"The firm hopes to address that problem next month, when the real test for Vista SP1 begins in earnest as it is finally pumped out automatically to the masses. That’s assuming Microsoft delivers on its promise and isn’t hit by further delays, of course."

That's also assuming there'll be a viable (l)user population for Vista in a month's time too, not ?

I pity those on lappies without a real OS choice.

Vista Home Premium, nVidia 8800GTS, nForce motherboard, no problems at all - has speeded up boot & copying etc.

So, um... non-story?

Is anyone actually surprised at this.

It is called the MS curse.

95 crap

98

2000

ME crap

XP

2003

Vista crap

Anyone else see a pattern.

Stuck SP1 on my vista ultimate, its buggered it totally.

PC now boots to a black screen happily telling me

ntoskrnl.exe is corrupt with status code: 0x0000098

The startup fix tool on the install CD acknowledges the problem and then says cant fix it. And the system restore cant roll it back becuase there are no restore points. There were restore points before I ran the update :)

Googleing has shown a few others with this problem, and I suspect more to come :)

My Vista PC was mis-behaving anyway, so backed up the important stuff and downloaded the standalone Vista SP1 update. After about an hour I got a black screen with a single filename with explanation marks flickering - thats it! If you do experience this - drop me an email @ gerald@readypeople.eu and I'll tell you how I got around it. However - since this minor embuggerance was fixed, SP1 has been behaving like a stable OS - staving off my inclination to revert to XP!

Happy Easter!

It doesn't actually 'beg the question', it rather 'leads us to the question', they're rather different in meaning.

should just throw in the towel as far as vista is concerned appologise, and give its victims their money back.

I installed SP1 with absolutely no problems - despite having an nVidia 8800GTX.

Microsoft Update will (apparently) identify potential driver conflicts, offer updated versions where available and, if not, deny access to SP1 until such time as they appear.

... 99% of the people who will say that will be linux fanboys anyway. For which btw, Every 6-month release breaks something (hardware or software)

Genius :-)

Never realised it before but now you mention it ....

Well I backed up everything, onto usb stick, onto cd and online, then gingerly double clicked that SP1 update file - half expecting the laptop to start smoking. It said it might take an hour or so to finish, and reboot a few times, so I went off and did some other IT tinkering I had to do, made a coffee and came back to a fully updated laptop.

Nvidia 6150 graphics card - no probs, tho' I always let the update do it's job so it'd have the latest graphic n sound drivers, ac97 sound etc etc all still working fine.

Haven't really noticed a difference, but I run Vista pretty pared down anyway. Copying files is def. improved tho'.

TFP

Love the way you describe a problem that would have most users getting in the car and driving over to Bill's place to kick his teeth in, then finish with not one smiley, but two!

Doesn't like my factory-supplied BlueTooth drivers either.

...writhing in orgasm !! Don't expect to make a concrete wall by piling crap on top of crap !!

Come back, DOS 3.3 !! All is forgiven !!

"the real test for Vista SP1 begins in earnest as it is finally pumped out automatically to the masses"

Can't wait to see what that will bring forth...

@ Works fine here...

Sure. But you believe it's a non-story just because your install worked... The words narcissistic navel gazer come to mind for some obscure reason.

My Dell Latitude D410 has an Intel 915 chipset. Prior to SP1, my performance rating was 2.3. Now it's 1.0. Interesting...

Paris, for the performance rating...

Dell Latitude D600, 512mb RAM, 60 GB Hitachi drive, Vista runs ok, slapped on SP1, no issues - downloaded, rebooted a few times(?) and everything seems fine and dandy. Not noticed any difference to be honest - not slower nor faster, all devices recognised.

dont install an ms OS untill they are shipping a version of the OS with the first sp integrated!

seriously, never had a problem that way

e.g.

the upgrade from 3.11 to 95 only happened with 97 aka 95SE

95SE to 2000 sp1

personally im skipping vista unless they make ie8 a vista only thing, and by the time thats out will have a server 2008 box anyway

cant say i can recomend linux unless you enjoy spending 8 hours trying to get the back and fwd buttons on your mouse to work

@ Peter and others soon to come (where's Webster?)

"it works for me, therefore it works everywhere, and there are no problems. reports to the contrary must be lies."

love it. well done. dovetails nicely with the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" philosophy of your preferred vendor. please put head back in sand, and return to your slumber. your work is done here.

"Vista Home Premium, nVidia 8800GTS, nForce motherboard, no problems at all - has speeded up boot & copying etc."

Now *THAT* is what I do call a news story.

Never EVER be the first to try technology. Especially if its microsoft.

My wife has a Compaq Presario C300 with Vista Premium. Installed SP1 and it failed after reboot. It rebooted again and now I get a BSOD everytime. I even get a BSOD by booting from the orginal Vista DVD - very odd.

She is now denying me any hot-love until I get it fixed. Looks like I'll be spending the bank holiday weekend locked away in my home office trying to get clean up this mess.

Not good.

Make all Windows operating systems open source, then Microsoft can't ram these new operating systems down our throats.

My notebook came pre-installed with Vista Home Premium, and I can't any older OS to install, even after doing a government wipe of the hard drive.

Microsoft is now in the business of selling protections for it's OS. Let them compete in that area, and let every at the source code, so that we can get a real OS.

quoting someone with the username of a high-ranking Nazi general who (I think) was tried for war crimes is brave! doesn't offend me but some might not like it...

This is a Marketing Pack.

People - Vista sucks, wait for SP1.

MS Marketing - Quick release something and call it a service pack...

When you get something that works we can call it SP1a just like the old NT days.

There is a poster called SeppDietrich? So the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler is installing Microsoft service packs now? A fitting damnation.

I installed SP1 36 hours ago on Vista Ultimate and it's working fine. No problems or issues with anything. My wife's install of SP1 on her Vista Home Premium machine is also working just fine.

My experience in IT has shown me that anytime there's a major release it will totally blow up some users machines. I've also noticed it tends to always be the same users with these problem. So, most of the time it's PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair).

Took 25 mins to install here - no immediate problems that I could see. Although when I tried many of those 'made for XP but works with Vista' tools such as Acronis Disk Director, these are now blocked until I get updates :-(

Not too shabby though, lets hope my customers are more willing to buy the Vista-loaded PCs now SP1 has arrived instead of asking for an XP reload. If MS manage to iron out these problems and perhaps speed up Vista a little more, it could finally be as good as XP became 3 years after it was released...

(look back at the forums in 2002 -2003 to see what I mean!!)

I know a lot of people with Vista. And while a few of them don't like it (just a dislike of change more than anything), none of the manyfold 'problems' have cropped up - with the exception of the stupid copying time problem.

Perhaps the people, I know are just extraordinary, but they did stupid things when the bought Vista, like check if their hardware was compatble and if drivers were available for peripherals they had...

Every OS has its bluescreen moments (and yes, even linux -- I've run at least one linux box in some form or another for the last 14 years, ah slackware, I hated you so much!) And windows has more of them than most. But lets face, find another OS with as much driver support as windows, and drivers are the real culprit for most instability. Probably percentage-wise there's not much difference, but incident-wise, obviosuly Windows appears to have more.

Blame MS for a bad driver model by all means, but quit the 'I have problems so Vista is crud' comments.

It's great!

I can't wait for it to make my system faster and safer.

"Vista Home Premium, nVidia 8800GTS, nForce motherboard, no problems at all - has speeded up boot & copying etc.

So, um... non-story?"

Vista business 32 (64bit processor, though), 8800GTS, nForce motherboard. No problems so far, feels snappier overall. Remember, people without problems usually don't post.

For Vista SP1 Service Pack 1... A Service pack for a service pack would definately be in MS style

Vista x64 Ultimate, nvidia 8600gts (sli), not a single problem. At all.

Installed SP1 last night from WUpdate. When it restarted, said no driver for my multimedia video controller? The screen was all pasty and jagged but everything worked-said something about PCI #3 not working(which is my sound card-not video controller) so I shut down-took out sound card-restarted and shazam-everything OK -put sound card back in-everything still OK..No more problems

There's always a 'real' OS choice. Before you make any derogatory comments about Linux, note that HP is set to ship SuSE boxes, and Dell has been selling Ubuntu systems for nearly a year.

I've yet to put my fingers on a computer running Vista. I do not see the fuzz.

I build my own stuff and run various linux distros. I have vmware and a

winxp image for running games and visio. The overhead is only around 5% even for heavy dirextX rendering. Even Crysis works ok.

It's on it's way (in spite of Microsoft!) http://www.reactos.org/

Had Vista Ultimate since release, only had trouble once when upgrading Ram (not an abstract issue, a matter of price), repeated BSODs because of an ancient Wifi driver.

Matter then solved.

System has always been rock solid and quite zippy. SP1 installed without a hitch, file copying is now faster (although it never was a major issue for me in the first place).

All in all, I am not displeased at all.

Vista on Macbook Pro via bootcamp.

installed SP1 on it yesterday. no problems. vista score of 5.4 too

one of the best laptops to run vista on AFAIK. pity that

you get OSX on it by default! ;-)

Paris Hilton cos she's as clueless as most MacOSX users ;-)

(pity we can't have 2 icons. i'd stick the flames on too!)

I just installed Vista SP1 on an nForce motherboard with nvidia SATA, nvidial 8800GTS, realtek audio drivers, and an intel processor. No problems here. The boot seems 10 seconds or so slower, but everything else seems to be responding normally or better.

Glad you picked Ballmer for your icon, because he's a complete dolt too.

"cant say i can recomend linux unless you enjoy spending 8 hours trying to get the back and fwd buttons on your mouse to work"

Frankly, tim if it's taken you that long to get something that works by default in modern Linux distros, you ought to be using an Etch-A-Sketch(tm).

The Dell Optiplex 745 on my desk here came with Vista Ultimate. I successfully downloaded SP1, but having read this artivle and checked my device manager, I think I'll wait to install it. Looks like practically every chip in it is Intel, and I *need* my USB and LAN to work.

"She is now denying me any hot-love until I get it fixed. Looks like I'll be spending the bank holiday weekend locked away in my home office trying to get clean up this mess."

I assume you mean the mess of the laptop, not any sort of love substitution normally done behind locked doors!

"Switching back to linux... ... 99% of the people who will say that will be linux fanboys anyway. For which btw, Every 6-month release breaks something (hardware or software)"

Interesting statistics, especially that last bit, where did you pull them out of? I'd like to know, cause I haven't seen it. And before you call me a Linux fanboy, note I do make a living administrating both Windows and Linux systems.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"

-Benjamin Disraeli

Having spent 30 years in the IT industry it still gets to me why people expect an OS too work on every single permutation of hardware regardless of age, market penetration or quality of support. The only relatively stable operating systems have been those on proprietary hardware such as the IBM mainframe.

Wake up people, MS does a reasonable job at making complex software run on a myriad of different systems. Few would do it better and still offer the choice. Now I will get back to my FreeBSD system.

What we are seeing here is simply madness.

Microsoft is a vast organisation, with some of the best budgets, people and talent in the business. They've been working on developing Vista for years (and longer if you count the underlying infrastructure), have access to some of the best testing facilities (not to mention a huge beta-testing user base) and active 'partnerships' with most of the biggest names in the business.

And yet... and yet even now they are unable to productionise an operating system which will operate with even common 'partner' hardware, appears to have been insufficiently tested to the point where an upgrade wipes existing configurations from the PC, and publishes a list of incompatible software and drivers which is thick enough to hold a door open with.

All of this points to a model which is simply too complex, with too much code and too many functions to be able to be tested and implemented successfully. This is, in my view, supported by the fact that from my perspective Vista doesn't fundamentally deliver any user substantial user functionality beyond that which was (is) available in Windows XP. That is also one of the key reasons why businesses are refusing to migrate.

Microsoft needs to do the following.

a) Simplify the operating model of Windows, and the code - fast. They just can't maintain it any longer.

b) Simply accept that the days of high growth & earnings are over now. Income is simply not going to be what it was during the previous 20 years. Microsoft must change, and it must reduce it's expectations, adapt and become a smaller company to meet the future.

c) Microsoft has to accept that the world is not only saturated with PCs, but more importantly it's userbase is now saturated with functions they don't use or understand, and no longer need (or want to pay) for even more "stuff". In the world of mainstream consumer electronics, people need simpler and easier to use OS which simply works and works well. Apple's Leopard OS is streets ahead in this respect. Vista is gimmick-laden and yet still carries too many bugs and incompatibilities to be accepted either in the home or business as an upgrade.

d) Microsoft's development effort should concentrate on the boring, unsexy task of making thier product work. They have to get Vista simplified, completely and thoroughly tested and work with third party developers to improve compatibility of apps & drivers. It's not glitzy or cutting edge work but it needs to happen as Vista is just a disaster for such a 'mature' product.

e) A simpler (but better) product might also ship more boxes. People and business aren't ready to go out & buy dual-core or better kit simply to allow Vista to work. Those days are also over now. Vista has damaged hardware sales, and that clearly won't be tolerated with the next software.

f) Microsoft need to spend a bit of time in the real world. Masses of people are not going to download a 484Mb service pack (even on free broadband) which is full of bugs, and risks thier data & systems through insufficient, compromised or lazy testing.

How many people managed to get everything working first time with every new Linux release? Or even OS/X release?

E.g. The first time I tried to install Ubuntu (latest version, 3 weeks ago), I couldn't get past an early install screen because on my default 800*600 resolution the next button didn't fit on screen. Now that's polished. Not.

Vista has never worked for me, its a dog that has multiple failures and just does not work properly. Now I find SP1 makes things worse rather than fixing the multiple problems that obviously exist.

Screw this, I see no reason why Microsoft should not pay damages for the problems they create. No other manufacturer would get away with this level of crass incompetence and I have certainly never agreed to give them absolution.

Put the crocks in the dock.

I've installed it on my office desktop for testing in the hope it will help with a little documented problem to do with the fingerprint scanners on the Tosh R500 and Offline Files (Why it breaks it I have no idea, but there you go, answers on a postcard). All seems to work fine so far. The only problem I've experienced is that network performance slowed to a crawl as was the case when I originally installed it out the box. However a quick check showed that it had changed my autotuninglevel=disabled setting to autotuninglevel=highlyrestricted - I set that back and I have to say it's made a heck of a difference.

All those users who have noticed improved file copying though, try turning the autotuning level to disabled and you'll notice its faster still. SP1 restricts it over a vanilla vista install, but it seems to be much faster without it.

Sorry if this makes no sense, I may be mildly intoxicated...

Flibble.

You should sue...

If you can't figure out how to install device drivers don't install the service pack! MS was very clear on the release day, about why SP1 was not made publicly available after RTM! DRIVER PROBLEMS!!! Stop bitching!

I just passed the Microsoft ITP exam for supporting Vista on the desktop PC. I've only ever used Vista while proding PCs and laptops in Comet or Curries. The exam like the OS itself is a joke.

So it's my fault that SP1 hasn't installed as per some very biased comments above. How come in the last three months I've learnt from scratch how to have a far less painful (so far) experience with linux? When that OS is allegedly harder to use?

Some people are too entrenched with their attitudes. Microsoft has to do better than other operating systems. They've got the resources and the economies of scale to produce brilliant software, but something is wrong.

And if you've had the luck of a smooth install, please do the rest of us the grace of not preaching crap like it is the users fault.

I relucantly switched to Vista after being a avid dissident of all MS products for years. The new OS arrived and happily after 4 months using it for both work and pleasure solidly I have had very few complaints, the new interface is a refreshing change and despite the lack of overally driver support I have managed to get every periphial I use (gathered over the past 3 years) working without too many issues.

The new service pack went on for me without any issues, the only problem I found was that after the installation I had to reinstall the webcam driver for my Dell laptop despite it being the same driver as Dell originally installed.

So all the sceptics, I am unsure if you have ever used the OS or if you just like seeing your unguided voices in print on websites but give Vista a chance, it is not nearly as bad as its press of late.

I'm running Vista 64bit on an Acer 7720 laptop.

My only issue with Vista was jitter when playing audio and placing any kind of load.

SP1 installed in 30 minutes - 2 reboots (1 obligitory and 1 for luck) and the system feels a lot faster and more responsive. The great thing is I can't cause any jitter on my audio - and I've tried!

Great job!

I've now successfully installed it on:

- Sony Vaio SZ4XWN

- Acer T (can't remember the number)

- Vye S37 Ultra Mobile

- 2 Home Brew Systems

...and my 64-bit home-brew Vista machine.

No disasters so far, just much happier, faster Vista.

This rating based on the least Vista compatible hardware component in your computer and has very little to do with the real performance capabilities of your system!

(it aint no SiSoft Sandra)

1. Go to C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore.

2. Make a backup copy of the latest XML file

3. Open the latest file with notepad or wordpad.

4. Between <WinSPR> and </WinSPR> you can mod your score(s).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

<WinSPR>

<SystemScore>9.9</SystemScore>

<MemoryScore>9.9</MemoryScore>

<CpuScore>9.9</CpuScore>

<CPUSubAggScore>9</CPUSubAggScore>

<VideoEncodeScore>9.9</VideoEncodeScore>

<GraphicsScore>9.9</GraphicsScore>

<GamingScore>9.9</GamingScore>

<DiskScore>9.9</DiskScore>

</WinSPR>

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Change The Scores As you Like. Don't Worry, It's Completely Safe.

I don't understand what El Reg had Vista do to them. Shoot their dog? Make off with their wife *and* lottery winnings? What?

I run 10 Vista Business machines at work, all of them costing $500 *or less*. The current iteration of my preferred system comes with 2GB of RAM, Core Duo processor, and a 250GB HD. And it costs--$499. It runs Aero just fine, thank you very much. *And* they peacefully co-exist alongside XP, a mix of 2k, NT, and 2003 64-bit servers, and never complain. Never had a bit of trouble from any of them.

Such pissing and moaning over a damn good OS I never have seen! Jeez.

It's too expensive! It's too bloated! It won't run on my 386! It's using all my memory!!! Wah!

And these posters need to get a life--or better yet, a *clue*. If you can't make Vista run you sure as hell won't be running Linux.

I feel better now. :)

Yes, mine's the one with the asbestos and armor plates...

>>E.g. The first time I tried to install Ubuntu (latest version, 3 weeks ago), I couldn't get past an early install screen because on my default 800*600 resolution the next button didn't fit on screen. Now that's polished. Not.

Windows has this issue as well, since waaay before 3 weeks ago. Again, it's most-supported-first when it comes to -free-, let alone -open source- software.

I'm still surprised as hell at how easy a Linux box is to get up and running, secured, and protected from viruses; how quickly one can get it to "production" state is a huge difference between it and even XP.

This kick in the pants is that Windows Vista costs a few hundred POUNDS, whereas Linux costs, well, whatever your broadband costs for the hour it takes to download. Or copy your friends - legally - for free. The final quality is arguably superior, and dammit if the linux crowd would wake up and support directx9 games OUT THE BOX; I wouldn't even bother with windows xp on my home PC.

Till the community gets that right, we're stuck with Craposoft

Intel 9700 X4 NV 8800GTS X2 SLI EVGA 690...

Hate to say it but running like a champ, sees all 4 gigs of goodly RAM

also installed it on my beloveds craptop... and suprise suprise.. daddy got some lovin today!

Needless to say folks it aint wizrdry, just an executable, and like all things... somethimes you get the bear, sometimes he shows up with 5 of his friends.

SkullFoot!

I have installed it on 3 systems all running Vista Ultimate x64. Not an issue one here so far.

I don't see the pattern, because ME was before 2000, wasn't it ?

ME was 98 with GoBack, which became SystemRestore, and it still doesn't work .. I always thought M$ made ME to show how 2000 was so much more stable .. because they couldn't make that case vs 98SE

never had problems with 95 OSr2/FAT32 either .. runs my 200MMX just fine to this day .. original Nov. 1997 install

I had a grand total of one problem with Vista SP1: my PC asked me for the first time in months what it should do when I connected my iPhone. Clicked the box, told it to do nothing and haven't seen the message since.

Framerates have gone up in every game I've tried since installing SP1 - including WoW which for some reason has always been my poorest performer (far behind even Crysis). I also had previously had the audio hiccups mentioned by an above poster. Those too seem to have completely disappeared.

My mother, after being admonished by me for years to religiously run windows update had no issues as well (she only knew she installed it because of the Step 2 of three screen). I seriously feel bad for those who've had issues because, at least for me, SP1 has been fantastic.

Vista sucks...PERIOD. It is like Windows Millennium Edition, new and unimproved for 2007! If I was to list every problem I have had on my computer (which was bought new, WITH vista installed) I would be on this post all night. If you have not "upgraded" (more like a downgrade) from Windows XP....DON'T! You will regret it. I have been inspired to buy a Mac, or switch to Linux. Congrats Microsoft for putting out another buggy product that pisses off everyone!

I have used many operating systems, including most Windows products since DOS was standard. I find Vista and SP1 to be a joke. Microsoft is clearly only out to make money anymore. The customer support and product support is severely lacking on all Microsoft products including the office suite of software. The problems I have had with Vista are all avoidable if Microsoft would spend time to make a quality product and code the software properly. I could only wish I could get the complete source code for the Vista operating system so maybe as a private person I could edit my copy to work without the crashes, incompatibility issues, and driver issues for myself. I have teenage nephews who can code better than the software decision makers at Microsoft. Microsoft should have pulled the plug on the operating system after it crashed during a live demonstration done by Bill Gates himself. With Vista being standard on new computers now, it is no wonder more people are buying Macs, at least Apple has a stable operating system. Also thanks Microsoft for making free-ware such as Linux take off among private people.

I installed last night, no problems at all. Can't say the Service Pack is anything to shout about. I don't doubt that some users are having problems, but I wonder how many posts on the internet are from people who just love to hate microsoft and jump at any chance to have a dig.

There is no pattern:

95 - OK thats fine, calling it crap is a little harsh the difference from previous Windows was light and day.

98 - A minor update but was still worth it.

2000 - Again light and day but was never pushed to the public so whats it doing in this list?

ME - agreed, crap.

XP - 2000 with colours, still nice.

2003 - Server operating systems? Don't know why this is in your list

Vista - XP with more bells and whistles, if you have decent hardware then there is no problem but as always running it on something with minimum specs isn't really a good idea.

So the list should be:

95

98

ME

XP

Vista

Now find a pattern.

I was running vista absolutely fine on my sempron 3000+ 1gb ram, admittedly I tweaked it to the bollox to get the ram usage down to about 268mb, and it was stable.

Installed SP1 and it showed some great improvements and I quite liked it.

However, I ran the latest version of Kubuntu from a live cd and I was shocked at the speed difference - and this is off a sodding cd! So, as I am not a fanboy of either camp I backed up everything and installed Kubuntu, everything worked....but wait....Where are my ntfs partitions? the gui could not mount them - I had to do it in the command line - accessed fine after that...but wait again.....I couldn't do the 147 updates that were required to bring it up to date some random error about pre-requistes (which I thought were supposed to be dealt with anyway)

Rebooted and the kernel had gone, that or Grub couldn't find it.

I am now running XP. Its the only OS that runs at a reasonable speed that I know all my hardware will run on, and that I know I have all the drivers for, that doesn't have any compatability problems.

All this kind of shit puts me off IT entirely.....I don't want to spend DAYS fucking debugging in Linux or working out which tweaks to do on an OS to get it to run appropriately. At least get the important bits right - I want to see my drives, connect to the internet, and access my files quickly and easily - thats it - and thats all my users want to do too.

I mentioned 'backgrading' from Vista to XP recently - this makes it sound like the right decision.

The 95-ME-Vista comparison is unavoidable, Micro$loth hardly have a stellar rep where introducing 'new' OS' is concerned, but then neither do Apple if you think back...

Consider, if you can remember this far back:

OS7 was a crashy disaster which caused many to 'backgrade' to OS6 for a while - but it did mature into 7.6 which was a fairly nice system.

Both OS 8 and 9 were slightly cranky from the start, but swiftly improved.

OSX was pretty much an alpha release, which many, including me, were forced to 'backgrade' to 9, despite the inherent difficulties in doing so, but has now matured into an OS that I'd love to be able to run on 'PC' hardware (yes, I know what's in my Desktop Pro thanks, but you can't run X on a PC - yet). But the fact remains that the first reliably usable X was 10.2, 10 was an alpha and 10.1 at best a beta...

Micro$loth seem to have a worse problem, in that they have a nasty habit of releasing systems that have serious fundamental issues which the simply can't fix - viz 95/ME, and Vista is looking worse all the time.

Still, it's worth remembering that the original XP was pretty nasty. And in fact didn't become what it is today until SP2 - how many years after release? Talk to people who had to 'backgrade' to W2K, twice, before they felt happy using XP...

The really worrying thing, well, it would worry me if I were on the board of Micro$loth - and it probably causes the Apple dictatorship great amusement too - is that, in 2008, with the world awash with 64 bit PC hardware, Micro$loth is still unable to field a workable 64 bit OS.

I've now tried both XP 64 and Vista 64 and neither has anything like proper 64 bit support. Yes, the third party drivers are there - apparently, but largely don't work!

I've tried XP64. The supplied motherboard drivers didn't work. Neither did the latest versions from Asus, despite being clearly marked XP/Vista 64 compatible. Same with WiFi adapters. Same with audio drivers.

Yet none of the driver installers came up with a 'not Micro$loth signed' warning on installation - so, Micro$loth are clearly signing off drivers for 64 bit use which don't actually work!

Same story with Vista 64... had to 'backgrade' to Vista 32, then again to XP.

Still, give Micro$loth a couple of years and they MAY get a working version of Vista out...

But the move to 64 bit really does seem to be giving them problems. Which I suppose is partially explained by the wide range of hardware/drivers required. The issue there seems to be that Micro$loth are too willing to sign off third party drivers which simply don't work acceptably.

Yes, Apple cleared that hurdle with much less problem - but then they DO control the hardware platform. They have also taken the step of providing their own drivers for a lot of third party peripherals built into the OS, which has helped a lot.

Micro$loth might do better to take a few leaves from Apple's book here - forget attempting to get close to Apple's human interface (which they haven't succeeded in yet anyway) and concentrate on emulating Apple's handling of the move to 64 bit.

Or better still. Treat Vista like ME. Forget it and start thinking of getting XP 64 up to speed, by including an extensive driver library that works so they have a usable 64 bit OS, maybe do XP 64 SP3, then start again with the proverbial clean sheet on a new OS. Possibly based on something like, um, Linux?

I know it's an old chestnut - but aren't you glad that neither Micro$loth, nor Apple for that matter, manufacture, say, cars? Or aircraft?

Welcome to the wonderful world of OS software releases! :-)

So its not "never install a new MS OS until the first Service Pack", that's the golden rule any more, its "never install a new MS Service Pack until the first Fix Pack"

my system is running fine, geforce 8800gts overclocked and the e6750 also overclocked.. all running ok. i did download the new nforce drivers after the SP1 install simply because i had not done it for a while. also my x-fi (installed this morning) card runs ok as well despite what i read online about them not working in vista well. basically the whole system is running as advertised.

A new and restricted release of SP1 for Vista arrives. Everyone jumps on it and loads it up immediately. The utterly predictable chaos follows. What on earth did you lot expect? It is a restricted release - that should say it all to you. You should expect it to be laced with arsenic, good for some, bad for many. And now here is the inevitable bitching and moaning about how Vista SP1 broke your pooter. Tough. Deal with it, and learn the lesson to wait for the full release when it happens.

To all those "it worked for me..." I say whoooppy dooo good for you. So we can all sleep nights now that we know yours worked. As a statistic that is entirely irrelevant.

What is really poor show is that yet again Microsoft do something that ends up crippling a whole swathe of computers under the influence of their ware. No surprises at all.

Nothing to see here, move along please.

win2k was before ME.

Fine for me on two windows Vista 32bit pc's no problems at all so far.But the 4gig issue not really been fixed yes it shows up as full 4gig of ram but Vista still only uses the same as before.

I've installed SP1 on 3 machines without a problem at all. But copy of SP1 was a TechNet downloaded copy, not Windows Update. That may be the issue.

I have had vista as a secondary OS for a while now, and I have to say I just do not like it. I have an up to date PC, not top of the line, but good enough (x2 2GHz, 7800GT, 3GB RAM) and it just runs like a pig.

I am not saying that it is a horrible OS, but everyone can see it is bloated.

On the otherhand XP runs pretty well, and Linux runs like a dream.

Anyone who complains about driver support for Linux should think again. I have not had driver problems since I got my last-but-one motherboard, where the kernel included with Fedora 5 didn't include support for the SATA RAID. Apart from that (plus a small problem with my latest mobo where windows turned off the GB lan on shutdown, and the linux driver didnt know how to switch it back on) everything has just worked. The only problem is software support, mostly games, but then most of those I want to run work under either WINE or Cedega, and work better than in XP.

I know I'm gonna get flamed for being a linux fanboi, and I am, but I am a fan BECAUSE it works. And if I want to run it on older hardware, fine, I just use a less flashy desktop, and everything STILL works great.

So why can't MS do the same?

Maybe it's just the case that Windows has such a vast array of various hardware configurations that it could run under.

Linux has issues when you try to install it on weird and wacky hardware, and sometimes pretty standard hardware causes it pain. OSX Leopard had issues if a 3rd party application was installed on it. Vista SP1 has issues if you have particular hardware installed too.

I've seen hundereds of machines (530 at work plus a shit load of other peoples systems) with Vista on it that run fine. SP1 has been on about 80 machines for the last few weeks. That more than covers all of our hardware variations as well as my own home systems. It works fine for 98% of standard hardware.

Oh, and Win98 was as shite as Win95.

95 Shite

98 Shite

ME Shite

2000 Good

XP Better

2003 Better still

Vista Superb

Just have compatible hardware (e.g. anything in the last 3 years or so) with the latest drivers and everything works. Actually I've got boxes that are 5 years old running Vista without issues.

For me personally I'm very, very happy with Vista - as I was with XP. It's essentially XP with a much more professional look, more intuitive and a ton of new features. On a big system (2Gb RAM, Dual Core processor, 10krpm SATA etc.) it runs faster than XP, and on more lower end systems it's about the same as XP. (Though 512Mb and a PIII is a no-brainer - XP!)

What is all the moaning with Vista? It's under £100 to upgrade, and the hardware requirements for a home user / office user are about 1Gb RAM and a P4 or better. There's no graphics card requirement (other than to have one) to run Vista, just for the glass effect (Aero). Christ, my media centre PC was running Ultimate with an Athlon 1500+ and 512Mb!!!

So what actually is the issue with Vista? It can't be stability, features or cost. (It's as solid if not more so than XP, has more new or improved features than the change from 2000 to XP and it's under £100....)

Not to puncture the Linux community's inflated sense of superiority, but...

I've tried using Linux (various distros) as my primary OS on multiple occasions. On each occasion, I've had problems with Linux recognizing drivers. Sometimes, the problem was minor (could not get maximum resolution out of my video card and monitor), sometimes it was major (no network drivers, video drivers just did not work), but each time, there was something... SOMETHING... that didn't work right.

In the OS war, I'm an opportunist. Whoever is offering the best product for my needs gets my business. Generally speaking, MS gets my business because it offers the least headache during installation and the most functionality with regards to what I do. Linux would be great (I like free) if it (to steal a phrase) "just worked" with all of my stuff.

When Windows OSes don't support something, Microsoft is evil.

When Linux doesn't support something, it's the user's fault.

When OS X doesn't support something, it's a feature.

I never quite got that.

I'm glad there's a bit more balance these days - people for whom things have worked are posting alongside the minority with issues. I see [i]far[/i] more problems with people knee-jerkingly downgrading brand new systems to XP because "eny fule no" that Vista is crap.

Except on every machine I've ever used that has it, which have all been fine. Like this one. I have (SP1 is meant to have fixed it; we will see) an issue where USB HID devices are sometimes lost on waking from sleep. But to compare with that, I have a Linux laptop where I have to use an external USB wireless dongle because the builtin one only works with NDISWrapper and absolutely refuses to connect automatically on startup. I find the intermittent Vista bug less of an issue than the Ubuntu one which happens every time.

But that's just me. Everyone's experience is different.

Even though SP1 actually installed without issue, it hasn't stopped my ultimate planned migration to openSUSE, which actually works on 'obsolete-by-vista-standards' hardware much faster than vista on a 'meets-vista-requirements' box. (Which will ultimately become an even faster openSUSE box).

The attraction of vista is what again?

I have downloaded Vista SP1 on my home built PC and it is a dream no probs with it at all. Reading all the comments it would appear that there more not having problems than those having, makes me wonder if those having problems are trying to down load onto PC's shall we say are lacking on spec and would be better still running XP

People who were using vista with no problems, can install SP1 ok and still have no probelms...

People who have Installed Vista and are having problems, tend to get bent over and brutally sodomised some more....

I think I'll be sticking with XP for now ...

"So the list should be:

95

98

ME

XP

Vista

Now find a pattern."

So you've simplified it now. Obviously it is

95 crap

98

ME crap

XP

Vista crap

Can you see it now? Just trying to help.

I think what is missing here is that we are looking at OS generations in terms of M$ releases rather than technological capability.

Class 1: Dos

Class 2: Win 3.1, Win 95, Win 98, Win NT, Linux

Class 3: Win 2k, Win XP, Win Vista, MacOS

Class 4: TBA - possibly parallel processing, hardware layer, portable OS

Class 1 is very user unfriendy. You really need to know what you are doing to use it to do anything more than the simplest operations. Class 2 is much more user friendly, however, the vanilla installation is quite limited and you have to add on quite a lot just to make it usable (eg, install extra drivers for certain types of widespread, generic hardware). Class 3 is superior because it supports most generic harware immediately, and allows you to do much of what you want with only a few extra apps installed.

This classification system shows us that Linux is not really comparable with either XP, Vista or MacOS - it is an OS for hobbyists, not a general OS for casual users. This may change soon (ie Google) but at the moment that is how it is.

Out of the Class 3 software packages, the most versatile is clearly Win XP. It has the widest hardware support, the greatest range of freeware titles and the greatest range of payware titles. It is also the easiest to hack without funking up your computer, and is the one people will have used more than any other. MacOS is clearly the most stable, but that is to be expected - you get what you pay for!

However, it is worth pointing out one important and usually overlooked advantage with XP - the XP time frame has coincided with the sweet spot of many software titles, and those upgrading to latest M$ or MacOS versions will increasingly find themselves with software titles that have outlived their ideal development cycle lifetime. For example the best XP versions of Nero, Roxio, MS Office, Adobe Reader, IE, PhotoShop and WMP (arguably, the best version of WMP was v6.4) are in many ways better (cleaner) than the new bloated, noddy versions that make up the current crop of familiar softwar eversions.

The most common business model for software creation leads to the continuing 'improvement' of existing titles. Rather than taking a title and gradually honing it down to be efficient and reliable, companies have a compulsion to add unecessary functionality, fix what isn't broken (and thus stop it working as well) and change the GUI for no practical reason, forcing users to re-learn how to use the software. The Vista experience doesn't just include the usability of the OS, but also the usability of the software that runs on the OS. If users are forced to give up the best versions of the most common applications they use, then the Vista experience will be poorer than the XP one no matter how reliable or flashy the new OS is.

I expect that a large number of users wil stick with XP until Class 4 OSes come along. These will be ones that incorporate three ideas - parallel processing for 4 core, 8 core and above CPUs; VMWare type hardware layers to allow multiple OSes to run in parallel on a single system; portable OS environment that boots any computer from a flash drive or runs from the interweb.

No I dont belief this was not a so called NOT REAL RELEASE.

Its been a REAL released full of bugs just admit it. They already released the BETA and that had problems too.

Saying the real release is in a few weeks is weak REG WEAK!!!

As for you poor ITS JUST LINUX FANBOYS saying that. Yes thats right! We just converted! We use to be just like you! pain suffer pain suffer pain when we used M$ no thanks

You read it right... I installed Vista SP1 on my machine and it broke Office 2007. Outlook would not run at all. Nothing would fix it, repairing, reinstalling Office, installing the Office 2007 Service pack, nadda. Final option was calling Microsoft and they wanted a credit card number to proceed. Their Service pack for their OS broke their Office software!!!

After three days I was finally forced to format the whole machine and reinstall everything fresh to get it fixed. No joke, a complete format and reinstall from scratch...

Of course that wasnt the first or only problem. I work in a multi-lingual corporate environment where we have multiple language packs on every system so that our users from France, Germany, and China can all walk into the US offices and see the language set they are most comfortable with no matter what workstation they use. Low and behold, if you have any language packs installed (each are 800mb to 1.6gb downloads) you cannot install the service pack. Nor is there a multi-lingual version yet. All of the languages we use are available in seperate patches but useless to us as a whole because we deploy machines configured with them all. We are not about to go back and remove the language packs from a couple of hundred machines just to install service packs everytime. Then have to wait to download them again...

I have also had problems with Intel Raid drivers on the desktop after SP1. Wasnt Intel a Microsoft technology partner? So how the hell does a Service Pack break a trusted partners driver?

Luckily for the users, I was the only one saddled with a Visa machine at work, one desktop and one laptop for evaluation. Been stuck with them since Vista first came out and I am still not happy with it. I constantly use my older P4-2.4 ghz laptop with XP more often than a new dual core laptop running Vista, the XP machine is a lot faster and is three years older!

I uninstalled SP1 RC1 and rebooted, expecting to install the new SP1 (Final) on 64-bit WIndows Ultimate on my Dell Precision M4300. I now can't see any updates ever to Windows, can't install the full patch or even get Windows Update to search for new updates.

I've run CHKDSK, tried to use "SubInACL" to fix possible permission problems, run SFC and found files with problems that can't be fixed, and had the computer strangely not boot from scratch on multiple occasions--just flashing a cursor for a few minutes and not even accessing the hard drive.

The computer boots when not docked and does allow me to use Windows, but at this point I'm stuck. SubInACL should help, but doesn't work right on my 64-bit Vista.

This will take hours to fix, and has already taken hours to arrive where I am now.

Windows XP w/SP3 really is sounding like an awesome up(down)grade.

You poor poor pitiful bastards who use Vista.

You think bugfixpatch1 of many will make things better??

What is WRONG with you people????

Are your levels of expectation SO low that you don't demand more from an OS????

http://www.apple.com/getamac FFS

Ubuntu and variants disable automatic mounting of NTFS partitions by default, probably to safeguard partitions from inexperienced users who might screw up their Windows otherwise.

Simple and straight forward instructions to change this are on the Ubuntu web site. Similarly there are instructions to enabling writing to NTFS partitions.

Likewise: no problems whatsoever.

Runs like a dream and I don't know what everyone is raving about.

Actually runs faster than XP. ShockHorrorProbe ...

Well, I have used every MS OS except Vista, Slackware, Red Hat, and Ubuntu, not in any particular order.

By far my favorite OS is Ubuntu 6.06 (Dapper Drake). It works for me, I am comfortable in it, it works out of the box for most things, the rest I could get going pretty easily. All of the Microsoft OSes I've used worked better out of the box than Dapper, thats true. The problem is that it is for one reason only - drivers. If companies would make even a half-hearted attempt to support things in Linux it would be a million times better than it is now. (I still cannot believe that Lexmark does nothing with Linux at all, especially since it makes the Dell printers and Dells now ship with Ubuntu. I'd be pissed if I bought a laptop from Dell with Ubuntu and a Dell printer and they could not possibly work together.

I really liked Win2000 back in the day and XP pro got the job done for a while. That said, once I got comfortable in Linux and took a little bit of time to learn it, I love it much more than any MS product I have ever used. I know the argument is cliche, but I find it a lot more stable, flexible, useful, productive and comfortable than I ever did Windows. Switching to Linux can be like learning to use computers in general all over again.

I have never been able to do something under Windows that I could not under Linux. It might take some more time to figure out, but thats because you are using a new OS, fundamentally different.

For me, and OS shouldn't require "new equipment" or a powerful cmoputer to run, even XPs reqs were too much. An OS should be able to utilize those resources if available, and eye candy and extra features are great, I love them. But I can install Ubuntu on a brand new system and make use of all of its capabilities or I can install it on a ten year old system and it will run just fine, even be snappy to some extent and certanly usable if I use a little bit of sense when installing.

All that said, thinking back on my computing (pretty extensive) over the past 10-12 years I can definitely say that I like Linux a lot better and will probably never go back to a Microsoft product. I'm not going to say that MS is shit, etc; though you could make that case. But Linux can be shit for someone who does not know how to use it.

But, if you take the time to install a good distro and learn how to use it, the rewards will be great, and you will have a much more customizable, stable, fast computing experience.

Once again, just my thoughts and experience.

At the end of your story earlier this week regarding Apples big patch, you noted that Microsoft takes a more measured approach to updates. it thought it was a bit funny at the time and, in the light of this article, I now find it downright hilarious!

although upon reboot the windows desktop was backwards on my 2 22" flat panels. just had to go back into the 'still present' nvidia control panel and switch the monitors.

In that SP1 installed OK on my Toshiba Satellite running Vista Basic.

That said it has fiddled with the default settings that took ages to customise up when I first bought the computer, so every time I need to do something, I'm having to fiddle and reset stuff as I go along.

Annoying, but I'll live with that.

As for the benefits of faster copying and the like. Haven't seen it so far

Well, I have to say, it works perfectly for me on a Sun Ultra 20 with 4GB RAM, ATI graphics, nForce chipset etc...nothing wrong with it what so ever.

I think a lot of the 'problems' on here are due to user error, cheap hardware, bad installs, lots of shit installed..etc. Someone above said that they had a corrupt ntoskrnl.exe, well that is most likely bad RAM or a bad disk which has caused that. Vista HATES bad ram, and it also hates cheap hardware. ECC ram is a good idea for Vista too, it certainly increased the stability on mine.

People switching to Linux? Please......whatever...lol. Hahahaha! Rofl! Pmsl! If you can't get Vista working then you are completely screwed with Linux, but feel free, and live with problems for the rest of your computing life.

I think I have tried every current OS out there for desktop PC, and the only 2 that I have stuck with is OS X and Windows (XP and Vista).

I have used Linux off and on for years, ever since Red Hat 5 actually and yes, while it is a nice geeky toy and it might make you look clever, it's not much use in the real world, unless you are running a server, and even then it is a pain in the arse. I can't really think of anything good to say about Linux on a desktop...um...incompatibilies, messing around, things not working, no decent software....but the fanboys will defend all that naturally, because they are used to working with lower class software.

However, the reason why I have OS X is because firstly I have a Mac Pro, and it makes sense to run it on that, also, it is simple, easy, normally 'just works' and is rock solid stable.

The reason why I have Vista is because it is a dependable, reliable stable operating system, which is easy to use and 'just works' most of the time also. Also, there is a lot of software available for it, and it runs perfectly well on my hardware, probably because it isn't cheap junk. For information as well, a fresh bootup of Vista uses less RAM than OS X by about 500MB. So which is the most bloated there? ;-)

All OS's have their good points, and all have their bad points. I think Vista gets a lot of bad press about nothing, as it runs perfectly well and is very stable on good quality hardware with plenty of RAM, so if you have problems, think to yourself, maybe it is my £200 laptop and not Vista that is at fault...

Anyone that has half a brain, and a decent box, install SP1, you will not regret it...

Looks like they are getting better!

Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, WFW and Not There were all crap…

They did a halfway decent job with OS/2, but I imagine that had more to do with IBM than MS.

"This classification system shows us that Linux is not really comparable with either XP, Vista or MacOS - it is an OS for hobbyists, not a general OS for casual users. This may change soon (ie Google) but at the moment that is how it is."

If you want to argue that Linux is not a good choice for Joe Random home user then fair enough but to write it off as a hobbyist system is stretching it a bit. Linux is deployed widely in businesses large and small doing a myriad of jobs.

"Class 3 is superior because it supports most generic harware immediately, and allows you to do much of what you want with only a few extra apps installed."

So MacOS supports more generic hardware out of the box than Linux? Yeah, if it has an apple logo on it perhaps. Being picky and reading up on hardware before buying is still an important job for running any *nix it is true, but then it seems to be just as true for Vista. For that matter doing your homework before buying should be the rule not the exception.

As for being able to do more of what you want I've found that the main problem with many Linux distros is their kitchen sink defaults installing so many desktop environments and apps it is hard to tell what to use, though Ubuntu has that one licked. There aren't many day to day tasks that I find make me want to use one OS over another though.

Weird...had no probs with the RCs or the official.

And I really wonder how someone with a Premium version can update via WU.

Or how anyone can download the standalone version.

As mentiontioned it has been released for the ULTIMATE version and only for a few languages.

An Aussie can brabble as much as he likes, but as long as they call a woman a "sheyla" it's not english.

And for those, who installed the "standalone" version.

As long as you are not professionels and got it via technet, you should stop to wonder. The real thing is not out in the wild yet, not on emule or torren or the c00l FTPs.

Geesh...people will never learn that Vista is not the OS you must twiddle a bit here and there to work. Leave it alone, don't mess with it unless you really have to and it will run fine.

And just because some crappy beta drivers don't work is prolly the problem with the driver and not the OS.

98% of all computer related problems are user errors, and only 0.00001% of the rest writes here

@Some AC "My experience in IT has shown me that anytime there's a major release it will totally blow up some users machines."

Service packs aren't supposed to be a major release -- a major release would be going from 2000 to XP, not original to SP1, SP1 to SP2, etc. Having a serivce pack blow out people's systems is quite unimpressive.

@rob,

"So all the sceptics, I am unsure if you have ever used the OS or if you just like seeing your unguided voices in print on websites but give Vista a chance, it is not nearly as bad as its press of late."

I've seen it. It was slooow to boot (several minutes), ran like crap, thrashed a lot for no reason. It's at least as bad as it's press. The Microsoft "party line" is of course that I should upgrade or replace any system that isn't fast enough.. well, why should I? I can get full functionality (INCLUDING Aero-like desktop effects) on basically any system made since 2000 or so.

wolf:

"It's too expensive! It's too bloated! It won't run on my 386! It's using all my memory!!! Wah!"

My sentiments exactly! Vista *IS* too bloated and slow. I mean, sure, GBs of RAM and multi-ghz CPUs are cheap, but the OS should not be chugging this all for itself just to barely run. I recently saw Ubuntu boot up MUCH faster off a *LiveCD* than Vista did off the hard disk of a Toshiba Satellite. It was a core duo with 1GB of RAM... I know, someone's just going to say "Well, duh, you're supposed to have at least 2GB". Bull. An OS should NOT need 2GB just to boot. Ubuntu 7.10 is relatively bloated for a Linux distro, and it runs fine on a P3-866, 512MB, and a 20GB HD.. it is snappy and boots in about a minute flat. (Note.. my home computers are AthlonXPs, the P3 is an older work computer.) Core 2 Duo with 2GB? I've seen several Linuxes run on a system like this. It's ridiculous, it'll boot in like 15 or 20 seconds, and the desktop will come up so fast it pops up while the few second long startup sound is still playing. It's hard to use up that second GB though 8-).

"And these posters need to get a life--or better yet, a *clue*. If you can't make Vista run you sure as hell won't be running Linux."

If it's driver problems, perhaps true. If it's someone with a system that doesn't meet Vista's portly system requirements, well, the recommendation for even the most modern Linux distro is like 256MB of RAM, 4GB HD, and a P3 (and there's distros for lower end systems.) Realistically, any distro will run great on a P4, 512MB, 10GB or more HD.

@Skullfoot

If you're running 32-bit, Microsoft has just patched it to claim 4GB in use while actually still using 3GB. As much of a hater as I am, I don't blame this on Microsoft -- this seems to be a common limitatin to 32-bit OSes on Intel architecture, 512MB-1GB (or sometimes 2GB) of the 4GB address space is set aside for exclusive OS use, not available to applications. (Linux, other Windows versions, OS/2, etc. all suffer from this limitation unless you go 64-bit.)

@Steven Hewittt

"So what actually is the issue with Vista? It can't be stability, features or cost. (It's as solid if not more so than XP, has more new or improved features than the change from 2000 to XP and it's under £100....)"

Well, of course it can. Stability -- having an update kill a system is not stable. People have had plenty of stability complaints. Features and cost -- Microsoft has competition now! Comparing to older Microsoft OSes, you're right. Compared to Linux distros, OSX, etc., you are not... the features of Vista have been matched and surpassed by other OSes, and price has been beaten by some (and not beaten by others -- OSX costs a lot if you have to buy a Mac to run it for instance.)

“The only relatively stable operating systems have been those on proprietary hardware such as the IBM mainframe.”

Truer words are rarely spoken. They do tons of work too and many places that switched to other platforms are switching back.

IT? I think that is obvious…

to damn right. the only reason why OSX is so simple and 'compatible' is that it is only designed to run on a tight specification - machines designed and made by Apple.

you CAN get it to run on other x86 PCs these days since they changed the codebase to include x86 - but your x86 PC has to have the same component types as a Mac.

This was also the reason why other OSs were tight and simple to code - AmigaOS - only ran on Amigas - a standard class of motorola 680x0 driven systems with bespoke custom hardware ASICs , RiscOS , STOS etc. Digital UNIX/Tru64 - limited range of hardware support, SunOS - only those boxes from sun.. lets see what happens with Solaris .... BeOS went tits up as soon as they started supported x86 as well as PPC

I run Vista Home Basic in Virtualbox under Linux Mint on my laptop, so no pressure if it failed, SP1 took about 90 minutes with lots of aborted sessions when it kept crashing, but after about 10 restarts, including a file check, it installed. It does seem faster, but as I hardly ever use it I am not going to notice any benefit.

I installed Vista SP1 on a brand new Acer TravelMate 5720G 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo with a 512 MB ATI Radeon graphics card and 2 GB RAM running Vista Business Pro 32 Bit. No hitches, no problems and no fuss. Retro fitting Vista on older hardware has proved to be a problem in the past, but we have had no issues at all on newer machines that are designed with Vista in mind. The OS has its quirks, but it beats the hell out of most flavors of Linux and the like. Try installing Linux on a laptop if you want real problems! I have lived through the same griping, whining and complaining from it would seem the same group of people about XP, Windows 2000, Windows 98, Windows NT and Windows 95. The reality is that Microsoft, like them or not, provide a reasonably good OS that works without issue on the vast majority of devices it is intended for. If they are told about problems, they do their best to address them. On behalf of the millions of users who do not suffer any problems, and do not post negative and usually unhelpful comments on every public forum they can get access to, I have to say thanks for the SP1 upgrade, it has done its job.

I feel it is about time that people started to stop whining about the software and look past their blinkers to the root of the problems. The problems are NOT Microsofts else there would not be ONE system working with Vista. I have 5 mission critical systems here that are all running Vista in one flavour or another, and are all running SP1 with ZERO, NIL, NULL, NO problems whatsoever. Now these range from an old P4 550 3.4GHz with 1.5GB of RAM & nVidia GPU through a 2 year old Yonah based Centrino Core Duo notebook with 2GB RAM right up to my main video editing machine running a QX9850, 8GB RAM & Vista Ultimate x64. Zero problems since changing from XP back in October/November 2006!!!!!! Zero problems since installing the Service Pack as well. All machines have compatiable drivers for Vista (WHQL Certified) and I checked before even considering upgrading the OS. I don't know ONE person personally that has any problems with Vista on their machines, and the only problems I hear of are from faceless internet users who claim this & that but it is all fantasy.

There is no slow file transfer or deletion issues if you do one simple removal of a tick from Remote Differential Compression in the Windows Features section (but I forgot most of you lot wouldn't know where to look for this as you can barely figure out how to turn your computers on).

Even my wife who was dead set against going to Vista on her machine has commented on how much faster & efficient her machine is now over XP. She had read all the propaganda that the media reports on regarding Vista, and now she understands that it is all LIES.

Basically, if the readership of this and other sites are supposedly employed in an IT situation, then if they cannot configure a Windows machine to operate correctly then they shouldn't be working in the industry.

Paris Hilton - simply because she could configure a fully functioning Vista box which it seems the majority of so-called IT employees cannot do!!!!!

in nice bold letters - DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: wonder how many followed this advice

When I replaced an old Toshiba laptop with a high end Asus laptop with Vista HP on it I firstly found UAC to be a stupid persistant nuisance- so I switched it off.Then I found that all the pointless gadgets slowed everything to a crawl, so I switched them off.

Finally when I installed Firefox as my broswer in place of Internet Explorer so the world and his dog didi not have access to my computer. the desktop froze solid when I clicked a link in Firefox- and all this on a laptop with an Intel core 2 Duo processor, which did not appear to be any quicker than my Toshiba with a Celeron.

So it was back to XP- which would not dual boot as M$ said it would-and a recovery install of Vista which, unobstructed , took 1 hour and 55 minutes.I only want XP to shop at Tesco.

A 20 minute download and thirty minute install of Fedora 8 found my video card my lan and my wireless connections without intervention and it boots up faultlessly in under thirty seconds.

Fan boy? Bitter experience! I have never had a blue screen with any flavour of Linux.

Fair enough. But the point here is that *I* have had similar problems with Ubuntu and SuSE in different environments. And just as my bad experiences with them does not mean that "Linux is crap", any individual's experiences with Vista do not mean "Vista is crap".

Horses for courses as they say. When there is a *native* Linux equivalent to Windows domains, Group Policy and SMS, then I would consider Linux on the desktop where I work. Until then, it has to be Windows, with all its attendant issues. That's because my needs - in a systems team of three for three thousand users, most of whom are not particularly skilled in IT and for whom it's peripheral, if important, to their roles - require a very high level of control, automation, inventory reporting and controlled customisation. That Linux doesn't meet my needs doesn't make it bad, just not for me in my current role. Similarly, that Vista doesn't meet some other people's needs doesn't make it bad, just not for them in their circumstances.

I'm using Vista at home because of Media Centre. Yep. Pensioned off the telly. Saved me buying a hard disk recorder. I understand there's a Linux alternative, but experience tells me it would take a week to tweak it to my requirements.

“The only relatively stable operating systems have been those on proprietary hardware such as the IBM mainframe.”

To a point. Remember all that teeth gnashing during Sun's big switchover from SunOS/68000 to Solaris/SPARC in the early 1990's? Solaris 2.0-2.3 were abominations, barely runnable on Sun's own SPARC hardware. 2.4 was finally stable enough to be a release candidate for testing, but it wasn't until 2.5 that Solaris could be considered production-ready. (5 minor OS versions in 3 years?!) But to concede your point, Solaris x86 (then) was just a horrible joke for frightening small children, barnyard animals, and systems managers.

I'll admit though that I still miss my ALPHAbook laptop running OpenVMS AXP. It was certainly easier to lug around than any VAX kit.

Successfully updated last night with a few hars in me

-- dual core 64bit intel 2GB RAM, SATA, HD graphics, etc etc, i.e.: a pretty decent spec box.

Everything seems to still work post upgrade, however, vista is still as rubbish as it was before the update.

What a piece of crap. I have a 4 year old P4 which I also updated to 2GB RAM, which runs XP and is about ten times faster than the new box under the HD Telly.

Vista is rubbish, I have everyting disabled, no aero, no "networking", no tablet PC, no games, nothing. And it's STILL DOG BLOODY SLOW.

Sorry MS, but the fanboys who think its great are talking crap.

I write to you on my 4 year old XP box... nice.

Did not back up first!

Was feeling daring with my home made "white box" MItac PC hand built by an idiot; me ( I must be because I installed Vista 64 bit!

Realtek video too!

At last the OS does not try to map every network drive as I open MY computer to cruise to the C drive or the shortcut that always took milliseconds to load in XP but took 1 minute with pre-SP1 Vista 64 bit.

Very happy with the result just need to find a wifi card that works with vista 64 bit!

Paris because she designed Vista!

Lessons learned from these postings, let me see:

1) I installed Vista and SP1 successfully, ergo everyone else should have no problems, they must be idiots.

2) I love Vista and MS, so you should too.

3) I love Macs, please join me in bed.

4) I love Linux, everyone jump in bed (Open Source, all join in!)

5) I had problems with Vista and SP1, MS must be to blame.

6) MS are evil because they make money.

7) I must upgrade because a new OS has been released.

Having noted that, I have never looked at a Vista machine, too many scary stories out there. Whether I am correct or not, I have not had the need to upgrade to Vista, Windows XP does everything I want to do. I do not want to upgrade "just because a new OS has been released". I am currently running Windows XP on my desktop and Ubuntu 7.10 (Trying to expand my knowledge) and yes, Ubuntu has it's problems.

Can someone please tell me, What is the purpose of moving from XP to Vista? From what I can glean from the postings:

- Flashy interface

- DRM (You are playing a DVD you purchased, therefore you are a pirate)

- Excuse to purchase new hardware and throwaway your old, working XP system? (Hi honey, I'm home. I had to purchase this $6000 computer because it supports Vista)

If these are the only reasons, why would you want to change from XP to Vista? Any new OS has to offer far more than a pretty interface to justify it's existence. That can be seen from the list that was issued above. All the Windows that had some new feature, like 32 bit, better security, etc, did a lot better. MS bashing is fun, but as John Munyard said, above, instead of getting bigger, flashier they need to design a smarter system. MS have the resources to build a new OS from the ground up, build in backward software support and still have an OS which can do the job.

Well that rambling should give "amanfrommars" a run for his money!

I choose Paris cause she has a flashy interface and is a good excuse to upgrade.

I'd really like to do business with you. So you spend some unknown money for an operating system, fine. Then you download some 400 MB of service pack, wait an hour, several reboots, your "Nvidia 6150 graphics card - no probs", "ac97 sound etc etc all still working fine."

And what is the result? Here you go, spot on!:

"Haven't really noticed a difference, but I run Vista pretty pared down anyway. Copying files is def. improved tho'."

400+ MB, waiting an hour, file copying has improved. And you give it a 'thumbs up!' rating.

You see what I give to you (since you're not doing business with *me*) on the left hand side.

No. 69MB Download. Not 400+. I wish people would actually read before posting. The 400MB download is the administrative install for people who have whole networks of machines to upgrade. I like SP1 because my Vista is definitely faster since the upgrade (and it's always been pretty nippy under my 1GB machine, at least since I took Norton's crap off) and it's resolved the HID resume from sleep issue.

I have installed SP1 on a fw customers (and my own PC) no reported problems files copying and deletion much faster now. On old PCs with little real memory it is gonna run crap. Vista needs 1GB to run once you still antivirus software on it (as does OS X 10.5)

I received my update via auto update and everything went well

........file transfers between disks (I have may of them) is hugely improved. Gone from about 2-6MB/sec to 60+MB/sec (bytes not bits).

Installed easily. No driver issues with my e-SATA set-up, nVidia 8800GTS or Creative X-Fi.

what's the problem, didn't these people ever hear of Ghost?

i chose bill (the good one) because for once microsoft are actually doing something good for the IT evolution... kulling off millions of users who cannot use.

Installed Vista SP1 only to find that it had managed to code10 my DVD drive. Searched for a fix online and couldn'd find any way to fix it. Ended up trying a fix MS had supplied for XP. Surprise suprise no fix here. Uninstalled SP1 made no difference. Ended up having to do a system restore back before SP1 was installed. Low and behold everything works.

I have had no other problems up till now with Vista.

Be warned SP1 is flaky.

Having rushed in to upgrade my vista laptop to sp1 I am now unable to get rid of an adhoc mode wifi connection created to temporarily transfer files between my two laptops, there doesnot seem to be any way to get rid this despite sevral reboots and attempts to clean the registery.

You running your drives in AHCI?

I was dual booting, decided to give SP1 a go. It installed fine.

I then tried doing a complete reformat (as I have image backups of my XP install), setting my drives to AHCI and doing a fresh install. Everything worked until I applied SP1 then sure enough, code 10 with my DVD.

Did another fresh install without AHCI and all is fine.

Yet again, the usual Mac and Linux fanbois have a dig at Microsoft. Im sick of people bitching about them, becuase they do produce a fairly decent o/s that manages to run on allot of hardware with few serious problems. If you don't like the o/s then don't use it !! Stick to your ghey Mackintosh system !

Doesn't seem much different though, but then I didn't have much in the way of problems to start with.

Doesn't it strike everyone as a bit odd that an update to an operating system should break things right, left and center? Someone remarked about how Linux breaks everything all the time but that's not true -- Linux is always updating stuff and everything just works. Microsoft seem to have several basic problems. One is that they can't keep the syscall interfaces straight, instead of depreciating an interface they just change it. Randomly, so you get the maximum of compatibility issues. Then you've got a culture of denial; only 'approved' stuff gets to work (which should cause people to ask the question about 'who's computer is it anyway?'). Then you have a tortuous integration of components; while everyone else is working on ways to modularize MSFT just integrates so that any problem and the whole system dies. All these things are software design problems, the sort that everyone knows about, but somehow they've just got to do their own thing. Its like the company is full of 1980s era whizz-kid programmer throwbacks.

So I'll miss the eyecandy and go for a working computer. If I need an excess of style I can always use an Apple.

Bill is always clamoring for more H1B workers - is it correlated with the quality of Windows?

People here are saying they stopped installing linux due to the default screen being 800x600 at some point or making comments about the number of drivers available.

Well ... its different, if you can't accept that it will take a learning curve to use why did you bother.

Also as for drviers, if i paid as much for Vista i want EVERY driver working, that is what the payment is supposed to cover (patents etc).

So use Linux or OSX if you have half a brain, wait for sp2 if you dont, but in the meantime my machines are all still flying along while windows numpties lash out at linux for being better, using FUD thats years old.

It seems to me there are two camps on Vista; Microsoft people and the rest of the world.The only people praising Vista are the Microsoft types! The rest of the world hates it and are going back to XP if they can. Wake up and smell the coffee Microsoft!

Because they are crap under Vista (and a certain extent XP as well), GFX cards generate random DTR's and BSODs Nvidia hasn't fixed it yet in over 12 months, Nforce2 and 3 chipsets are not supported under Vista (or anything at all anymore), I will not be buying anything from this cunch of bunts again.

SP1 work fine on my x2 with VIA chipset and Radeon 9600XT. Also went without a hitch on my Dell Inspiron 1520. One ultimate, one Home Premium. File copy is faster for sure, but other than that no real disernable difference.

First Microsoft annoyed the hardware makers so they are slow to produce drivers. Then they annoy the developers, tech support and users.

Most of the control panels and tweeks are still there but are hidden under a layer of unhelpful wizards. Getting Wireless to work is now even more confusing with three places to switch the WiFi on to make it work. Poor hardware and software integration even with drivers that work.

Windows is too important to the worlds computing to get it this wrong. If computers are important then they have just been globally downgraded. They have set computing back by 5 years.

Vista works but is it honestly an improvement over XP?

XP is a mature and usable opeating system but can be difficult and time consuming to get everything to work.

Linux tends to install with ease with no driver problems. Occasionally you have to try a different Linux to get the best result.

Most people buy a computer with the OS already installed and only ever do upgrades via the automatic upgrade. It will be interesting to see if automatic upgrades break preinstalled Vista computers.

I installed SP1 on my Dell Latitude D410 and then on my Dell Inspiron 530 with no problems. No devices fell off or broke, no weird errors, no BSOD ... it certainly took a while to install but it got there in the end.

The GUI definitely feels snappier, file copying is back to a decent XP-like sort of speed, Internet Explorer has stopped crashing and Vista *finally* recognises all of the 4GB of RAM in the Inspiron. This is what Vista should have been like in the first place. It's still not as stable or as quick as XP but at least it's more usable after SP1 has been installed. So, a qualified "thumbs up" but only on the basis that SP1 has fixed things that shouldn't have been broken in the first place.

One for the "but Linux sucked" brigade:

Around a month ago, I bought a new, cheap laptop with Home Basic on it, partitioned the hard drive and installed Mandriva in one portion. The Mandriva works fine, all the 3D effects that I didn't get with the Basic version of Vista work fine out of the box. I can also choose the language, unlike Vista which remains in Spanish 'cause I live in Spain and Microsoft want to force me to spend more than the price of the laptop to view English words. That's fine, I'm learning Spanish anyway.

However, the laptop was unusable for my needs in the Vista partition because my brand new, out of the box installation couldn't handle file copying across my home network. That seems fixed now with SP1 but don't know if it's caused me any new problems yet. I wouldn't use Vista if it weren't for the fact that I need to support this turd at work so need to become familiar with the way it works (or doesn't).

So, brand new laptop preinstalled with Vista = barely usable. New Linux installation on same hardware = perfection. I'd be mad but it was a cheap laptop (€400 before discounts).

Having seen many a BSOD, I installed WU SP1 and found it to work flawless, but remembering days of past horrors. At first I hated Vista on an underpowered HP laptop and sold it on ebay within 3 weeks of buying last fall. I upgraded my wifes laptop for XMAS and found see made the transition with no problems. She is my beta tester. I even got Office 2000 to work including Outlook. So I thought I would give Vista another shot and prices were reasonable compared to Apple. I thought I would make the switch, but did that in 2003 and it only lasted 6 months. I couldn't live with out a 2 button mouse and shareware. Besides I am still running 2000 Advanced Server on my desktop. So having given Vista another try, I like it and SP1 went with out a hitch. All programs still work. Looking to live with Vista for at least 5-7 years, after all, I got 6 good years from XP. Maybe the world isn't as bad as it could be, but it is getting better. Looking forward to the next 8 years of maybe some Peace on Earth and a kinder and gentler MS with touch screen. Google should buy Apple. Love the one your with and the love you give will be returned in the end. Open source is great if you have the time, but my time is of too much value. Leave it to those who burn the midnight oil, my time has passed. Peace

Vista Sucks. Yes, that is clear. I don't care how many people post on forums such as this and say its user error, or my system works. Microsoft has been as successful as they are because they have understood that operating systems need to work on a wide range of computer hardware. The fact that every single piece of hardware you bought always worked on windows meant that windows was the system of choice for most company and home desktops. With Vista Microsoft has broken that rule, and unless they do a lot of back-tracking I can see them losing out some market share.

Of course, the amount of market share that they lose will be limited by the fact that the opposition is crap. With a capital C. Linux is limited at best. Most people will have a number of software apps that just won't run on Linux. Whether that be games, or commercial CAD packages, or one of a whole sackful of other apps. Linux is also not the greatest platform for stability either. It doesn't ringfence bad memory like Solaris does, and most large server farms I know about schedule reboots on a regular basis for both Windows and Linux. Apple's offering is just crippleware. They have taken a pretty reasonable OS (Linux) and crippled it so that it runs on hardly any hardware and runs a minimal subset of software. Nice for the fanbois who wants to spend a fortune on custom hardware, but pretty pointless for any real work. That's why business penetration of Apple's is microscopic compared to either Linux or Windows.

So in summary, Vista is without a doubt dreadful. But unless the opposition pull their finger out, Microsoft won't be getting scared yet.

Hmm, something doesn't sit right here. You are using Home Premium with a 'high end' Asus laptop. If it's really a high end Asus laptop why don't you use the default install that came with the machine (which *will* be Ultimate, with all drivers installed etc - it's what Asus uses for it's high end machines). For the last 6 years I've ran high end Asus laptops (Currently running 2 * W2 machines using Vista) and they run like a dream, and install like a dream). If you're using HP then you are most probably using a mid range Asus machine, in which case i have no idea what your performance will be.

The only issue I have had is my latest (a W2W) crashed and the power options went crazy when I installed all the drivers. Managed to fix this with a vanialla OEM install disk - contacted Asus and they requested the PC be sent back for a hardware fix. Wonder how many people who have had crash issues out of the box actually have a broken computer, but just blame the OS for the troubles...

I have installed Vista SP1 on my Media Centre, wife's PC and my high performance gaming machine and it installed and worked flawlessy in each case Absolutely no complaints at all. All machines are running theHome Premium edition.

Under SP1 the system is snappier from a response point of view, boots and opens applications faster (I've had no issues with Nvidia or Realtek drivers either).

So from my point of view SP1 is great, get on and install it. If you don't like it then you can uninstalls it too.

If they have been gullible enough to use Vista, they can suffer the consequences..

Finally a comment which hits the nail on the head.

I admin windows, mac and have some dealings with Unix boxes. They have all had their glitches and issues when patching.

Do you think that Microsoft have every combination of Hardware imaginable....no, do Unix developers have the same.....no, can Apple test all available hardware with all the software out there.......no

Those truely IT would not comdem the likes of M$ but work with them so a few less Hardware/Software combinations will work in harmony

Remember this without problems most IT (myself included) employees would be redundant.

However has anyone noticed how well your systems run when there are no users......... ;-)

Better get my coat

Sorry VISTA SUX.. end of..

Why!

For Linux I paid ZERO $$$$$$ and it works and has It problems..

So NO LOSS if there is a few bugs. Its just cost some of my time.

I also don't have to sell my Soul for a EULA.

For Vista and other M$ I DID PAY $$$$ so I would expect something for my money.

So if it has Bugs it cost me $$$$$ and cost me lots of my time (When same problems come back again and again or they just disable things like they see fit)

I have to sell my Soul for a EULA.

UNLESS YOU LIKE TO PAY FOR THINGS WHAT NEVER WORK and WORK LIKE A SLAVE FIXING THE SAME PROBLEM AGAIN AND AGAIN.... Oh you must be a M$ guy.

Do you now understand the diff?