Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Preston Gralla's picture
Preston Gralla

Seeing Through Windows

Microsoft was right to delay SP1 release

Microsoft is taking a lot of heat by announcing that Vista SP1 is ready, but then not making it available for the general public until some time in March. But Microsoft made the right move by delaying launch -- if SP1 were out today, plenty of people would be having very serious driver problems.

As Computerworld's Eric Lai reports, Microsoft delayed launching SP1 because of incompatibilities between the service pack and drivers on peoples' machine. Microsoft won't necessarily be fixing those drivers before launch. Instead, it is tracking down which drivers cause problems, and then ensuring that Microsoft Update, or some other method, will block SP1 from being installed on hardware with potential driver glitches.

It's clearly the right move to delay launch. So why did Microsoft announce that SP1 had gone gold so far in advance of launch? After all, Microsoft could have simply waited until March to make the announcement.

The problem is that there's no way Microsoft could have kept the finished state of SP1 secret; word was bound to leak. And once it did, the rumor mill would have gone into overtime, attributing various evil intentions to the delay.

This is yet one more instance of being damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Microsoft delayed SP1, and is taking heat for it, but it would have taken a lot more heat -- and done the wrong thing -- by rushing SP1 out the door.

What People Are Saying

Lovin it !

I've been using Vista since the off. After switching off UAC of course. I have to say I'm impressed with it - totally. Granted I work in IT and am paid to know what I'm doing but, frankly speaking, it's caused no issues, is faster than XP on my new Dell and I've not had a single problem with it - at all.

It was time for a change - if you don't like change then stick with CPM (86 of course!).

It's definitely not going to go the ME route so don't hold your breath on that one. I would, however, like to see SP1 prior to my users though !

Not releasing it to the

Not releasing it to the general public may be a good idea, but not releasing it to MSDN TechNet and MSDN Professional Subscribers is a big mistake. These are the guys who actually test the thing with systems in production, handle the driver issues, fix compatibilities, etc. Microsoft has stated that these people will not receive the update until the same time as the general public. This is a HUGE mistake and a total lack of comprehension by Microsoft management of how things work in the trenches.

So, yes, delay release of SP1 to the general public for a month, and delay release via windows updates for 2 months, but make the update available to I.T. professionals, developers, testers, and other PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT STAFF so they can do their jobs and begin testing.

The worst case scenario here is that the masses get SP1 before the software support professionals do, and now they start getting inundated with questions and problems that they had no way to prepare for or test against.

Sticking With XP Until Microsoft 7

Before Vista's official release last year I had heard Beta Testers comment on how it seemed to bog down most systems. I was angling to make a new computer purchase, an HP dv9000 series CTO notebook. Custom built of course to my requirements (loaded to the hilt for power and performance. Unfortunately I placed my order scant days after Vista's release and HP would only give me 5 or 6 'flavors' of Vista to choose from. Figured I'd go with Ultimate 64 bit in hopes that if it didn't run well that updates and service packs would improve it. Right out of the box the machine was a slug. It took longer to do it's first-time-on setup than it would take to do a fresh full install of XP Pro. Aside from a pretty interface, it was down hill from there. Constant questions "Are You Sure You want To *insert action here*?" every time I wanted to make a change, or install a program. This drove me nuts, good thing that can be turned off. And the incompatibilities with most devices and applications at the time was mind-boggling. I found the system in general to be severely lacking of any real performance, then discovered the reason.... too much overhead in the Kernel. Some 75 processes running as soon as the machine is turned on (about 10 of which are for HP hardware) as opposed to around 25 for XP. I'm sure that's not the only reason, but was enough for me to decide to yank that hard drive, install a new one and do a fresh XP Pro install. Need I tell you what a difference that made in the exact same machine?

Microsoft 7 is reported to have a much smaller Kernel, I think Microsoft might have figured out what they did wrong with Vista. May as well shoot Vista between the eyes, since it seems the only machines it runs reasonably well on are ones that are extremely high powered (maybe 8% of the market). I still have that original hard drive with Vista Ultimate, and plan on putting it back in the machine to run SP1 and try it out again. Not holding my breath though. Instead I eagerly await the release of what is now called Microsoft 7. I think that OS may hold some promise, as long as Microsoft remembers why Vista wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms by the general computing public.

vista

I built a computer just for vista 64 bit
this is the spec.
Antec P182 Super Midi Tower Case alluminium finished
Antec NeoHE 550W Modular ATX2.0 PSU
Motherboard ASUS P5WDG2 PRO
Intel Core2 Quad 2.40 gigahertz processor
Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce 7900GS
Zalman CNPS9700-NT nVidia Tritium CPU Cooler
2 Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB SATA-II 32MB Cache
USB Corsair flash voyager 4GB
RAM OCZ 8GB PC2-6400C5 800MHz Quad Channel Platinum Low Latency XTC Series DDR2
LG GGW-H20L Blu-Ray x6 Rewriter & HD-DVD ROM Serial ATA
LG GSA-H66NBAL 18x DVD±RW IDE Dual Layer ReWriter

and its running much faster than any of the three other machines I have using XP PRO 32bit
so when seven comes out I will wait until they have ironed out the problems once this service patch and the drivers are sorted out vista has got to be the best yet.
and I have been building my own since the start back with 3.1 and had every version since,the trouble with most people and vista is they try to put it on an old machine thats not up to the specs needed and then they wonder why they have problems

ur right. i build a system

ur right. i build a system just for vista. and this is by far the fastest system I have ever had. No problems with compatibility here. No overclocking, just stock setup, didn't have to overclock, this thing is fast.

Heres is what I have:

K9A2 Platinum Motherboard
AMD Phenom 9500
Diamond ATI Radeon HD 3870
3gb of ram at 1066mhz, would of had 4gb but one stick came bad.
5 hard drives, no raid, just plain old setup, about 4tb of space, which is full already.
3 dvd burners w/ lightscribe
1 blu ray burner
Coolermaster Cosmos Tower

Vista so far has been less than worthwhile

So far I've found Vista less than ideal and have discouraged clients from Vista. The clients I have who insisted on Vista have since reverted to XP. Most complain about slow network performance, issues with large file copies and one client is in the gaming industry and complain of sluggish gaming performance.

While I hope Vista addresses many issues from what I've read even the "fixes" in SP1 will not really make it perform as well as XP. My testing on even the newest Core 2 CPUs with 4 gigs of ram on tweaked systems show Vista is a slug. The patches only improve performance; they don't make it compete with XP on the same equipment. Hopefully Microsoft will learn from Vista and make performance the first priority in Windows 7. Windows 7 should run as fast as XP on P4’s and faster than XP on Core2’s. Network performance should be better on Windows 7 than on XP on both old and new equipment. It escapes me how MS couldn’t divine this nugget in Vista.

MS was wrong to release Vista

Vista is the worst piece of crap MS has ever released and yes, I remember BOB, Clippy and Windows ME - those were far better products than Vista. At least MS knew when to call it quits with Windows ME and BOB - no service packs, no prolonged life - no iron lung - just let it go DNR.

When tire manufacturers manufacture something as defective as Vista - they go out of business. Other companies would have stopped producing a product as damaged as this (unless they are produced in China where regulations are a little looser but in the end the person in charge might take a bullet to the head - just something to think about, Steve).

I haven't given up on MS yet although I sure don't get the warm fuzzies about Ballmer - makes me long for the cuddly days of Bill Gates. Anyone remember MS spending nearly as much time, effort or money trying to get another product off the ground? Time to let this lead zepplin crash - just my opinion of course.

I used Vista Beta for at

I used Vista Beta for at least 9 months prior to its release, and was horrified at the problems at first. Within a month or so into the beta, they improved, and then improved even more with one of the final release candidates.
The day Vista shipped, I bought the Ultimate version and was disappointed in HP drivers and a few other quarks that had developed. However, when Creative, HP, and Nvidia posted new drivers, my system returned to smooth sailing. I am now using SP1 beta and loving it even more…
However, I know there will always be someone out there who feels like installing software without reading the directions, without ensuring their system is compatible, and without do their updates first, and then complaining when all doesn’t work as it should. It is really sad that SP1 is delayed, but I think this move from MS proves they are doing everything they can!