Submitted by “A little over a year after the first appearance of Vista, Service Pack 1 is nearly ready for download. SP1 is a useful but not crucial update to the OS, and one that won’t greatly affect your computing day, at least not outwardly. The bulk of the development effort has gone toward upgrading security subsystems – elements that enterprise clients find appealing but consumers and small-business users won’t really notice (although they’ll feel better knowing about them). The bottom line is that there’s absolutely no reason not to download SP1 (which you’ll receive automatically if you have AutoUpdate turned on), so it’s almost a given that it will become the standard in the very near future.”
Wow, just wow.
-and 2.5 Hours for the laptop.
How can they make a process so long winded and contrived?
10.5.2 was a lot of megs, and installed so easily it was barely noticeable compared to regular updates.
Edited 2008-02-22 20:41 UTC
I seriously don’t know how he managed that. Not counting the download, it took about 15 minutes on my PC, a friend of mine was done in about same amount of time – and his vista installation is nowhere near fresh
Forget the install time, I can’t get over the fact it took 4 -4!- reboots to update it all. Unbelievable.
Though I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Last time I used Vista (about 3 months ago) it had to reboot twice to update my video drivers.
And my friends ask me what I have against Vista…
Again, must be a number from outer space.
I didn’t look at mine (went AFK for the installation, when I came back it was done), but my friend (the one i wrote about in my post above) just told me his install only rebooted once. It went like this:
– he downloaded the update and started installation
– clicked reboot
– during the shutdown process 2 out of 3 stages of SP1 installed
– after the computer rebooted the 3rd stage installed and his OS was ready for work (took him straight to login screen)
So you went AFK… and when you woke up in the morning it was installed. Good for you.
And a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend told you it only took 15min and one reboot.
Who you’re trying to bullshit?!
Certainly not you…you seem way too smart for us mere Windows users!
I’ve done about 10 Vista SP1 installs, all of them took under an hour, and needed one reboot only.
Uh oh, i’ve been discovered. I’m trying to bullshit you, because in fact I work for microsoft and have some reason to promote vista by spreading false information about how long SP1 install takes. Oh, and by 15 minutes I meant 15 days – man that was a good vacatio, by the time I got back home SP1 somehow managed to install. Incredible.
I’ve done it – it didn’t take all night, and it’s not a friend of a friend – i was on the IM with the guy: 21:05 he logged off to reboot – 21:24 he sent me a message he’s done.
But hell, by all means – call me a liar, believe the guy that wrote the article. Or do it yourself to find out the ultimate truth
.
Edited 2008-02-23 08:45 UTC
took me about 40 mins. four reboots sounds about right too, but they arent full reboots, the sp installer hijacks the boot before the login pops up.
10.5.2 was about a hundred megs less, and i dont think it included a major kernel revision. There were ALOT of changes between now and vista rtm.
I wouldn’t be surprised if 10.5.2 did include major kernel revisions. The kernel is not some magical component that will never be updated. There are occasionally security patches that end up replacing your kernel too.
SP1 installs reasonably fast, and you can still do work concurrently with the install until it needs to reboot (unless I’m forgetting something… I’ve only done the install twice). Why does it matter though? Just set it going and get on with your life (have a meal, go out with your friends, etc). It doesn’t prompt for anything while installing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/206801120;_ylt=Av0nOvfZ5a6FvBxS76ecGq4D…
Here’s another article:
Vista SP1 causes reduced functionality for some programs
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2073&tag=nl.e019
Reduced functionality may also mean that the program is blocked or cannot be run at all. As to the programs with compatibility problems it is worth noting that “of the 12 programs listed, half are security products such as Bit Defender and Zone Alarm. Many of the programs have updates posted on their Web sites to return the program to functioning properly.”
The list of problematic software – that is not considered to be comprehensive – can be found at the Microsoft support site:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/935796
That is why SP1 is still not released to everyone through Windows Update – to give time companies to make changes to their apps.
Pathetic. Completely, utterly pathetic.
Can you imagine (say) the OpenBSD devs doing a release of OpenBSD that disabled **pf**?
I don’t care that pf is native to OpenBSD whereas most anti-virus software is “third-party”. Look at Linux apps like (say) ntfs-3g. That app deals with a “third-party” thing (a file system) with no problems.
Then there are apps like **samba** that do the same.
The “third-party” excuse is just a cop-out.
If MS *really* wanted their “”OSs”” to work with third-party software, they could do it.
Users are expected to fork over big bucks for the steaming pile of crud that is Vista.
Criticism of free operating-systems can be severe enough. It should be A LOT MORE severe for so-called “operating-systems” like Vista that cost big money.
MS have gazillions of developers and gazillions of dollars, but they will *never* get it right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just kidding themselves, ignoring the evidence…
Edited 2008-02-22 23:34 UTC
Vista’s internal firewall continues to work fine.
So in your analogy, it’s like OpenBSD releasing an update that broke someone’s 3rd party iptables port.
“Windows Vista firewall weakness can be corrupted by attackers”
http://www.scmagazineus.com/Windows-Vista-firewall-weakness-can-be-…
“Microsoft: innocent pirates and more Vista flaws”
http://www.blog.lanzen.co.uk/?p=67
A quote from the lanzen article –
“Symantec lab-tested 2,000 common varients of malicious code, like backdoor, keylogger, rootkit, mass mailer, Trojan, spyware, adware and unsorted. They installed them as a user might, watching how Vista handled them. They tested if they could run and if they could survive a re-boot.
Out of 197 keylogger binaries, 60 were able to run and 5 were still there after a re-boot.
Backdoor had 143 pass Vista’s security and 6 actually modified Vista’s protected registry or added themselves to the start-up directory to run again after a restart.
81 mass mailers ran unhindered, with 4 remaining beyond reboot.
145 trojan binaries broke through with 4 staying on after reboot.
Spyware broke through as well, with 150 running undetected. 4 remained after reboot.
74 Adware binaries also worked, but only 2 survived rebooting.
439 unsorted classes of malware, ran undetected and 34 survived a reboot.”
ZCM 10.0.x is not supported in Windows Vista SP1
Isn’t Novell glad they signed an agreement with Microsoft?
Good to be an MVB (most valuable bitch), at least they get mentioned in MS KB articles unlike the thousands of unnamed victims.
There are 3 pre-requisites that each need to reboot the OS before the final SP1 can be installed, which also requires a reboot. So that can take quite a while.
MS released those 3 updates on Windows Update over the last 2 months, though, so most people will only have a single reboot and much quicker time installing the service pack.
The really interesting question is what’s going on in those required patches. Obviously some fairly low-level functionality in Vista required some major overhauls.
Just checked Windows Update. Do not see SP1. I’m running Home Premium 64-bit.
Will EFI boot mean no more Boot Camp fiddling to install it on Macs?
No. Vista, like all Windowses, screws up the boot information ie. you will be able to boot only to Windows after that. (Until you fix it.)
Edited 2008-02-23 20:30 UTC
I disagree lots of things in this article.
If you are using Vista, then there are 101 reasons to upgrade to SP1…
http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/3/b/d3b63d2f-8016-4abe-9e7…
“The drive light would routinely stay fully or mostly lit for many minutes at a time, even when most programs had been closed.” Authors said
If you would like to know what it going on;
Run: perfmon.exe
Then expand HDD section
Then reorganize Write Processes in Descending order with Max at top.
I have been watching this problem in vista recently and found it to be related to:
1. Volume shaddow copy process
2. Intel Thombson Memory Drive Process
3. Defragmentation Process
These are mostly Write I/O and range from 20 MB/min to 100 MB/Min
This behavior of vista would annoy some applications that would Inturrpt request HDD for access if your HDD support PATA or SATA interfaces (SCSI, SAS not affected because of their superior Scheduling and performance).
While playing a game vista deceided that it can run previous processes and thus the game was glitching every few seconds and made me loose the game.