Vista SP1 White Paper

[XeRo]

Vista SP1 White Paper

[NapalmV5]

proof (take it however wished) vista just wasnt done when launched

E=mc2

vista=crap*c2

[tiborrr]

Nothing new to virtually everyone. Vista should be canceled as the first SimCity 3000 was, and rebuilt from ground up leaving only new driver model.

[NapalmV5]

You do realize that vista had about a 10th of the bugs that XP did when it launched right? Vista is probably the most stable, desktop OS from microsoft at launch ever.

lol stable?

i wish i could say the same

vista is as bad as win95 or worse

vista is an insult humankind

[aintz]

lol stable?

i wish i could say the same

vista is as bad as win95 or worse

vista is an insult humankind

it was stable.. i just didnt like the fact that it asks permisiion to do everything

[Kobalt]

it was stable.. i just didnt like the fact that it asks permisiion to do everything

If you spent 30 seconds doing a little research rather than dismissing vista close-mindedly, you would have found out that UAC takes 1 minute to disable.

[nr2134]

I for one did not have Vista crash on me yet and I have it on 4 machines including my lappy. The performance completely blows goats though.

[dinos22]

poncho is right

XP had a lot of problems when it came out

this is the only thing that pisses me off about MS.....who are we betatesters and why do we pay for a product that doesn't work properly

i hope all these databases of issues will be put to good use on next OS to minimise issues to insignificance

[I)ickie]

I will agree with you here.... to a point. If you are running a "bare bones" type PC then I would not suggest vista. 2gb is minimum IMHO... especially on a laptop. I went from 1gb to 2gb on each of my laptops and noticed a huge improvement with vista. If you've got a fast PC then vista is great. If you're running a P3 with 512mb of RAM.... stick with XP.

Yeah couldn't agree more. Really love vista but it does blow on slower systems.

In regards to bugs I'm sure that MS did a lot of bug testing hence the two beta's and the release candidate but in a system as huge as an operating system it just is not feasable to release a perfect system the first time.

There are to many hardware configurations, software mixes and actions in order to test everything. I personally believe that MS did a really good job with Vista in reducing bugs. XP was substantially worse when it was first released.

[dinos22]

I agree 100% here. But think about it.... what software company doesn't rely on it's users for Beta testers? I can't think of a single piece of software recently that doesn't run like crap @ launch. I really don't know the alternative for some though.... there are just too many hardware combos to account for. That's the problem with an OS like Vista/XP/etc.... they have to account for every single combo and the conflicts that may arise. It's just not possible so they give it their best shot and fix the things that come up.

with the amount of info they collect over the years they should be able to use the past info to build new OSes

[XS2K]

I have used Vista for 3months until now,it's a good OS it could be better and I mean by that the fact that there are not much real differences between Vista and XP,the only thing I am not happy with is the 3rd party support for this OS....

[Decami]

Dont listen to these people that talk crap about Vista being the worst OS ever. They have no idea what their talking about. They are just listening to rumors and isolated incidents from people throwing fits because their expectations were super high, and they got less than what they had hoped for. They have no idea that Vista is actually the most stable and compatible OS to date on release as MS goes. Its so funny when i ask people' "Ok, what exactly are you having troubles with in Vista then." The answer is usually, "oh, I cant find drivers for so and so" Well, buddy, thats not really Vistas fault. Plus don't expect an OS upon release to have 100% compatibility with everything.

Whatever, Vista is not too shabby right now, and it will of coarse get better as time rolls along as the other OS'es slowly did.

[Decami]

with the amount of info they collect over the years they should be able to use the past info to build new OSes

Kinda hard to do, when you re write a new program, there will always be faults. Its better, marketing wise. To release the software and have hundreds of thousands of people find the problems and down sides in it. Than it is to spend another 2 years, money and with 200+ people trying to do the same thing. Business wise, its better to let the public, that you sell the product to, find and determine downfalls and faults in software and release patches to fix them.

You will never, ever, ever see a piece of software that releases with 100% compatibility and 100% stability with no faults or down sides, ever in the history of technology. There will always be problems, there will always be downsides, there will always be upgrades.

[Leon2ky]

lol stable?

i wish i could say the same

vista is as bad as win95 or worse

vista is an insult humankind

Funny, I've been using Vista exclusively since January 31st, 2007 and I haven't had a software related crash in 6 months.

[dinos22]

Kinda hard to do, when you re write a new program, there will always be faults. Its better, marketing wise. To release the software and have hundreds of thousands of people find the problems and down sides in it. Than it is to spend another 2 years, money and with 200+ people trying to do the same thing. Business wise, its better to let the public, that you sell the product to, find and determine downfalls and faults in software and release patches to fix them.

You will never, ever, ever see a piece of software that releases with 100% compatibility and 100% stability with no faults or down sides, ever in the history of technology. There will always be problems, there will always be downsides, there will always be upgrades.

this is ONLY possible marketing/business wise because they virtually have a monopoly

[thephenom]

Vista itself is pretty damn stable, ok my laptop wouldn't hibernate under Vista for a while, but that was a manufacturer problem.

The only grunt I have against Vista is the "cached" application which helps to faster load time. I don't need or want that, I'd rather have more free ram than have all my apps "cached". Ok, and that Vista gaming performance is still a little slower, but should be fixed with more driver updates later on.

[k0nsl]

You do realize that vista had about a 10th of the bugs that XP did when it launched right? Vista is probably the most stable, desktop OS from microsoft at launch ever.

I think so too. I have not run into one major problem, or even a small one yet. I've had one blue screen due to overclocking so its not a fault of Vista. With XP, one has so much troubles (usually) that you don't even count them "its a everyday thing".

But with Vista I have been very pleased since the first time I installed it. Its great and the performance just keeps improving (MS launched two patches today which improved performance according to the description).

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

+1 on the Vista doesn't suck bandwagon. Stable, good, I'm satisfied.

Ryan

[Jamesrt2004]

no problems for vista for me... My gfx crashes under XP and doesn't under Vista Really weird don't know why but yay... lol

[BeardyMan]

You do realize that vista had about a 10th of the bugs that XP did when it launched right? Vista is probably the most stable, desktop OS from microsoft at launch ever.

you said probably, and whit that you hit the nail hard.
cause it's not.

[zerazax]

People like NapalmV5 probably just read what people post online then spread more rumors and crap about it without having ever used it.

I admit, first week I used it, I didn't like the changes, but it's been extremely stable for me. In fact, the one time I BSOD'd, it was because I said I wanted to install the program despite having been given no less than 3 warnings saying that installing this will be a critical problem. So I BSOD'd on boot up but thanks to the built in recovery system, I recovered to the moment before I installed it and all was well again within 20 minutes. Had it been XP, I guarantee I would've had major issues.

[[XC] flat-four]

No problems here. All my hardware seems to run as well as XP. I'm glad I made the switch to Ultimate 64bit.

[aintz]

If you spent 30 seconds doing a little research rather than dismissing vista close-mindedly, you would have found out that UAC takes 1 minute to disable.

you i tried to find it but it wasnt that easy so i just did something easier: install xp

[Ace-a-Rue]

Kinda hard to do, when you re write a new program, there will always be faults. Its better, marketing wise. To release the software and have hundreds of thousands of people find the problems and down sides in it. Than it is to spend another 2 years, money and with 200+ people trying to do the same thing. Business wise, its better to let the public, that you sell the product to, find and determine downfalls and faults in software and release patches to fix them.

You will never, ever, ever see a piece of software that releases with 100% compatibility and 100% stability with no faults or down sides, ever in the history of technology. There will always be problems, there will always be downsides, there will always be upgrades.

i hope you don't work for MS and some other company doing sub contract work for MS.

your insinuation that it is better to release a "sub-par product" to hundreds of thousand prospective customers so they can deal with it not only insults me but physically outrages me to no end!

that is the most pathetic business plan that i ever heard about!

[vitaminc]

lol stable?

i wish i could say the same

vista is as bad as win95 or worse

vista is an insult humankind

Vista is a whole lot more stable than XP, 2000, NT4, or 98/95. Can't blame M$ if the venders are not publishing qualified drivers or Vista softwares.