Your Dad is a smart man!
Thats basically the attitude taken by businesses worldwide, including the one I'm IT Manager for!
Windows Vista Service Pack 1
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
Your Dad is a smart man!
Thats basically the attitude taken by businesses worldwide, including the one I'm IT Manager for!
Your Dad is a smart man!
Thats basically the attitude taken by businesses worldwide, including the one I'm IT Manager for!
Don't know if read slashdot but it's had some links to articles that caused a few red faces at red faces. Seems even people within in Microsoft aren't enamoured with Vista and it that they down graded the hardware requirements as a favour to Intel.
5 years of development and we get a turkey (though Server 2008 is looking pretty good.
And if you're still running XP, apparently SP3 for XP is everything SP1 for Vista isn't but Microsoft don't really want to trumpet it that.
Your Dad is a smart man!
Thats basically the attitude taken by businesses worldwide, including the one I'm IT Manager for!
Don't know if read slashdot but it's had some links to articles that caused a few red faces at red faces. Seems even people within in Microsoft aren't enamoured with Vista and it that they down graded the hardware requirements as a favour to Intel.
5 years of development and we get a turkey (though Server 2008 is looking pretty good.
And if you're still running XP, apparently SP3 for XP is everything SP1 for Vista isn't but Microsoft don't really want to trumpet it that.
What I'm surprised at is the amount of profit MS has made thus far with Vista, on a BBC news article they hailed it as a success - bet most of those sales were for OEM versions shipped on PC's though. Already, MS are at work with Windows 7 and that could be released by 2009 at the earliest - looks like they are in a bit of a hurry to replace Vista if you ask me @ deployment around 2+ after Vista was released.
I'll wait until I get Service Pack 1 working because I do like the refinements they have made with that.
If you install it on a new PC, or a PC with very new hardware, you dont need to use legacy hardware or software and you have a positive outlook on the new bells and whistles there is no particular reason you would.
BUT -considering it provides nothing the average home user, and less than nothing the average business user really needs, and on the same hardware runs far more slowly than XP, why would anyone upgrade?
With Vista MS has filled a hole in the market only they feel exists.and like most other people if I can wait for Windows 9 I probably will, especially if it gives us some genuine new capabilities.
I agree that there are no compelling reasons to "upgrade" from XP to Vista - in my case I picked it up with a new system build at OEM pricing, not then being in possession of a legitimate copy of XP - but not having had any problems with it whatsoever it's difficult to empathise with all the doom and gloom that surrounds the OS.
Last edited:
I run a dual boot of Vista and XP, and Vista is not any slower than XP. I do a lot of video editing and encoding which requires a lot of processor and memory, and there is no difference in performance that is noticable to my human senses. A job that takes an hour of encoding on Vista also takes an hour of encoding on XP.
I find I've been using XP less and less and only boot it about every two weeks or so. I have a couple of older programs that won't run in Vista, but I only need them rarely. I have an older version of Nero that only runs in XP, but for the last year now I only use it to do a Lightscribe disk label. As well a couple of freeware programs that are useful, but Vista versions are being released more now and I'll probably retire those soon.
Again, I run XP and Vista on the same hardware, literally, and there is no difference in speed, and this is with applications that stress my hardware and use maximum resources. To say that Vista runs "far more slowly" than XP is an exageration.
not necessarily.
As you're doing video editting I'd wager you've got a pretty grunty processor and several gig of memory so you're not going to nice any performance difference between Vista and XP.
For some-onoe who's only got a 512 - 1GB of RAM, a slower processor, baseline video card and they will notice a difference between the two.
And if you do a fair bit of file copying you'll definately notice a difference in the performance of the two.
Do some reading (Slashdot is a good starting point) about how Microsoft lowered it's requirements to run Vista and the repecussions that are now being experienced (iirc MS could be facing a class action law suit).
Son, someone with a baseline processor and 512GB of RAM is also going to find XP slow if they do anything more than surf the net and read email. Try running two XP boxes side by side, an old Celeron with 512 and even a P4 with 1 gig. I did for years. There is a world of difference there. The fact that Vista runs slow on 512 isn't surprising, XP does too if you try to run any powerful apps on it.
And despite the fact that, yes I have an E6600 Conroe and 2GB of RAM, my software will utilize 100% processor and 100% of my RAM. It will do the same job in XP and Vista using the same resources in the same amount of time. If I had a slower processor and less RAM it would take even longer in BOTH OS's. If Vista were dragging down my system then performance would be a lot worse in Vista. It's not.
I also do a lot file copying, the files I work with are often as much as 3-4 GBs and I move them from drive to drive and also copy them for backups. Vista's copying performance was a known issue that was fixed months ago with hotfixes, the hotfixes are included in SP1 so if you do a lot of file copying you should have noticed there was no difference between the two for the last few months.
I have done plenty of reading. Microsoft didn't "lower" it's requirements to run Vista, there was some arguable fudging where some systems that were perfectly capable of running VISTA BASIC and got the Vista label, wouldn't have had the video power to use the Aero desktop. The label was accurate strictly speaking, but I agree that some people bought their systems without doing the research, got sold by some salesmen that just wanted to move older boxes, and might get pissed because they can't upgrade to Premium with buying a video card.
Vista Basic, which I've tried when I first installed Vista, uses very little resources, no more than XP that I noticed, and will run on any system that runs XP well. There's not much point in "upgrading" to Basic, but it runs fine.
I don't really care what OS you use, and if you don't like Vista that's up to you, but all of your stated "reasons" are just FUD.
And despite the fact that, yes I have an E6600 Conroe and 2GB of RAM, my software will utilize 100% processor and 100% of my RAM. It will do the same job in XP and Vista using the same resources in the same amount of time. If I had a slower processor and less RAM it would take even longer in BOTH OS's. If Vista were dragging down my system then performance would be a lot worse in Vista. It's not.
I also do a lot file copying, the files I work with are often as much as 3-4 GBs and I move them from drive to drive and also copy them for backups. Vista's copying performance was a known issue that was fixed months ago with hotfixes, the hotfixes are included in SP1 so if you do a lot of file copying you should have noticed there was no difference between the two for the last few months.
I have done plenty of reading. Microsoft didn't "lower" it's requirements to run Vista, there was some arguable fudging where some systems that were perfectly capable of running VISTA BASIC and got the Vista label, wouldn't have had the video power to use the Aero desktop. The label was accurate strictly speaking, but I agree that some people bought their systems without doing the research, got sold by some salesmen that just wanted to move older boxes, and might get pissed because they can't upgrade to Premium with buying a video card.
Vista Basic, which I've tried when I first installed Vista, uses very little resources, no more than XP that I noticed, and will run on any system that runs XP well. There's not much point in "upgrading" to Basic, but it runs fine.
I don't really care what OS you use, and if you don't like Vista that's up to you, but all of your stated "reasons" are just FUD.
The biggest issue with Vista, and with XP for that matter, is that when you get down to serious number crunching (like your video encoding) you see the power of modern processors. When you perform tasks like moving files or in fact any operation using the Windows GUI speed has not significantly improved in years, as the graphics requirements of the desktops go up and up and up.
We all like a pretty desktop but certain things in the workplace (ie actually being able to get your job done) are more important. Why MS insists on trying to play catch up with apple while cack-handedly implementing its pretty interfaces instead of doing what their core business demands (providing a desktop OS for businesses and homes widely perceived as the "best") is something of a mystery.
Inevitably and eventually Vista will probably become a standard - but it has a long way to go and it is hard to shake the perception that the released version of Vista needed more testing and development, and that the only reason it was released when it was, was because of sparing MS's blushes over the delays already caused.
Possibly, though not my words. I was as I have said referring more to desktop speeds. Especially on basic hardware (cheap laptops that come with home basic for example) Vista is quite, quite horrific.
The only way MS is REALLY shifting copies.
There are various different aspects to the criticism but I find it hard to dismiss them with "XP was the same", it was not quite as bad though certainly it was a dog with many systems that shipped with 128MB of RAM as they did at the time.
The biggest problem with Vista is where XP for a lot of people meant an upgrade from 9x (a genuine "upgrade") there is less and arguably no benefit of a similar move from XP.
Break out the beer !
Well I don't have any shampaign :smileysad: . . .
Anyway, a clean install of Vista without installing any drivers has done the job - I now have Service Pack 1 installed.
I highly recommend that if you are having problems with installing SP1, back up all your user files and perform a clean install - install your service pack straight afterwards. I was advised to do this with XP Service Pack 2 when that came out but figured that SP1 for Vista might not require such drastic measures. I now have to install all my apps and games again but I'm just happy I got SP1 to install.
In my case, I think some installed applications and drivers were the cause of my troubles.
Well I don't have any shampaign :smileysad: . . .
Anyway, a clean install of Vista without installing any drivers has done the job - I now have Service Pack 1 installed.
I highly recommend that if you are having problems with installing SP1, back up all your user files and perform a clean install - install your service pack straight afterwards. I was advised to do this with XP Service Pack 2 when that came out but figured that SP1 for Vista might not require such drastic measures. I now have to install all my apps and games again but I'm just happy I got SP1 to install.
In my case, I think some installed applications and drivers were the cause of my troubles.
I've installed SP1 on x32 vista. No problems so far.
I had to get the standalone pack as I couldn't get my windows update to see the SP by itself. I don't, as far as I know, have any hardware known to conflict with SP1 that precludes WU from seeing it.
anyway, it's working fine. The install was [relatively] quick and easy.
I had to get the standalone pack as I couldn't get my windows update to see the SP by itself. I don't, as far as I know, have any hardware known to conflict with SP1 that precludes WU from seeing it.
anyway, it's working fine. The install was [relatively] quick and easy.
thanks to this thread I just installed vista sp1 with little difficulty. Everything went fine except it broke my Zone alarm. I found an updated free version, and had to ignore all of the "driver error" messages, but zone alarm said it worked with sp1 so I went ahead and installed it.
It works!
It works!
I had absolutely no problems installing SP1 myself but I seem to have general problems with Windows Explorer crashing often for no apparent reason (hit and miss) but it's been like that since I got our new computer with Windows Vista pre-installed so it doesn't have anything to with SP1. So far, I haven't noticed any substantial improvements but I haven't noticed any glitches with it either (so far). I installed using Windows Update.
A
Amaris
Guest
I work for DELL as a Warranty Technician, particularly in the area of hardware and OS implementation. Unofficially (of course), I can vouch for that.
J.
Similar threads
