Windows Vista SP1 RC released to public
Posted by Michael Stanclift on 12 December 2007 - 02:53 · 83 comments & 42016 views
About the Author
Full name: Michael Stanclift
Forum name: Marshalus
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Michael Stanclift
Forum name: Marshalus
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(3 replies)
#1 Posted by EpidemiK on 12 Dec 2007 - 03:04
- Is this stable enough to install on my main computer?
-
#1.1 Posted by verbal11 on 12 Dec 2007 - 03:11
- For me, it has made Vista more stable. But you will have to uninstall this before you install the final version.
-
#1.2 Posted by Code.Red on 12 Dec 2007 - 04:04
- Quote - (verbal11 said @ #1.1)For me, it has made Vista more stable. But you will have to uninstall this before you install the final version.
How easy will uninstalling be? -
#1.3 Posted by random_n on 12 Dec 2007 - 05:28
- Quite easy - just pray that it works. Judging from the STOP error I was getting on boot after trying to remove the first SP1 beta, I do believe that the uninstaller decided that my hard disk controller drivers could use a little uninstalling as well.
As for the RC, I'd rate it as very stable so far. The last beta went almost a month on my laptop without a proper reboot (just a few daily standby and hibernate sessions).
But they still haven't fixed the URLs in the Save & Open dialog dropdown menus. It's such a dumb bug, it's silly.
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by Neo-Lenin on 12 Dec 2007 - 03:09
- im gonna wait till SP1 RTM, no point in updating right now since the RTM will ask for SP1 RC to be uninstalled
-
#2.1 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 12 Dec 2007 - 03:44
- I was thinking that but decided to go ahead with it anyway. I'll probably do a clean install once the final version comes around.
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by Pierce28 on 12 Dec 2007 - 03:54
- Planning on wiping my computer in mid/early January, so its all good. Installing now.
-
(6 replies)
#4 Posted by Izlude on 12 Dec 2007 - 04:03
- yarrr.... (get the hint?) should someone like me, and the rest of us.... yar.... avoid this and RTM release until a more experienced.... matey.... looks at it and umm.... does something to it? or be ye it safe sailing?
-
#4.1 Posted by Malbojia on 12 Dec 2007 - 04:09
- D'arrhhh be rough sea's ahead matey. Ye be landlocked for the time been!
-
#4.2 Posted by virtorio on 12 Dec 2007 - 04:16
- Yarr, time to break open the swag and buy a real copy you cheap arse.
-
#4.3 Posted by +Ji@nBing on 12 Dec 2007 - 04:19
- May as well wait until the final is out and cracked. I mean, Vista has been good enough to use as-is so far for you, right? Should be no problem waiting a month or two. Right now Vista runs pretty good even without the service pack.
-
#4.4 Posted by MiCCAS on 12 Dec 2007 - 05:59
- Hence the reason why you should go genuine. No more worrrying
-
#4.5 Posted by NightmarE D on 12 Dec 2007 - 06:38
- Quote - (virtorio said @ #4.2)Yarr, time to break open the swag and buy a real copy you cheap arse.
Funniest post on Neowin right now
-
#4.6 Posted by Chicane-UK on 13 Dec 2007 - 09:03
- Indeed. You can get Home Premium for £70 OEM over here. Its not a particularly outrageous expense in my humble opinion!
-
#5 Posted by Mathachew on 12 Dec 2007 - 04:16
- Yarr, there lies a booty worth nabbin so that ye may be among the fairest of us, yarrr.
In other words, quit stealing.
-
(2 replies)
#7 Posted by Cansokid on 12 Dec 2007 - 04:23
- OMFG available via windows update?
God nooooooooooooo
A RC on WU
Whos giving out the crack? cause someone frigging stoned
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by Evolution on 12 Dec 2007 - 04:37
- You first need to run a script to allow WU to send the RC1 to you.
-
(2 replies)
#9 Posted by chrisb62 on 12 Dec 2007 - 05:46
- downloaded and installed..
took about 15 minutes from start to stop...
i dont see or notice any difference..
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by Hak Foo on 12 Dec 2007 - 06:21
- It took about 20 minutes to install, and a bit longer to download. However, the entire process took about 2 hours end-to-end of "install prerequisite patch, wait 20 minutes, rescan Windows Update, install next prerequisite..."
It seems snappier generating thumbnails off my USB-connected digicam (perhaps related to the boost in file performance). I'm unsettled
I really hope the final can be generated into a slipstream DVD though; I really like how fast Vista installs (relative to 2000); I've gotten it down to like 3 hours to set up all my apps and data, versus most of a weekend day for 2000. Admittedly, an hour and a half of that was formatting the partition the slow-way (since 2000 didn't offer a faster way). I'd hate to have to eat another hour for SP1, especially if it doesn't really bring more obvious benefits than "woo, faster thumbnails!" -
#10.1 Posted by volvox on 12 Dec 2007 - 16:29
- Did it fix the Disk Thrashing
because that's what's getting me angry the most. -
#10.2 Posted by random_n on 13 Dec 2007 - 01:42
- Turn off Windows Search, Remote Differential Compression, ReadyBoost, and the defrag task, and most of your disk thrashing will go away. Turn off System Restore for more improvement (at the cost of Shadow Copies if you use a Business or Ultimate).
If the disk thrashing itself at startup bugs you, you *could* turn off SuperFetch, but you'll pay for it with more disk thrashing when launching your software. Even so, I've found that with disabling the above features, the low-priority disk I/O really does work properly and SuperFetch doesn't interfere with trying to use the machine while the cache populates to RAM.
SP1 helps a little, but it's already a resolvable problem in RTM.
-
#11 Posted by Ufmedrudy on 12 Dec 2007 - 08:03
- Why is it everytime I go to the microsoft site to download the exe to set the registry up for this, does it time out like the file isnt available to download?
-
(7 replies)
#12 Posted by Arkos Reed on 12 Dec 2007 - 08:42
- won't touch SP1 'til next build is released, or at least until they fix the ****up they did with the audio stack
RC1 completely nuked my Audigy 2 ZS, even uninstalling SP1 didn't fix things -
#12.1 Posted by and1direct on 12 Dec 2007 - 13:04
- Quote - (Arkos Reed said @ #12)won't touch SP1 'til next build is released, or at least until they fix the ****up they did with the audio stack
RC1 completely nuked my Audigy 2 ZS, even uninstalling SP1 didn't fix things
My Audigy 2 ZS works fine on RTM.
BTW, this isnt MS' fault, It is Creative's fault. Search around and stop flaming MS. -
#12.2 Posted by DJLunacy on 12 Dec 2007 - 20:46
- Quote - (and1direct said @ #12.1)Quote - (Arkos Reed said @ #12)won't touch SP1 'til next build is released, or at least until they fix the ****up they did with the audio stack
RC1 completely nuked my Audigy 2 ZS, even uninstalling SP1 didn't fix things
My Audigy 2 ZS works fine on RTM.
BTW, this isnt MS' fault, It is Creative's fault. Search around and stop flaming MS.
The changing of the STACK isn't Creative's fault.
I'm still waiting to find out what brilliant reason they had from stripping out 6.1 support in windows! They kept 5.1 dropped 6.1 and added 7.1 --- STUPID! -
#12.3 Posted by rajputwarrior on 12 Dec 2007 - 23:58
- if microsoft didn't get kill the stack, everything on an X-FI including EAX would still work in vista
-
#12.4 Posted by yakumo on 13 Dec 2007 - 03:52
- Quote - (rajputwarrior said @ #12.3)if microsoft didn't get kill the stack, everything on an X-FI including EAX would still work in vista
you do know one of the biggest reasons they messed with the stack is they were SICK AND TIRED of support calls over creative labs drivers causing system errors, right? -
#12.5 Posted by Chicane-UK on 13 Dec 2007 - 09:01
- Why don't we stop siding with either company here and just say that they're BOTH in the wrong. If they bothered to test their software and drivers properly, consumers wouldn't have to keep jumping through these hoops all the time!
-
#12.6 Posted by and1direct on 13 Dec 2007 - 09:18
- Quote -The changing of the STACK isn't Creative's fault.
Creative makes software/hardware FOR Windows, not the other way around.
Creative has to update their **** to work for Windows. Windows doesnt have to make itself compatible for 3rd party software/hardware. Thats the 3rd party's job.
Again, stop flaming MS. This is not MS' fault. -
#12.7 Posted by Arkos Reed on 13 Dec 2007 - 09:54
- stop bitching about creative for once, they may often **** up, and they still do, however for once the ball is on MS' side, they have determined that some changes done to the audio stack are causing the issue and requested additional testing on my end
regarding the manufacturers having to adapt to MS and not the contrary, believe it or not but MS HAS to adapt to manufacturers quite often when their requirements are too stringent, take for example the RTM behavior of the audio device detection after a system Wakeup from sleep, MS allowed only 100ms after a wakeup for devices to declare themselves back as available, this was way too short and prevented a lot of devices from working, they have hotfixed it and resolved the issue according to manufacturers wishes
Last edited by Arkos Reed on 13 Dec 2007 - 09:59
-
#13 Posted by Clampet3000 on 12 Dec 2007 - 09:00
- http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;DisplayLang=en
Windows Vista Service Pack 1 RC - 5 Language Standalone Package
-
#14 Posted by edgarf28 on 12 Dec 2007 - 09:07
- http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows...a/bb969139.aspx
for all stand-alone packages.
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by +gtho on 12 Dec 2007 - 09:46
- ^thanks, that was easier
-
#15.1 Posted by LaXu on 12 Dec 2007 - 14:48
- Yeah, thanks for the links. Beats going thru that unnecessarily complicated Windows Update sequence. I have to wonder if the final SP1 will require several reboots just to get all the updates.
How they manage to make the installation packages so huge I have to wonder. XP SP2 was like 300 MB but this one's a whopping 733.5 MB! With my 10/10 Mbps connection I'm getting it at about 250 kb/s and it'll take about 45 minutes. People still on dialup will be fetching this forever or ordering CDs from MS.
Required about 3 reboots to install the thing and it certainly took like 20-30 minutes. Interestingly installing SP1 RC also reset the activation time to 30 days. I previously had about 5 days left before activation.
Last edited by LaXu on 12 Dec 2007 - 17:20
-
#16 Posted by hardgiant on 12 Dec 2007 - 10:06
- I'm waiting until they finish it and then getting a slipstreamed version and doing a clean install.
-
(1 reply)
#17 Posted by chaosblade on 12 Dec 2007 - 10:39
- Anyone got a build string? Is this the same file as what was delivered to MSDN subscribers last week?
-
(1 reply)
#18 Posted by :: Lyon :: on 12 Dec 2007 - 12:44
- Ta for the stand alone package..downloading now. They should have put that earlier rather than going to the horrible windows update method
-
#18.1 Posted by PatriotB on 13 Dec 2007 - 03:21
- Quote - (:: Lyon :: said @ #1
Ta for the stand alone package..downloading now. They should have put that earlier rather than going to the horrible windows update method
They need to offer both... because the WU method obviously needs to be tested before release too.
-
#19 Posted by and1direct on 12 Dec 2007 - 13:05
- So this can't be installed on pirate versions?
-
#20 Posted by vsridhars on 12 Dec 2007 - 13:17
- from : Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Before You Install.doc
at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en
<!-- SNIP -->
• You must have a genuine copy of Windows Vista installed on the computer prior to installing the Windows Vista SP1 update.
<!-- SNIP -->
And the SP1 is mandatory with an uninstall of this RC1.
Check the whole doc for details.
BTW, I would say not worth the effort to work with a pirated copy.
If you like the stuff, buy it
If you don't like the stuff (feel it is not worth the money), move to something else or work with openSource Linux.
-
#21 Posted by Tikitiki on 12 Dec 2007 - 15:22
- I went through the whole installation process last night which took several reboots and more than an hour to do. It gets to 100% on the LAST step (3/3) and it says "failed..." and starts reverting. WTF?? That even took longer and kept me up past midnight. See, now I'm grumpy.
-
(1 reply)
#22 Posted by TheBigB on 12 Dec 2007 - 16:42
- Neowin's bigger than I realized. It appears ZDNet reads it. Microsoft releases public test build of Vista SP1
Notice Neowin is cited as the source. -
#22.1 Posted by Marshalus on 12 Dec 2007 - 18:35
- Quote - (TheBigB said @ #22)Neowin's bigger than I realized. It appears ZDNet reads it. Microsoft releases public test build of Vista SP1
Notice Neowin is cited as the source.
Nice!
-
(2 replies)
#23 Posted by Hidr0 on 12 Dec 2007 - 19:04
aint available for me... why?nevermind... found out what was wrong... downloaded the Satndalone one...
Im running the English built of this OS...
is there a way to slipstream this?...
Last edited by Hidr0 on 12 Dec 2007 - 19:13-
#23.1 Posted by +SaucE on 12 Dec 2007 - 19:15
- Quote - (Hidr0 said @ #23)
aint available for me... why?nevermind... found out what was wrong... downloaded the Satndalone one...Im running the English built of this OS...
is there a way to slipstream this?...
One of those update must be needed before getting it. I have a bunch I am installing now. SP1 RC wasn't available yet for me either. -
#23.2 Posted by Hidr0 on 12 Dec 2007 - 20:00
- Quote - (SaucE said @ #23.1)Quote - (Hidr0 said @ #23)
aint available for me... why?nevermind... found out what was wrong... downloaded the Satndalone one...Im running the English built of this OS...
is there a way to slipstream this?...
One of those update must be needed before getting it. I have a bunch I am installing now. SP1 RC wasn't available yet for me either.
its ok... i downloaded and installed... everything up and running thx anywayz
-
#24 Posted by naap51stang on 12 Dec 2007 - 19:05
- I'll let you young whippersnappers play around with this. By the end of the day, I want to REST, instead of
tinkering around with my computer. Unless we get snowed in, or the weather is lousy, I'll wait a couple of weeks
AFTER the RTM version is released.
On a side note, I did install the SP1 for office 07, seems a bit snappier.
-
(1 reply)
#25 Posted by sonrah on 12 Dec 2007 - 19:37
- If you're using "Vista Boot by gkend" to pirate it, then it'll work with SP1 RC1. If you're using Paradox's OEM bios hack/patch, then it won't work; it's been nuked already. If you're using "Vista Loader 2.2.0", then it might work. It worked in a previous build, but it might've been nuked in one of the later builds.
Just a note, I'm not telling you guys to use one method or not, nor am I telling you to commit piracy, nor am I providing links to download stuff. I'm just sharing information, and that is not illegal, so please don't ban me. -
#25.1 Posted by and1direct on 12 Dec 2007 - 19:55
- Quote - (sonrah said @ #25)If you're using "Vista Boot by gkend" to pirate it, then it'll work with SP1 RC1. If you're using Paradox's OEM bios hack/patch, then it won't work; it's been nuked already. If you're using "Vista Loader 2.2.0", then it might work. It worked in a previous build, but it might've been nuked in one of the later builds.
Just a note, I'm not telling you guys to use one method or not, nor am I telling you to commit piracy, nor am I providing links to download stuff. I'm just sharing information, and that is not illegal, so please don't ban me.
You wouldnt be the first to be warned/banned for sharing that information. Thanks, but if I were you Id remove that before the snitches come around.
-
#26 Posted by Hidr0 on 12 Dec 2007 - 19:59
- yeah... im quoting his post makes it for him to delete that info!.... well done!
-
#27 Posted by Naveen on 12 Dec 2007 - 20:09
- Interesting that Neowin stickied this.
Also interesting that Microsoft are pushing release candidate build quite hard (or at least it seems that way from way over here). I guess it must be quite good. Vista itself seemed a pretty good APPLICATION lol
hmmm will wait and see i think.
-
#29 Posted by Ender2070 on 12 Dec 2007 - 22:43
- Honestly, the SP1 alpha should be more stable than Vista Gold! How can anything be more unstable.
-
#30 Posted by Sillysam on 12 Dec 2007 - 23:57
- I keep getting page not found on the stand alone installer
-
#31 Posted by Tiger78 on 13 Dec 2007 - 00:10
- I am waiting until Vista SP1 releaseing!
I won't click that now because of bugs.
Tiger
great news-
(13 replies)
#33 Posted by internetworld7 on 13 Dec 2007 - 00:52
- I'm sorry but neither SP1, 2,3,4...10 is going to put that "WOW" into Vista. For that you will still need Mac OS X Leopard. There is simply no getting around this wonderful truth.
-
#33.1 Posted by +Tantawi on 13 Dec 2007 - 01:05
- Those who write in big fonts have a little..., There is simply no getting around this wonderful truth
-
#33.2 Posted by MioTheGreat on 13 Dec 2007 - 01:30
- First, "Neither" implies two things.
Second, I like the ability to play games, and you know, a lot of people actually hate OSX. For instance, me. -
#33.3 Posted by tsupersonic on 13 Dec 2007 - 01:58
- You had the guts to post in this news topic?
Hey fanboy, get a ****ing life, it's just an a operating system. -
#33.5 Posted by rafter109 on 13 Dec 2007 - 03:27
- Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #33)I'm sorry but neither SP1, 2,3,4...10 is going to put that "WOW" into Vista. For that you will still need Mac OS X Leopard. There is simply no getting around this wonderful truth.
Yea, I really like how I can gain access to any user account on OS X using the power button, Command-Option-S on boot up to get to single-user mode and then a couple simple lines of unix commands to change user passwords since single-user mode is for all intensive purposes root access with no password protection. WAY TO GO APPLE!!!
Think Different = Don't Think
To anyone that thinks Apple makes a more secure operating system than Microsoft, you have your head so far up your ass that you need a butt snorkel to breathe.
Last edited by rafter109 on 13 Dec 2007 - 03:41 -
#33.6 Posted by yakumo on 13 Dec 2007 - 04:02
- Quote - (rafter109 said @ #33.5)Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #33)I'm sorry but neither SP1, 2,3,4...10 is going to put that "WOW" into Vista. For that you will still need Mac OS X Leopard. There is simply no getting around this wonderful truth.
Yea, I really like how I can gain access to any user account on OS X using the power button, Command-Option-S on boot up to get to single-user mode and then a couple simple lines of unix commands to change user passwords since single-user mode is for all intensive purposes root access with no password protection. WAY TO GO APPLE!!!
Think Different = Don't Think
To anyone that thinks Apple makes a more secure operating system than Microsoft, you have your head so far up your ass that you need a butt snorkel to breathe.
Now I'm all for bashing Apples deny everything policy on security flaws, but you do realise they removed the need for a password with the Vista recovery options as they figured .
1. to use it you need physical access so the machine is fully compromised anyway.
2. if the OS is hosed then likely the password stores are hosed, so earlier recovery console methods requiring passwords often meant that an otherwise fixable OS was a loss. -
#33.7 Posted by PegasusX on 13 Dec 2007 - 04:07
- Same with OS X, you can reset the password using a CD provided by Apple.
-
#33.8 Posted by internetworld7 on 13 Dec 2007 - 05:37
- Quote - (rafter109 said @ #33.5)Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #33)I'm sorry but neither SP1, 2,3,4...10 is going to put that "WOW" into Vista. For that you will still need Mac OS X Leopard. There is simply no getting around this wonderful truth.
Yea, I really like how I can gain access to any user account on OS X using the power button, Command-Option-S on boot up to get to single-user mode and then a couple simple lines of unix commands to change user passwords since single-user mode is for all intensive purposes root access with no password protection. WAY TO GO APPLE!!!
Think Different = Don't Think
To anyone that thinks Apple makes a more secure operating system than Microsoft, you have your head so far up your ass that you need a butt snorkel to breathe.
I'm sorry, I don't quite compute. Can you elaborate a little more. -
#33.9 Posted by rafter109 on 13 Dec 2007 - 05:43
- Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #33.Quote - (rafter109 said @ #33.5)Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #33)I'm sorry but neither SP1, 2,3,4...10 is going to put that "WOW" into Vista. For that you will still need Mac OS X Leopard. There is simply no getting around this wonderful truth.
Yea, I really like how I can gain access to any user account on OS X using the power button, Command-Option-S on boot up to get to single-user mode and then a couple simple lines of unix commands to change user passwords since single-user mode is for all intensive purposes root access with no password protection. WAY TO GO APPLE!!!
Think Different = Don't Think
To anyone that thinks Apple makes a more secure operating system than Microsoft, you have your head so far up your ass that you need a butt snorkel to breathe.
I'm sorry, I don't quite compute. Can you elaborate a little more.
Boot an apple computer while holding Command-Option-S and you will boot into single-user mode. This is command line
administrative/root access to the computer. At this point you can access any file in the system as well as change user passwords and so forth. All without the need for an OS X account or password.
REAL SECURE -
#33.10 Posted by rafter109 on 13 Dec 2007 - 05:59
- Quote - (yakumo said @ #33.6)Quote - (rafter109 said @ #33.5)Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #33)I'm sorry but neither SP1, 2,3,4...10 is going to put that "WOW" into Vista. For that you will still need Mac OS X Leopard. There is simply no getting around this wonderful truth.
Yea, I really like how I can gain access to any user account on OS X using the power button, Command-Option-S on boot up to get to single-user mode and then a couple simple lines of unix commands to change user passwords since single-user mode is for all intensive purposes root access with no password protection. WAY TO GO APPLE!!!
Think Different = Don't Think
To anyone that thinks Apple makes a more secure operating system than Microsoft, you have your head so far up your ass that you need a butt snorkel to breathe.
Now I'm all for bashing Apples deny everything policy on security flaws, but you do realise they removed the need for a password with the Vista recovery options as they figured .
1. to use it you need physical access so the machine is fully compromised anyway.
2. if the OS is hosed then likely the password stores are hosed, so earlier recovery console methods requiring passwords often meant that an otherwise fixable OS was a loss.
The problem isn't that this feature is available, it is that it cannot currently be password protected. While one may need physical access to the keyboard and monitor, one does not need access to any drives or usb ports to gain full access. This is quite contrary to contemporary smb and enterprise security policies. Any person with a little unix command line knowledge can exploit this vulnerability.
This really seems silly to me because physical access does not automatically mean that the machine is compromised.
For example:
1. Disable boot from CD and USB. Use a BIOS setup password so that the boot order may not be altered.
2. Ensure that accounts including hidden administrative accounts have passwords at least 8 characters in lenght and contain Lower and uppercase letters, numbers, and special characters.
3. If using linux w/lilo password protect lilo so that boot order may not be changed and recovery console cannot be accessed without password.
Following these guidelines would require that someone attempting to gain access would need to spend at least 3 hours
using brute force on the passwords or about an hour with rainbow tables, OR the ability to remove the computer from its location and move it somewhere that this can be done without detection.
Otherwise, I can walk into just about any business with an apple and gain full administrative rights in under 3 minutes.
Think Different = Don't Think -
#33.11 Posted by Palin88 on 13 Dec 2007 - 07:53
- Quote - (rafter109 said @ #33.10)1. Disable boot from CD and USB. Use a BIOS setup password so that the boot order may not be altered.
2. Ensure that accounts including hidden administrative accounts have passwords at least 8 characters in lenght and contain Lower and uppercase letters, numbers, and special characters.
3. If using linux w/lilo password protect lilo so that boot order may not be changed and recovery console cannot be accessed without password.
Hmm, couldn't you defeat all that by opening the case and pulling out the CMOS battery?
Although I suppose you could lock the computer cases as well... -
#33.12 Posted by Chicane-UK on 13 Dec 2007 - 08:57
- Quote -I'm sorry but neither SP1, 2,3,4...10 is going to put that "WOW" into Vista. For that you will still need Mac OS X Leopard. There is simply no getting around this wonderful truth.
Why even waste your time posting something like this. Troll off somewhere else.
I'm an Apple fan / user but i'm sick of seeing this sort of stupid trolling crap on here. It adds nothing to the discussion so just don't waste your time. -
#33.13 Posted by hagjohn on 17 Dec 2007 - 02:22
- Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #33)I'm sorry but neither SP1, 2,3,4...10 is going to put that "WOW" into Vista. For that you will still need Mac OS X Leopard. There is simply no getting around this wonderful truth.
I use Vista, XP, 2000, Leopard and Linux on nearly a daily basis. The "wow" factor is about the same, IMO, I would categorize Vista and Leopard upgrades as basically the same. In fact, I think the 2 OS's are looking like they are going to merge at some point.
-
#34 Posted by Gamerhomie on 13 Dec 2007 - 01:14
- Hmm... I've had no dropped connections for over half a year ever since I got my new router but after installing the update last night, my connection dropped twice and I had to restart my computer to get it working...
-
(1 reply)
#35 Posted by medafor on 13 Dec 2007 - 08:39
- Quote -I'm sorry but neither SP1, 2,3,4...10 is going to put that "WOW" into Vista. For that you will still need Mac OS X Leopard. There is simply no getting around this wonderful truth.
Well Leopard can run Vista natively using bootcamp, so i think apples OS is better. apples hardware cost a fortune, so pc wins in the hardware department. if i had a mac, i would run vista almost all the time, for my games and my 100s of non mac programs(they they dont even make for mac). Most of my business apps are PC only. -
#35.1 Posted by briangw on 13 Dec 2007 - 21:05
- Quote - (medafor said @ #35)Quote -I'm sorry but neither SP1, 2,3,4...10 is going to put that "WOW" into Vista. For that you will still need Mac OS X Leopard. There is simply no getting around this wonderful truth.
Well Leopard can run Vista natively using bootcamp, so i think apples OS is better. apples hardware cost a fortune, so pc wins in the hardware department. if i had a mac, i would run vista almost all the time, for my games and my 100s of non mac programs(they they dont even make for mac). Most of my business apps are PC only.
But, you need to realize that Mac Hardware doesn't upgrade their video cards as much as PC -based hardware. So, most games won't run as well.
-
#36 Posted by Izlude on 13 Dec 2007 - 09:07
- help help i can't run rpg maker xp, super dancer online or any of my other favorite programs on os x! not even wine lets me run endless online correctly without bugging out. oh god what am i going to do? obviously if i used os x based programs on a daily basis i'd find it very useful, but since i don't, windows by far takes the cake in running what i need. please leave it up to the user's preference. most of us don't use final cut pro every single day.
Systems running on Windows Vista RTM require as many as three updates before SP1 can be installed. These updates are permanent to your Windows Vista systems. Windows Update will detect your system configuration and offer the prerequisite packages that are applicable to your system.
Update: A standalone package for both 32-bit and 64-bit systems has been released.
On Vista RTM:
1. Download the command (.cmd.remove) script to your machine, rename it by removing deleting ".remove" at the end of the file name. Run the newly named script on an elevated prompt.
• To run the script on elevated prompt, after you download the script, right click on the file and select “Run as administrator” option.
• The script sets a registry key on your system. The registry key is required for WU server to recognize your machine as a valid target for Vista SP1.
• After running the script, Windows Update automatic updates would normally automatically update your machine each night for the next several days with the prerequisites and then offer the Service Pack. However if you would like to install SP1 quicker you can manually do the next few steps to speed up the process.
2. Install all pending “Important” updates and reboot. You may have to do this several times to get fully up to date.
• Check for updates on Windows Update. Go to Control Panel à System and Maintenance à Windows Update and check for updates by clicking on “Check for Updates” in the top left of the task pane.
• You will be offered all previously released Windows Vista updates that you may not have installed on your system. Install all applicable updates. If you have a clean install of RTM, there might be quite a few updates to install. You may need to do this a couple of times to get fully up to date. At some point Update for Windows (KB935509) will be in this list. This is the first pre-requisite install. Reboot your machine when prompted.
• If you see Ultimate Extras, you can hide them by right-clicking and hiding. Simply unchecking them will not let the remaining updates show up. Please install all of the remaining “important” updates.
• If you reboot and rescan right away, at times you may not see all updates right away. Wait 10 minutes and scan again.
3. Install Update for Windows (KB937287) and Update for Windows (KB938371) as they are offered sequentially
• The first package that will be offered is Update for Windows (KB937287) and it does not require a reboot.
• Check for updates on Windows Update again, install and reboot when prompted for Update for Windows (KB938371). You may need to wait 10 minutes and re-scan again if it does not show up right after reboot.
4. Install Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (KB936330).
• Check for updates on Windows Update again, install and reboot when prompted for Windows Vista Service Pack 1. You may need to wait 10 minutes and re-scan again if the package does not show up right after the previous reboot.
• This process will typically take from 30 minutes to 1 hour but may take longer on some systems.
To reduce the number of reboots required to install Windows Vista Service Pack 1, the prerequisite packages will be released to Windows Vista customers through WU prior to the release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1. These prerequisite packages will be coupled with other updates that are applicable to Windows Vista RTM systems and require a reboot. Consequently, the systems that are getting updates through automatic updates will already have prerequisites installed at the time of the SP1 release and be directly offered SP1 through WU.