"Vista SP1 won't offer much in the way of noticeable fixes, and certainly won't speed things up." Um... It will offer both of those things, as you yourselves have reported in the past -- like, say, in the link you provided in this very article:
"SP1 appears to be well-received, with testers reporting better laptop battery life, *faster networking*, and *improved wake-from-sleep speeds*."
Do you guys really have to resort to making things up just to make your articles sound more polarizing?
It's obviously debatable, but I'd say that those improvements are relatively minor compared to an overall 10 percent performance increase, which is what Devil Mountain Systems claims XP SP3 will provide, and to what Vista SP1 will undoubtedly be compared.
Sarcasm aside, you having written both and even now linked to your previous one only means that you should certainly know that what you were now writing was false.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you here, but seriously, telling the opposite story from one article to the next in order to be sensationalizing is poor journalism.
If you read the article at the read link, Devil Mountain also claims Vista SP1 is a "performance dud" -- which, like the impressions in the previously-linked post, is their subjective opinion. Until everything is released and in hand, however, that's all we have to work on. We'll see when we see -- my impression was that the overall speed improvements listed for Vista SP1 seem rather minor. I could very well be wrong.
If you read some of the comments from readers who did 5 minutes of research on their own, you'll find this Devil Mountain gang of incompetence performed the benchmark one time on one computer. (Which really discredits this whole article, but that's another story.)
"[M]y impression was that the overall speed improvements listed for Vista SP1 seem rather minor."
Now you've come full circle. First you claim SP1 has speed increases, then you claim it doesn't, and now you're back to admitting that it does after all but poopooing it by saying "Well, okay, it does, but they're only minor improvements, so it really doesn't count."
Admitting your mistake and apologizing for this back-and-forth petty argument would be the professional thing to do at this point.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"Vista SP1 won't offer much in the way of noticeable fixes, and certainly won't speed things up."
Um... It will offer both of those things, as you yourselves have reported in the past -- like, say, in the link you provided in this very article:
"SP1 appears to be well-received, with testers reporting better laptop battery life, *faster networking*, and *improved wake-from-sleep speeds*."
Do you guys really have to resort to making things up just to make your articles sound more polarizing?
It's obviously debatable, but I'd say that those improvements are relatively minor compared to an overall 10 percent performance increase, which is what Devil Mountain Systems claims XP SP3 will provide, and to what Vista SP1 will undoubtedly be compared.
So you're saying they're just not important enough to tell the truth about? ;-)
Well, obviously, by writing both posts and directly linking to the previous one, I've achieved a deception of the highest order.
Sarcasm aside, you having written both and even now linked to your previous one only means that you should certainly know that what you were now writing was false.
Would you like to sarcastically respond now too?
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you here, but seriously, telling the opposite story from one article to the next in order to be sensationalizing is poor journalism.
If you read the article at the read link, Devil Mountain also claims Vista SP1 is a "performance dud" -- which, like the impressions in the previously-linked post, is their subjective opinion. Until everything is released and in hand, however, that's all we have to work on. We'll see when we see -- my impression was that the overall speed improvements listed for Vista SP1 seem rather minor. I could very well be wrong.
If you read some of the comments from readers who did 5 minutes of research on their own, you'll find this Devil Mountain gang of incompetence performed the benchmark one time on one computer. (Which really discredits this whole article, but that's another story.)
"[M]y impression was that the overall speed improvements listed for Vista SP1 seem rather minor."
Now you've come full circle. First you claim SP1 has speed increases, then you claim it doesn't, and now you're back to admitting that it does after all but poopooing it by saying "Well, okay, it does, but they're only minor improvements, so it really doesn't count."
Admitting your mistake and apologizing for this back-and-forth petty argument would be the professional thing to do at this point.
@Mark
If your panties were bunched up any tighter they would suck in light energy.