Submitted by In a move that will likely only further confuse the situation surrounding Vista Service Pack 1, Microsoft has posted for public download two updates that were released to beta testers last month. The patches improve Vista performance and reliability, along with the operating system’s compatibility with drivers and hardware. Some of the changes include better file copy performance, faster boot times, improved compatibility with newer graphics cards, and better performance in games with advanced visuals.
Actually, I think it’s a good thing that they released these fixes…it shows that they are listening to the complaints they are receiving from their customers and resellers. They will probably be put into Patch Tuesday’s retinue this month. I don’t see how it confuses the picture surrounding SP1, though; Microsoft has pretty much always rolled older patches into their service packs. I would say that this gives us more of an idea of the types of things SP1 will address.
The bugs that are addressed by these updates shouldn’t be there in the first place if this OS was thoroughly tested before they shipped it. This is just a move to stop people running away from Vista back to XP.
Come on, how hard can it be to test file copy performance and compare it to Windows XP. That should have taken them only a couple of minutes and nobody noticed this at the time they started shipping Vista.
Give me a break…
Don’t get me wrong; I agree with you. Some of the bugs (the file copy performance one being a glaring example) should never have made it into a shipping product. I didn’t mean that they had done anything spectacular, just that it is a good thing they are actually working on fixing the problems with Vista.
Yeah it would be something if they left everybody in the cold with a product that has a 549 euro pricelabel attached to it.
But I hear you, it sure is a nice attempt, a little late but better late then never.
Edited 2007-08-09 18:14
Don’t pretend that you don’t know that 95% of Windows sales are with new computers. And the oem price for small vendors is about 100 euro and bigger ones get it cheaper that that.
Yeah, but if you want to buy a copy to upgrade an existing machine, or want to virtualise on Linux or Mac, the price still exists; and guess what? It’s a joke.
£90 for Tiger/Leopard, and that only has a minor share. Microsoft, by sheer volume should be able to compete with that price, except they don’t have to – they’re a monopoly. Windows users get upgrade-only Vista home crippled edition instead for that price.
Oh come on, 549 Euros – what’s that? Like $10? Jeez, you whiners.
Actually it’s about US $753… but of course… everybody has a grand tucked under the madras… suuure
Mea Culpa, I exaggerated the exchange rate in the wrong direction!
Whilst in principal I agree with you, it’s not something that is Microsoft centric.
Take a look at any Windows, MacOS, Linux or UNIX operating system and you’ll see hundreds of bugs or problems that shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
As far as running away from Vista back to XP, I really don’t see this as realistic. For those whom will stick with Windows, which is the overwhelming majority, moving onto Vista is inevitable. We cannot escape it.
There’s a lot of talk around right now about how horrible and unncessary Vista is, but keep in mind the same things were being said about Windows 98, Windows 2000 and particularly Windows XP, yet here we are now defending Windows XP over Vista.
Sure, there are problems and it’d be silly to say otherwise, but after a few bug fixes Vista will be what Microsoft has said and we’ll all wonder what we did without the benefits of Vista in times gone by.
Sure, but I’m damn confident that any version of OS X I can find won’t have a problem copying and deleting files. People are so used to MS’ bull that they’re not even fased by this anymore, but think about it and I mean REALLY think about it. An OS years in development by the worlds largest software company costing hundreds of dollars and it had a *performance problem* regarding basic file manipulations.
That isn’t “one that got through”, that’s some pretty sad shit.
I agree with you (most), but the shame is the fact that people have to spend hundreds of dollars just to be a beta-tester, which has been the police of microsoft till now.
XP was not addopted (just OEM, because of lack of choices, common in MS world), just later, and so should be Vista.
“but the shame is the fact that people have to spend hundreds of dollars just to be a beta-tester, which has been the police of microsoft till now. ”
I would agree that it would be a shame if I was buying a TV or an access point that has hardware design issues but Vista is a whole different thing. You pay hundreds of dollars for a product that mostly works and that you know Microsoft will support for the next seven years. What difference does it make to buy it now versus buying it later? Regardless of when you buy it, you still will be spending a few hundred dollars and you know it will be fixed.
Now the questions really become two questions: 1) is Vista, as it stands, better than Windows XP and 2) is it worth paying $200 to upgrade Windows XP. To me, the answer to the first question is a resounding yes. When I was buying my new laptop, I made certain that my system had Windows Vista on it and I was also certain that I will be very happy with it. I have used my laptop for a few months now and have been very happy with it. The answer to the 2nd question for me is no. I have decided to keep my Windows XP systems as they are and have no plans to upgrade them. The price is too heavy. When security support runs out sometime in 2014, I will then decide what I will do with my computer. Most likely it will be time to retire it.
Edited 2007-08-10 01:17
Would you but a TV that takes 3 minutes to change channel, ou maybe stick with the old TV until the new one if “fixed”. That’s the diff between buying windows now and later. The fact is, whoever is buying it now, is working for microsoft, doin’ their job testing the OS, and you even have to pay for.
IMHO, microsoft should spend more time testing and less time advertising (they are great doin’ that), instead of delivering an average product.
The bugs that are addressed by these updates shouldn’t be there in the first place
You don’t have experience in the software industry do you? Or writing software even.
They still shouldn’t be there. The fact that software is bound to have bugs – especially children syndromes – does not mean they should be there
And some of the bugs are embarrassing. But it should noted that Microsoft isn’t the only one to have such issues. You can find embarrasing bugs too in Gnome. Drag’n’drop from file-roller for an instance (though the embarrasing part is the age of that bug).
No they shouldn’t be. But they will be, and there is nothing that will change that sort of a software development revolution, so I don’t get why people make comments like the person who I replied to did.
“The bugs that are addressed by these updates shouldn’t be there in the first place if this OS was thoroughly tested before they shipped it.”
I think Vista had the largest private and public beta program in history. But new versions of OSes shipping with noticeable bugs is normal. Does nobody remember the horror that was Mac OSX 10.0?
” This is just a move to stop people running away from Vista back to XP. “
Er, what does this mean, exactly? What do you mean that it’s *just* a move to stop people running from Vista to XP? Are you saying that Microsoft shouldn’t have fixed these problems?
“I think Vista had the largest private and public beta program in history. But new versions of OSes shipping with noticeable bugs is normal. Does nobody remember the horror that was Mac OSX 10.0? ”
Yes but it would be nice if they actually labeled it beta, and didn’t charge extortionate money for it. How is comparing the revolution that was MAC OSX 10 released only 1.5 years after MAC OS 9 compared to the 5 years between Vista and XP and we are still waiting for a stable release.
Although I love the way people try and point out flaws in other OS’s. Its a shame examples are 6 years old, or just made up.
I’m just lost why Vista uses can’t say something like “Vista with its bundled packages and new interface, have more than made up for any regressions in performance and compatibility, and Microsoft with updates like this one add *continually* addressing the problems”…Its a lie they should have made it work in the first place, but it *should* be increasingly difficult to argue with…
…anything else is just excusing a poor product on launch, and Microsoft with all its resources shouldn’t need one.
“Yes but it would be nice if they actually labeled it beta, and didn’t charge extortionate money for it. How is comparing the revolution that was MAC OSX 10 released only 1.5 years after MAC OS 9 compared to the 5 years between Vista and XP and we are still waiting for a stable release. ”
Uh, you could download Beta 2, RC1 and RC2 for free. So if you paid money for it, you’re an idiot.
“They actually started again using Windows 2003 as the initial code base, which was a good idea, Win2k3 is the best Windows ever built.”
“Uh, you could download Beta 2, RC1 and RC2 for free. So if you paid money for it, you’re an idiot.”
I’ll address these two together, because its simple. Vista’s code base is massive. I object to the bundling of programs simply becuase third party products suit my needs much better. I’m still trying to cope with that one-care is wonderful comment, when it a noddy program from the internet is simply better in every test, the comment offends me, and the sort of comment I would expect from other sites.
I think its a nonsense that you even mention server 2003, Unless Server 2003 is just a rebadged NT4 Microsoft employee’s *worked* on server in that time. I think its also a little insane that you think the failed project had no useful code in it, that could not be scavenged. If you do not understand that comment. I’d say you should not comment.
I think its a bit harsh of you so call people who buy Vista idiots, its commonplace to have it bundled with computers, people refer to this as a Microsoft Tax, and not many are capable of building a machine, without this spyware, although increasing alternatives are popping up cheaper from some OEM’s Dell being the largest.
“I think its a bit harsh of you so call people who buy Vista idiots”
Actually, I said people who paid to beta test Vista were idiots, in response to this statement by you:
“Yes but it would be nice if they actually labeled it beta, and didn’t charge extortionate money for it. How is comparing the revolution that was MAC OSX 10 released only 1.5 years after MAC OS 9 compared to the 5 years between Vista and XP and we are still waiting for a stable release”
And to continue on with that statement, OS X was released only 1.5 years after OS 9, but it was based on NextStep, they didn’t write it from scratch, and it certainly wasn’t based on Mac OS 9. They bought it. and 10.0 stunk. I used it, and hated it from day one. The first version of OS X that was truly good was 10.2
to move on…
“I think its a nonsense that you even mention server 2003, Unless Server 2003 is just a rebadged NT4 Microsoft employee’s *worked* on server in that time. I think its also a little insane that you think the failed project had no useful code in it, that could not be scavenged”
I don’t think it’s nonsense to mention 2003, 2003 is and was a stable, fairly secure code base to start from, and as I understand it, the initial Longhorn code was based on XP and was a mess by the time they started over. Yes, I am sure some of the code from the first attempt was carried forward, but that doesn’t mean anything, the underlying XP code had become quite ugly, and Windows 2003 had already been cleaned up during it’s development. Windows 2003 and XP are similar, but 2003 is more stable, and is more secure.
I think Vista had the largest private and public beta program in history
Heh, 5 of 10 apps i tried on my new Vista based laptop are succesfully crashed.
Probably they should use Wine
I think it was more of a: “They got leaked and everyone is installing them, so might as well release them”. It doesn’t matter though because if they work, it’s all good. Now it’s official I guess.
What do you mean by everyone? 99.9 percent of those people who do update, use Windows Update.
How many regular Windows users do you know who run around looking for leaked patches and install them instantly?!
“Can we get a reality check on isle 3 please”…
Heh – maybe there are some Terry Gilliam fans at Microsoft.
(For those who don’t know the story, Universal originally refused to release Brazil unless Gilliam edited/butchered it. So he arranged for private screenings for critics and several of the critics got it nomimated for Academy awards – Universal finally released it at that point, out of fear they would look like fools for refusing to release an Oscar-nominated film).
Just installed them on Vista 64 bit Ultimate and, considering the problems I’ve been having with previous patches, these work like a charm.
The boot up time has decreased and, maybe it’s just me, but my system seems snappier already.
It’s nice to know MS can get it right from time to time 😉
Could Microsoft have done a lot more to make Vista a lot better? Was Vista a bit rushed? Yeah, but the fact is that everyone does the same because it is the nature of the industry. If this was not the case, we will not have security patches, software updates. nor even new versions of applications. The simple fact is that on my computer, Vista does run a bit sluggish and there are certain things that are a little underwhelming in performance but I have not lost any data nor much productivity to these bugs. Furtheremore, I bought my new laptop knowing full well that the Vista I am getting is a brand new OS that Microsoft has spent years on developing and that Microsoft has had very little feedback at all the million of little problems that can prop up. And you know what, I have had little problems with Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS, SuSE, FreeBSD, etc. too and I have always known that if I thoroughly document the problem and report it that they will be fixed. But I have never been stupid enough to expect that any software will run perfectly.
“I have never been stupid enough to expect that any software will run perfectly.”
Software has bugs. Does that excuse a major problem *copying* files on software that has been out 9 months from a company that earns a Billion every month. There is a *major* difference between software glitches and something of this level of magnitude from an OS.
I’m glad you haven’t lost productivity(sic) due to slow performance. I would love you to show me how you tested this, becuase thats the most foolish statement I have ever read.
I’m glad you haven’t lost productivity(sic) due to slow performance. I would love you to show me how you tested this, becuase thats the most foolish statement I have ever read.
He said that it was a little sluggish, but that he hasn’t lost any productivity because of it…..how’s that so foolish?
I could do my job on a machine that’s half as fast as my machine is without it effecting my productivity. Is that a foolish statement too?
“I could do my job on a machine that’s half as fast as my machine is without it effecting my productivity. Is that a foolish statement too?”
Yes. Saying anything otherwise is just stupid. If you were to say look at studies on things like start up times, to finding functionality you will see that these things do affect productivity, and require detailed testing. If you have a job that involves copying files…or rendering 3D then this patch is a boost to productivity. Arguing otherwise is foolish. What you can argue is that there are better ways of improving productivity that aren’t performance based. Two resent studies show that a shiny machine makes workers more productive or a larger screen.
The bottom line though is the term productivity in this instance is used as a marketing term…and a bad one, will some people be affected more than others by major regressions in the Microsoft Platform. It is dependent on many factors, but yes a faster more responsive machine will improve productivity.
I agree that Vista is not a very efficient OS and using a more efficient OS would make you more productive even on modest hardware…say XP.
I understand there are “productivity tests” that I am sure are very detailed about breaking such things down to prove you right. I have no doubt about that.
However I have to laugh, because the guy you called “foolish” probably was, as I was with my comment, referring to “seat-of-the-pants” feel of productivity.
Is there a difference due to Vista vs XP, fast machine vs a little slower machine? Sure. I’ll agree with you.
I’m just saying it’s not a huge deal to everyone to be so completely anal about it, and also doesn’t necessitate calling him foolish.
It’s not required to do a highly detailed scientific study when posting what is clearly an opinion on the internet.
You are right. Actually I wrote exactly the following:
“Vista does run a bit sluggish and there are certain things that are a little underwhelming in performance but I have not lost any data nor much productivity to these bugs.”
No where did I suggest that I did not experience any productivity loss from these bugs. I simply stated that I have not lost much of it which I still firmly stand behind. In terms of load up times, it seems to be just as fast as Windows XP. Grant it, I now have a brand new laptop with better hardware, but it is not like it has gotten worse than what I was used to. In terms of the mouse speed and graphic speed, I feel a slight latency but even this latency is about ten times less apparent than it is on any Linux distribution. And to tell you the truth, I do not lose much productivity in Linux either and it does not bother me much on Linux either.
waiting 1.5 seconds instead of 1 second for a file to copy, or 5 minutes instead of 3 for the system to boot isnt exactly a huge productivity loss.
Could Microsoft have done a lot more to make Vista a lot better? Was Vista a bit rushed? Yeah, but the fact is that everyone does the same because it is the nature of the industry
You’re right, it is unfortunately the norm, but that still does not excuse it. They knew it wasn’t ready, so should not have released it. Hell, although I had never used it myself personally, even *I* knew it wasn’t ready, just from reading the horror stories all over the web. It was a bad move on Microsoft’s part not to keep Vista in the cooker a few more months to get it in pristine shape.
“You’re right, it is unfortunately the norm” I disagree its the norm. It is defiantly not the case for other OS’s where you get a *choice* of schedulers, and file systems, and Desktop and file manager and…etc etc. Where development is both *transparent* and major blockers are picked up early…although I’m still unsure how 6 years is really rushing out a product. Even closed source companies regularly label beta software beta. You would think there is something floored in the development model.
@cyclops
Vista was not developed in 6 years. It began 2 years after XP SP2 was released, and at one point the whole project was restarted (they ctrl+alt+del the project!)
I originally wanted to post a reply mocking Vista for taking so long to develop yet still end up released unfinished with glaring bugs. Then I started searching for the actual amount of time it took to develop Vista. From what I’ve found, it seems most of the work put into Vista happened in the last 2 years (2005 – 2007).
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12554-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=3314…
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/11/30/HNballmervista_1.html
(I don’t actually read either zdnet nor infoworld, it’s just what came up in my search, don’t hate me).
Really. Thank you for that snippet of information. Software development of a project as large as that simply does not work like that.
What you describe is the failure of having a closed-source development model nothing more, and what it brings with it more than you being able to see the code.
In a project as large as Vista. If you are saying they started again, then you are simply misled. Vista is a mix of bundled products, Its server line, and its strip mined failed OS.
The bottom line is Vista is simply not ready for the Desktop.
Well shoot. That puts the remark “Linux isn’t ready for the Desktop” in a whole different light.
And you’re right, to think that they restarted from scratch would be naive. I don’t think they tossed code out the window (bad pun) I would think it’s more likely the architects and managers said “back to the drawing board.”
They actually started again using Windows 2003 as the initial code base, which was a good idea, Win2k3 is the best Windows ever built.
Windows Vista development was never “restarted”, they just enacted an audit of all the code and made tighter requirements on the quality of the code.
Are you going to tell me what an open-source development model does not have these issues? They are not exclusive to a closed source model, that’s fud.
There is no one issue which plagued the development of issues. It’s a bunch of problems which stacked ontop of each other to complicate things. Some of these include the radical changes proposed, a shaky foundation, and some ambitious goals.
Windows Vista used the Windows Server 2003 kernel, that is not tied down to the Server line at all. This is simply an updated build of the NT Kernel which includes various enhancements in both performance and security.
Windows Vista introduces a bunch of new platforms and fresh code, it’s obvious it will have performance issues at first as with any major changes.
I’m not going to say an open development model does not have it’s advantages. Peer reviewed code has it’s perks. However, what I am trying to say is that a closed-source model does not damn the project.
Windows Vista performs alright (albiet the Harddrive transfers, which were fixed above). It’s a flexible Operating System with the option to turn off features you do not need and fine tune it to your needs.
It’s no where near the flexbility, of say Linux but it’s enough for what I would call an “everyday” PC user.
0.02c
Windows Vista development was never “restarted”, they just enacted an audit of all the code and made tighter requirements on the quality of the code.
Actually, if I remember correctly, roughly two years prior to release, Microsoft switched code bases from XP to 2003. I think you can call that something of a restart.
This article provides some insight into what went on:
http://wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/06jan/bigb_microsoft.htm
Yes, you’re correct. I even outlined that further in my post, I constructed it wrong though =P.
I mean that more as, they didn’t throw away the components they had worked on. More like htey evaluated what worked and what was crap. These are the audits I mentioned.
“What you describe is the failure of having a closed-source development model nothing more, and what it brings with it more than you being able to see the code.”
I think what you actually mean is that it is the failure of MS’s development model, not closed source. If I had a buck for every Open Source project that failed, I’d never have to work again, The Open Source development model is not perfect either, and in a project as large as Vista, MS lost control of it. I don’t think you can blame it on closed source, just blame it on MS, it’s more realistic, and closer to the truth.
“I think what you actually mean is that it is the failure of MS’s development model, not closed source. If I had a buck for every Open Source project that failed,”
My description was bad. I thought what the original poster has said was a major absurdly, becuase it was. I was more focusing on *how* Microsoft release there products as opposed to any code visibility. It actually matters more becuase we are talking about an OS. 2006 Vista is a poor product now simply because of the insaneness of its own Monopolistic nature, and its less than regular release. 2006 Vista is out-of-date and not tuned into hardware today, yet is trying to drive it down a set route, and its not worked. The whole “Vista Capable” lawsuits is an example of this. Yes it supports technology for hybrid drives and DirectX 10 and specialist motherboards that even now are expensive or simply not available, yet technology like Quad-Core which only last week dropped to the same price its Dual -Core counterparts is not supported. Never mind the massive performance loss everywhere in Vista. Its madness.
As for open-source projects failing, absolutely loads fail. Making the code available isn’t a magic solution to a successful project. It has other benefits I’m sure your aware.
I’m not blaming Microsoft, thats wrong. I could blame how they sell there products…and they are trying to change that unfortunately to something even worse. I could blame the fact that they kill hardware development that effects everyone, or drive it in directions it doesn’t naturally go for the big content delivery prize, but what they tried and failed to do with 2006 Vista was an accident waiting to happen…but it was the only way it could happen.
but then I believe and its possibly flawed that if they produced 2001 XP, 2002 XP, 2003 XP, 2004 XP, 2005 XP, 2006 XP, 2007 XP you would have a better Microsoft Platform today than Vista.
If I explained that really badly I apologize. I’m sure I could say that more cleanly, but I thought I had.
“but then I believe and its possibly flawed that if they produced 2001 XP, 2002 XP, 2003 XP, 2004 XP, 2005 XP, 2006 XP, 2007 XP you would have a better Microsoft Platform today than Vista. ”
Actually I agree with you there, the only problem with that is shareholders. They expect big flashy things every few years, and hate incremental improvements. No money in it. Apple can afford to do that because the fan base they have is small and very loyal, and care a bit more about their computers) and have no problems paying $129 Canadian every 18 months or so to get the latest and greatest.
Windows users don’t work that way, they tend to get used to something and then won’t change until they get a new computer. It’s hard to believe the 98 SE computers I have to fix, because the typical (and I said typical, meaning not techs and geeks) Windows users know less about their computers. So every few years, you have to dazzle them to get them to shell out the cash.
“It is defiantly not the case for other OS’s where you get a *choice* of schedulers, and file systems, and Desktop and file manager and…etc etc. Where development is both *transparent* and major blockers are picked up early”
When I said it is the norm of the industry, I was specifically referring to Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOS X. I am not saying this is true or false of you but many people wear tainted sunglasses that they do not see all the problems within their favorite OS but are very quick to point out all the flaws in other OS. However, truth be told, there hasn’t been a single Linux release that I have been happy with. There has always been certain performance issues, bug issues, security issues, and things that just generally have not performed as expected. I can’t see how someone could be happy with the release state of Linux distributions and so harsh against the state of Windows release.
“When I said it is the norm of the industry, I was specifically referring to Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOS X”
Wow I’m astonished. You are comparing an closed source OS delivered after *5 years* to a GPL’d kernel delivered every 2.5 months.
If you do not understand the massive difference between comparing the two. I will not waste my time comparing the two.
BTW I love this about GNU “performance issues, bug issues, security issues”
GNU has *lots* and *lots* of problems but seriously those aren’t them.
because once you’re familiar with (insert most open source oses here), you can make most of those problems dissappear, whether it be compiling those nasty nvidia modules or restructuring your system for security. The shit ain’t easy, but it’s workable – I’m sure that the gentoo ricers are perfectly satisfied with pretty much every aspect of their system, but take even the most skilled of their hackers and ask them ‘why is my file copy slow on vista?’ and they wouldn’t be able to do a thing.
Just a couple of points:
1) When developing software, there is a point when all the testing in the world won´t change the fact that the product just needs to get out the door – Mozilla was in a constant state of beta, and look what happened as a result. It was not until it got kicked out the door and some real world testing was done, when things started to move foward at a reasonable speed.
2) Microsoft chooses to have excessive backwards compatibility – that adds complications to developing software; they *could* create a marvelous operating system, but because of all the crap they haul along with each release, it just becomes big and unweidly. Again, they created the complexity.
3) I purchased a laptop loaded with windows Vista and was, quite frankly, disgusted at the performance. I am sorry, but 5 years of development, I expected a lot better.
Its funny how Microsoft have managed to *fix* things that don’t exist to many users here, and without the initially blamed third party vendors too.
I agree with others that Microsoft released Vista too soon. I am reasonably confident that the company will fix the most serious bugs eventually, the latest Beta bug fixes indicating progress. I would also point out that my experience with Windows 2000 was similar to what I am reading now: rotten driver support, and sometimes catastrophic bugs. That said, I revisited 2000 around the time of XP SP1. Microsoft had just released SP3 for 2000. My experience with it then was radically different. It was a stable, fast, well supported OS.
I’d also point out that OS-X and Linux have had their ups and downs. Apple’s OS started out very slow and crash-prone. As for Linux, I think of Mandrake 9 and still shudder. Mercifully, the Suse, Red Hat, and Debian branches were far more stable.
What would help on OSNews are more comments by people who have actually used the Microsoft bug fixes. Did they fix anything on your system? Does your system run more quickly, stuff like that?
How many of you remember how ready OS-X was when it was first released? How long did it take for Apple to get it decent for desktop use and how long did it take Apple to get it out the door? Remember that you would have to include the predecessor to OS-X into the development mix for that was originally Mac Classics replacement that got thrown out with the bath water.
Not to mention that Apple gave themselves a clean slate with the release of OS-X and ran classic not to well in an emulation environment. It wasn’t until the second revision of OS-X that it became a decent OS for desktop use and still has issues.
MS ain’t perfect but they ain’t that much different to the others out there technically. It’s the business side of MS that stinks to high heaven and guess what, Apple would be just as bad if they had the opportunity as would many other smaller software houses.
I had a most interesting discussion with a Vista user the other day.She admitted she was not a technical user and felt Vista was much better than XP.She said she was impressed with the One Care and the UAC in that she felt safer and more confident to use her laptop because these two features made the learning curve not as steep as XP.Else she said she spotted no real differences between XP and Vista and asked me what they were and to explain them.
I had used Vista and it wasn’t that bad.However, there were some major slow boot times but after it was snappy to use even on my aging hardware.
Though I am a Linux user, I think Vista is going to get better , which I dont mind anyways , it keeps Linux on its toes and makes my life a bit more interesting.
Edited 2007-08-10 02:47
Installed the patches this morning, been using it all day. Tested a few games out, don’t find any difference whatsoever with 3d performance (currently what i get is a little under what i get with win xp.) Explorer may have been a bit snappier, but honestly, it could be a placebo effect. The big difference I noticed right off though is a big reduction in boot time, as a rough guesstimate i would say I go from POST to fully loaded (i.e. things finish loading and harddrive stops thrashing) a third to twice as fast. Haven’t done any big file copies today, so can’t report on that.
I’m one of the lucky ones that doesn’t have much to complain about on vista though.
First off, Microsoft released Vista fully knowing it wasn’t ready. Every developer knew that there were bunch of bugs left.
Every OS Microsoft has ever released, has never been fully ready!
People really should understand that there are two sides to Microsoft. The dark side being the shareholders…
I would be more than certain, that Microsoft would have kept Vista in the oven for a few more months if it weren’t for them.
Although I agree that the infamous file copy bug truly should have been fixed before shipping or at least right afterwards, but not 9 months later.
And for people copmlaining about Vista not working (sleep, hibernate etc) or beeing terribly slow.
It really is the drivers (including the BIOS) and sometimes the hardware (5400 rpm laptop drives are not what I would recommend using).
Take in mind that XP has been out 5 years, after which manufactures are in a pretty good and stable state with drivers.
Vista, which includes enormus amounts of changes to the driver framework, has only been out 9 months, and not everyone has been able to get their stuff right (nVidia and HP come in mind).
Now about the article. I have applied both patches.
After patching cold boot time increased 15 seconds from 1 minute. Haven’t tested again, maybe now it is less…
But the one thing I have noticed, is that the sidebar loads a lot faster.
Still haven’t gotten arount to test the file copy stuff.
But some little copying I have done, has seemed faster.
This fixes solved a lot of problem reports on the World of Warcraft fora.
Many people experienced unstable systems and these fixes stabilized a lot for those running Vista.
So, good move in my opinion.