SP1 Opinions

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Performance' started by CJM, Feb 28, 2008.

  1. CJM

    CJM Guest

    I've just installed SP1 (via MSDN) and I'm pleased to say it appears to do
    the trick...or at least so far so go.

    I've just copied a 200MB file from PC to server and it went like a rocket!
    In addition, I'm noting a responsiveness in the odd application; for
    example, I use Windows Mail to access USENET, and under SP1, I'm in and
    starting browsing much quicker - pre-SP1 there would be a slight delay
    before I could pick a NG.

    Hardly a scientific study, but a few visible improvements and no bugs
    spotted... can't be bad.

    Anyone else got SP1 installed?
     
    CJM, Feb 28, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yes there is an improvment indeed with SP1, but MS is trying to convince us
    that VistaSP1 is as fast
    as XPsp2... and that is a lie.

    Vista with SP1 is "ok" if you have fast enough hardware.. the majority of
    big problems have gone away

    When I say "ok" I mean its ok.. but still not as great as I would expect
    after so much work time and money from MS to make Vista.. I was expecting
    something fantastic.

    --
    What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
    http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007..._people_are_really_saying_about_windows_vista

    50 Ways to leave your Vista....

    CHORUS:

    You just format the drive , Clive
    Get a New Mac , Jack
    Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
    Just get yourself free
    Boot from a *nix, Jix
    You don't need to discuss much
    Install XP, Lee
    And get yourself free
     
    On the Bridge!, Feb 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. CJM

    CJM Guest

    What kind of machine were you installing it on? What changes did you notice?
    I haven't seen that myself - perhaps you could point out some sources?
    Indeed, Vista is more demanding than XP, just as XP was more demanding than
    98/2000. Such is life.

    Personally, I have not had any major problems with Vista.
    Well, for a start, if it's not your time and money spent developing it, what
    does it matter?

    It's good, but I'm not sure about 'fantastic'. But then again, I remember
    when the original XP came out - it was good but not fantastic. I seem to
    remember problems with stability (because of driver issues) and performance
    problems. XP improved after SP1 and was probably considered 'mature' after
    SP" - I imagine it will be the same with Vista.
     
    CJM, Feb 28, 2008
    #3
  4. CJM

    C.B. Guest

    CJM,

    I've been running SP1 on my Vista Ultimate for appx. two weeks. It has
    caused no problems and my system is now very fast indeed.

    C.B.
     
    C.B., Feb 28, 2008
    #4
  5. I haven't seen that myself - perhaps you could point out some sources?

    http://www.winvistaclub.com/i8.html
    I have installed sp1 on about 10 machines.. the best way is to do a clean
    install..
    on all of them there was an increase in performance mainly the data access
    and transfer of data from and to the disk... I would say that SP1 is about
    10-15% faster overall than RTM
    Vista is far more demanding than XP with no real important innovations and
    improvments upon XP.
    see the minimum configurations of XP and Vista


    Xp:
    233 megahertz (MHz) processor
    64 megabytes (MB) of RAM
    1.8 GB of available hard disk space during installation

    Via http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sysreqs.mspx

    Vista: 1 GHz >>> 400% MORE than XP!!
    512 MB of system memory >>> 800% MORE than XP!!
    20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space >>> around 1000%
    more than XP!!!

    Via:
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx
     
    On the Bridge!, Feb 28, 2008
    #5
  6. CJM

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <47c71997$-privat.org> "On the Bridge!"
    I'd argue with that, the disk queuing system alone is worth it, as is
    the integrated search. UAC, while being a royal pain in the ass, may
    finally force software authors to pay attention to minimal security
    principles (applications in Program Files, data in the user profile,
    documents in the documents directory).

    Offloading the GUI overhead to the graphics card is brilliant. I've
    personally been a big fan of transparency for some time now, although
    depending on your workflow it may or may not be of value to you. I have
    several applications configured to go semi-transparent when not active,
    and find this to be very useful. "Glass" is of questionable value, and
    I've currently got transparency disabled, but Aero is fantastic.
    First, be sure to take a look at the types of machines that were readily
    available and their price point when XP and Vista were each released.
    Consider the state of computing today, vs when XP was released. Both
    minimum requirements reflect very close to the nearest minimal
    configuration you can possibly buy brand new at the time.

    In other words, there is actually very little change in the relative
    system requirements compared against the price to purchase said
    components at release.
     
    DevilsPGD, Feb 29, 2008
    #6
  7. CJM

    CJM Guest

    I must say I haven't noticed an outright speed increase (apart from copying
    files), but certain aspects appear more responsive.
    The security improvements and the re-engineering of important parts of the
    kernel were long overdue, yet these changes are what people are grumbling
    about. You just can't please some people.

    [actually I'm being hypocritical, because I would certainly have implemented
    UAC better/differently]
    A modest spec from 2001.

    A modest spec from 2007.

    What's the problem? You couldn't run XP on very old machines when it was
    launched either. Well actually you could, but it would run like a dog -
    almost unsable.

    Thus if you have an old machine now, I wouldn't recommend upgrading to
    Vista, but if you buy a new (vista-compatible) machine, I certainly would.
     
    CJM, Feb 29, 2008
    #7
  8. Actually quite the opposite with 64 bit ultimate. A dramatic slow down in
    every way and it is now doing strange errors it didn't ever do before, too.
     
    Diamontina Cocktail, Feb 29, 2008
    #8
  9. Not on Ultimate 64 bit it isn't. A DRAMATIC slowdown from pre SP1.
     
    Diamontina Cocktail, Feb 29, 2008
    #9
  10. Vista Ultimate 64 bit SP1 actually causes MANY slowdowns and if you check
    out Google looking for those terms you will find that to be the case with
    many people. I hope MS fix this "fix" soon.
     
    Diamontina Cocktail, Feb 29, 2008
    #10
  11. CJM

    CJM Guest

    Don't be too hasty to generalize - I'm running Ulimate x64, and I have no
    problems whatsoever.
     
    CJM, Feb 29, 2008
    #11
  12. CJM

    CJM Guest

    I can only assume you are referring to the problem with erroneous 64-bit
    device drivers that Microsoft have identified.

    I'm afraid there is nothing that Microsoft can do about that - they cannot
    fix the 'fix' - the best they can do is give the hardware OEMs a gentle
    nudge. On the other hand, if said OEMs still haven't made their driver
    Vista-compliant, there is nothing to suggest they will change their attitude
    now.
     
    CJM, Feb 29, 2008
    #12
  13. In other words, there is actually very little change in the relative
    I do not care about relative times and performance. That is of only
    historical interest,
    I am talking here about practical application today.

    I am talking about XP and Vista NOW on the SAME hardware.

    XP is far faster than vista will ever be, and vista cannot do much that XP
    cannot.

    If you are getting new hardware, OK go with vista SP1, but for non geek
    people to go get
    Vista retail and install it on their "old" computers, is NOT a good idea.

    I would say its ok only if you are a tech or computer enthusiast. For the
    simple users
    Vista is a worthless upgrade and in many occasions it causes too many
    problems with existing hardware and software.
     
    On the Bridge!, Mar 1, 2008
    #13
  14. you are wrong. Microsoft calls these people "partners" when they need them,
    but when it comes to communicating in time for the drivers they abandon
    them.

    This whole dark story has been revealed in the latest emails that were
    unsealed in the latest "vista ready PCs"fiasco, showing how bad Microsoft
    handled
    the vista development and readiness of the new vista "ecology"

    They are co-responsible ....
     
    On the Bridge!, Mar 1, 2008
    #14
  15. Nope. Nothing in my machine appears on the "incompatible" list with
    Microsoft.
    They better try. The machine was running GREAT on Vista pre SP1. Now it
    isn't and there is no driver at fault here - that is to say no driver from a
    non-MS company causing this.

    Besides, if I were the only one, you'd be justified. If I were only 7 of 9
    then I'd be damned good looking but you would still be justified but seeing
    I am one voice in the middle of a mass of voices saying the same thing then
    there really must be something for MS to consider, wouldn't you say?
     
    Diamontina Cocktail, Mar 1, 2008
    #15
  16. I wouldnt have put it that strongly. I wouldnt say "abandon" but I would be
    likely to agree with "ignore for months".
    I would have said that last hyphenated word differently. Still, pre-SP1
    Vista wasn't a bad thing for me. I knew a few companies needed to come up to
    date with drivers and software updates and such but it was exactly the same
    going from 98SE to XP. Therefore it was expected. I distinctly remember
    doing an image backup of 98SE and then updating to XP only to find my dial
    up modem wouldn't work and I needed to download a driver. At the time it was
    my only computer so I had to restore from that image, get the W2K driver for
    it and store it on a floppy, do the update to XP all over again and then
    install the W2K driver for the modem so it would work. There were many other
    problems that weren't there in 98SE that were there in XP too but over time
    they disappeared and by SP2 XP was great. Vista had some problems when I put
    in the public release on one machine in Feb 2007 and they persisted for a
    while but by the time I got my new laptop with Vista Ultimate 64 bit on it,
    everything seemed to be running fine. The laptop was FAST, too, from the
    moment I go it. The only problems I had back then and still have with some
    things today is that they wont work with 64 bit. I got around those and for
    the most part, now, the only 64 bit problem that is still there is
    Quicktime. It doesn't bug me though. I just load a 32 bit IE7 and it all
    works OK again. SP1 Vista is a whole different kettle of crap though. The
    boot time is unacceptable. Getting things to load that worked well -
    including Outlook 2007 and other Office programs, too - is slow. It
    shouldn't have been a massive DOWNGRADE to apply an SP to the thing but it
    has been.
     
    Diamontina Cocktail, Mar 1, 2008
    #16
  17. On what sort of machine, please? Besides, "generalise"???? Look up the
    troubles on Google. You seem to be 1 out of every 100 or so who say they are
    going OK with it. I have been wondering if this SP1 was perhaps not the one
    they meant to release to the public at the right time but perhaps an earlier
    one with problems.
     
    Diamontina Cocktail, Mar 1, 2008
    #17
  18. CJM

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <47c89e54$-privat.org> "On the Bridge!"
    That really depends on your hardware. Vista makes far better use of a
    higher end PC then XP does, just as XP performs better on higher end
    hardware then 2000.

    Conversely, if you're running yesterday's computers, you're probably
    better with yesterday's operating system.
    Agreed. Luckily, stats show that somewhere near 90% of end users never
    even attempt an OS upgrade beyond that which Windows Update offers
    automatically.
     
    DevilsPGD, Mar 2, 2008
    #18
  19. CJM

    .Joe Guest

    Hello. I have SP1 RTM installed in my 32 bit Home Premium system and can
    say so far SP1 is working fine. Will install the public release when it
    becomes available.
     
    .Joe, Mar 2, 2008
    #19
  20. That really depends on your hardware. Vista makes far better use of a
    No I have tested both on a multitude of comptuers from low end to high end.
    XP wins hands down
    EVERY time. There is no doubt about this, what you are saying is a MYTH!
    There is no significant improvment in Vista that would make it better...
    the ONLY thing Vista has is the support for HYBRID hard drives, that are not
    yet common in the market.

    On the same hardware.. whatever you can throw on the 2 OS, XP is always
    faster.

    Vista doest even handle multiple cores better than XP, and thats darn right
    stupid from MS...
    since Vista was released at a time that almost all new computers would have
    multiple cores.
     
    On the Bridge!, Mar 2, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.