Just installed Vista SP1

Took it a very long time to install.
Couple hours.
Also got the BSoD when it rebooted once but after going thru the entire
process seems to be working ok so far.

rp

In article <LFEFj.119$>, says...
> Took it a very long time to install.
> Couple hours.
> Also got the BSoD when it rebooted once but after going thru the entire
> process seems to be working ok so far.
>
> rp
>
>
I just installed in on my desktop, my sisters pc and my other sisters pc
and it took approx 15 minutes.

In article <>,
d says...
> Jan wrote:
> > In article <LFEFj.119$>, says...
> >> Took it a very long time to install.
> >> Couple hours.
> >> Also got the BSoD when it rebooted once but after going thru the
> >> entire process seems to be working ok so far.
> >>
> >> rp
> >>
> >>
> > I just installed in on my desktop, my sisters pc and my other sisters
> > pc and it took approx 15 minutes.
>
> 5 minutes each? Are you sure it installed at all?
>
That was 15 minutes for each pc.

Jan wrote:
> In article <>,
> d says...
>> Jan wrote:
>>> In article <LFEFj.119$>, says...
>>>> Took it a very long time to install.
>>>> Couple hours.
>>>> Also got the BSoD when it rebooted once but after going thru the
>>>> entire process seems to be working ok so far.
>>>>
>>>> rp
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I just installed in on my desktop, my sisters pc and my other
>>> sisters pc and it took approx 15 minutes.
>>
>> 5 minutes each? Are you sure it installed at all?
>>
> That was 15 minutes for each pc.

<keeping a straight face>

Jan at alt.os.windows-vista wrote:

> I just installed in on my desktop, my sisters pc and my other sisters
> pc and it took approx 15 minutes.

~30 minutes here whitout any problem

Athlon XP 2500+
1GB

--
[ ]'s

Daniel J.

"News" <> wrote in message
news:LFEFj.119$...
> Took it a very long time to install.
> Couple hours.
> Also got the BSoD when it rebooted once but after going thru the entire
> process seems to be working ok so far.
>
> rp


The long time that it took must have been how long it took to download from
MS. I did get that one error but Vista & all apps has been running fine
since. Keeping my fingers crossed.

rp

I'm not sure if this is related to SP1, but I installed SP1last week and
just noticed something today. When I right-click a folder in Windows
Explorer, there is no option for Search. Where did it go? How can I get it
back?

On 2008-03-27 00:04, philo wrote:
> I have been using both Win2k and XP for years...
> and have not once gotten a BSOD
>
> Vista, even after sp1 ...had given me BSOD four times...
> so it's now all gone

Strange. I had the most crashes on WinXP before all the patches and SPs
- in fact I stuck to Win2K all the way up to Vista and wouldn't install
WinXP even if somebody was paying me for doing that.
I've been using Vista basically since the day it came out and I didn't
have a single BSOD (for more than a year now - not a single reinstall).
Even better - the system never even crashed or locked up without a BSOD.
I wouldn't switch to any other Windows version no matter what - I'm
really happy with Vista and mind you, I've been using the WinNT line
since version 3.1.

I wonder what people are doing to their systems to make them so
unstable. ;-)
Vista has had many changes to the kernel after all and isn't a half-step
up in the OS department like WinXP compared to Win2K or rather WinNT 5.1
to WinNT 5.0 as I like to call them... Also, there's no point in waiting
for the new Windows since it'll be to Vista what XP had been to Win2K -
virtually no difference at all... WinNT 6.1...

If you don't like to have too much crap on a healthy kernel then
consider using Windows Server 2008. It's like a better Vista. No, it IS
a better Vista (although I'm not using it on my desktop computer).

Best regards,

Lim-Dul

"Lim-Dul" <lim_dul_@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
news:4818fcf1$0$15080$...
> On 2008-03-27 00:04, philo wrote:
>> I have been using both Win2k and XP for years...
>> and have not once gotten a BSOD
>>
>> Vista, even after sp1 ...had given me BSOD four times...
>> so it's now all gone
>
> Strange. I had the most crashes on WinXP before all the patches and SPs -
> in fact I stuck to Win2K all the way up to Vista and wouldn't install
> WinXP even if somebody was paying me for doing that.

My experience with XP was that out-of-the-box it was stable, then post-SP1
and pre-SP2, it kept biting my ass, and finally post-SP2 rock stable.
Haven't tried SP3 yet, but I doubt that it would make it any less stable.

> I've been using Vista basically since the day it came out and I didn't
> have a single BSOD (for more than a year now - not a single reinstall).
> Even better - the system never even crashed or locked up without a BSOD.

Same here - only the game Assassin's Creed has been able to crash my
computer (twice). Vista was horrible, horrible, horrible to install though
(took four days of removing hardware, fiddling with BIOS settings, etc.
etc.), but after it was installed, it's been just like XP RTM - that is,
stable albeit with a few (interface) bugs. Now, after SP1, I'm experiencing
the story all over again. It's got more quirks and is less stable than RTM
(Why is my wireless card constantly crashing? Where did Windows Search go?
Etc.). Wonder how long it is till SP2

> I wouldn't switch to any other Windows version no matter what - I'm really
> happy with Vista and mind you, I've been using the WinNT line since
> version 3.1.
>
> I wonder what people are doing to their systems to make them so unstable.
> ;-)
> Vista has had many changes to the kernel after all and isn't a half-step
> up in the OS department like WinXP compared to Win2K or rather WinNT 5.1
> to WinNT 5.0 as I like to call them... Also, there's no point in waiting
> for the new Windows since it'll be to Vista what XP had been to Win2K -
> virtually no difference at all... WinNT 6.1...
>
> If you don't like to have too much crap on a healthy kernel then consider
> using Windows Server 2008. It's like a better Vista. No, it IS a better
> Vista (although I'm not using it on my desktop computer).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lim-Dul

On 2008-05-02 10:41, DanielEKFA wrote:
> "Lim-Dul" <lim_dul_@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
> news:4818fcf1$0$15080$...
>> On 2008-03-27 00:04, philo wrote:
>>> I have been using both Win2k and XP for years...
>>> and have not once gotten a BSOD
>>>
>>> Vista, even after sp1 ...had given me BSOD four times...
>>> so it's now all gone
>> Strange. I had the most crashes on WinXP before all the patches and SPs -
>> in fact I stuck to Win2K all the way up to Vista and wouldn't install
>> WinXP even if somebody was paying me for doing that.
>
> My experience with XP was that out-of-the-box it was stable, then post-SP1
> and pre-SP2, it kept biting my ass, and finally post-SP2 rock stable.
> Haven't tried SP3 yet, but I doubt that it would make it any less stable.
>
>> I've been using Vista basically since the day it came out and I didn't
>> have a single BSOD (for more than a year now - not a single reinstall).
>> Even better - the system never even crashed or locked up without a BSOD.
>
> Same here - only the game Assassin's Creed has been able to crash my
> computer (twice). Vista was horrible, horrible, horrible to install though
> (took four days of removing hardware, fiddling with BIOS settings, etc.
> etc.), but after it was installed, it's been just like XP RTM - that is,
> stable albeit with a few (interface) bugs. Now, after SP1, I'm experiencing
> the story all over again. It's got more quirks and is less stable than RTM
> (Why is my wireless card constantly crashing? Where did Windows Search go?
> Etc.). Wonder how long it is till SP2
>
>> I wouldn't switch to any other Windows version no matter what - I'm really
>> happy with Vista and mind you, I've been using the WinNT line since
>> version 3.1.
>>
>> I wonder what people are doing to their systems to make them so unstable.
>> ;-)
>> Vista has had many changes to the kernel after all and isn't a half-step
>> up in the OS department like WinXP compared to Win2K or rather WinNT 5.1
>> to WinNT 5.0 as I like to call them... Also, there's no point in waiting
>> for the new Windows since it'll be to Vista what XP had been to Win2K -
>> virtually no difference at all... WinNT 6.1...
>>
>> If you don't like to have too much crap on a healthy kernel then consider
>> using Windows Server 2008. It's like a better Vista. No, it IS a better
>> Vista (although I'm not using it on my desktop computer).
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Lim-Dul

OK - I'd like to amend my previous post. Sorry for my ignorance and
arrogance. Actually I also installed SP1 today - I'm on the Polish
(completely legal, by the way) version of Vista Home Premium 32bit and
wanted to wait for SP1 to appear in Windows Update but since I heared
that even the main versions have been removed because of some critical
bug that didn't concern me I decided to install it "offline" to check
what everybody is whining about.

Well - I still stand by my previous statement that Vista had been very
stable for over a year except some early driver issues (poor
performance) or application (not OS) crashes for which I blame the
respective hardware/software manufacturers and not Microsoft since alpha
versions of Vista and devkits etc. had been around for like a year
prior to Vista's release - they failed to adapt in spite of Microsoft
actually coming forward to them. However, note how I wrote "had been
very stable" in past perfect not "has been" - after I installed SP1
Vista managed to lock-up three times in a 10-hour span with alarming
regularity (like once every three hours). No errors, no BSODs - only an
event log entry that the system was shut down unexpectedly (which is
logical - I had to do it since it locked-up ;-).

So much for "increased stability" - ha, ha. Still, I'm not too angry -
just mildly annoyed. The lock-ups happened usually during video playback
so I assume that it can have something to do with some codecs I will
have to reinstall (but which still shouldn't lock-up the whole system)
or my beta video card drivers (again - they never crashed the system
before). Yet another possibility is that the cause is my overclocked
processor (2.2GHz@3.2GHz) but it would be a strange coincidence if after
over a year of stable performance (my computer ran for like 5 minutes on
the default clockspeed after I had assembled it - just enough to get all
the BIOS settings right ;-) and even whole days of running memory and
processor overheating and stability checks it would suddenly start
failing just after the SP1 installation. =)

Well - whatever. If the problems persist after some maintenance (sfc
doesn't report any errors, neither do various other checks) I'll just
uninstall SP1 or reinstall Vista - it's not as if I am not used to this
after my horrible experiences with WinXP and a year is more than enough
to finish any Windows OS but my beloved WinNT 4.0 Server. ;-)

Best regards,

Lim-Dul