Another CNet Blogger Says No to Vista (SP1)

Those guys over at CNet really have it in for Vista, this time it's Robert Vamosi suggesting that users that are waiting for SP1 to make the switch will be disappointed. In all fairness it lacks the flair of the SP2 release on Windows XP which came with new features such as a new Internet Explorer version and several security enhancements. SP1 for Vista is no more than a roll up package of everything released on Windows Update until now.

What Robert fails to mention is that a few performance enhancements are also included in the update that significantly speed up the OS and are only available through Microsoft Downloads, which requires the Windows Genuine Advantage Check. Service Pack 2 for XP was a one-off, due to the repeated set backs of Vista, Microsoft were forced to include technologies already planned for Windows Vista, before SP2 Microsoft stressed time and time again that Service Packs usually do not offer new features.

SP1 will be a welcome update for those that opted to switch when Vista became available, performance and reliability have always been a talking point from the very beginning and I am confident that SP1 fixes those issues (even for those that have already applied the updates)

Anyway here is a snip from Roberts article, follow the link for the rest and make up your own mind.

If you've been waiting for Windows Vista SP1 to come out before you make the leap to the new operating system, don't, says Microsoft.

Microsoft's Pete McKiernan, a senior product manager for Windows, told CNET that one of the purposes of a service pack is to include all the patches that have been released in one package. Windows Vista SP1 will have that, but little else for the home user.

Unlike the buzz surrounding Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista SP1 won't include a new version of Internet Explorer, and won't include any new features that are considered must haves. Most of the enhancements within Windows Vista SP1 are under the hood and for enterprise customers. In short, Windows Vista SP1 lacks "wow."

View: Full Article @ CNet Blog

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Smart DVD/CD Burner 3.0.84

Next Story

New and Updated Windows Home Server information


View more comments

Dakkaroth said,
Wasn't XP SP1 just as uneventful? I mean compared to SP2? :huh:

It was, and on that note, weren't people saying to wait for XP SP1 also? XP didn't start to be good until to hit SP1 itself, and then it finally got to where it should've been with SP2. Vista is better off from the start than what XP was back in 2001 when I started using it. Drivers will always be a setback for a new Windows OS. Even more for Vista since it changes the way drivers work with the OS to make Windows more stable and crash resistant.

I guess hating Vista is the cool thing to do these days. Much like hating XP (fisher price UI) was in its day. I'm not sure what people's problems are with it, every complaint I've read is so vague that it's almost impossible to address (outside of UAC annoyance).

I personally have no issues with it in a production environment either over XP, it's just as fast if not faster thanks to better multiprocessing and memory management. I also had it installed on a P4 3.0HT Ghz system and a Core 2 Duo, both with 2 GB of RAM and each runs it beautifully, I just lost a few FPS on the P4 system in games but that's expected and the drivers were fresh out of the gate for my GF 6800GT at that time.

Although hating Vista does seem like a FoTM attitude, i think some of the arguments have real validity.

my main problem with Vista is, besides the shiny interface. What advantage over XP does it have? There is not a really compelling reason to run out and upgrade for most users. Also the fact that Vista retails in so many differant versions is daunting for an average user.

And for a Business there is no reason at all. The fact that MS had to extend the XP OEM end of new sales date until Mid 2008 is very telling. XP will remain strong in the business world for many many years to come. (which to be fair is the same way it worked for Windows 2000 vs. XP, one could argue that XP did get adopted faster by business then Vista is today however.)

I guess what could be thought of as Vista hating, in many cases is just Vista.. bleh, why should i.

This is stupid. comparing the second service pack to the first service pack of vista? Isnt that an unfair comparison? Arent most people gripes with vista its speed not its features?

he's mad because it doesnt offer new features like IE7? First off, IE7 is crap, and secondly, the first service pack shouldn't be about new features, it should be about tightening things up and fixing problems to create a more stable OS.

It's kind of interesting that IE seems to only improve with each big version change (IE6 -> IE7 for example). It's one of the MS programs that really helps stall any advances in web development by simply not supporting stuff or doing things correctly. Sure, they patch security vulnerabilities but how about patching lacking CSS support etc.

CNET not saying something positive about Microsoft (and conveniently omitting important features in the article)? I DON'T believe it!!!!!


Does anyone else see a huge problem with

"What Robert fails to mention is that a few performance enhancements are also included in the update that significantly speed up the OS and are only available through Microsoft Downloads, which requires the Windows Genuine Advantage Check. "

combined with the fact we can't even get users to run the normal Windows Update regularly? I had a XP SP2 box at work with 50 queued updates they hadn't applied.

I don't think users or administrators were begging to have several places to check to keep a system "really current" versus "sort of current but really only somewhat."

service packs never meant to be miracles of course theres exceptions like NT sp and XP sp2, The problem with vista its the lack of good drivers and compatibility issues and those need time, the same thing happened with XP before.

I know this has been said already, but it bears repeating. XP SP2 was the oddity, every other service pack since the days of NT 3.1 has simply been a collection of patches, as well as the fixpacks for OS/2 that came before. Why everyone suddenly expects service packs to be a whole new exciting release is beyond me.

why don't we all just return to windows 98se? it's been testet and tried out ALOT longer than windows vista,xp and 2000?

much better os,oh never mind the hardwarecompability, the preformance is SO much better. vista sucks,xp sucks blablalbalbala.

Oh, just think how well a 64-bit compiled dos would work! SUPERFAST!

ARG, i'm so tierd of these people :p
They are the same people who hated xp:p

obviously the cnet blogger expects too much and if he wants to talk that crap then he should use vista and try it out,it has a better start than xp did and i bet sp1 will fix alot of glitches than vista has and they need to fix the bug with the MFT Becoming Corrupt but i believe xp had the same thing when it came out.

Hey, wait, wasn't sp1 supposed to come with a new kernel? or am I thinking of fiji or something else? Totally forgot all the details.

My definition of a good OS, in order of preference:

1) Stable
2) Quick
3) Supports a wide range of new and existing hardware
4) Supports old software
5) High Functionality
6) Looks Good

Now, from what I have read, and from what I have heard from my ICT tech colleagues who are (not very successfully) using Vista, is that XP SP2 easily beats Vista on counts 1) & 3), and unless you have at least 1Gb or RAM, XP wins on count 2). I bet it wins on count 4) as well. By my definition, XP SP2 is a better Operating System than Vista.

So, say what you will about XP being 'mature' and Vista being new... I don't care! I don't want to have to use an OS for two or three years before it works as well as its predecessor. Vista may be a great OS by the time it hits SP2, but that simply isn't acceptable to me as a computer user.

I mean, my pal just got through four different wireless cards for his computer, at least one of which said it was Vista compatible, before he finally found one that worked. My other pal had to wait months before a compatible driver for his fairly new graphics card came out. My HP Laserjet printer, which is only 12 months old, will only be 'supported soon' as will my own wireless PCI card!

I think I'll do what I did with XP and wait until it is a better OS than my existing one before I upgrade.

I don't blame those CNet guys for bashing Windows Vista. I've used Vista on some computers and I don't see any reason for anyone to switch from XP to Vista, especially since most people would have to buy an entirely new computer just to run it. And besides, the only things I noticed that were significantly different from XP were some new eye candy, the sidebar (Dashboard is much better as it spares the desktop altogether), and the über-annoying UAC (remember the Mac cancel-or-allow ad?). Not to mention that quite a few hardware and software titles do not even work with Vista! Maybe Microsoft should just scrap Vista altogether and provide something that is of tangible benefit for a change.

So for the time being, I'll stick to my Apple iBook, thank you very much! :P

I don't blame those CNet guys for bashing Windows Vista. I've used Vista on some computers and I don't see any reason for anyone to switch from XP to Vista, especially since most people would have to buy an entirely new computer just to run it.

They aren't bashing Vista, but Vista SP1... :p

And while one may think whatever of Vista, that one is expected to be "impressed" by a service pack comes off as pretty stupid to me.

. In short, Windows Vista SP1 lacks "wow."

No problems, I wasn't expecting that either.

The only wow I have to give is at articles like these...

XP SP2 was the exception in service packs. It's the norm to have the "under the hood" fixes, and in the case of Vista, these are very important at this point. I'd much rather take bug fixes than a fancier [insert Windows feature here].

Commenting is disabled on this article.