Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Nov 2007 21:43 UTC
Windows Microsoft has released a preview release candidate for Windows Vista SP1 to a large group of beta testers. The RC preview beta [ed. note: release candidate preview beta?], which was released late Nov. 14 and includes changes to the setup and installation experience made as a result of tester feedback, was made available to 15000 pre-selected beta testers, just 3000 more than the first beta. Additionally, Microsoft has released a new build of Windows Server 2008.
Order by: Score:
release candidate preview beta?
by flanque on Thu 15th Nov 2007 21:57 UTC
flanque
Member since:
2005-12-15

Sounds like Capcom had some input in the name of this release. Anyone up for some Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix?

Reply Score: 11

Compression....
by OMRebel on Thu 15th Nov 2007 22:06 UTC
OMRebel
Member since:
2005-11-14

I wonder if they fixed the file compression bug where it takes 1 hour to "unzip" a 10 MB file? I've downloaded 7-zip to use in the meantime, but thought that bug was really strange.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Compression....
by Almafeta on Thu 15th Nov 2007 22:10 UTC in reply to "Compression...."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

That bug's probably a timing bug -- part of an annoying series of bugs where Windows gets a task done in a resonable amount of time but throughout the process tells you it'll be done in 2 years or some silly thing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Compression....
by OMRebel on Thu 15th Nov 2007 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Compression...."
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

No, it really does take that long to uncompress a 10 MB file. It's not just where it's telling the end user the wrong amount of time before it completes. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the indexing, but make no mistake - Vista has set a record for being incredibly slow when it comes to just uncompressing a file.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Compression....
by CPUGuy on Thu 15th Nov 2007 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compression...."
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

I saw that during the Vista beta, fortunately no longer. It would go at 100bytes per second for some reason.

I just use 7-zip anyway, it's far superior.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Compression....
by Darkelve on Fri 16th Nov 2007 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Compression...."
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

7-zip actually makes far smaller archives too. I don't know if Vista has improved on this, but often I get 20-30% more compression in 7-zip, especially when archiving large amounts of data.

Edited 2007-11-16 11:53

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Compression....
by rockwell on Fri 16th Nov 2007 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Compression...."
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

funny, when I use tar and gzip, it never takes that lon... oh, wait. nevermind.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Compression....
by Dolphin on Thu 15th Nov 2007 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compression...."
Dolphin Member since:
2006-05-01

It's not just ZIP - all IO activities done from the shell (copying, moving, deleting, opening network shares, etc.) have the same issue.

It's *supposed* to be fixed, but I hear it's still there, just a little bit harder to spot.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Compression....
by gonzo on Thu 15th Nov 2007 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Compression...."
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

I just zipped about 25 MB in about 5-6 seconds on Vista (right click on folder -> Send to -> Compressed (zipped) Folder. (AMD X2 2.2 GHz, 2GB RAM, 250GB SATA HDD).

Problems with copying, etc. files/folders have been fixed, as far as I can tell. Keep your system up-to-date with Windows or Microsoft Update.

Edited 2007-11-15 22:47

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Compression....
by Dolphin on Thu 15th Nov 2007 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Compression...."
Dolphin Member since:
2006-05-01

What about decompression?

Restart your PC first to clear the cache... Mod it down all you like, but I've seen first hand that Vista deals with files created in the same session far faster than those in previous sessions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Compression....
by gonzo on Thu 15th Nov 2007 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Compression...."
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Man.. I didn't mod you down, why should I. I know well that Vista did have those problems. But as I said, as of a few months ago, I can't say that I still encounter them.

Restart your PC first to clear the cache...

Restart my PC? Why would I want to do that? I mean, it's not like I am doing that normally.

I will though, just to see what happens and I'll post the result here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Compression....
by gonzo on Thu 15th Nov 2007 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Compression...."
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

OK, here it is after the restart (even though, this is the stupidest idea ever, no offense).

Vista unzipped the file in about 20 seconds (7-zip did it in about 4-5 seconds).

Yeah, I know Vista is not champion when it comes to either compressing or uncompressing, but it is nowhere near what you said.

Why is it so hard to believe that Microsoft does indeed fix problems through Windows Update?

I can't say that they fixed all those problems, I just don't see them any more.

Edited 2007-11-15 23:07

Reply Score: 6

v RE[7]: Compression....
by lemur2 on Fri 16th Nov 2007 02:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Compression...."
RE[3]: Compression....
by fyysik on Fri 16th Nov 2007 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Compression...."
fyysik Member since:
2006-02-19

disabling aero and and enabling each explorer window to run in separate process helped me to solve whole bunch of such problems

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Compression....
by sniperu on Fri 16th Nov 2007 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Compression...."
sniperu Member since:
2005-07-01

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/07/1715181...

Here is the reason, on Microsoft's own site.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Compression....
by MollyC on Fri 16th Nov 2007 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Compression...."
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Great link. Thanks for the info. ;)

Still reeks of incompetence. Why not continue using the same algorithm as XP? Anyway, the blog indicates that it'll be fixed in SP1. We'll see...

Edit:
Not that XP is great at creating zips. I've found that on my XP machine, if I select say, 100 jpegs and do a SendTo-CompressedFolder command, the first 50 or so files are processed nearly instantaneously, but after that it gets slower and slower and slower until the last few files take like 10 seconds each. I'm guessing that for each jpeg, the zipfile is opened and closed, so each operation would get slower as more files were added and the zip file gets bigger (though even that wouldn't explain the massive slowdown, I don't think).

BUT if I instead select a *folder* that contains those same 100 jpegs, and do SendTo-Compressedfolder on that folder, then the entire process completes in like 3 seconds (of course the created zip file is different, since the jpegs are within a "directory" within the zip file). In that case, I'm guessing that the operation keeps the zip file open while adding each file to it. Why they don't use the same algorithm for the first case, I don't have a clue. More incompetence, I guess.

In both cases, opening the zipfile is nearly instantaneous on XP, unlike Vista (so I read and am told).

Edited 2007-11-16 19:22

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Compression....
by MollyC on Fri 16th Nov 2007 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Compression...."
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

hehe
Reading the comment's to Mark Russinovich's blog, someone speculated that the reason that XP's built-in compression is so inefficient was to not put the likes of WinZip, WinRAR, PowerArchiver, etc out of business. And maybe Microsoft went overboard in doing that for Vista. :p It actually sounds reasonable. Though I would suspect that it's maybe only implicit; meaning that they didn't intentionally make Window's compression suck, but certainly didn't bother to make it fast (or even reasonable, in Vista's case) either, for the sake of those 3rd-party guys.

Edited 2007-11-16 20:19

Reply Score: 1

RE: Compression....
by WarpKat on Fri 16th Nov 2007 03:55 UTC in reply to "Compression...."
WarpKat Member since:
2006-02-06

That happens so MS can claim the 'zip' standard is broken and introduce their new one.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Compression....
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 16th Nov 2007 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Compression...."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

"That happens so MS can claim the 'zip' standard is broken and introduce their new one."

...which will require Windows Vista, and on top of that, a very recent machine to run.

Reply Score: 6

confusing article
by dude on Thu 15th Nov 2007 22:14 UTC
dude
Member since:
2007-09-27

did that article contain any information as to what the SP fixes? I couldn't find anything other than the fact that they have some sorta beta release. I tried to click through some of the links, but they were equally unhelpful. It seems that the web page is more interested in getting ad revenue than it is giving useful information.

(edits for spelling)

Edited 2007-11-15 22:15

Reply Score: 2

RE: confusing article
by Dolphin on Thu 15th Nov 2007 22:19 UTC in reply to "confusing article"
Dolphin Member since:
2006-05-01

It's eWeek, what did you expect? When their fluff magazine wasn't doing too great, they had to improvise and use interstitial ads and other junk.

They probably can't afford to pay their journalists to do proper research either.

Reply Score: 2

RE: confusing article
by google_ninja on Fri 16th Nov 2007 06:29 UTC in reply to "confusing article"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

If you are up to date with windows update, you have the majority of it already. But if you want more of an overview

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_sp1.asp

Reply Score: 2

Windows XP SP3?
by uproot on Thu 15th Nov 2007 23:36 UTC
uproot
Member since:
2006-10-05

Whats the update on Windows XP SP3?
Last I heard there were rumors but nothing concrete. This is the release i'm waiting for. Long as the lifeline isn't a year or something I'm going to buy it. Vista scares me still.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Windows XP SP3?
by MollyC on Fri 16th Nov 2007 00:02 UTC in reply to "Windows XP SP3?"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"Whats the update on Windows XP SP3?
Last I heard there were rumors but nothing concrete. This is the release i'm waiting for. Long as the lifeline isn't a year or something I'm going to buy it. Vista scares me still."


Here's an October 2007 article on the beta of XP SP3.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2200761,00.asp

Reply Score: 3

RE: Windows XP SP3?
by baadger on Fri 16th Nov 2007 00:56 UTC in reply to "Windows XP SP3?"
baadger Member since:
2006-08-29

Last build number I've had my mits on is 3205, which I believe was the official Windows XP SP3 "beta 1".

Edited 2007-11-16 00:58

Reply Score: 1

RE: Windows XP SP3?
by Dolphin on Fri 16th Nov 2007 06:38 UTC in reply to "Windows XP SP3?"
Dolphin Member since:
2006-05-01
distribution
by ple_mono on Fri 16th Nov 2007 00:38 UTC
ple_mono
Member since:
2005-07-26

I would like a disk image with the SP included (edit/ when it gets released). Can i assume that is never going to happen unless i slipstream it myself?

Edited 2007-11-16 00:40

Reply Score: 1

v Windows 7
by jverage on Fri 16th Nov 2007 01:57 UTC
sp1
by mbot on Fri 16th Nov 2007 08:03 UTC
mbot
Member since:
2007-09-18

This makes me sad, slipstream is not possible. ;) I don't want to apply SP1 after installing Vista. That's a waste of time.

I guess I'll *cough* download *cough* the official slipstreamed image.

Why can't they just release this image for free? We already use product activation. If bandwidth is a problem, why not torrent it?

Reply Score: 1

experience
by zhulien on Fri 16th Nov 2007 08:23 UTC
zhulien
Member since:
2006-12-06

funny how they call everything an "experience" now. of course everything's an experience, that's just the most vague thing they could ever say.

Reply Score: 2

RE: experience
by lemur2 on Fri 16th Nov 2007 10:35 UTC in reply to "experience"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

funny how they call everything an "experience" now. of course everything's an experience, that's just the most vague thing they could ever say.


Today's Vista Experience

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=200711152128487...

Cook the dinner while U wait.

I guess you do need Vista to experience something like that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: experience
by google_ninja on Fri 16th Nov 2007 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE: experience"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

funny, vista boots in ~50 seconds on my 6 month old laptop. Either the writer makes perogies at the speed of sound, or his laptop wasnt up to the requirements.

Reply Score: 2

Vista
by andrewg on Fri 16th Nov 2007 09:09 UTC
andrewg
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have used Vista on an AMD 3200 with 1 Gig RAM and Nvidia 5200, also the same machine with a 7600 GPU. I have also used it on more modern machines.

Copying a lot of files was initially much too slow but after installing the performance and comptability fixes from Microsoft - they came out 2 to 3 months after Vista was released those problems disappeared.

Vista is easily better the XP. I hate using XP now that I have used Vista. Its a definite improvement in every way. Microsoft ended up doing a fantastic job with Vista.

Reply Score: 5

On Compression
by kaptin on Fri 16th Nov 2007 12:52 UTC
kaptin
Member since:
2007-11-16

I really don't see how you are defending Vista's compression times.

Athlon XP 3000+, SATA drives, Linux Kernel 2.6.22:

25megs of random data:
k@gunhead ~ $ time zip -r test test
adding: test (deflated 0%)
real 0m1.977s

25megs of '0' data:
k@gunhead ~ $ time zip -r test2 test2
adding: test2 (deflated 100%)
real 0m0.387s

ok, compressing a movie is pretty silly, you aren't going to get much compression out of it, but we'll play the game. 232 megs of random data:

k@gunhead ~ $ time zip -r test3 test3
adding: test3 (deflated 0%)
real 0m34.451s

I'd also like to note I was compiling something in the background. So, can we admit something is seriously wrong now?

Reply Score: 6

RE: On Compression
by MollyC on Fri 16th Nov 2007 15:58 UTC in reply to "On Compression"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

From what I've read, the zip functionality in Vista's explorer is slow, and unacceptibly so, even today (but still faster than it was months ago). But is your test a fair one? On Linux, you're calling zip from a command line and measuring the speed of that. My understanding is that calling a zip utility from the command line in Vista is fast too.

Edited 2007-11-16 16:00

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: On Compression
by kaptin on Sat 17th Nov 2007 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE: On Compression"
kaptin Member since:
2007-11-16

Once again, I was *compiling* something while I ran the test. Everybody seems to have posted results from their dual core systems at a fairly relaxed state (firefox, maybe a movie playing?), I was compiling code and compressing even faster. Maybe all the extra windows stuff is worth it, just not for me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: On Compression
by google_ninja on Fri 16th Nov 2007 20:56 UTC in reply to "On Compression"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Using winrar to zip the very same file took me 26 seconds. Noone is trying to prove that the windows builtin zip utility is any good, just trying to stop the FUD that the problems that were fixed half a year ago still exist.

Reply Score: 3

On Compression cont.
by kaptin on Fri 16th Nov 2007 13:07 UTC
kaptin
Member since:
2007-11-16

Alright, compile finished....

last test again (232 megs of random data):
k@gunhead ~ $ time zip -r test3 test3
adding: test3 (deflated 0%)
real 0m18.208s

Reply Score: 4

Is it possible to get SP1?
by OMRebel on Fri 16th Nov 2007 14:40 UTC
OMRebel
Member since:
2005-11-14

I'd actually like to get ahold of SP1 and give it a try, and see how it goes. It's it possible to d'load it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[12]: Compression....
by tjolley on Fri 16th Nov 2007 19:16 UTC
tjolley
Member since:
2006-03-14

"Since every Mac comes with a version of OS X, all retail boxes of OSX are in effect "upgrade" versions sold at "upgrade" prices. "

Totally wrong. Every copy of OSX is a FULL version, not an upgrade.

Any OSX you purchase can be used on a clean drive and do a full install, so the comparison is fair. These are not upgrades, though OSX will indeed upgrade a previous version detected.

Heck, you can even performa full install of OSX on a non-Apple x86 piece of hardware if you are willing to go through and perform the hack.

Reply Score: 1

RE[13]: Compression....
by MollyC on Fri 16th Nov 2007 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: Compression...."
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"Totally wrong. Every copy of OSX is a FULL version, not an upgrade."

Ugg...

I'm saying, *in practice*, the OSX retail boxes are upgrades. Good grief.


"Any OSX you purchase can be used on a clean drive and do a full install, so the comparison is fair."

But the Mac had a Mac OS on it at some point, right? Meaning that Apple already received payment for an OS on that particular computer (even if the price of the OS was included with the original purchase of the Mac).

(Just in case your suggesting that the upgrade versions of Vista don't allow clean installs, the Vista upgrade versions have the same bits as the full versions and can be used to perform clean installs. But idiotically/greedily, Microsoft makes you have to keep the old OS DVD around so that if you need to reinstall Vista upgrade, you need to install the old OS, then do a clean Vista install over that (it's still clean since it wipes the old OS before installing the Vista upgrade, but it's stupid that you have to keep the old OS dvd around and perform two-step reinstallation process (there is (or at least, was) a work-around to this nonsense))


"Heck, you can even performa full install of OSX on a non-Apple x86 piece of hardware if you are willing to go through and perform the hack."

That's not the case in practice nor is it how Apple wants you to use it. Part of the reason for the low price is that Apple already got money for the hardware, which isn't the case in your scenario. I think your scneario is also against Apple's EULA. In which case I can come back at you with "if you are willing to go through and perform the hack you can pirate Vista and install it for free on as many computers as you want."

Edited 2007-11-16 19:50

Reply Score: 3