Windows Vista SP1 beta gets previewed

While at least some of you out there have likely already put the new Vista SP1 beta through its paces, those less fortunate (or more so, depending on your perspective) can now get a full report of what's in store courtesy of the folks at PC Magazine, who've now provided a full preview of the forthcoming OS revision. Not surprisingly, they say the service pack is "mostly invisible," although that's not to say it's insignificant, with the update supposedly making Vista both "faster and more secure" (certainly no small feat) On the downside, the beta still appears to be very much a beta, with problems reportedly cropping up during the install on certain systems, although PC Mag expects those to be ironed out by the final release. Still no word as to when we might be able to expect that though.

[LR200781 @ Jan 25th 2008 8:08PM]

I have both XP and Vista installed at work and at home. Vista is a good OS, from what ive seen so far. You can argue all you want but i am in IT and have not had hardly any trouble fixing the vista machines that ive encountered, somewhere between 10-15. Whether ppl like it or not you cant stay on the same OS for ever, hell they are already talking about Windows 7 the next OS after Vista, its name will be Vienna though. My point is turn off off user control, have decent AV software (i use nod32 and have not have 1 virus in a year since i started using it) do windows updates and the most important thing is DONT BE AN IDIOT because if your to dumb to use a computer, which many of the ppl i encounter daily are, then no one can really help you and your computer will likely always have problems because of USER ERROR, RUNNING OUT OF MEMORY.

[rndmnme @ Oct 8th 2007 4:21PM]

Is this the one were they take out all the security features and make compromises that allow the old drivers to work because companies insist on not coding new ones, so what we get is a bug riddled, insecure OS that years from now everyone will come to be used to, bot loath for it's insecurities because they wouldn't get used to a few new menus? I think I've seen this one already?

[shaun @ Oct 8th 2007 4:27PM]

Well aren't we Mr.glass is half empty?

Jk, I agree!

[MB_User @ Oct 8th 2007 5:00PM]

Hey man, it's a "feature," not a bug.

[J. Evans Turner @ Oct 8th 2007 5:13PM]

You're wrong. UAC is NOT the way to make it more "secure". Encapsulating and modularizing software is the way to do it...and Vista fails HARD. Building on a shaky foundation is absolutely the wrong way. Windows is long due for a fresh ground-up remake; like Win95 did and, later, OSX.

[J. Evans Turner @ Oct 8th 2007 5:29PM]

To elaborate: UAC will only condition users to approve/dismiss absolutely anything that pops up. Software absolutely must be modularized, giving the user COMPLETE control. Legacy apps must be encapsulated in such a way that the user has complete control. With Microsoft's acquisition of Connectix and virtualization technology, it's unacceptable that the current framework exists. If software is modularized, the user has absolute control over the application. The user can control when the app updates, or configure it to update automatically at launch or on a schedule registered with the OS. The application's update server would be a property of the application module. The user would control whether-or-not the app module loads itself at startup or interacts with other modules (apps). The user has absolute control over app settings, with the option to reinitialize all settings at any time (great for diagnostics), or choose which users/groups can access the app or a specific settings profile. Most importantly, the software does not rely on it's own "uninstaller" and the removal process would be complete and thorough. Relying on the app's own uninstaller, as Windows always has, is the worst possible way because most malicious applications do not remove themselves thoroughly or leave certain hijacked settings. For instance, modularizing software would prevent an app from setting itself as the default handler for _____, changing the homepage in ____, adding webpages to favorites/bookmarks... Windows currently does not give the user complete control over applications. Apps can infest every nook and cranny of the registry and system directories, tamper with other apps, and even modify Windows itself. Microsoft indirectly benefits from this because users frequently purchase new computers when Windows inevitably gets botched and Microsoft gets paid for another Windows license. Don't expect this problem to go away any time soon unless you voice your disgust with Windows Vista and the illogical direction that the Windows team is heading.

[Mark @ Oct 8th 2007 7:49PM]

@ Turner
People's stupidity amazes me sometimes. This time it's your stupidity's turn. 95 was a ground up redo? What the fuck have you been smoking? NT 3.1 was a ground-up redo. 95 was marginally better than a 32-bit GUI wrapper slapped on to DOS. Now let's actually take a look at what was completely redone in Vista:
Network Stack, Audio subsystem, print, display, readyboost, WDDM, UAC, permissions.
Good try, but no. You're just plain old wrong.

[Jake @ Oct 8th 2007 8:05PM]

"This time it's your stupidity's turn."

Um... I'm just going to let that one sink in for a minute.

Also, I think some of your points are valid (Win 95 was indeed just makeup on the pig that is DOS), but I can't believe you're going to say that UAC was "completely redone". It's just a simple (and very obnoxious!) prompt that appears anytime an action that requires admin privilege is attempted.

[John @ Oct 8th 2007 9:31PM]

UAC is a good idea. The problem is that users are not smart enough for it. "Conditioned", my ass. There's no way to help people who don't understand how to protect their computer. There are people who click those "YOU JUST ONE A MILLION DOLARS" ads, download attachments from Nigerian princes looking for bank account numbers, and so on. What are you going to do about it? Answer; there's nothing you can do. UAC gives users a chance to click a button and stop the bad stuff from happening. Either you know what you're doing and use it to protect yourself, or you just as well - or poorly - off as you would be without it.

[tcc3 @ Oct 8th 2007 4:40PM]

Damn I was hoping for tv sharing between Media centers. I've never been able to make that work, despite it working for Media Player.

Barring that, why not just give the option to "act as an extender" ?

[Travis Adams @ Oct 8th 2007 4:41PM]

It is Odd to see Engadget see the distrobution of Windows XP SP3 to testers with no mention. Guess Vista is the new kid on the block.

[5lectro @ Oct 8th 2007 5:31PM]

Engadget's apparent lack of interest in XP SP3 surprises me too.

Let's hope it's not just a compilation of all the updates we already have.

[Xavier Gill @ Oct 8th 2007 4:41PM]

I can't believe Microsoft spent so much time and money on Vista yet it struggles with copying, moving and deleting files. Possibly the most basic functions of any OS. Hopefully the SP will fix them

[SirMasterboy @ Oct 8th 2007 4:50PM]

I installed the SP1 a month ago and haven't had any problems at all. It definitely improved file copy speed as well as other performance improvements.

[Matthew Hilario @ Oct 8th 2007 5:48PM]

vista employees mustve went back to school for a semester to fix their sorts.
pre sp1 x² vs post sp1 log n.

[9bit @ Oct 9th 2007 10:39PM]

Uh, Matthew, log(n) sorts are impossible. In case you mean n log(n), that probably wouldn't make too much of difference vs. n^2 unless you've got a ton of files.
Unless Microsoft uses bubble sort. Then we should boycott them.

[Nathan @ Nov 16th 2007 2:26PM]

9bit

you can do log(n) sorting with sorting networks. you just need n/2 processors and then pipe the half cleaner results back into the original processors.

but yeh, on a single cpu system you cant b eat nlog(n). but i don't know why we're talking about sorting, its not really an os feature...

[geezer @ Oct 8th 2007 5:11PM]

Vista faster - that would really bring on the "wow"

[Andir3.0 @ Oct 8th 2007 5:45PM]

Now if they could bring the memory requirements down, video requirements (other OS's can do it without high end cards), take out UAC, remove the annoying bloated windows bars, remove the wizards, ... screw it, I'm sticking with the trust old stuff that I can control myself for now.

[mattstl77 @ Oct 8th 2007 7:11PM]

I honestly have no problems with Vista. Everything works flawlessly.

[Tony @ Oct 9th 2007 1:16AM]

Because Vista was released in 2007. You are most likely running Vista on a computer you purchased new in 2007.

Everyone else seems to think they can get a half decade old computer from 2002 to run Vista.

[Midas360 @ Oct 9th 2007 9:40AM]

I am running Windows Vista on a 2 year old Dell Precision laptop and it runs flawlessly.

[Cam Resu @ Oct 9th 2007 9:35AM]

@ Tony

Why shouldn't they? My computer is from 2002 and I am not concerned that the next OS won't run on it. I know that it will, and I am looking forward to using it as is, no upgrades or anything else required. If you start talking computers that are a decade old, then I can understand, but people should get far more than a few years use out of their computers before they have to (costly) upgrade or replace them just to run the newest OS.

[Tony @ Oct 9th 2007 11:57AM]

There are many high end computers from years ago that should run Vista fine.

I'm referring to the majority who try to run Vista from then, where 256 mb ram was the standard.

[Hansi @ Oct 8th 2007 5:45PM]

"Sleep mode also recovers substantially faster on laptops."
For me that would be almost impossible, my Vista laptop boots in less than one second and is ready to be used immidieatly

[insertAlias @ Oct 8th 2007 5:53PM]

Mine always took a few seconds. And if I moved it (from work to home) while sleeping, and woke it up to a different wifi connection, it would freak out and take minutes to become usable (or require a restart). I guess that could have been the Dell wifi utility's problem though...

[Hansi @ Oct 8th 2007 6:01PM]

To be honest, that sometimes happens to me aswell, but I can't seem to find a pattern to when the wakeup takes longer

[Ami Schreiber @ Oct 9th 2007 5:07PM]

I Really, Really, Really hope they fix the dual/external monitor issues that are plaguing everyone's laptops. If they don't, I'm gonna sue!!! It's inexcusable that after an external display is hooked up to a laptop for more than a few hours that the whole machine freezes up and you have to perform a hard shutdown.

[JohnPhilips @ Oct 9th 2007 11:27PM]

Vista will never be a good os, and Microsoft will never make a good OS.

Why do they keep trying?

The only reason people still use Windows is because it has game and is pre-installed on the inferior hardware everyone seems to buy these days.

[brad @ Oct 11th 2007 9:54PM]

And what kind of superior alien technology do you run?

[Eric Tousignant @ Nov 16th 2007 2:33PM]

@ brad : Apple software ;)

Personnally i'm on XP Pro SP2... so i'm not a fanboy...