Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Oct 2007 20:18 UTC, submitted by Corinne Iozzio
Windows PCMag takes a look at the Vista SP1 beta, and concludes: "The actual first beta of SP1 may not deserve a fanfare, simply because - like all first betas - it has its own set of issues to resolve. But by the time you can get SP1 on the Microsoft Update site or as part of a new Vista installation DVD, you'll want your PC to have it. Nothing dramatic here, but SP1 is a solid, useful upgrade that makes the operating system a little safer and a little faster."
Thread beginning with comment 277108
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: explorer
by mbot on Tue 9th Oct 2007 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: explorer"
mbot
Member since:
2007-09-18

I'm typing this on a Powerbook G4, 1.67 GHz, 512 MB of RAM on Tiger and it feels snappy to me. What's so unbearable about running 10.4 on 512 MB of RAM? Care to share what was slow?

Regarding Vista bashing, I've used Windows since 3.0, each version has been better for me. I have a history of liking Windows releases, but Vista is different. It's hard to find a feature or a list of features worth $200. Not only that, it's the first time I can write a list of cons for a Windows release. Vista criticism might be popular, but it's well-deserved.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: explorer
by REM2000 on Tue 9th Oct 2007 09:02 in reply to "RE[3]: explorer"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

I agree with each release Mac OSX has gotten fsster. Whilst waiting for my memory to arrive for my macbook last year, i used it for a week on 512MB and it worked fine. Office etc.. running fine.

However back on topic, i think the major things that need to be fixed are the simple file operations. I cannot believe they released vista in that state, when vista would choke on copying files both locally and on the network.

I would like some better memory optimisations aswell, although i know they are not gonna happen. When running Vista on a 3GHZ HP with 1GB RAM the HDD thrashes when using office. Standard startup is using about 700MB RAM.

I know memory is cheap at the moment, but i don't want my OS using it all when i need it for the apps i run on top of it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: explorer
by kaiwai on Tue 9th Oct 2007 11:34 in reply to "RE[3]: explorer"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm typing this on a Powerbook G4, 1.67 GHz, 512 MB of RAM on Tiger and it feels snappy to me. What's so unbearable about running 10.4 on 512 MB of RAM? Care to share what was slow?


I was running a eMac G4 w/ 512MB, it was after long periods of usage things would slow down; same situation with the old 20inch G5 - I *NEVER* said that needing to have 1gig is a bad thing.

What I get pissed off is the hyperbole of taking something to an extreme; its like the legendary one of, "I run Linux on a 486 w/ 8MB with a fully blow GUI!".

Regarding Vista bashing, I've used Windows since 3.0, each version has been better for me. I have a history of liking Windows releases, but Vista is different. It's hard to find a feature or a list of features worth $200. Not only that, it's the first time I can write a list of cons for a Windows release. Vista criticism might be popular, but it's well-deserved.


As a 'retail package' it is a rip off, but as being bundled with a system, it is pretty good; for me, I've got an HP laptop, loaded with Windows Vista w/ 2gigs of memory; it runs like a champ. If I had my old Toshiba, would I upgrade to Windows Vista? nope, I'd probably wait till I upgrade the hardware.

As for the original article 'reviewing' a service pack is stupid; its like reviewing a beta version of an operating system and claiming that to be the 'benchmark' the compare to. Sure, talk about the changes, talk about what has been added, but for goodness sake, don't review something that is still being developed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: explorer
by mbot on Tue 9th Oct 2007 17:08 in reply to "RE[4]: explorer"
mbot Member since:
2007-09-18

What I get pissed off is the hyperbole of taking something to an extreme; its like the legendary one of, "I run Linux on a 486 w/ 8MB with a fully blow GUI!".

I could understand that. 10.4 would very slowly with 256 MB. I expected a little more from Vista since it uses less than the required amount of RAM, unlike past Windows releases.

As a 'retail package' it is a rip off, but as being bundled with a system, it is pretty good; for me, I've got an HP laptop, loaded with Windows Vista w/ 2gigs of memory; it runs like a champ. If I had my old Toshiba, would I upgrade to Windows Vista? nope, I'd probably wait till I upgrade the hardware.

I agree. I don't think Windows Vista is so bad that you need to put XP on a machine with Vista bundled.

Reply Parent Score: 1