Microsoft beams out Vista SP1 to beta testers

Right on cue, Microsoft has made available the (long-awaited) Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista to a private group of beta testers. One lucky user actually goes on to describe the update and note a number of positive changes, some of which include a much snappier logon experience, a new option in the Disk Defragmenter "allowing you to choose which volumes you would like to defragment," improvements in responsiveness when resuming from Hibernation / Sleep modes, and interestingly enough, slightly improved battery life on a tested laptop. Furthermore, "select members of the community" are also getting to give five new "reliability packages" a whirl, which are all slated to be available to the public before SP1 is released en masse. Be sure and hit the read link for the full rundown.

[Thanks, Dhanik M.]

[Dhanik @ Sep 24th 2007 5:32PM]

Yay, happy to tip u on it and be the first to comment too!

[hq @ Sep 24th 2007 5:42PM]

" a new option in the Disk Defragmenter "allowing you to choose which volumes you would like to defragment," "

wow - that totally blows me off. HOW FUTURISTIC! chosing which volume to defragment - now that's a completely new invention. thank you microsoft for giving us the future today!

[Daren @ Sep 24th 2007 5:47PM]

no one else does that.

[Paul @ Sep 24th 2007 6:02PM]

Daren that was a joke right?

[Leonard Nimrod @ Sep 24th 2007 6:23PM]

@ Daren,

Technically, you are correct as most other OSes being Unix based have no need for a separate, legacy defragmenter. They auto-defrag/organize the file system on the fly.

[John @ Sep 24th 2007 8:25PM]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you.

[BoredOne @ Sep 24th 2007 10:36PM]

Mr Nimord, you do realize that Unix doesn't need to defrag the hard drive because it scatters files so far apart on a hard drive that there is plenty of room for a file to get bigger. If a Unix based system is close to being full then you may have to run a dump or something of that ilk. Then rebuild the file system and restore from backup.

[Bob @ Sep 25th 2007 4:44AM]

@Leonard Nimrod:

You are aware that Vista -also- defragments systems on the fly, right?

[Dragod @ Sep 24th 2007 5:40PM]

Anyway I could get it?

Well.. Other than through BitTorrent?

[blade417 @ Sep 24th 2007 5:42PM]

Already a service pack? How long has vista been out? A few months?

I thought vista was supposed to be all great and everything. I'm kinda glad I bought 2 games for my 360 intead of buying Vista.

[Conda @ Sep 24th 2007 5:46PM]

Vista officially was released back in November. a year is on par with Service Pack releases for other versions of Windows

[wixostrix @ Sep 24th 2007 10:47PM]

uhh...wut r u talkin about, a service pack is always on the horizon when they release a new version. expect it 2 work perfectly is high expectations u cant get from M$.

Plus theirs no guarantee any product is gonna work great, even when u have beta testing, there will always be a problem with someone,

[Dragod @ Sep 24th 2007 5:43PM]

Any way for me to get it?

Well, you know.. Other than BitTorrent?

[Preston @ Sep 24th 2007 5:45PM]

Why would anyone want a beta version of a service pack?

[wixostrix @ Sep 24th 2007 10:47PM]

@ Preston

I was thinkin the same this bro, hahah

[David Clark @ Sep 24th 2007 5:51PM]

Thank you Engadget for posting an article on Vista/Microsoft without the complete bias.

And w00t for the service pack!

[nVidiot @ Sep 24th 2007 5:54PM]

Does the SP fix the random horrible network file transer speed problems?

[dj-kenpo @ Sep 24th 2007 6:08PM]

exactly what I was going to ask. 5mb's second is still unaccetable and should have been fixed THE SECOND they found out.

an OS that makes my computer transfer files slower than a 486 is pointless to me.

[Mark @ Sep 24th 2007 6:24PM]

"I'm guessing it's a problem they have deemed unfixable without throwing out some giant core peice of code."

Ah, exactly why I'm jumping ship to Mac OS Leapord and a Macbook Pro, I'll put Vista on it for Crysis but that's all as the problems Vista has are a lot and I can't be arsed with it anymore, what I do with my PC has changed and I don't need Windows anymore - apart from for Crysis but it MAY come out for the Mac seeing as Gears Of War is?
But it's the same old story, wait a year or two before buying any new MS OS as it may be stable by then.

[JDizzle @ Sep 24th 2007 9:41PM]

Why jump to a Mac when you could just jump back to XP?

[purezerg @ Sep 24th 2007 11:07PM]

they fixed the transfer long time ago. I am now able to sustain transfer over my gigabit network @ 9xMB/s

[FatTatt @ Sep 25th 2007 2:39PM]

@ JDizzle
"Why jump to a Mac when you could just jump back to XP?"

WHY GO BACK TO XP, WHEN YOU COULD JUST GO BACK TO DOS?

OR WHY USE A COMPUTER AT ALL, IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO TO MAC? YOU COULD ALWAYS USE AN ABACUS.

what I read by your statement is:
I'VE NEVER ACTUALLY SPENT ANY TIME ON A MAC, BUT IT SUCKS BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW SHIT ABOUT IT, THEREFORE WILL STEER EVERYONE FROM IT.

[LJKelley @ Sep 24th 2007 5:54PM]

Microsoft has already closed the application period and sent out emails to those that have been accepted.

I'll be downloading it later.

[nVidiot @ Sep 24th 2007 6:15PM]

Has MS even admitted to the problem yet?

When I researched it a couple of months ago they appeared to have issued some sort of intenral memo dictating what people could say about the issue. All the responses I saw on newsgroups were eerily similar and all void of MS taking any stance even remotely akin to an admittal of an issue.

I'm guessing it's a problem they have deemed unfixable without throwing out some giant core peice of code.

[Zach @ Sep 24th 2007 6:19PM]

I'm amazed at how horribly slow my computer functions with vista. My HP laptop running vista is littered with bugs and instabilities that are baffling. I'm wondering now why I upgraded and left my stable system behind.

[waiownsyou @ Sep 25th 2007 2:49AM]

I'm tired of you people with computers from the 60's complaining about the speed of OSes. If you can't afford an optimum setup that Vista was designed for, then don't complain. It's like buying a $200 Dell and expecting it to play BioShock at 2660x1600 with settings to max smoothly.

[Zach @ Sep 25th 2007 3:26AM]

my computer has 2GB RAM and a dual core 1.6MHz processor. i guess that's a comp from the 60s. your post was really helpful.

sarcasm.

[David W. @ Sep 24th 2007 6:21PM]

Soooo it won't take insane amounts of time to hibernate anymore?

[Addy Osmani @ Sep 24th 2007 10:37PM]

I'm not sure what hardware you guys are using but my network file transfer speeds have never been faster...Yes. Vista sucks in a lot of ways, but speed wise, I would still give it preference over XP.

Anyway. I'm going to check if they've approved my beta later today but rather than giving me better defrag tools, please for the love of God improve your backwards compatibility with pre-Vista devices, Microsoft.

[acidslice @ Sep 25th 2007 3:06AM]

WOOP WOOP bye bye random crashes i hope, i want faster speeds, maybe it can make me tea, and possibly allow media streaming with some added adventures DOTA DOTA

[Leonard Nimrod @ Sep 24th 2007 6:34PM]

Looks like MS wants to get this out before as a big improvement to VIsta to try and steal Apple's Leopard release buzz. Only the MS wags will be following this SP1 story and will undoubtedly compare Leopard 10.5.ZERO will be compared to Vista w/SP1 which was released to businesses a year ago.

[August @ Sep 24th 2007 7:09PM]

As totally sweet and awesome as your name is, your comment lacks any validity or a real point, for that matter.

Please be gone.

[John @ Sep 24th 2007 8:27PM]

Or, they are following the same product cycle they have for years - releasing the first service pack about a year after the OS is available. But wait, that's not a conspiracy for you to think you've discovered...

[salut @ Sep 24th 2007 10:18PM]

New OSX 10.5 features wont be found in Vista until at least SP2.

[Miker @ Sep 25th 2007 5:13AM]

Apple are already stealing the Microsoft model for themselves...

"OK guys, we're going to release OSX Leopard next week...errr...next month...OK, a few months time...we'll release it when we bloody feel like it OK!"

Maybe I'm a lucky one, but apart from 1 driver that I was missing and was one month after Vista's launch before it was released (and that was the fault of the individual company not Microsoft), I have had practically NO problems with Vista (apart from the calender crashing occasionally which was fixed in an update a few months back), and find it intuitive to use, and it doesn't get in the way of me doing my day to day tasks...which is basically what you want from your operating system.

[Leonard Nimrod @ Sep 25th 2007 5:28AM]

You people have no concept of business. This has nothing to do with conspiracies, it's good business practice to steal another companies thunder. For MS to release SP1 around Apple's next release--and get a good review on it-- is the only thing they can do to possibly turn some people from switching to Mac, which is happening mmore and more frequently BECAUSE of Vista's severe faults.

[Robert McLaws @ Sep 24th 2007 6:42PM]

Those Reliability updates have been out for quite a while right now, thanks.

[Tehrab @ Sep 24th 2007 6:50PM]

Lame point worth noting: SP1 does away with the quick search at the Start menu. You know, one of the nice Vista features that made the OS easier to use once you got used to it.

Apparently, it's to do with appeasing the Googles or something.

[Zarniwoop @ Sep 24th 2007 7:06PM]

You have a source on this claim? All I could find was that Microsoft is making it possible for other search engines to function in the same way the built-in one does...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=713

[Conda @ Sep 24th 2007 7:12PM]

from what I read, they meant they took out the separate search function in the right hand column, and changed the function of the quick search box in regards to finding files

[Tehrab @ Sep 24th 2007 7:17PM]

Conda has the more accurate re-telling. I will post a screen.

[Andir3.0 @ Sep 24th 2007 7:01PM]

"There are no Windows Ultimate Extras available."

Ahh... good old reliability. It's like an old pair of jeans or shoes. Always the same.

[3rdsun @ Sep 24th 2007 7:39PM]

will this fix the UAC issues. Who the hell wants to authorize each process they startup

[suntiger @ Sep 24th 2007 8:05PM]

Just turn it off, dude. Actually, use vLite to permanently turn it off before install, if it bothers you that much.

[Brad @ Sep 24th 2007 8:10PM]

You can easily change this behavior. I wish people would stop complaining about it.

Either disable UAC completely, or go to the manager and authorize specific processes that weren't written (or were poorly written) for Vista.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control#Configuration

Quit complaining.

[S Dreams @ Sep 24th 2007 7:41PM]

I hope this fixes the slooooow transfer rates you get in Vista when copying files from one place to another (flash drive to hdd, or just copying/moving files on the hdd). Also hope it fixes the horrible time Vista takes to unzip zipped files....

[John @ Sep 24th 2007 8:28PM]

The file copy rates got fixed quite some time ago.

[zatblast @ Sep 24th 2007 10:58PM]

zip genious, they got the crash explorer bug worked out so it works just as well as it did on xp :)

oh btw thats my preference for zip files... both zipping and unzipping...

[steve @ Sep 24th 2007 8:17PM]

vista file transfer speeds have been fixed long ago (couple months or so)

UAC can be easily turned off.


linux has horrible responsiveness and cpu-scheduling. freebsd beats it hands down and so does consumer versions of windows. vista had a rough start in terms of responsiveness but a current and patched vista is right back there with xp while adding lots of powerful and useful improvements...

stop lame vista-bashing. its clear u guys wanna hate the top dog in the market, but take a look at it before u bash it. vista is currently the best choice for the consumer who can afford modern hardware. (dual core/ 2gb ram)

[Andir3.0 @ Sep 24th 2007 10:24PM]

Wow, a completely uneducated post! Linux is not unresponsive with horrible cpu-scheduling. When the distribution is compiled, the person(s) in charge of it decide what timings and scheduler to use. Only certain builds that are server focused for better throughput have lower responsiveness because they are tuned for transfer rates, not media playback. Learn before spreading lies.