Microsoft lets loose Vista SP1 for x64-based systems

Not a whole lot to say here, but if you're running Vista on an x64-based system, you've probably already noticed a little surprise courtesy of Windows Update, which today started pushing out the x64 edition of Vista Service Pack 1. If you've been following things in SP1 land, you'll notice that's actually ahead of the neat and tidy Windows Update launch for non-x64 systems, but behind the unofficial options already available. On the upside, that should mean that all the bugs have been ironed out, but you can never be too careful, so take all your usual pre-update precautions and let us know how it all works out in the comments below.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[OneLove @ Feb 21st 2008 12:32PM]

Any takers? let me know how it goes. Please be kind and one touch backup yo shite prior to doing so.

[OneLove @ Feb 21st 2008 12:35PM]

I assume this is the official release?

[Chebwa @ Feb 21st 2008 1:10PM]

Microsoft generally doesn't push out unofficial releases over Windows Update.

[Mike Jenkins @ Feb 21st 2008 1:29PM]

Works great, no problems so far. Took about an hour to install like it said, though for a while I was worried that it froze since I was running programs when I shouldn't have been, but it unfroze after leaving it a lone for a few minutes and carried on without problems from there.

[Darkest Daze @ Feb 21st 2008 1:41PM]

Downloading now..if I'm not back in an hour, send a repair install to find me.

[tindajii @ Feb 21st 2008 2:19PM]

Install complete with no problems. It failed twice, likely due to operator error. I then called MS support because I couldn't find anywhere online that said SP1 was officially released.

The tech support guys were also shocked to see that I had the option to update to SP1, as they had not heard the news. They helped me install the update and everything is back to normal.

[iPriest @ Feb 21st 2008 2:40PM]

MS doesn't charge for this one? Seems they don't want to do the same mistake as with Vista.

So what are the tons of new features coming with this SP? Spaces? Time Machine? Outlook enhancements? IE8? New MSN? Or is it just bug fixes?

[mattclarkie @ Feb 21st 2008 3:51PM]

Well it installed after 2 failures, neither of which MS give details of.

Error details: Code 800736CC

Error details: Code 8024200D

Then it installed fine, just took a while.

I am abit worried about this however

Windows Vista Service Pack 1 for x64-based Systems (KB936330)

Installation date: ‎21/‎02/‎2008 19:42

Installation status: Failed

Error details: Code 8024200D

Update type: Important

Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) Beta is an update to Windows Vista that addresses key feedback from our customers. Windows Vista SP1 Beta addresses specific reliability and performance issues, supports new types of hardware and adds support for several emerging standards. After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer.

Why does it say Beta, shouldn't this be the final build.

[JD @ Feb 21st 2008 4:07PM]

iPriest, you're an idiot. You know Vista already had a superior backup system before Leopard even came out? It doesn't take a full snapshot everytime there's a backup like time machine does, it only records the changes. So there aren't any fancy graphics, but it's much more economical in terms of disk space usage, which I find to be more important than a flashy GUI. That said, sorry I responded to begin with, I don't like to feed trolls in general. My bad.

[OneLove @ Feb 21st 2008 4:47PM]

@chebwa and all you stupid low ranking bee-oches.

...You guys forgot about Service Pack for Windows (KB936330) aka vista sp1 beta? As I recall that WAS a windows update.

[Tony @ Feb 21st 2008 5:34PM]

@OneLove

Chebwa did say 'generally,' so even if that were true, it doesn't make him wrong.

Why are you so bitter just because someone 'low ranked' you? Do you really think your new reply will get 'highly ranked?'

[OneLove @ Feb 21st 2008 6:09PM]

@tony

I dont care about rankings, but people should check the facts first. :)

[iPriest @ Feb 22nd 2008 10:21AM]

@ JD so tell me what are the new features, because you explained about what you don't have, but could you know explain what you did get?

[OneLove @ Feb 21st 2008 10:50PM]

It looks like microsoft may have pulled the update?...as I said before...was that an official "final" release or SP1 beta again?

[Anton @ Feb 21st 2008 12:32PM]

*sits on the x32-based wagon*

[Vanillacide @ Feb 21st 2008 12:55PM]

The 3GB limit of 32-bit Windows is annoying me, and my company. We want to switch to XP/Vista 64-bit to address more memory, but we've got to stick to 32-bit because one thing doesn't work in x64 (all drivers and other applications work fine).

It's a data feed application from Reuters. :(

I wish they'd get their backsides into gear and sort out x64 versions of their software. Actually, why didn't Microsoft simply make Vista 64-bit only? Whose going to run it on 32-bit chips anyway?

[ssuk @ Feb 21st 2008 1:28PM]

Not to be a picky bitch here, but 32 bit processors are actually called x86.

If you want to know why, it's the processor architecture used in 32 bit processors which was primarily used in early Intel Processors like the 8086 and the 80186 processors. It got the name x86 because all these processors have "86" at the end. While x64 processors come from a line of processors which have "64" at the end of their name.

I need to go outside...

[ssuk @ Feb 21st 2008 1:29PM]

*16/32bit processors...

[Vanillacide @ Feb 21st 2008 2:04PM]

@ ssuk

N.S.S. but yes, x86 means 16-bit as well as 32-bit processors matey ... that's why I specifically (and correctly) used the term 32-bit.

I still think Microsoft should've taken the x64 route for all Windows from Vista onwards, they're even planning x86 versions of Windows 7 ... sigh. Still, at least servers seem to be going exclusively x64.

[r3loaded @ Feb 21st 2008 2:13PM]

The reason MS havent made Vista 64-bit only is because all the ppl currently whining about Vista would whine even more (waaa! It won't run on my Pentium III! Microsoft sucks! Apple rules! etc.). That, and the fact that some recent processors such as the Core Duo and Pentium 4 (except for the 6, 8 and 9 series) don't support 64-bit. That said, they should make Windows 7 64-bit only imo.

On the SP1 side, I can report 0 problems here, Vista feels a bit snappier, especially with file operations. This basically fixes bugs and improves performance, prepare to be underwhelmed. Microsoft was right, businesses had no reason to delay adoption until SP1.

[mattclarkie @ Feb 21st 2008 3:57PM]

Ah, I have a Pentium 4 640 in an old PC. Wasn't that the first consumer x64 Intel made? It has yet to see a x64 OS, and will likely never as I don't use it.

I heard when MS announced Vista, still called Longhorn back then, that it would be x64 exclusive. But when you think that Windows ME still supported 16bit, I expect that the OS after Windows 7 will still be x86.

[Carbonize @ Feb 21st 2008 12:33PM]

Wow lets compare the story about the Leopard bug fix update ( http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/15/leopard-10-5-1-is-now-available/ ) and this one.

This story - "On the upside, that should mean that all the bugs have been ironed out, but you can never be too careful, so take all your usual pre-update precautions and let us know how it all works out in the comments below."

Leopard story - Hmm no not a single comment about being careful when installing it.

[Anton @ Feb 21st 2008 12:36PM]

I don't get it.

[DonatoM3 @ Feb 21st 2008 12:45PM]

He's saying that in Engadget's eyes Apple can do no wrong.

[KangMin @ Feb 21st 2008 12:47PM]

well yeah... Leopard ran slow to start with...from the beginning... if they went any slower, then Apple would really go backrupt

[Gian @ Feb 21st 2008 12:48PM]

There wasn't anything about being careful with 10.5.2 either. And there is good reason for this. Microsoft's QA teams really suck at integration testing.

Here's a complaint: Windows lovers always tout the fact their chosen OS has to work with so many different kinds of hardware, which makes it so much harder to get everything perfect. But, the problems I hear about are almost always software-related. What gives? The reality is hardware developers are ultimately responsible for producing suitable drivers, not Microsoft. Microsoft provides a large number of drivers with the OS as a convenience, but it is doubtful many, if any, of the non-generic drivers are written by Microsoft. So, why is it so hard for Microsoft to make a stable and functional OS? The hardware argument is bunk. And the real problem with Windows is Microsoft's QA teams. They cannot even seem to get regression testing done properly. No wonder people are nervous about upgrades and holding off forever on Vista. No one knows if their software will still work. Yes, all of the wonderful Windows software. *gag*

[L. M. Lloyd @ Feb 21st 2008 1:37PM]

Hey, cut them some slack. It is hard being an Engadget editor these days. The whole "no one wants Vista" argument gets really hard to sustain as the number of licenses climbs over 100 million. As more and more QuickTime and OSX security flaws are found, and patches are rushed out the door, the whole "Windows is so insecure" argument looks kind of weak. The large number of Leopard bugs, takes the wind out of their "why can't Microsoft code bug-free software like Apple" sails. All the hacking and cracking required to do anything useful with an iPhone is really devaluing the "Apple: it just works" argument. Now they can't even fall back to their "too bad Microsoft can't get SP1 out the door" jibe.

At this rate pretty soon they will have to fall back to just admitting that they think Macs are better because more brain-dead actors and celebutantes like them, and they want to be associated with the pretty people. Either that or the ever charming "if you can't understand why they are better, then there is no hope for you."

It is never nice to kick someone when they are down. Let them have their fun.

[Manuel @ Feb 21st 2008 2:18PM]

Since apple controls its own hardware, it is less likely to experience the same problems as Microsoft with so many flavors of hardware.

Also different kind of fan boys.

[Glyde @ Feb 21st 2008 5:26PM]

Keep in mind that Apple only has to code their OS for the hardware that they ship out for their own systems. There is A LOT more variability in the hardware of a Windows PC than in the hardware of a Mac, making it much more difficult, almost impossible, to create a "universally accepted/working" version of an update. Microsoft can't possibly test on every hardware configuration possible, and for the most part, they do a good job. Considering the amount of updates/patches/fixes that Microsoft releases, their success rate is pretty high. Yes, you tend to get more stable updating on a Mac, but they have a lot less updates to release and a lot less hardware to deal with.

[Gav @ Feb 21st 2008 12:37PM]

Installing it now, wish me luck :)

[Anton @ Feb 21st 2008 12:41PM]

Breathe in, breathe out!

[guerilla779 @ Feb 21st 2008 1:32PM]

as they say.......everyone has to take the plunge.

[Gav @ Feb 21st 2008 3:16PM]

It's working great, took about an hour to install, everything seems a bit more responsive (could be psychosomatic, but who knows? :P) No problems, and my x64 system is running great still.

Now, where's the official download for 32-bit, eh?!?

[blarvh @ Feb 21st 2008 12:39PM]

Can't get it to show. Is it somehow country bound, I've got the UK version.

[Phil Perman @ Feb 21st 2008 12:46PM]

I'm in the UK and I'm downloading it now. Just loaded up windows update and it set it off. Sure you're not running a 32bit version?

[blarvh @ Feb 21st 2008 1:17PM]

That could be the problem...

What happened to neglecting the 64-bit community?

[lordelesar @ Feb 21st 2008 12:45PM]

I comfirm this...Just noticed it and been downloading since!
Is it the final version? Or is it beta/gamma/RC2/3/whatever?

[Keef @ Feb 21st 2008 12:56PM]

im in the UK and i dont see the update!!!!

I have the V668 Evaluation version installed at the moment that was released a while back... do i have to take that version off first???

[Thomas @ Feb 21st 2008 12:59PM]

Yes you have to uninstal the evaluation version then you will be able to instal SP1.

[Keef @ Feb 21st 2008 1:02PM]

how?? i cant seem to find it anywhere to uninstall the RC version of Service pack 1!!

[Keef @ Feb 21st 2008 1:05PM]

never mind haha, think i found it!!

[KangMin @ Feb 21st 2008 12:56PM]

It's all right guys
maybe everything will all get better when Bill Gates retires real soon ...
and then the philanthropy world will go down

[Skullfighter @ Feb 28th 2008 10:12PM]

Wait, how much did Stevie give away last year?

P.S. Idiot.

[torqueo @ Feb 21st 2008 12:57PM]

Finally some love for the often neglected x64 users (myself included). ;)

[Jeebus @ Feb 21st 2008 1:45PM]

No kidding. As someone earlier said, MS should only have release the x64 version of Vista. That would have forced everyone to supply x64 drivers, and Vista can't run on anything no x64 capable anyway, plus it's backwards compatible (mostly) with 32-bit.

[Iain @ Feb 21st 2008 3:31PM]

You think you've had it bad - I'm an XP x64 user.
Windows 7'll be out before I see SP3 :-(

[mattclarkie @ Feb 21st 2008 12:59PM]

Just running a back-up. It is 711mb which seems quite large. I had an optionly ATI updateavailable when I checked to see if SP1 was out, refreshed and now it just shows SP1. Looks like it refuses to let you do any other updates until you get SP1.

[Jason @ Feb 21st 2008 1:00PM]

It wasn't available for me when you guys first posted this, but it is now.

Funny thing is the size of the update is listed as "120.0 MB - 711.6 MB"

[torqueo @ Feb 21st 2008 2:14PM]

The x64 SP1 is almost twice as large as the 32-bit version, probably due to it including both 64-bit and 32-bit libraries (for compatibility purposes). This would explain said range of size.

[mattclarkie @ Feb 21st 2008 1:00PM]

Back-up is taking ages, thankyou slow Vista file transfers.