Vista SP1 to hit Windows Update Tuesday, reports say

Microsoft will release Windows Vista Service Pack 1 next week to a wider audience, according to information posted on Amazon.com and reports from a Web site that correctly called SP1's ship date last month.

Amazon currently lists Vista SP1 retail copies as available next Wednesday, March 19, while TechARP.com, the Malaysian Web site that nailed the update's release to manufacturing (RTM) date several days early, said users would be able to download SP1 starting Tuesday, March 18.

View: Full Article @ ComputerWorld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Trend Micro Suffers Web Attack

Next Story

February retail sales charts

68 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I have been using sp1 since rtm on a fast machine. file create/move/copy/delete is still toooo fvcking slow. looks like I will have to go back to xp x64 AGAIN!

I tested Vista and to say at first it was cute. Vista is more anything else more gadgets than anything to me. You got extra applications that look nice and fancy but when your using to the hardcore of it , just a basic simple tool.

For me seem like Microsoft and Stardock got together and made a Windows Themes Windows Operation that need a very strong machine that you got to spend on and plus the amount of money that Vista cost ?

Just not even worth it. I see it has another dump. I think Microsoft knows it and I feel it is another tactic of making money for the next project of windows 7.

Windows XP of course was not perfect when came out but people had a nice feel with it. They grew very fast with it. And with time of course they came out with services packs. But you got to admit it is a very strong dependable OS compare to Vista. And you got to ask why release a service pack 3 for Windows XP ?

I feel Microsoft knows that WinXP is more stable than Vista and less complicated for all ages of users that use windows.

I say this cause you got the older generations now that are on computers more than ever cause of travel, emails, webcam with families and stocks.

I been getting more people at my shop to ask me: Can you remove this Vista? complicated and very slow or annoying or they are completely lost.

And believe it or not ...you got Gamers come by and ask me ....You still sell Windows XP on your shelves? I want to remove this thing right off.

Windows XP will stay longer than Vista....WinXP is here to stay till the next OS release. And from what I see Windows 7 - does not look to good either to start off. Basically the same thing has Vista.....but it is way to early to slap it down.

I am Windows XP user till the day I see a real next OS release from Microsoft. For now Vista is for the Microsoft fanatics that love the Stardocks themes things.

That my personal opinions

(Moonwolf said @ #24)
I tested Vista and to say at first it was cute. Vista is more anything else more gadgets than anything to me. You got extra applications that look nice and fancy but when your using to the hardcore of it , just a basic simple tool.

For me seem like Microsoft and Stardock got together and made a Windows Themes Windows Operation that need a very strong machine that you got to spend on and plus the amount of money that Vista cost ?

Just not even worth it. I see it has another dump. I think Microsoft knows it and I feel it is another tactic of making money for the next project of windows 7.

Windows XP of course was not perfect when came out but people had a nice feel with it. They grew very fast with it. And with time of course they came out with services packs. But you got to admit it is a very strong dependable OS compare to Vista. And you got to ask why release a service pack 3 for Windows XP ?

I feel Microsoft knows that WinXP is more stable than Vista and less complicated for all ages of users that use windows.

I say this cause you got the older generations now that are on computers more than ever cause of travel, emails, webcam with families and stocks.

I been getting more people at my shop to ask me: Can you remove this Vista? complicated and very slow or annoying or they are completely lost.

And believe it or not ...you got Gamers come by and ask me ....You still sell Windows XP on your shelves? I want to remove this thing right off.

Windows XP will stay longer than Vista....WinXP is here to stay till the next OS release. And from what I see Windows 7 - does not look to good either to start off. Basically the same thing has Vista.....but it is way to early to slap it down.

I am Windows XP user till the day I see a real next OS release from Microsoft. For now Vista is for the Microsoft fanatics that love the Stardocks themes things.

That my personal opinions :)

Blackcomb/Vienna (renamed Longhorn) was announced soon after XP was released, along with a wish list of features.

If you can't learn how to use a new operating system, why look forward to Win7? People going to any shop to have an OS removed obviously don't know too much to begin with, but if they are lost, the best way to help them is to ask where they are having a problem and help them through it. Anybody in IT knows you don't just blow away a partition because you can't find something on the start menu...

Gamers refused to upgrade from 98 when XP first came out, so what should we expect from that community? They get comfy not realizing all the new hardware they are buying is running a reduced feature set because they are being optimized for DX10. They'll come around.

On average, I had to reimage my XP build every six months or so. Face it, XP was NOT stable, mainly because every piece of software you install wants admin priveleges to run, writes it's registry entried so only administrators can read them, and doesn't remove those entries when the software is uninstalled, leaving a registry that is strewn with dead links and bloated with filetype associations and classes and other hooks that lead to nowhere but still load everytime the registry is loaded.

Vista is Extremely stable, because software written with vista in mind can run in user mode with no loss in functionality. The registry can still get bloated but the performance monitoring tools in vista can tell you the approx. level of stability of the OS and what caused it to lower. Drivers run in separate memory space from the OS, leading to less GPU related blue screens and driver related crashes altogether, really.

DWM will not slow your machine because it is processed by the GPU and uses a mixture of video ram and system ram. If you want to play games, open the services snap-in for mmc.exe and stop the dwm service (and the themes service, for that matter).

I guess Vista is for the fanatics who love a usable operating system that is intuitive and stable.

Win7 is "basically the same thing has vista"? It IS Vista with minwin running underneath it.

By the way, the main reason enterprises aren't switching to Vista yet? Software developers who don't code for it!! When Vista breaks your Windows 3.1 software, is that really Microsoft's fault?

Vista isn't a bad OS, but I'd never put it on my PC's and my new PC i'm building will be XP SP3.

I mainly hate the way it looks and even Windows Classic in Vista, looks really foul.

And I like to get the most out of my setup, without Vista hogging most of it, so for fastness its XP all the way for me.

But Vista isn't as bad as everyone says...

The one thing i'm wondering is Why the !($&#*@ did they move the creation of a restore point OUT of system restore and into "Advanced system settings"

Its not that bad, in System Restore just click the Open System Protection link at the bottom for the System Properties window to pop up and click the "create" button at the bottom to create a restore point. Only 3 steps from the System restore window

(warwagon said @ #21)
The one thing i'm wondering is Why the !($&#*@ did they move the creation of a restore point OUT of system restore and into "Advanced system settings"

I sometimes get confused with creating and restoring System Restore. The solution is to run it by typing into the search box from the orb menu:

1. Press the "Windows" flag button on the keyboard
2. Type in system restore
3. Press Enter
4. Press [Left Arrow] then [Enter] or click Continue on UAC prompt

That is the quickest way to do both. The whole process can be done without touching the mouse.

Well I was a beta tester from the go on Vista and I kept saying to myself, its going to get better. Well it never did, even when it went RTM. However, get yourself a copy of Vista with SP1 already in it. It is mind blowing, the difference from RTM and Vista with SP1. I first tried an upgrade from RTM to SP1 I saw no difference. I then got a copy of Windows Vista x64 with SP1 and all I could say is WoW! This is what Vista should be. Also I been using Windows Server 2008 and compared to XP Pro speed it blows it away! I have officially stepped away from XP now. So who ever is adventurous find yourself a copy of Vista with SP1 and you will see for yourself. =) Flame On!

Mikee

Major issues that need to be fixed:

- slow file copy/transfer times (local and network)
- SuperFetch crashing randomly
- castrated defragmenter utility
- Start Menu lag

If any of these issues remain, I will seriously consider going back to XP.

(Turbonium said @ #19)
Major issues that need to be fixed:

- slow file copy/transfer times (local and network)
- SuperFetch crashing randomly
- castrated defragmenter utility
- Start Menu lag

If any of these issues remain, I will seriously consider going back to XP.


1. fixed
2. never seen that happen on 6 PC's in my house running different versions of Vista
3. the Windows Defrag (since 95 i think) was made for MS by an 3rd party company (I forget the name but its a big name in 3rd party defragers)
4. Again..never seen it.

(Turbonium said @ #19)
Major issues that need to be fixed:

- slow file copy/transfer times (local and network)
- SuperFetch crashing randomly
- castrated defragmenter utility
- Start Menu lag

If any of these issues remain, I will seriously consider going back to XP.


1. Fixed. Verified here... :)
2. Never happened here.
3. I'm not sure if it's new to SP1, but you can choose the drives now. The defrag does exactly what it says. No need for a GUI imho. And anyway, if I wanted something fancy, you can always use 3rd party tools.
4. Lag? What lag? Didn't happen w/ RTM and doesn't happen w/ SP1.

Anyway, I did a clean install of Vista (w/ SP1 integrated; the image made by Microsoft for MSDN/Connect/Technet) yesterday and it feels great. Very smooth. Everything just works. No problems. It recognized even MORE drivers this time (not that I had problems finding drivers... but automatic stuff helps :P).

1. Good
2. Happened to me 5 minutes before making this post (while uninstalling a program). Has happened to me about 4-5 times in the past also, totally at random when doing NOTHING fancy (just chatting on MSN while listening to music, etc.).
3. I like a little more control and information. It's an OS after all, not a "don't worry I will take care of everything" product... I want to see the % fragmentation, etc. Not that much to ask. Why "downgrade" it from XP?
4. Happens to me frequently (2-3 times a week). I will click on the Start button, go to Programs, and the pane will open but the whole computer will freeze (anywhere from 5 to 20 seconds), until the pane finally populates. Sometimes, Windows Explorer will crash in the process (it often says "Not Responding" while I wait for the pane to populate).

on top of that i realy dont see any dif in perf loss using vista over xp. at least on my system. and readyboost works great to speed up loading of games and apps. it doesnt help with game fps at all its not ment too. Sp1 so far seems to be even running better might actlug get better then i was in xp now. and on top of that a game made with native dx10 runs sweet and just has that litlte extra visual quality thats truly makes it more then worth it. i had wished i went with ultmiate but now dreamscape can be used on pro as well so i loving it all.

I don't know what everyone's problem is, Vista works just fine for me and I only have 1GB of RAM. I know it would be a lot better with two or more but for the moment it's what I have. The only problem I've ran into in the past were the file copying issues where it would sit at the calculating time screen for an eternity or take a ridiculously long time to copy a large file from one partition to another. For the most part SP1 seems to have solved this problem. It's still not as fast as XP though, and it is odd that just deleting a file takes time while on previous versions it was instant. It should just delete the pointer to the file, Vista seems to be verifying it or something.

i call bs ive seen vista with 1 gb of RAM and its not pretty you must be use to a slow machine! vista takes up more than 1gb of RAM out of my 2gb when i boot up lol! gogo swap file! hence why i went back to windows XP its basically 20x faster sorry to say.

You can call whatever you like, I'm using it and it works fine. Of course I can't prove it to you, as if I care anyway. I've seen computers with 2GB of RAM and XP and they were horribly slow because they were misconfigured and full of junk. As for Vista taking up your RAM it's designed to use up as much as you have available for cache. It will free up memory as it's needed. The "Vista eats RAM" thing has been debunked already so many times it's silly.

(offroadaaron said @ #16.1)
i call bs ive seen vista with 1 gb of RAM and its not pretty you must be use to a slow machine! vista takes up more than 1gb of RAM out of my 2gb when i boot up lol! gogo swap file! hence why i went back to windows XP its basically 20x faster sorry to say.

I call BS on your remark. My laptop's running with 1GB of RAM very smoothly. My desktop had 1GB of RAM and also ran smoothly. I upgraded the desktop to 2GB recently, and guess what? No big difference. I also multitask quite a bit with resource consuming engineering software. The claim that Vista needs more than 1GB of RAM to run well is a myth.

Also, since you state "vista takes up more than 1gb of RAM out of my 2gb when i boot up lol!", you're pretty much admitting that you don't know what you're talking about. I fully believe your claim (I'm running with 2GB here, and it does the same thing), but this is by design and does not, in any way, indicate that Vista would not run well with only 1GB of RAM. Most of that "boot-up" RAM consumption is merely Superfetch trying to optimize load times for your most frequently used applications. With less RAM, it'll just optimize fewer programs. This is not a huge difference, and definitely does not hinder the OS performance.

(Skyfrog said @ #16.2)
You can call whatever you like, I'm using it and it works fine. Of course I can't prove it to you, as if I care anyway. I've seen computers with 2GB of RAM and XP and they were horribly slow because they were misconfigured and full of junk. As for Vista taking up your RAM it's designed to use up as much as you have available for cache. It will free up memory as it's needed. The "Vista eats RAM" thing has been debunked already so many times it's silly.


I'll vote with Skyfrog. I'm running with only 1GB of RAM and it's very smooth.

(robertwnielsen said @ #16.4)
I'll vote with Skyfrog. I'm running with only 1GB of RAM and it's very smooth.

Sure it is... now load photoshop or some programs you need and then tell me how it works :)
1Gb is fine but if you just boot vista and browse the web... but even then it starts to swap to disk...
Photoshop on XP with 1Gb ran fairly well with large images... vista no way... you need at least 2Gb or more :)

The os is there to run programs you need... not to run just itself

All right, just for fun I'm running Photoshop right now with over a dozen bitmaps from my wallpaper folder open, Firefox with several pages open, Microsoft Word and Excel, Windows Mail, UT2004 and Steam minimized in the background as I'm typing this. Been browsing with Firefox, switching windows, no major slowdown at all. Vista is certainly not the resource hog that people claim it is.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v739/KR7...enshotvista.jpg

As has already been pointed out Vista uses more RAM because it's designed to use it more efficiently than any previous version of Windows. It isn't using it all just to run Vista, it's using as cache to speed up performance and it will be freed up for any programs that need it.

(Hitchhiker427 said @ #16.3)

I call BS on your remark. My laptop's running with 1GB of RAM very smoothly. My desktop had 1GB of RAM and also ran smoothly. I upgraded the desktop to 2GB recently, and guess what? No big difference. I also multitask quite a bit with resource consuming engineering software. The claim that Vista needs more than 1GB of RAM to run well is a myth.

Also, since you state "vista takes up more than 1gb of RAM out of my 2gb when i boot up lol!", you're pretty much admitting that you don't know what you're talking about. I fully believe your claim (I'm running with 2GB here, and it does the same thing), but this is by design and does not, in any way, indicate that Vista would not run well with only 1GB of RAM. Most of that "boot-up" RAM consumption is merely Superfetch trying to optimize load times for your most frequently used applications. With less RAM, it'll just optimize fewer programs. This is not a huge difference, and definitely does not hinder the OS performance.

+1

All the craps about vista needing 2 GB of RAM to even function are just wrong. I have multiple systems here with 1 GB ram, vista runs very well on each of them. As for using more then 1 GB ram out of 2 GB, u would like your RAM to be wasted by sitting idle? or to be used in a way that optimize your performance?

+1

What's the point of having 2GB or 3GB of RAM, and constantly have lots of free space? That's money wasted on memory space you're not using. Vista will take all that free space and use it up. If other apps need it, then the necessary space will be released from RAM to them. Don't tell me that's a bad way to manage RAM...

I waited almost a year before I made the switch to Vista and I suspect that is why I like Vista - I arrived just when software/driver compatibility issues became less and less troublesome.

I love everything about Vista except one thing - copying/moving of files seems to take ages. Even deleting a short cut can take 20 seconds...and I'm using a fast machine.

Does anyone know if MS will make a Vista SP1 installation disc available to people who are not on Connect or MSDN? So that I could just reinstall the OS instead of uninstalling Vista SP1 RC, installing final SP1 and so on?

Heh...same old comments every time any news about Vista surfaces.... people saying "Vista sucks" and other people saying "no...Vista pwns." I guess I'm still in the "I like Vista" camp since I've seen no problems at all and actually enjoy using it over XP. I remember getting Windows ME after it was released and that was a dreadful experience. I think continuously comparing Vista to ME isn't a fair comparison because even though Vista was too little too late, it is still an upgrade from XP IMHO.

To all the people that call Vista a "resource hog" I suggest you learn how Vista works because you obviously have NO idea. I have a MacBook that runs both OSX and Vista. I enjoy using both and it(Vista) runs SUPER smooth (even though some people refuse to believe Vista can on an integrated Intel video card).

I like to compare Vista to OSX 10.1, it broke a lot of Mac OS's standards and wasn't to hot at first but as the .X's increased the underlaying groundwork that was always there started to show its full potential. Vista right now is like 10.1, while it is not amazing its ground work after a few revisions and tweaking (like .1-.5 have done for OSX) it will start to show how powerful it really is/can be.

OSX originally sucked from some angles but were improvements in others, then grew into 10.5 which is amazing and will continue to progress.
Vista is starting out the same way, grant it the code reset around 2003 set it back, but SP1 corrects a lot of problems, and I have the feeling either SP2 or Windows 7 will really allow the underlying technologies built into the 6.0 Kernel to really come out like 10.5 has done for Mac OS.

(RenderItBlue said @ #12)
Vista is starting out the same way, grant it the code reset around 2003 set it back, but SP1 corrects a lot of problems, and I have the feeling either SP2 or Windows 7 will really allow the underlying technologies built into the 6.0 Kernel to really come out like 10.5 has done for Mac OS.

Hah, mac osx 10.5, yes I remember now: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=m...ac+10.5+exploit
bloomi' brilliant release there mate, not a dang single problem *sarcasm*

I'm going to wait for XP SP3. ;)

I have a dual boot Vista/XP system, so I want a fresh install of both OS's with the new service packs.

The speed is exactly the same between Vista SP1 and 2k8 server (as Majin said). The reports claiming "20% faster" were taken completely out of context, debunked by multiple sources, and relied upon limited tests that was biased because the disk caching flag was set for "server functions" rather than workstation ones. You can also set this exact same flag in Vista -- "optimize for services", "optimize for users" (or something like that).

Additionally, you can also get Vista's memory footprint down to XP levels. You can uninstall all the "Vista" features, Tablet, Media Center, Aero Glass, SuperFetch, etc, and you would hardly notice any difference in memory usage/performance. Vista takes a lot more resources because, alas, by default the OS is doing a *lot* more (regardless if you choose to employ those features or not).

But, if you buy a C2D or C2Q, use Vista 64 and drop in 4GB of memory, there is no comparison... Once the OS loads (i.e. spends 5-12 minutes populating the caches), apps respond nearly instantly. Overall boot time on Vista is significant because it tries to cache everything you frequently use into available memory. The more memory you have, the longer Vista takes to boot because it will try to use every ounce of that memory for caching purposes. However, once you start using sleep/hibernate (instead of rebooting and shutting down) you hardly notice the initial boot.

I find most people who bash Vista have no clue what the OS is doing, and they don't realize you can have it behave like XP with 15 minutes of tweaking at most (why you would want to do this is beyond me). If you have an app compatibility problem, that's a whole other issue. Most of the problems I've seen is related to gaming, simply because most game developers have no concept over proper memory management (which will become moot when everyone starts releasing 64bit executables).

(Schmoe said @ #8.2)
The speed is exactly the same between Vista SP1 and 2k8 server (as Majin said). The reports claiming "20% faster" were taken completely out of context, debunked by multiple sources, and relied upon limited tests that was biased because the disk caching flag was set for "server functions" rather than workstation ones. You can also set this exact same flag in Vista -- "optimize for services", "optimize for users" (or something like that).

Additionally, you can also get Vista's memory footprint down to XP levels. You can uninstall all the "Vista" features, Tablet, Media Center, Aero Glass, SuperFetch, etc, and you would hardly notice any difference in memory usage/performance. Vista takes a lot more resources because, alas, by default the OS is doing a *lot* more (regardless if you choose to employ those features or not).

But, if you buy a C2D or C2Q, use Vista 64 and drop in 4GB of memory, there is no comparison... Once the OS loads (i.e. spends 5-12 minutes populating the caches), apps respond nearly instantly. Overall boot time on Vista is significant because it tries to cache everything you frequently use into available memory. The more memory you have, the longer Vista takes to boot because it will try to use every ounce of that memory for caching purposes. However, once you start using sleep/hibernate (instead of rebooting and shutting down) you hardly notice the initial boot.

I find most people who bash Vista have no clue what the OS is doing, and they don't realize you can have it behave like XP with 15 minutes of tweaking at most (why you would want to do this is beyond me). If you have an app compatibility problem, that's a whole other issue. Most of the problems I've seen is related to gaming, simply because most game developers have no concept over proper memory management (which will become moot when everyone starts releasing 64bit executables).

I have 4 gigs and 64 bit vista and mine takes under 40 seconds to boot, I have superfetch and all that enabled too. It does use ram as a boot cache to speed boot up aswell.

(ViperAFK said @ #8.3)
I have 4 gigs and 64 bit vista and mine takes under 40 seconds to boot, I have superfetch and all that enabled too. It does use ram as a boot cache to speed boot up aswell.

You are correct, however you will notice that the disks won't go idle for many minutes after boot, and trying to use the computer during that time is less-than-responsive since it is still populating the cache... You can try loading a huge app like Photoshop, and it will take 30 seconds (while the cache is busy populating). If you come back a few minutes later (once it's done), you can load Photoshop and it will take 2-5 seconds.

It is amazing that even an announcement of service pack availability causes a Vista hate debate.

For the record, my machines run Vista fine. As far as I'm concerned it is the best OS out there. XP is inferior in so many wayss, I need that instant search eveywhere, and the saved searches, to search my whole hard drive for "*.mp3 and *.mp4" and "*.doc" (which includes docx)

I'll like Vista when it's no a royal resource hog, don't care if they added"new" features to compete with Mac and Compiz, if they can do it and not hog resources then MS can get off their lazy asses and do it too.


Pretty sad when my PC that can't run Vista has better and smoother running Eye Candy (linux and Compiz) than my Vista system

(z0phi3l said @ #6)
I'll like Vista when it's no a royal resource hog, don't care if they added"new" features to compete with Mac and Compiz, if they can do it and not hog resources then MS can get off their lazy asses and do it too.


Pretty sad when my PC that can't run Vista has better and smoother running Eye Candy (linux and Compiz) than my Vista system

Neowin Member Poll
I generally use:
Apple - 260
Linux - 115

Windows Vista - 1050
Windows XP - 911
Other - 15

Why on earth would they want to compete with lower numbers?

(GreyWolfSC said @ #6.1)
Why on earth would they want to compete with lower numbers?

Because they're growing extremely quickly?

I have no problems with Vista at all - the features (although not everybody will use every feature) it offers over XP are great (especially for tablet PC users - I hated XP Tablet Edition), including stuff that just makes life easier (if any Vista user says that they don't type an application into the start menu rather than looking for it, I'd say they were lying :)).

On a price comparison, it's roughly the same as XP - and if you're willing to spend hundreds of pounds on applications such as Photoshop and Office that you may use every now and then, £60 or so (oem) for an operating system that enables you to do such things is a relatively low cost (considering you use it whenever your computer is on).

Anyway, back on topic:

I don't agree with how Microsoft have handled SP1 though. Yes, it's a much needed update, but the way it's been released makes it sound more like a new operating system compared to an update to an existing one. I can understand why they did this with XP SP2, as this was a major update, but as far as I can tell, SP1 is just a performance update (I haven't seen any new features anyhow). I think it should have been put on Windows Update as soon as it RTM'd, rather than making people wait all this time.

Service Packs are not meant for features, and they have never been meant for them. XP SP2 broke that cycle but in large all Service Packs are just performance and bug fix releases, which is exactly what Vista SP1 is. Who knows, maybe we'll see a SP2 with more features

XP will play Crash Day, MAME, and for DVB, MyTheater, Mediaportal, ALL of the DVB apps run on XP, infact, a little better too. :)

MS has, not directly admited, that Vista was a flop.. Do a google search and you'll find the same quote at numerous sites..

I have been using Vista for a long time as a beta tester and I use Ultimate on my XPS m1730 now.. In WoW, it crashes and reboots out fo the blue.. On XP, no prob.. And no Pro-Tools for me.. Very unstable in Vista.. I for one will welcome SP1, but if it doesn't solve these 2 minor probs for me, its back to XP once SP3 is final. (Not a tester for SP3)..

Anyone else get the feeling that MS is treating Vista as the ****** stepchild?
I haven't had any problems with it, but, with the bad press, it seems that it is another
Window 98ME, not to mention that it is ridiculously expensive, for what you get.

(naap51stang said @ #1)
Anyone else get the feeling that MS is treating Vista as the ****** stepchild?
I haven't had any problems with it, but, with the bad press, it seems that it is another
Window 98ME, not to mention that it is ridiculously expensive, for what you get.

can you blame them though? its a failure and they know it
no matter what the vista fanboys say, microsoft has admitted it themselves

and they know theres no point in putting to much more effort into it if they dont need to (exceptions being service packs)

(naap51stang said @ #1)
Anyone else get the feeling that MS is treating Vista as the ****** stepchild?
I haven't had any problems with it, but, with the bad press, it seems that it is another
Window 98ME, not to mention that it is ridiculously expensive, for what you get.

If you call it "98ME", then you may as well call things "Windows 9598" and "Windows 9598ME"

It's "Windows Me". Different version/build just like 95/98 is different, and 2000/XP is different.

can you blame them though? its a failure and they know it
no matter what the vista fanboys say, microsoft has admitted it themselves

Not being a fanboy - but MS has admitted what?
Service packs and patches will come out for any operating system

Personally I like Vista, its fast and plays Crash Day and MAME, acts like a Tivo using MyTheatre, obviously word processing and spreadsheets are not a problewm (watch a mac commercial)... and I also still have XP on a few machines and Linux (SLAX and RHEL 5.0)
but I dont understand what MS admitted.

Show me an OS that has no service pack or patches

(naap51stang said @ #1)
Anyone else get the feeling that MS is treating Vista as the ****** stepchild?
I haven't had any problems with it, but, with the bad press, it seems that it is another
Window 98ME, not to mention that it is ridiculously expensive, for what you get.

Not sure where you are coming from. Their big problem with vista was the security change with drivers, requiring many drivers to be rewritten and leaving a compatability hole. Now with a very large catalog of compatible drivers that issue seems largely dead.

The remaining issues out there are programs that under XP did things such as place/remove files on the common desktop and whatnot that cause UAC to kick in on vista. Developers have learned as we have already seen in newer vista-native apps.


-d

Can I bash vista too even though I run it without any issues at all? Seems like this bashing vista game is getting too f**king old guys. Get off it. No one is forcing you to use windows vista over anything else.


(sirgh0st said @ #1.5)
Can I bash vista too even though I run it without any issues at all? Seems like this bashing vista game is getting too f**king old guys. Get off it. No one is forcing you to use windows vista over anything else.

Removing 2000/XP from future compatibility maybe ? Or hell the new samba which could easily be a 10MB patch but they want you to get pista so it will never be released for XP

(n_K said @ #1.6)

Removing 2000/XP from future compatibility maybe ? Or hell the new samba which could easily be a 10MB patch but they want you to get pista so it will never be released for XP

are they that stupid, do you know much market share they would loose? if not all of it
heh, if they did this. id move to linux, it would be the same thing at that point after all

(X'tyfe said @ #1.1)
Anyone else get the feeling that MS is treating Vista as the ******
...and they know theres no point in putting to much more effort into it ...

You don't know the half of it in terms of the effort they are putting forth with Vista now, and the effort they'll be putting forth in the future.

They don't admit the product is bad, they just admit their execution of it all was bad, i.e. the marketing tactic of "vista capable" and the Intel deal, the miss of the holiday season so they offered vouchers, the many changes of release schedules causing the driver developers to not put forth effort thinking the Jan. 2007 release date would be yet another miss, etc. etc.

The product (Vista) itself is great - the hardware manufacturers are mostly at fault. Sure, there is some blame on Microsoft (i.e. slow file transferring), but SP1 addresses that along with some other minor things on their end. If anyone blows the whistle on UAC, remember that everyone was complaining of security, so if anything Microsoft did it's part with that. Many of the security features within Vista were in XP, but now they are all just on be default instead of off; Windows 98 was a huge step hence all the "issues", Windows ME was simply a house-of-cards because they needed a Windows 2000 home-user-counterpart.

(dugbug said @ #1.4)
Not sure where you are coming from. Their big problem with vista was the security change with drivers, requiring many drivers to be rewritten and leaving a compatability hole. Now with a very large catalog of compatible drivers that issue seems largely dead.

That's not the only problem. Running GDI apps under DirectX is another problem, and one of the reasons why XP outperforms Vista in most applications while using less memory. Google this and you'll understand what I mean.

Besides that is all the bugs with the new, unproven tech in Vista. MS added a lot of new stuff and the bugs are now emerging. SP1 isn't the end of it by a longshot.

As for customers not liking Vista, what's there to like? What genuine advantages (other than the genuine DISadvantages of WGA) does Vista offer professionals? Businesses do not like to spend millions upgrading their infrastructure unless it will improve their existing operations or save them a ****load of $$$. Individuals don't want any new problems, and they want a good reason to buy new hardware.

  • Does anyone care about UAC? No. As a matter of fact, they hate it.
  • Is DX10 a reason to upgrade? Only for a few obsessed gamers. OpenGL 3.0 will be out this year anyway.
  • Search? Companies already have their own software in place for that and it's an insignificant feature for consumers.
  • Prefetch? A crutch that Vista needs because it runs so damned slow. Other OSes still beat Vista even with its disk-thrashing, RAM-consuming Prefetch running.
  • Games For Windows Live... now there's a devious marketing scam. MS trying to hook gullible PC gamers into the same extortion scheme that Xbox gamers are on now. NO THANKS, MS, WE'RE NOT THAT STUPID.
  • Aero? It needed to be done, but MS did it in the most tasteless way imaginable. Compiz blows Aero away.
  • Media Center? Most people don't use it. It is not Vista-exclusive to begin with. There are even free alternatives.
  • Vista GUI "improvements"? For most consumer types it confuses them and they have to relearn things they spent years learning with XP.

If MS could at least fix the bugs and stop nagging people with UAC prompts and Activation threats, Vista would start selling. It has to perform better than XP, Win2K3 "Workstation", OS X, and Linux, otherwise it is worthless.


If MS could at least fix the bugs and stop nagging people with UAC prompts and Activation threats, Vista would start selling. It has to perform better than XP, Win2K3 "Workstation", OS X, and Linux, otherwise it is worthless.[/quote]


I dont no who said its not selling

"20 million copies of Vista sold"

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17803382/


You sell 20 million of anything and its a big deal

(toadeater said @ #1.9)
  • Does anyone care about UAC? No. As a matter of fact, they hate it.
  • Is DX10 a reason to upgrade? Only for a few obsessed gamers. OpenGL 3.0 will be out this year anyway.
  • Search? Companies already have their own software in place for that and it's an insignificant feature for consumers.
  • Prefetch? A crutch that Vista needs because it runs so damned slow. Other OSes still beat Vista even with its disk-thrashing, RAM-consuming Prefetch running.
  • Games For Windows Live... now there's a devious marketing scam. MS trying to hook gullible PC gamers into the same extortion scheme that Xbox gamers are on now.
  • Aero? It needed to be done, but MS did it in the most tasteless way imaginable. Compiz blows Aero away.
  • Media Center? Most people don't use it. It is not Vista-exclusive to begin with. There are even free alternatives.
  • Vista GUI "improvements"? For most consumer types it confuses them and they have to relearn things they spent years learning with XP.

If MS could at least fix the bugs and stop nagging people with UAC prompts and Activation threats, Vista would start selling. It has to perform better than XP, Win2K3 "Workstation", OS X, and Linux, otherwise it is worthless.

1) UAC was essentially demanded by the public since everyone always seemed to cry about how easy it is for malware to install things / access things that it shouldn't. Don't ask Microsoft for enhanced security and better control over application execution, and then moan when it gets in the way of you running the applications.

2) You know XP had prefetch right? And the prefetch in Vista is outstandingly good. Firefox loads instantly for me for just this reason, and it takes much less time than the same version of Firefox in Ubuntu (Cold Start). Additionally, Vista will donate RAM back to the system as and when it is required, so the prefetch is really a non-issue.

3) What's a marketing scam? Games for Windows is a logo telling you that the game you are buying is for Windows, and won't run (without tools and utilities) on other Operating Systems

4) Aero and Media Centre: Don't like it, don't use it.

5) The GUI improvements are not really that confusing, the transition was much harder between Windows 98/ME/Etc and XP. I've never had any problem since day one finding stuff in Control Panel on Vista, yet to this day I still use "Classic Control Panel" on XP, so they can't have done that badly.

6) Activation "Threats", as you put them, are simply reminders telling you that you should activate your copy of Windows, if you have a web connection, and a genuine copy of Windows, how is this a problem, if you don't have a genuine copy of Windows, you deserve the nagware, and much more.

7) Comparing the speed between XP and Vista is a dumb argument, and yet for some reason, everyone does it. XP was slow as hell compared to Windows 98, yet somehow people now think that XP is very fast, give it time, and people will say the same about Vista. Vista is utilising modern hardware, XP is just screaming along on hardware that is designed to do so much more than XP does. Additionally, Vista isn't competing with Windows 2003, they're different markets entirely.


All that said though, I still prefer XP :P

(El Sid said @ #1.11)
1) UAC was essentially demanded by the public since everyone always seemed to cry about how easy it is for malware to install things / access things that it shouldn't. Don't ask Microsoft for enhanced security and better control over application execution, and then moan when it gets in the way of you running the applications.

2) You know XP had prefetch right? And the prefetch in Vista is outstandingly good. Firefox loads instantly for me for just this reason, and it takes much less time than the same version of Firefox in Ubuntu (Cold Start). Additionally, Vista will donate RAM back to the system as and when it is required, so the prefetch is really a non-issue.

3) What's a marketing scam? Games for Windows is a logo telling you that the game you are buying is for Windows, and won't run (without tools and utilities) on other Operating Systems

4) Aero and Media Centre: Don't like it, don't use it.

5) The GUI improvements are not really that confusing, the transition was much harder between Windows 98/ME/Etc and XP. I've never had any problem since day one finding stuff in Control Panel on Vista, yet to this day I still use "Classic Control Panel" on XP, so they can't have done that badly.

6) Activation "Threats", as you put them, are simply reminders telling you that you should activate your copy of Windows, if you have a web connection, and a genuine copy of Windows, how is this a problem, if you don't have a genuine copy of Windows, you deserve the nagware, and much more.

7) Comparing the speed between XP and Vista is a dumb argument, and yet for some reason, everyone does it. XP was slow as hell compared to Windows 98, yet somehow people now think that XP is very fast, give it time, and people will say the same about Vista. Vista is utilising modern hardware, XP is just screaming along on hardware that is designed to do so much more than XP does. Additionally, Vista isn't competing with Windows 2003, they're different markets entirely.

1) I never requested it, nor did anyone I know

2) Firefox 1.5 runs fine for me... And yeh, vista has such good memory performance that it won't run on my 512MB RAM PC but Windows XP Unlimited 2008 V2 with all the 3rd party fake-vista look programs activated and only using a mere 3GB of space works absolutely fine !

3) Agreed

4) Agreed

5) I went from 98 > XP with no problem. I have to use pista sometimes at college and god is it the shoddiest OS I have used, the control panel is a complete joke, they have made WAY too many things which should all be combined into as little icons as possible. Hell I can't even change the screen properties with a right click on the desktop.

6) Agreed

7) People are comparing it with 2K8 not 2K3. And I can't say when using it at college that it is slow. Its a pain in the ass but it isn't slow, although earlier people were talking about them thinking of getting an extra 2GB of RAM because some games worked fine in XP but won't work in pista. Oh and they said some online game crashes in pista which never crashed in XP. Maybe they don't use SP1, I don't know.

All in all, you know 3.1 is the best. Malware, whats that !? We don't even have the internets!

(sirgh0st said @ #1.5)
Can I bash vista too even though I run it without any issues at all? Seems like this bashing vista game is getting too f**king old guys. Get off it. No one is forcing you to use windows vista over anything else.

um actualy yes microsoft are trying to force you to upgrade with the like's of HALO 2 bieng a vista only game (god knows why it's still only DX9) ever try playing DX 10 game's in xp in DX10 mode they dont work and dont try tellin me linux is an alternative most games dont work in linux though there a some that do it's still a geek OS to run as for me my next OS will probably be Sever 2k8