reliable, as one crashed application does nothing to the rest of the GUI.
          • MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yeah, you have to use a GPU to make sure that the graphical stuff is done in another thread. Doesn't this just sort of prove how badly it is designed? Not that the linux desktop managers deal with this any better. But come on, it makes a lot of sense to run the window manager in a separate thread? no?
        • JoeDiggsIt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Aero makes the desktop faster"

          More graphical processes = More RAM being used.....=Faster??
          • daza, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yes. Less RAM being used is a wasted resource.
      • rpgmaker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Of course Demagogue doesn't know what he is talking about. Just check the requirements for a Windows Vista Basic install. I give you a clue: You can run 2 XP machines with them.
      • FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Vista is and was always a lot more stable, secure and faster then any first release of Windows. Its does require decent hardward (nothing fancy, got mine from dell for 600$), I can open up any number of concurrent apps and then run wow on top and everything runs like silk. The machine has never crashed, and I rarely if ever have to reboot. If you had a bad experience with a beta version of Vista I don't know but the final build is solid.
    • selkie, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8When you say "very noticeable performance increase" in the article and stick **huge performance increase** in the story title, one would expect something a little more quantitative than "less hard disk thrashing". All the updates that are mentioned are about bugfixes, nothing which directly translates into better performance - less hampered performance -- maybe.
      • streak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The actual language used by James Bannan is: "I can say that there is a very noticeable performance increase" and "in general the system seems much smoother and more respnosive." I'd say that's significant, but nowhere near "huge".
    • cleverboy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Yeah, that's sad. Sounds like a lot of Windows apologists (usually apologists are created due to buying the product, and desperately looking for good things to make you feel better about your purchase, or listening to all the exagerated bashing and desperately trying to create "balance"). My impression of Vista is that it conforms to the sentence "was this trip really necessary"? I took years to move from Window 2000 to XP, and now I think XP is decent. Now Vista comes along trying to make my existing machine seem like chop liver all over again. I listened to Buzz Out Loud, and even Molly Wood (who loves Windows Media Center) had no bones about saying Vista has been a "DOG". Add to that the fact that many Dell customers want to make sure XP remains an option.

      Everything sounds "relative" on this stuff. I'd have appreciated this "review" if he'd simply taken a moment to list the specs on his machine (including video card), and how that has reflected on Vista's stated requirements and how the improvements add to that specific experience. Outside of that disclosure, the review is all tainted without clear context. How HARD is that to do?
  • gizbug, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Nice article.Have yet to see a Vista 64 pre sp1 though, just 32bit
    • CLShortFuse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The Vista Performance and Reliability Pack (KB938979) was leaked last month for 32bit and 64bit as well as Vista Compatibility and Reliability Pack (KB938194). So far, that's all we're getting
      • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9They released those on Microsoft's website to download a few days ago. :)
  • schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -39/+4FTA:

    "The “performance” update (KB938979), “improves the performance and reliability of Windows Vista” in the following scenarios:

    * You experience a long delay when you try to exit the Photos screen saver.
    * A memory leak occurs when you use the Windows Energy screen saver."

    I would not believe this until some benchmarks are published. It would be natural to suspect that there is exaggeration here because sluggish performance is attributed to 'features' which no service pack is intended to remove.
    • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+32Perhaps you should google refactoring and optimisation. It is often possible to make a program faster without removing or altering features.
    • CLShortFuse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13And also FTA:

      "This service pack isn’t to be confused with two enhancement packs which were leaked to the public a few weeks ago, and then officially released by Microsoft with virtually no fanfare on the 8th and the 9th. These two updates address compatibility and performance features in Vista."

      Which makes your comment pointless.
    • kretik, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4God, your life must suck so much.
    • Andy460, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...and anyone at all actually cares about the screensavers?
    • schoate09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2and linux is so perfect...
      /sarcasm
  • Rejun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Not to mention that the improvements are probably in response time, and the like.
    Really unlikely that anything "benchmark-y" is going to show an improvement, but the actual use of Vista will be much smoother.
  • drakesteele, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19This was an EXCELLENT analysis of the alpha of Vista SP1... in fact, I have yet to have seen a prior Service Pack checked out in this detail in a post anywhere. I loved seeing what was actually included, and how much it apparently did for the system speed and stability. Can't wait to be able to test it myself in beta phase. Right on!
  • nonokiaboy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Torrent??
    =)
    • Flammadeao, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29Wel I'd like to help you there, but I don't think I can,
      I don't think it would be a good idea to go to this page http://www.torrentz.com/search?q=vista+sp1
      Nor should you download the leak with the most seeds using uTorrent
      • zachgc, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5You are my hero... not for the link, I'm on OS X (however I do have friends who will appreciate your non-helpfulness). But for the Incredibles reference.
  • ryansebiz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+65XP didn't reach its peak until SP2, so this is very promising. I think Vista will get there, but it obviously still has plenty of problems to work out.
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -21/+11However, XP did slow down noticeably with SP2 compared to a vanilla install with no service packs. This slowdown was totally worth it though.
    • moosepants, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I don't recall having nearly as many driver issues with XP as I have had with Vista. (I had to buy a brand new sound card just to get my audio working on it!). Once the lack of drivers issue is fully settled (it's definitely better now it than was in January), DirectX 10 is better supported, and performance is greatly bumped up, Vista may be able to compete. However, Microsoft better speed things up considering they plan on releasing a new OS in 2009: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128888-c,vistalonghorn/article.html
      • Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2ever try the built in audio? there is no need to buy a sound card....
        • moosepants, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yes. Very much yes. I had to buy a sound card, when all I had was on board sound.
      • Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7your kidding? you had more software and drivers developed for a 6 year old OS then you do for one less then a year old?

        what could possibly be the cause of this? it must be M$'s pure evil injected into the OS to force incompatiblity.
        • moosepants, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I bought XP around release time also (About a month after it came out).
      • chingy1788, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Driver issues really just go down to the manufacturers who don't make drivers for vista, mostly because they are too old
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And manufacturers do not really want to update old drivers on old hardware. After all, there is money to be made if you are forced to buy new parts.

          Heck its probably why Apple's emulation of old Power PC software for their intel macs is so darn slow and unoptimized (especially for the older Fireworks or Photoshop). They're a for profit company and look out for the interests of their software vendors.
        • moosepants, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0XP was released when it was stable and ready after much testing. Vista was very much a rushed launch with little vendors getting the OS ahead of time to develop proper drivers, so this is more the fault of Microsoft.
  • compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5great analysis of the alpha SP1 looks like it should give some good stability as well as be better for when upgrading XP systems to XP

    dugg
  • omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+36Good to hear. Vista has great potential to be a really solid OS; it's just these pesky issues here and there that pop up at inopportune moments.
    • PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3It's got some potential, sure. But I'm still having problems installing Apache 2 on Vista, and yes I knwo I could use XMMS. I've also had some issues with Photoshop CS3 as well such as not all the updates installing properly. CS2 ran on Vista, but it wouldn't update at all. There's plenty of people that have had problems with Adobe and Vista.

      I'm not sure I call that a really solid OS if manufacturers aren't able to get their programs to work on it.
      • Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2manufactures are able to get their programs to work on it. they just have to follow good coding practices, its all microsoft is enforcing, that and a better audio service
      • geekoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4XMMS is a media player that runs under Linux, not a WAMP suite.
      • etcimon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4dude, I have wamp, photoshop cs3, dreamweaver cs3, visual studio 2005, sql server 2005 running at the same time on vista right now, and it was installed a real joke.( msi installer )... wtf are you talkin about?
      • Meep3D, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Installing Apache, PHP and MySQL from downloads, without using WAMP or anything like that, is hell, always has been hell and doesn't look set to change. And it's not Microsoft's fault in the slightest.
  • cyberghost232, on 10/10/2007, -17/+7I never thought anything could get worse than Windows ME. Tada. I think I will wait to install Vista until the official SP1 comes out from Microsoft. Maybe then the manufacturers will have better drivers for my video audio and wireless card.
    • spykez, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You know you could run the 32-bit version..
  • Narwaffle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Good to see that Microsoft's pushing Vista in a beneficial direction. This might be enough to finally warrant a purchase.
    • Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0it has been what i've been waiting for, is for SP1, on vista
      • Giever, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"It has what I've been waiting for, SP1 on Vista."

        But even then, what has that? Vista has that? Vista has SP1 on Vista? You've got Enligsh words in there, I'll give you that much.
  • jellygraph, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3SP1 will regain 1mhz of your cpu...
  • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15You had me at "Huge performance increase". I may actually want to install Vista when this comes out.
  • Phusion, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I'm glad they are really focusing on performance increases, I just couldn't use Vista on my laptop.... which came with Vista. Here's hoping we'll shape and mold this fruity OS into something solid and useable...... oh yeah. http://btjunkie.org/search?q=vista+sp1
    • mrBitch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0" I'm glad they are really focusing on performance increases, I just couldn't use Vista on my laptop.... which came with Vista. Here's hoping we'll shape and mold this fruity OS into something solid and useable. "

      If Apple released a MacBook that could not run OSX, then every tech review article would have every right to crucify Apple.

      I do understand that the guilt - in this case - would be squarely laid at the feet of the hardware vendor selling the substandard performing laptop.

      Although - if you asked the vendor why they chose to put Vista onto a laptop that couldn't run Vista adequately, the vendor would probably ( truthfully ) say that Microsoft would have " encouraged " Vista to be put on said laptop.
  • Matt174e, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Most Important question... how is it for games now?
    • VeganG, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1What you really mean is, "How is it for older games?", since newer games for Windows will be made with Windows in mind more than ever before. There's nothing stopping you from having a dual-boot XP option on your computer for years to come, basically just something you start up to play old games.
      • mrBitch, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1" There's nothing stopping you from having a dual-boot XP option on your computer for years to come, basically just something you start up to play old games. "

        OMG ! That's EXACTLY what you can do if you by a MacBook Pro or iMac - you can dual boot into XP ( using BootCamp ) to play your games, with the added benefit that you can run OSX instead of the OSX try hard known as MS Vista.
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Except most of the flashy OSX features in turn are copied straight off early builds of Longhorn back in 2001 so... who are we to believe? Miraculous tech and video demos of Longhorn that feature a lot of things in OSX before OSX came out or fanboys insisting that Vista is a copy?
        • BasilF, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Macs are for simpletons.
          • meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Windows XP uses Fisher Price colours
          • infernalbritish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Debian uses Nazi colors, whats your point? Or do you have one Digg-urchin?
    • prolog, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3I agree. I upgraded to Vista to play Halo 2 only to find that it crashes after 2 minutes of playing every single time.
      • marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Heh. You upgraded your OS to play a game. Heh. Heh.
      • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If it is crashing you probably have a driver problem. Get the latest drivers and the latest updates for the game. :)
        • prolog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I do have the latest drivers, and there have been no updates whatsoever so far.
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Then you probably have a fan or ventilation issue, once your video-card overheats to a certain degree it stops.
  • Kwipper, on 10/10/2007, -9/+30So... does this mean that the Vista FUD will stop now?
    • omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+39Nope. People will always look for an excuse to bash.
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -11/+12If they increased performance, that means the FUD about bad performance wasn't really FUD, it was the truth.
      • estvir, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Wow, that's retarded logic.
      • nazadus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4So, if (insert OS, such as Linux or *BSD) makes /any/ performance increase, that means it had bad performance? bad performance compared to what?
    • stmiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think people are mad at Vista b/c the visual 'improvements' require a hefty machine, and are just iCandy. (Four years of work for a pretty ALT-TAB?) Thankfully you can turn all of that off and get a faster 'windows classic' sort of look in Vista.
  • tanmaker, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Now if only they could make the pop ups from the User Account Control less....controlling
    • Dylson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You can turn that off in the control panel you know? You don't need microsoft to do it for you.
    • stmiller, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dylson:

      ....which also disables any security while running as full admin. Hence the windows problem.
  • Ai3d, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6This service pack isn’t to be confused with two enhancement packs which were leaked to the public a few weeks ago, and then officially released by Microsoft with virtually no fanfare on the 8th and the 9th.

    Whaa...Where?
  • osiris24x, on 10/10/2007, -15/+8I'm not sure this **huge performance increase** will really offset the huge performance *decrease* that I would experience if I were to install Windows in the first place.
    • Kwipper, on 10/10/2007, -7/+19Lets see, if you have a gaming PC and you wanted to play the latest games.... on your said PC... at a decent performance level (above 30 frames per second)? I really doubt any other OS could achieve the same results. So ***** off and die.
      • geekoid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2XP does that just fine, yes. However, so does Cedega for Linux and Cider for Mac OS X. WINE now supports some of DirectX 10, and on top of that it generally outperforms XP and Vista for games... It occasionally has some issues with stability but it's being continually worked on to improve and correct these problems...
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Generally outperforms? Are you kidding me? I would say comparable, but definitely not outperforming. Especially with Cider.

          And the "occasional issues with stability" is an understatement. Crashes and problems like no sound in certain areas of games really mar performance.
        • mightyzug, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1if it doesn't work, and it's on the list, then YOU ***** up somewhere :P windows kids always gotta scream games because it is the only legit point against linux / unix. consoles are for games, computers are for everything else.
          • Meep3D, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, since virtually all FOSS software has been ported to Windows as well, what's the point in Linux?
    • kretik, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You are so cool
  • digitallysick, on 10/10/2007, -32/+5get the vista update here, you will see a major speed increase http://goodbye-microsoft.com/
  • s0lace, on 10/10/2007, -33/+6.... Ubuntu?
    • Kwipper, on 10/10/2007, -12/+20GET THE ***** OUT OF HERE YOU LINUX *****!
      • Fartag, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Wow that sounded just like Ballmer! Did any of your chairs survive? "KWIPPER SMASH!!!" It's an eye opener to see the kind of comments dugg up in the Microsoft section, but on the other hand it helps us understand why people digging you up can't figure out how to install and use better OSes.
    • omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Wow, do I hate you ***** fanboys! Do none of you zealots ever consider the possibility that people like myself exist, where we have BOTH Vista and Ubuntu? It's called dual-booting, heard of it? You should, I use your lovely GRUB to do so!
  • NYG1988, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2My question is: What are the bugs that come along with the leaked SP1?
    • estvir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The same place your clue is.

      Completely missing with no signs of turning up.
  • Sparkster185, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19"The computer stops responding or restarts unexpectedly when you play video games or perform desktop operations."

    Is it too much to ask to be able to perform desktop operations without unexpected restarts?
    • FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1May be a combination of things can make it restart, I don't know because mine has yet to do that. I play wow all the time and "perform desktop operations". Given then Vista runs on marid different hardware combinations with a thousands of available apps something might have slipped through the cracks, they fixed it get the patch and quit complaining.
    • mightyzug, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yes.
  • DropTheOxygen, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Can anyone comment of the stability of it at the moment?
    • EXreaction, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The only time Vista has ever been unstable for me was back in the Beta days...but that wasn't Microsoft's fault, it was Creative for making such ***** drivers.
    • FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Vista has always been stable for me, the patches made the performace even better and more importantly file copy paste a lot faster.
  • BenMitchell, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1LOL - Microsoft released this to the torrents so we will beta test their crap - this way they won't be accused of releasing non-ready software.
  • marx2k, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3So basically leak = beta testing, right?

    As in, this was planned by MS so people can beta test this without any liability on MS, right?
    • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I doubt it. People are dumping on Vista as it is, without 100 new "Vista SP1 is teh SuXor!! It wiped my hard-drive!" posts.

      Microsoft may release SP1 to a wider beta-audience when its ready. Personally, those patches released last week make a brilliant OS that much nicer, so I'm in no rush to inject fresh bugs into my system.
  • culebra, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17As far as vista goes I have to say it's been a good experience for me. I've never had an easier windows install, it actually recognized every USB device without any drivers needed, it's as fast as XP, aero is a great improvement and a lot of the little things make a huge difference. I'm by no means a windows fan boy and I have to be very objective here, but vista is good. To me it's the best release of windows for the home user/desktop to date. It's really received a bad wrap in my opinion.
    • PrometheuZ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Totally agree. I've had none of the problems that many are complaining about. Only had a few issues with Nvidia drivers not being ready on time, but that was an Nvidia issue, not a Vista issue. Other than that, for me, it's been a very stable and reliable experience.
  • angrycat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13The two OFFICIAL enhancement packs that were mentioned:
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=ae2f819d-c33d-48db-a7e3-62eef7c1f7c2&DisplayLang=en
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=3fb80bb9-d832-425b-b42c-d3eb2071bbec&DisplayLang=en
    Strange windows update didn't let me know about them.
    • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8they'll be in Windows update on patch tuesday, which is erm... in two days time. On tuesday, obviously
  • magst, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Before sp1 arrives you can already archieve quite a big performance increase by installing the 2 patches : KB938979 and KB938194. Once that is done disable the automatic restore points for all your disks in system -> advanced system settings > system protection tab.

    Vista creates a restore point after just about everything, resulting in long periods of disk trashing. Be aware that you lose the ability to go back to any point in the past. However if you make regular system backups, this is not a problem.
  • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3And so it begins...the several year long trail of bandages for another crappy Microsoft operating system!
    (I use WinXP, so I am allowed to say this.)
  • psykiv, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18I don't know about you guys, but I'm still using windows 98 se.

    My comp is fast!
    • estvir, on 10/10/2007, -4/+398? Pfft, weakling.

      Win 3.1 for Workgroups > 98SE.
      • TGMD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hey I still got a machine rocking Windows /286
    • erwlas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1lol, and probably owned!
  • v413, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Huge speed improvements ... at least a couple of benchmarks would have helped to show how huge.
  • Crazymaniacc, on 10/10/2007, -17/+3So there are people who use Vista here. I'm devistated.
    • omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Yup. You can go cry under the stairs now.
    • estvir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6So you've finally began to push away your ignorance and realise there is a real world out there which is not the same as Digg's ecosystem which consists of "LOL M$ IS DEAD AND UBUUNTU APPLE LIKE RULES.!!!STEVE JOBS-JERk-CIRCLE HERE I COME!"

      I can't imagine how much of an impact that would've had on your simple mind, I hope everything works out okay for you.
    • skodaman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Dugg for the play on words...
  • BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -21/+3Patch this.

    http://tinyurl.com/2jr9ev


    (you'll be fine)
    • Breepee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Warning: dont click! It'll ***** your browser session, windows shifting place won't allow you to close its tab! Mod parent down.
      • chedabob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Let it finish moving around, then if you are in Firefox, Tools -> Options -> Content -> Disable Javascript, close the window, repeat, but enabled Javascript
      • stmiller, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Click his/her 'report this post' button.
  • majikstranger, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12Vista is actually very nice it just has some kinks i wish they would resolve, but it has some features i cant live without know and it does excellent with hardware recognition, at least in my case. Remember we all bashed windows Xp until the service packs showed up and now we love it so give it time.

    For you linux fans, i actually tried linux after doing vista because of its issues and guess what id rather deal with vista. Linux may be great for you superior beings from the moon, but it was never made as a desktop pc and never made to suit the masses needs (even though they are really trying now and have done a great job). It seems to me command lines are a thing of the past and we should be working on making the gui perform as well as command line
    • OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3if you're just going to insult us we'll ignore ignore your rants. what qualifies you to determine that CLI is the thing of the past? (and are you implying Linux/BSD doesn't have a GUI?)
      • Ro4ddog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He's right you jackass. My mom/sister/grandma doesn't want CLI, they want to be able to point and click on things. The unwashed masses are not capable of using Linux/BSD without taking a class first. So what if it does more than windows or OSX, if it's confusing for laypeople it'll never be widely accepted as the standard.
    • maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Okay, so it's not what you like. That's why Vista is there.
    • mightyzug, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i migrated to linux fully BECAUSE of vista :P and i highly doubt the "huge performance increase" for this bandaid is going to compare to the performance increase i got by switching to ubuntu.
  • DesolataX, on 10/10/2007, -26/+3Here is the the best service pack: http://www.apple.com/mac/
    • aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11if Jobsie would let me install it on my PC, then I might agree with you
    • chedabob, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Have fun playing all those awesome new games...
    • pantsbandit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wow we've only seen that joke recycled 10 times this thread, get a life retards.
  • tytanium0503, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Does anyone have a link to the 64 bit version of the service pack? or is it just a universally packaged one
    • jockser, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4i really starting to hate microsuck, rotten apple and ubcrapto. i'm gonna stick to not running any OS for all i care i will just sit there watching my blank screen.
  • Darcy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I'm running Vista on 3 of my machines, and the only area that was slower than XP is when copying large files or directories from one place to another, which the recent update improves a lot. I do have friend who upgraded from XP to Vista a while ago and had major performance problems, where even opening the start menu took about 3 seconds, so he waited a few more weeks (9 to be exact) for nVidia to update their drivers, he tried again, and now it runs like a dream. From reading the newsgroups it seems that nearly all of Vista's performance problems are caused by poor video drivers.
    • Jedipottsy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Tweak G nvidia drivers are awesome. If only they were the official ones.
  • brokensocialste, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0No mention of fixing the terrible network performance though. I can't see vista being used in an enterprise situation until then.
    • Jedipottsy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2the performance and reliability pack's made network browsing and file sharing almost identical to XP. Now with Vista's improved networking stack i never have any issues connecting to networked computers.
    • ZPWeeks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I work with 200+ Vista systems in an enterprise situation. So far it's a lot better for management (especially Windows updates) than WinXP. Still needs some time for third-party utilities for imaging and stuff, but network performance is great. I wouldn't mind having some of whatever you're smoking, though.
      • craigm01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you have 200+ systems in a enterprise situation, you should get WSUS installed, centrally manage your updates, and then whatever difference you perceive in updating will be fixed.

        And you are one of the very few enterprise's that have upgraded to Vista. I'd love to understand your reason for doing so? Less then 1year out from release and i can't provide a single good reason to any of my clients, why they should spend the $$ to upgrade.

        In the enterprise environment Vista is as useful as ***** on a bull.
  • quikboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2High-end/mid-range PC + Anti-virus program = Good Windows Vista experience

    That's all it takes guys. Instead of trying to push Windows on one of those cheap Dells or Gateways, and download free AV's on the internet (for who knows what's in them), just try to get the whole experience right the first time.

    In that way, it would be similar to the Mac and OS X in terms of performance and security. And not that much expensive. That's all it takes. I've got it on a Sony Vaio (which works for me, and looks real awesome) and Live OneCare and it's all right. No problems beyond compatibility.
  • Stonekeeper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Gratz to all the beta testers out there. Yeah, i mean you :)
  • nazadus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wonder what their plans are for OpenGL. I have issues playing Half-Life 1 (and it's mods) because I have to run in software mode. Or that may have been a graphics card driver issue. Hard to tell.
  • Kontra8, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Reading all the comments... there's a huge bunch of vista nuthuggers here... XP SP2 will always be faster than Vista which was proved in so many latest games. Dx10 will never be faster than dx9 in games simply because better gfx requres more proc power. Some ppl are actually deluded when they say you want to play your games at 30+ fps WTF?! I want to play my games at 60+ fps! I want to have v-sync on which drastically improve experience on even one of the fastest lcds (i have samsung 226bw). I have dual boot and wanted to use vista as much as possible but every game i tried works faster in xp. And problem was even though i bought 8800gts in january it wasn't enough to provide me with decent fps (that's at least 40-50+) without getting all the in game setting down alot. So i ended up playing all my games in xp and finally then just using xp daily. When new generation of gfx cards hit the market - maybe then gaming on vista will be what it should be. Who in their right mind has ever installed alpha service packs before? Today with vista - sure. I see this article as just a very good pr opportunity for vista. That's all folks.
    • ThatEvilGuy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nuthuggers? that's an MMA term, a fan?
    • sphigel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I can use your logic and state that Windows 98 will always be faster than Windows XP. So you're running Windows 98 right, or maybe 3.1? Of course Vista is slower, there's more to it. What's the point of increasing hardware performance if you're not going to take advantage of it.
  • ThatEvilGuy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I hope the Explorer was fixed, they really nerfed windows explorer in Vista.
  • carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7i'm still annoyed by the "hey are you sure you wanna do that? _yes_ fo real? _yes_ you sure you don't want me to stop you? _yes_" screens that seem to come up whenever i try to do anything useful.
    • NukkChorris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5So then turn it off. Search for how to disable UAC
      • sphigel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, i tried to live with it for a while but eventually turned it off. I think it's under user accounts in control panel.
    • radish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0First of all, in normal usage you should hardly ever see a UAC prompt. There's some bad software that's causing me some MINOR issues with UAC, but like I said, it's bad software. There's ways around this for such bad software, though I prefer not to lose the protection of UAC just because some idiot in Taiwan can't figure out how to write software that doesn't require administrative privileges.

      Secondly, I've heard many people complain about UAC because they are doing some complex administrative operations and are being prompted at every step. That's an issue they need to learn to deal with. Instead of fighting Explorer, open it elevated. Instead of running a bunch of commands one at a time and responding to UAC each time, open an elevated command prompt and execute them UAC-less there. Just be sure you close these elevated sessions when done, to maintain the security UAC offers.

      Every other OS does something similar to UAC here. I find UAC to be more "friendly" than the alternatives (sudo and other such solutions), and I'm extremely thankful that Microsoft has gone to a system where we no longer must run as "root", since that's just way too dangerous in a connected world.
  • evensr, on 10/10/2007, -10/+0Way to go, Mac OS X copy.. Sigh.. Vista is nothing but a copy, and a bad one as such.

    Get a Mac.
    • SEMW, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You know, I was really into the whole balancing issues and weighing up my needs way of deciding on an OS, but your one-line, evidence-free and widely-posted troll has suddenly convinced me to get a Mac! Go you!
    • schoate09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2stfu
    • BasilF, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

      So you prefer Macs - along with the minority - so why are you even reading this article?

      Go play Doom 2 or whatever the latest game is that you can run on your overpriced piece of ***** designer computer.
    • pantsbandit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yea, get a mac, sit there and do nothing while everyone else is playing counterstrike, battlefield x, crysis, bioshock, far cry 2, serious sam 3, etc. etc.
  • abreen12, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1But does it blend?
    • Arctirus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Die in a fire.
    • chedabob, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dude, you have to say it about something physical. Get a clue.
  • cinmachina, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I really appreciate whoever wrote that article, not only because they didn't turn it into an ignorant "Windows sucks, Linux/Unix rules for ever!" article, but because of the great amount of research that went into it. Who has time to go into the registry and analyze the differences between the first build and the new service pack? My hats off to you sir, thank you!
  • Killmaster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I've kind of been looking for a reason to install vista onto my laptop. I think i just need more ram now.
  • ilikevag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Can somebody help me? Whenever I try to download anything from Microsoft.com (on any browser) as soon as I click the download link it says the page cannot be found. Does anyone else have this problem or have a fix?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.