SP1 really sucks. Big time

[crewzen]

This has done in two of my computers now.

I just got the latest update form MS and it took a long time. When it finally re booted it BSOD and kept BSOD and now it in a loop of restarting and BSOD.

Vista 64 Ultimate was working pretty good until now. Now nothing but BSOD.
This was an auto update with MS. Pretty crapy of a SP1. This should realy impress companies since I am on a $7,000.00 work station that is only 1 year old. Not a good sign. Time for companies to run not walk away from this Vista crap. At last count it has restarted 26 times now. Without a good reboot. Can not even get safe mode to work. It just keeps cycling.

Three days of work down the tubes. What a really reliable Operating System!!!!!!
:mad::mad::(:(

Even tried to go back to last good time. Still will not go into windows Vista.... BAd BaD BAD baD

[TechieSooner]

Try as I might, I cannot see a question anywhere in that post.

So, are you just complaining, or looking for help?

[Dan_D]

SP1 works fine for me. It has been for several weeks now.

BTW: Whining because you didn't have the foresight to save your work and back it up just makes you look like a jackass.

Another thing I'd have to comment on is the fact that your machine was running auto updates in a business enviroment in the first place. That's just stupid. You need to have patch testing proceedures in place and furthermore you really should use an internal WSUS server and deploy your tested updates that way. Not doing so in a company enviroment is just rediculous. If you are in charge of IT over there you should be ashamed of yourself. If you aren't then you should go and tell the IT people that they need to quit now because more than likely they are doing virtually everything wrong.

[xxEIEIOxx]

Try as I might, I cannot see a question anywhere in that post.

So, are you just complaining, or looking for help?

Looks like a complaint to me. And since it was just released today, would it have auto updated for anyone yet? Even if they were pushing it that way, wouldn't this have happened tomorrow, not today?

[Dan_D]

Looks like a complaint to me. And since it was just released today, would it have auto updated for anyone yet? Even if they were pushing it that way, wouldn't this have happened tomorrow, not today?

Right. It shouldn't be available as an auto-update today.

[seithon]

I did it today, works fine system is speedier then ever :)

And you lost your data? to goddamn bad.
Make your backups in future and think before accepting major system updates.

[leSLIe]

don't blame Vista, blame Bill Gates :)

[cv643d]

I just updated and had some strange bugs.

If I only knew about Ubuntu and Parallels before installing Vista Ultimate :(

And the bugs from before have not gone away. Those bugs are so obscure I have trouble googling an answer for them.

It is truly pathetic you need to "backup your system" before running an OS patch in 2008 for the so called industry standard OS.

[Dan_D]

It is truly pathetic you need to "backup your system" before running an OS patch in 2008 for the so called industry standard OS.

First off SP1 is more than a patch. It is a collection of new updates and it contains several existing updates. Service packs have been known to cause issues in some rare cases. Before doing anything major to a system (like istalling a service pack!) you should always make sure your critical data is backed up FIRST.

Typically regular patches aren't a big deal and I generally install them without worrying too much but I wouldn't be so careless or naieve when installing a service pack.

[FlyinBrian]

I didnt get bsod but i got update failed to install error 3 times now. So I guess I wont be using sp1 anytime soon.

[xxEIEIOxx]

First off SP1 is more than a patch. It is a collection of new updates and it contains several existing updates. Service packs have been known to cause issues in some rare cases. Before doing anything major to a system (like istalling a service pack!) you should always make sure your critical data is backed up FIRST.

Typically regular patches aren't a big deal and I generally install them without worrying too much but I wouldn't be so careless or naieve when installing a service pack.

Agreed! A Service Pack is a major OS update. Your system should be backed up, and you should disable/uninstall any AV or other running software that would interfere with the update. I have updated 5 machines with SP1, and have had no issues. Not that others won't by any means, but you must be prepared for the possibility.

[Sparkyy]

*knock on wood* I have yet to encounter any problems with any service packs that come out, and I am going back to Windows 2000 because I don't think Win98SE had service packs? I don't remember, but any case I think some just jump on the band wagon to be first or be on the cutting edge. Well remember that the cutting edge is just that, it will kick your ass on occasion!
I just installed Vista SP1 while I was at work and only hoped my pc came back up from the 3 reboots required to install it. All is fine in the world and actually speedier.
If you were using this as a production computer then I agree with these posters, sucks for you that you didn't back up. Backups are done not because you should HAVE to use them again but are there for the unforeseen event that MIGHT happen.
Reformat, go back to XP for a few years and try again.

[crewzen]

It took 3 days to load all my software that is my work. There is no way to reboot and save the OS that I can see. If this wasn't an auto update I would have nothing to say but you should know better. But when the auto checks things and they are OK and it screws up, then someone isn't doing there work at MS Audrey!!

[DeaconFrost]

If this wasn't an auto update I would have nothing to say but you should know better.
What should people know better? Didn't several people state that it is not an auto-update? I can't say on my end, because I've been running SP1 on three systems with no issues, but my installs were all manual installs from a disc. I would be EXTREMELY surprised if SP1 was pushed out on anyone.

[markt435]

It is truly pathetic you need to "backup your system" before running an OS patch in 2008 for the so called industry standard OS.

um no. if you install anything major, you need to back things up. this goes for ANY OS. its ignorant and stupid to think otherwise. in my case? i don't care. i store my important stuff off computer and if shit happens then i'll just reload everything no questions asked if i can't fix it.

[SkullE]

I'm on my 5th try to install it.

Uninstalled AVG
disabled windows firewall
Shut down all running taskbar programs near clock
running System file checker before last try. sfc /scannow (in admin mode in case your wondering)

I'm giving up after this and will do a complete OS wipe sometime in the distant future

[ND40oz]

Right. It shouldn't be available as an auto-update today.

It isn't, I approved new updates on WSUS this afternoon, it's not on there. They just released IE7 as a critical update on WSUS, it's going to be awhile before Vista SP1 makes it there.

[xxEIEIOxx]

It took 3 days to load all my software that is my work. There is no way to reboot and save the OS that I can see. If this wasn't an auto update I would have nothing to say but you should know better. But when the auto checks things and they are OK and it screws up, then someone isn't doing there work at MS Audrey!!

I don't think any of us are buying to auto update story. If you're unhappy, go buy a mac. :D

[AMD_Gamer]

in read that they are going to deploy it through windows update, how do i make sure it does not install by itself as vista automatically installs updates and restarts your machine every so often, without disabling automatic updates?

my system is a nice gaming rig and i have not had any problems with vista64, rock solid, very fast and i don't want any trouble from SP1

[SkullE]

5th time failed. I QUIT

[Arainach]

You won't have any. I've now installed it on 3 machines without a single glitch.

[crewzen]

Well I am doing a new install and do all the updates first before any programs. So I can see if it is some of the programs I use. Which I have many very expensive ones. So in a few more hours I should know if it was the OS or the programs. Then I can narrow it down.

What fun. I change things too ofter to use a back up. Its easier just to do A new Install.

[dat722]

yo is there a significant update? should i even bother?

[DeaconFrost]

yo is there a significant update? should i even bother?
Significant? Yes, service packs are quite significant.

[TechieSooner]

yo is there a significant update? should i even bother?

That's just like asking if you should update at all.

Yes- it is a beneficial update.

[RushFan]

5th time failed. I QUIT

Run msconfig and select "Selective Startup" then uncheck the "Load startup items" checkbox then try to install the SP.

[SkullE]

trying that one more time. cross your fingers.

[Archer75]

works fine for me. I've done it on 32bit and 64bit. I've done the beta versions of SP1 and the final version. No issues anywhere.

[SkullE]

nope failed. Don't want to reinstall. the Conan beta is way too big to download it again.

[RangerSVT]

You won't have any. I've now installed it on 3 machines without a single glitch.

2 laptops and my primary desktop, running fine :) My network speeds have finally increased.

[DeaconFrost]

nope failed. Don't want to reinstall. the Conan beta is way too big to download it again.
What exactly is failing? Are you getting an error message, a BSoD, something else?

[Skillz'n Magic]

SP1 worked great. Yay! Can't wait to install it on my laptop.

[MJCfromCT]

Installed via Windows Update a few hours ago. No issue with the install and seems to be running fine. I ran 3DMark06 before and after, no significant change, but I don't know if improved 3D performance was one of the things SP1 was going to address.

[DeathFromBelow]

I downloaded the stand-alone version and updated all five of my systems without a hitch. Everything is working fine for me.

[Uberbob102000]

Working perfectly for me as well. Installed on 6 systems today. It's not automatic either. WU will download it but you HAVE to accept some things to install it.

[Sparkyy]

I wish I had more machines :( but my install went without a hitch.
Odd thing was that MSN Messenger looked like it was reinstalling again :confused: but then it opened up like normal so I don't know what that was about. Otherwise flawless so far.

[mpeg4v3]

Oh, the joys of using my friend's technet 64-bit SP1-integrated Vista Ultimate DVD to install it Sunday using a 32-bit key off a student upgrade version I got from the college bookstore for $10.

No problems so far, activated fine and everything, and Vista with SP1 is running much, much better than it did without when I tried it months and months ago.

[kmS]

I got an error when trying to install it the first time and then I just tried it again and it worked perfectly, went from the RC to the real thing without a hitch.

[Skillz'n Magic]

yo is there a significant update? should i even bother?

Funny thing is we'll be hearing this in October of '09. :p

[pigster]

What fun. I change things too ofter to use a back up. Its easier just to do A new Install.

I'm missing something. Why is reinstalling the OS and "many very expensive" programs easier than letting a backup run overnight?

[DeaconFrost]

I'm missing something. Why is reinstalling the OS and "many very expensive" programs easier than letting a backup run overnight?
And what does the cost of the program have to do with its ease of backupedness?

[SkullE]

failed install error code is 0x800706B5
goes to step 3 of 3 100% and fails. Other forums are reporting the same problem.

[pigster]

failed install error code is 0x800706B5
goes to step 3 of 3 100% and fails. Other forums are reporting the same problem.

This may be of interest: http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2552247&SiteID=17

[Dan_D]

I don't think any of us are buying to auto update story. If you're unhappy, go buy a mac. :D

They have problems of their own. Let no one tell you different.

[SkullE]

Yea thats the fix. thanks. But a format and reinstall would be faster than going thru that hell.

Its actually related to you not having file permissions. and missing registry codes. That will fix it but the command might run for up to 8 hours. And I'll have it reinstalled long before that.

[DeaconFrost]

They have problems of their own. Let no one tell you different.
But...but....but that uber cool Mac guy on those commercials told me they are perfect!

[Sparkyy]

But...but....but that uber cool Mac guy on those commercials told me they are perfect!

Don't know how to tell you this but, well, you have been lied too! :rolleyes:

[yamahaSHO]

I just upgraded two of my HTPC's with no problems thus far.

[sumofatguy]

I downloaded the stand-alone version and updated all five of my systems without a hitch. Everything is working fine for me.

same here. I don't understand all this crap about vista sucking. its worked great for me ever since I've installed it... even on a raid0 array. Good luck to the op

[MTXR]

I installed Vista SP1 on my laptop. Installed perfectly fine. Was there a major performance increase or battery life/power management optimization or something?

[Skillz'n Magic]

I installed Vista SP1 on my laptop. Installed perfectly fine. Was there a major performance increase or battery life/power management optimization or something?

Laptop startup times were supposed to have been significantly decreased. I can't wait to install it on my wife's laptop. I'm expecting miracles...or hoping anyway. :p

[maddude0025]

I never understood these companies that go with a new OC right from the start. Hell, half the laptops where I work were using 2000 in the summer of 2006, then they started rolling out XP. I think the desktops were rolled out with XP a little sooner. Plus, nothing got updated until it was tested throughly. Of course we also used alot of our own software, so that may have had something to do with it, but we weren't going out upgrading the day things came out.

[junglicious]

SP1 is out for auto update as of around 7pm when I checked. That's how I got mine.

[Jasonx82]

updated to SP1 = Success!:)

[dajet24]

no problems here i uninstalled the rc version and installed the new sp1 manually off of the 750MB d/l that HardOcp posted ont he frontpage.

ive actually noticed a increase in my portable usb drive transfer rtate was 7-8 now 10-11MB transfer rate.

on crappy 20gb port drive.

[TheRapture]

n the auto checks things and they are OK and it screws up, then someone isn't doing there work at MS Audrey!!


Again, WHY are you installing a service pack, via auto update, on a production machine without PRE-TESTING?????? In a business, auto updates should be OFF, as in "NOT AUTO".

[ND40oz]

SP1 is out for auto update as of around 7pm when I checked. That's how I got mine.

Again, WHY are you installing a service pack, via auto update, on a production machine without PRE-TESTING?????? In a business, auto updates should be OFF, as in "NOT AUTO".

One thing to remember is it's an optional update right now. Until they make it a critical update, it will only download and install if you choose to. It will not do it on its own even if you have autoupdate enabled. That only downloads critical updates, not optional ones.

[s_s256]

Don't know how to tell you this but, well, you have been lied too! :rolleyes:

The mac is a lie.
----------

On Topic: Installed SP1 on 3 machines so far with no problems. Running great.

[junglicious]

One thing to remember is it's an optional update right now. Until they make it a critical update, it will only download and install if you choose to. It will not do it on its own even if you have autoupdate enabled. That only downloads critical updates, not optional ones.

Yes, I think I had to click view updates and select it. Note that I ran windows update twice as I do not have auto update enable. First time I ran the update it did not include SP1. I installed the updates on the first check and restarted the computer. Then I ran update again and that was when SP1 came up. I haven't notice anything different yet. Then again I have only been using FF beta 4 and WLM so I think this weekend I'll do some experiments with some of my tasks to see if I see any improvements. Even then I still might not notice it.

[Stupac]

worked for me.

[MTXR]

Laptop startup times were supposed to have been significantly decreased. I can't wait to install it on my wife's laptop. I'm expecting miracles...or hoping anyway. :p

I do notice vista does startup a bit faster...it seems a little snappier..

[MrGuvernment]

i thought SP1 wasnt going to be in windows update until April 18th and thus you had to go to their site to download and install it......

[xxEIEIOxx]

But...but....but that uber cool Mac guy on those commercials told me they are perfect!

I thought the use of the smiley would help to identify that as sarcasm. I was suggesting a mac to the OP because I figured he was just here to slam Windows anyway.

[Scroatdog]

$7,000.00 workstation :rolleyes: - CHECK

Uber Hanns-G 28 inch LCD monitor - CHECK

Vista Ultimate 64 - CHECK

Failing to back up your important work/documents, etc. even after Service Pack 1 hosed up your first system - PRICELESS.

[DeaconFrost]

I thought the use of the smiley would help to identify that as sarcasm. I was suggesting a mac to the OP because I figured he was just here to slam Windows anyway.
I knew it was sarcasm. I was making my post in response to the post about Mac people thinking they never have issues.

[Monkey God]

High end PC workstation: $7000
Super Snazzy OS: $200
Learning the hard way why you should make daily backups of your work: Priceless

[Sparkyy]

Fact of the matter is, if you use anything with silicon inside of it, you will encounter a problem. Sure that 99 cent calculator might crash but at least when that does you can just toss it and buy a new one. When you have a $7,000 uber system well then you are pretty much up a creek ankle deep in something. :rolleyes:

[Lepard]

Updated a 64-bit system and a 32-bit Vista system... zero problems on both.

I downloaded both, full versions of SP1 from the Microsoft site and initiated the installation. I went out with a couple of friends, came back, and it was in the login screen. Logged in and I was told that the installation was successful. Painless for sure...

I am now interested in getting Vista with SP1 already slipstreamed in case I have a lazy Sunday night.

[TheCreator]

Updated a 64-bit system and a 32-bit Vista system... zero problems on both.

I downloaded both, full versions of SP1 from the Microsoft site and initiated the installation. I went out with a couple of friends, came back, and it was in the login screen. Logged in and I was told that the installation was successful. Painless for sure...

I am now interested in getting Vista with SP1 already slipstreamed in case I have a lazy Sunday night.

same story here, laptop and desktop.... very nice smooth installation, i like how it reboots and does everything itself.

[Sparkyy]

I am now interested in getting Vista with SP1 already slipstreamed in case I have a lazy Sunday night.

It came to my attention that some of you expected to install Service Pack on the lite Vista, without some components.
Unfortunatelly that is not possible, nor it was ever expected to be because Service Pack is meant to update the whole installation, if it detects that something is missing it aborts.

So the only way to use vLite on SP1 is to use it on the preintegrated version, meaning you can configure the Vista DVD or ISO which already has SP1 in it.

Got that from vLite (http://www.vlite.net/servicepack.html)

[Lepard]

Got that from vLite (http://www.vlite.net/servicepack.html)

Correct. However, Vista will be shipping with SP1 integrated from Microsoft. Also TechNet has had it as well.

[Brahmzy]

Well, it installed great on my x64 rig. Freakin 16 minutes!! Gotta love 3xRAID0 16mb cache Raptors :)
Box is definitely snappier. Haven't tested eveyrthing yet.

It's still workin on my slower x86 box - been 30 minutes now and seems to be stuck on the Stage 3 of 3 - 0% complete splash page with no HDD activity. Hmmm.

[Sparkyy]

I was trying to wait till service pack 1 came out on DVD but being that it won't be out to the sheer masses for a couple more months, but I couldnt and just bought an copy of vista now since I figure I could just grab the iso of vista install with sp1 already on it in the near future if I ever need to reformat.

[soulliea]

This has done in two of my computers now.

I just got the latest update form MS and it took a long time. When it finally re booted it BSOD and kept BSOD and now it in a loop of restarting and BSOD.

Vista 64 Ultimate was working pretty good until now. Now nothing but BSOD.
This was an auto update with MS. Pretty crapy of a SP1. This should realy impress companies since I am on a $7,000.00 work station that is only 1 year old. Not a good sign. Time for companies to run not walk away from this Vista crap. At last count it has restarted 26 times now. Without a good reboot. Can not even get safe mode to work. It just keeps cycling.

Three days of work down the tubes. What a really reliable Operating System!!!!!!
:mad::mad::(:(

Even tried to go back to last good time. Still will not go into windows Vista.... BAd BaD BAD baD

shit happens... grab ur install dvd and do a repair then try the update again... next time back up ur work though...

[OpenThirdEye]

I have SP1 installed on my main workstation and 2 laptops...no issues. I enjoy the (slightly) quicker startup times and general increased "snappiness"...

[LateraLex]

Super high end work system - $7000 :rolleyes:
Loading work software - 3 days :rolleyes:
Not being able to type complete sentences - FAIL

[sumofatguy]

They have problems of their own. Let no one tell you different.

I'll tell you different. I've had no problems :)

[hhuricane]

It won't install for me. It does the first two stages then does the reboot and BSOD's on the third step. If I have it boot into safe mode it will install but fail, reboots to the normal desktop and reports that the WAN mini-port driver has failed and the SP1 install has failed. This on a new (two weeks old) install of Ultimate x86.

[dx2]

Reading Stories of people with failed sp1 installs - 3 minutes of my life
Reading Stories of people that didnt back up their data - 3 mintues of my life
Laughing at people complaining about having expensive workstations that likely don't have
vanilla commodity hardware failing to get the SP installed - 15 mintues of laughter and priceless.

[elektronisch]

I did it today, works fine system is speedier then ever :)

And you lost your data? to goddamn bad.
Make your backups in future and think before accepting major system updates.

Because restoring backups is always really quick and painless.

Dumb ass........

[dx2]

Because restoring backups is always really quick and painless.

Dumb ass........
backing up is only half the battle....you should do regular checks of your backs to ensure they are good...and in doing so restoring should take just as long or a little longer than backing up....minus a rebuild if that has to happen

[elektronisch]

7,000 dollar computer? You must get about 50FPS in Crysis with a bad boy like that...

[elektronisch]

backing up is only half the battle....you should do regular checks of your backs to ensure they are good...and in doing so restoring should take just as long or a little longer than backing up....minus a rebuild if that has to happen

I have to disagree, unless we are talking about disk cloning. Restoring backed up data/OS installs is not always quick and easy.

[sumofatguy]

7,000 dollar computer? You must get about 50FPS in Crysis with a bad boy like that...

I doubt that. more like 35fps

[Sparkyy]

35fps is still plenty playable, after the alien base or cocoon whatever it is, my fps took a nose dive running at 1280 with everything marked Very High and dx10 of course. Otherwise the entire game ran very smooth on my rig except for that one section.

[dx2]

I have to disagree, unless we are talking about disk cloning. Restoring backed up data/OS installs is not always quick and easy.
quick and easy depends. On a desktop a dump of all your docs/music/movies to an external hd takes a bit of time but nothing too ridiculous.

people that got hosed take note.

On a desktop if the system is properly configured the OS and data should be compartmentalized on different drives or partitions. Your "My Docs" should typically not live on the c drive. So essentially you can load up the data on any server/pc that has the same apps you need to use that data....

ie if your mp3's are in a folder it doesnt matter where it lives and as long as you have itunes installed it will play fine.

[mystykmax]

I installed the 32-bit update on 3 different machines...two laptops and one desktop with no issues. My transfer speeds for my usb stick went from 6.5MB/sec to 7.6MB/sec with the same files.

[StarTrek4U]

I love threads like this where i can just read and laugh for a few minutes. SP1 installed on x64 Ultimate w/ no issues.

Don't blame the currently optional patch for totally ruining your life when you don't take the proper precautions, it worries me that people like this will someday probably be working in IT (if they aren't already). Gives the rest of us who know what we're doing a bad rap...

[TechLarry]

I agree's 100%. Engineering should be testing and deploying this to production machines, not end-users.


Again, WHY are you installing a service pack, via auto update, on a production machine without PRE-TESTING?????? In a business, auto updates should be OFF, as in "NOT AUTO".

[mmarsh]

I just finished installing it on this Dell XPS M1530, no problems so far...

[xxEIEIOxx]

I knew it was sarcasm. I was making my post in response to the post about Mac people thinking they never have issues.

Right. Funny how everyone I know that runs a mac runs parallels with XP on it. I do like their commercials though. SP1 on Vista has been great for me. Couldn't get me to switch.

[P4rD0nM3]

To the guy that started this thread, did you reformat your $7000 workstation already? If you haven't, maybe you can still get your valuable data...pop in a LiveCD (Knoppix, et. al.) and just transfer the folder/files and worry about permissions later (Since it seems that you're worried about those stuff). It's not better than a running backup every night, but at least you get your data back before you do a reformat.

And just like every sane person would do in a work-environment, auto-updates should be turned off.

Cheers.

[Dan_D]

7,000 dollar computer? You must get about 50FPS in Crysis with a bad boy like that...

Nope. I couldn't get that with a dual QX9775 setup and two 8800GTX's@Ultra speeds. :eek:

[TechieSooner]

Because restoring backups is always really quick and painless.

Dumb ass........

Restoring backups has nothing to do with it. At least if you are able to restore a backup, you have something to restore.

In this case, if you have no backup to restore, well... SOL.



Amazes me how people cheap their way out of proper backup devices (even if another $100 for hard drive), then end up crashing and burning later on.
It's inevitable. For anyone to truly appreciate data backup, you've got to lose it all first.

[CopyThat]

It is truly pathetic you need to "backup your system" before running an OS patch in 2008 for the so called industry standard OS.



HA, HA, Ha, Ha , Ha!!! Thats a Good one.
What>? You weren't joking? Oh.
Not smrt much huh?

[TechieSooner]

HA, HA, Ha, Ha , Ha!!! Thats a Good one.
What>? You weren't joking? Oh.
Not smrt much huh?

Yea, no kidding...

The bottom line is this damn thing was an OPTIONAL update.

Even more of the bottom line, this is 2008, but hardware failure, natural disasters, and funky data errors will always exist- no excuse to not back up.

[rhexis]

This has done in two of my computers now.

I just got the latest update form MS and it took a long time. When it finally re booted it BSOD and kept BSOD and now it in a loop of restarting and BSOD.

Vista 64 Ultimate was working pretty good until now. Now nothing but BSOD.
This was an auto update with MS. Pretty crapy of a SP1. This should realy impress companies since I am on a $7,000.00 work station that is only 1 year old. Not a good sign. Time for companies to run not walk away from this Vista crap. At last count it has restarted 26 times now. Without a good reboot. Can not even get safe mode to work. It just keeps cycling.

Three days of work down the tubes. What a really reliable Operating System!!!!!!
:mad::mad::(:(

Even tried to go back to last good time. Still will not go into windows Vista.... BAd BaD BAD baD

vista ultimate and business i believe has an imaged based hdd backup utility. not only does it work well but it would have certainly helped you in this case.

[tgabe213]

vista ultimate and business i believe has an imaged based hdd backup utility. not only does it work well but it would have certainly helped you in this case.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/backup.mspx

Anyone ever use it?

[crewzen]

Nope. I couldn't get that with a dual QX9775 setup and two 8800GTX's@Ultra speeds. :eek:

Its not for playing games all the time it is a workstation that runs games with a 8800 gts 92. but I use it for plant design in solids and pipe layout and design. Which are the extensive programs I use and it looks like it is going to be one of those programs that crash SP1 as I have now done some tinkering. By ::

This install is very interesting. I did a fresh Vista 64 install. I logged in as administrator and loaded my virus protection first. The auto update started loading a bunch of stuff. Then again checked the auto update, Nothing more to load. I then loaded Evga’s 169.44 graphics drivers and the update started running on its own like it should, but it was loading SP1 now. So I let it run and it took 2 hours and several reboots but it worked this time. So the search to figure out the program that causes SP1 to crash is on. The solid design software is probly the culprit because they access the cpu's with intensity. In a day or two I should know. But I did notice one other thing that happened after SP1 I can not log in as administrator and load some programs now. It will not release the temp directory to the administrator. Strange sort of thing to do.

[Archer75]

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/backup.mspx

Anyone ever use it?

Of course. Works great. But I think my WHS box works better.

[ChristO]

Well I have install the SP1 on 2 vista ultimate x64 boxes, 2 vista home premium x64, 1 vista home premium x86 and a laptop running vista ultimate x86.

not one issue so far but network transfers have increased in speed

They were all AMD machines with AMD/ATi chipsets and video cards

[yamahaSHO]

Does anyone here do S3 standby and actually put the computer to sleep? After updating SP1 on both of my HTPC's I seem to have a problem with the computer waking from sleep.

My main rig was put to sleep before bed and was on when I woke up.

My bedroom HTPC was put to sleep this morning and was on when I got home from work.

[Dan_D]

Its not for playing games all the time it is a workstation that runs games with a 8800 gts 92. but I use it for plant design in solids and pipe layout and design. Which are the extensive programs I use and it looks like it is going to be one of those programs that crash SP1 as I have now done some tinkering. By ::

This install is very interesting. I did a fresh Vista 64 install. I logged in as administrator and loaded my virus protection first. The auto update started loading a bunch of stuff. Then again checked the auto update, Nothing more to load. I then loaded Evga’s 169.44 graphics drivers and the update started running on its own like it should, but it was loading SP1 now. So I let it run and it took 2 hours and several reboots but it worked this time. So the search to figure out the program that causes SP1 to crash is on. The solid design software is probly the culprit because they access the cpu's with intensity. In a day or two I should know. But I did notice one other thing that happened after SP1 I can not log in as administrator and load some programs now. It will not release the temp directory to the administrator. Strange sort of thing to do.

You should always load your anti-virus software LAST. It can fuck up the installation of programs and patches.

[EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

SP1 here has actually made vista better for me, file transfers have speeded up and also deleting stuff is now instant than what it was like before, those 2 were one of my main gripes, as it could take ages to transfer large files and deleting stuff, well it could take ages for it to even start deleting, but with sp1 that has now been fixed.

Also I have noticed, now this may not be due to sp1, but I have noticed that my internet is now snappier, webpages seem to load instantly, they did that before, but I would click on a bookmark and wait about 5- 10 seconds on blank page and then whatever site would then show up fully loaded, but now as soon as i click on book mark the page instantly appears and has basically fully loaded, now whether thats due to sp1 i dont know as I was messing about with my MTU settings just before sp1 so I really cant say, but overall I think sp1 has made vista snappier at my end and I for one am glad of it.

[Vorazan]

Well, I installed it on my Vista Ultimate Dell XPSm1330... I don't see any difference at all :(

[ND40oz]

Its not for playing games all the time it is a workstation that runs games with a 8800 gts 92. but I use it for plant design in solids and pipe layout and design. Which are the extensive programs I use and it looks like it is going to be one of those programs that crash SP1 as I have now done some tinkering. By ::



Wait, your 7k workstation only has an 8800GTS? What the hell did you waste the other 6.7k on? I was figuring you had SLI'd Quadros or something getting the price up that high or does that price include software licenses?

[Keiichi]

Its not for playing games all the time it is a workstation that runs games with a 8800 gts 92. but I use it for plant design in solids and pipe layout and design. Which are the extensive programs I use and it looks like it is going to be one of those programs that crash SP1 as I have now done some tinkering. By ::

This install is very interesting. I did a fresh Vista 64 install. I logged in as administrator and loaded my virus protection first. The auto update started loading a bunch of stuff. Then again checked the auto update, Nothing more to load. I then loaded Evga’s 169.44 graphics drivers and the update started running on its own like it should, but it was loading SP1 now. So I let it run and it took 2 hours and several reboots but it worked this time. So the search to figure out the program that causes SP1 to crash is on. The solid design software is probly the culprit because they access the cpu's with intensity. In a day or two I should know. But I did notice one other thing that happened after SP1 I can not log in as administrator and load some programs now. It will not release the temp directory to the administrator. Strange sort of thing to do.
Never ever ever EVER load any sort of drivers or software except your network drivers before doing your updates after a fresh install.

[EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

Never ever ever EVER load any sort of drivers or software except your network drivers before doing your updates after a fresh install.

I have heard that same sentence thousands of times, and guess what, out of the thousands of times that I have installed xp and other OS's and went from installing windows to chipset drivers to video drivers to nic drivers to sound drivers and then windows updates, Nothing bad ever happened by doing it in that order.

99.9% of the time nothing will happen and you will be perfectly ok installing other drivers before windows updates, it may not be the best thing to do and certainly isnt a habit to get into, but doing it that way certainly is not the boogey man that loads of people seem to think it is, if MS thought or knew that updates would wreck everyones pc's because they had other software installed on them, chances are MS wouldnt release updates in the way that they do now, they would probably release them on cd's every 6 months or some retarded scheme like that.

Am I saying it cant cause problems doing it that way ? no I am not, but the chances of getting problems with win updates is probably the same with or without other drivers installed in my working experience, barring a known hardware or software conflict that is.

[TechieSooner]

I have heard that same sentence thousands of times, and guess what, out of the thousands of times that I have installed xp and other OS's and went from installing windows to chipset drivers to video drivers to nic drivers to sound drivers and then windows updates, [B]Nothing bad ever happened by doing it in that order.

Well, personally, I've had issues with NOT installing the drivers that come in the box.
The update on Windows Update actually BSOD the video cards (just cheaper ones- nothing special) if I use it... SOMETIMES. Have dozens of identical hardware machines. Some BSOD and some don't. But the thing consistent is if I use the driver in the box- it works.

[Dan_D]

I have heard that same sentence thousands of times, and guess what, out of the thousands of times that I have installed xp and other OS's and went from installing windows to chipset drivers to video drivers to nic drivers to sound drivers and then windows updates, Nothing bad ever happened by doing it in that order.

99.9% of the time nothing will happen and you will be perfectly ok installing other drivers before windows updates, it may not be the best thing to do and certainly isnt a habit to get into, but doing it that way certainly is not the boogey man that loads of people seem to think it is, if MS thought or knew that updates would wreck everyones pc's because they had other software installed on them, chances are MS wouldnt release updates in the way that they do now, they would probably release them on cd's every 6 months or some retarded scheme like that.

Am I saying it cant cause problems doing it that way ? no I am not, but the chances of getting problems with win updates is probably the same with or without other drivers installed in my working experience, barring a known hardware or software conflict that is.

I'm in agreement. I always do things in this order: OS > chipset drivers > video card drivers > other hardware > OS updates > software&games > anti-virus

Out of thousands of installations that's always worked with very few problems.

On occasion I have issues installing certain drivers as some of them now depend on updated DLL files provided by Windows updates however this is generally rare. Usually this type of thing only occurs with odd hardware. A good example of this was on the ASUS P5W DH. To use the hardware based Silicon Image controller you had to do all your Windows updates in order to make it work properly. I had this issue on my system when I ran that board. Morry also couldn't make that controller work when he did the review of it. Generally for reviews we don't bother with the Windows updates. (Aside from SP2) so it probably never occured to him. I did it having no other way to go and it worked.

Since then it has happened a couple more times but mostly with video capture cards and crap like that. Oh and for ATI cards you have to make sure .NET is updated (which is a travesty) and there is some other update I think is necessary to make everything work smoothly.

[crewzen]

You should always load your anti-virus software LAST. It can fuck up the installation of programs and patches.


I wish I could but I get nailed from china and russia about 30 times an hour. So I need to install 2 firewalls and a hard wired firewall and a pretty good security system way before I can get on the net.

But this was an operating system and it auto loaded SP1 and crashed that is why I did a fresh install and then graphics only then the protection suite and then the updates including SP1 with no problems this time. Then all the other garbage.

Now it works OK But I realy did not want to have do a new install. OH well Now it works.

[Met-AL]

I wish I could but I get nailed from china and russia about 30 times an hour. So I need to install 2 firewalls and a hard wired firewall and a pretty good security system way before I can get on the net.

But this was an operating system and it auto loaded SP1 and crashed that is why I did a fresh install and then graphics only then the protection suite and then the updates including SP1 with no problems this time. Then all the other garbage.

Now it works OK But I realy did not want to have do a new install. OH well Now it works.


How about just spend $50 on a router?

[Dan_D]

I wish I could but I get nailed from china and russia about 30 times an hour. So I need to install 2 firewalls and a hard wired firewall and a pretty good security system way before I can get on the net.

But this was an operating system and it auto loaded SP1 and crashed that is why I did a fresh install and then graphics only then the protection suite and then the updates including SP1 with no problems this time. Then all the other garbage.

Now it works OK But I realy did not want to have do a new install. OH well Now it works.

You wouldn't have that problem with a $50 router.

[Brahmzy]

Well, my Vx64 box LOVES SP1 - very fast and snappy. Only issues was it reset all of my X-Fi settings, but it only took 5 mintues to fix all of that. Very happy there.

However, on my other , secondary box, Vx86, the install bombed out halfway through (just hungup) and will not install. So an OS reinstall may be in order. Not real happy as I'll have to call MS to reactivate and all that crap.

[sumofatguy]

Well, my Vx64 box LOVES SP1 - very fast and snappy. Only issues was it reset all of my X-Fi settings, but it only took 5 mintues to fix all of that. Very happy there.

However, on my other , secondary box, Vx86, the install bombed out halfway through (just hungup) and will not install. So an OS reinstall may be in order. Not real happy as I'll have to call MS to reactivate and all that crap.

hey ya my x-fi settings were reset too! I hadn't even noticed yet though :(

I thought something was weird...

[junglicious]

I wouldn't worry about the order in which you install drivers for windows update. Majority of the people who do the windows update (SP1 for this matter) have all other drivers installed. It wouldn't be a piratical idea if MS created a updated driver or service pack that need to be installed before all other drivers that has the OS already configured. We would need to reinstall the OS every time a driver or service pack release.

How do you get 2 software base (are they software base?) firewall and a wired firewall working together without any conflicts? I just ask because I do not know much about advance firewall configurations.

My order is usually for the most part:
OS>chipset>video>sound>malicious drivers and peripheral>windows update

[FinalAura]

I thought all was good until after I played COD4. I got bsods in 10 min of gameplay. I tried multiple drivers and it still happened. I even get random bsods just surfing the web, or listening to music. I even reformatted my whole computer, and did a clean install, and got the bsods. Guess i'm going to uninstall sp1. It wasn't any different anyways, just caused more problems.

[Finn]

Vista blows chunks and anyone saying otherwise is a damn fool. I can't imagine someone freewillingly paying for that POS.

[crewzen]

You wouldn't have that problem with a $50 router.


Quote:
Originally Posted by crewzen
I wish I could but I get nailed from china and russia about 30 times an hour. So I need to install 2 firewalls and a hard wired firewall and a pretty good security system way before I can get on the net.

But this was an operating system and it auto loaded SP1 and crashed that is why I did a fresh install and then graphics only then the protection suite and then the updates including SP1 with no problems this time. Then all the other garbage.

Now it works OK But I realy did not want to have do a new install. OH well Now it works.

I have an good router and a hardware firewall but some of the hacks get through and that is why I load some more protection.

Its like sex it fun and easy without protection but has some drawbacks.

[TechieSooner]

I thought all was good until after I played COD4. I got bsods in 10 min of gameplay. I tried multiple drivers and it still happened. I even get random bsods just surfing the web, or listening to music. I even reformatted my whole computer, and did a clean install, and got the bsods. Guess i'm going to uninstall sp1. It wasn't any different anyways, just caused more problems.
If it starts BSODing even after reformatting... sounds like hardware issues, not SP1 issues. Unless by reformatting you mean reinstalling, and then reapplying SP1.

Guess you learned your lesson, eh? Don't install optional updates if you aren't ready for consequences.

But this was an operating system and it auto loaded SP1 and crashed
SP1 doesn't auto load. Everyone here can claim BS on that...
Look alot better if you'd just tell it like it is "I manually opted in to install SP1, it BSOD my computer, and now I have to blame it on someone".

[EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

So, you use 1 hardware firewall and 2 software firewalls ?

So your saying the hacks get through your hardware firewall and one software firewall but the second firewall stops the hacks ? if thats the case then why not dump the first firewall that the hacks are getting through and just use the second software firewall along with your router instead ?

atm I am being hit constantly from china and have been for the last 4 - 5 weeks since joining a new isp, spoofed shaw canada ip's hitting windows messenger ports, but nothing gets past the router firewall and if it has it isnt being picked up by nod32 firewall or even windows firewall when i was using that before I got nod32, their really is no need to use 1 hardware and 2 software firewalls, thats just asking for problems if you ask me.

But each to their own i guess.

[pigster]

I have an good router and a hardware firewall but some of the hacks get through and that is why I load some more protection.

I'd be fascinated to hear more details on these hacks. What router, and what ports are open? Which hardware firewall? How do these various exploits work?

[Sparkyy]

Quote:

I have an good router and a hardware firewall but some of the hacks get through and that is why I load some more protection.

I would like to know more about this as well, how do you know that a hacker(s) is breaking through your router? I use to use Norton Internet Security, that was bad because a new pc became 6 years older once NIS is install and secondly it was just annoying with all the damn popups. Two software firewalls must drive you up to wall! I just use my DGL-4300 firewall and Vista firewall and no problems, looking at my log I see attempts here and there but nothing big that I need to worry about. Everyone gets hit now and then by scans doesn't mean you are getting invaded.

[FinalAura]

If it starts BSODing even after reformatting... sounds like hardware issues, not SP1 issues. Unless by reformatting you mean reinstalling, and then reapplying SP1.

Guess you learned your lesson, eh? Don't install optional updates if you aren't ready for consequences.


That doesn't mean not to try the updates. People have reported good things about the service pack, so why not try it out and see if I get the benefits as well? Who said I wasn't ready for the consequences of updates? It is not hardware issues because before sp1, everything was fine.

By reformatting, I meant a clean install of windows vista ultimate 64 bit, then an install of sp1 right after. Since sp1 did not workout for me, i'm going to remove it, and have my comp set up like how it was before.

[DFranch]

I downloaded the entire SP and burned it to disk. It works better than the last release candidate. It even fixed the problem I was having resuming from sleep. Well . . . it fixed my computer resuming from sleep. I personally still hit the snooze button.

[Albanu1800]

Vista does suck!

[Gott]

Vista does suck!
Country music sucks.

See, I can play that game too.

It's funny because XP was greeted with the same type of attitude and now look at where it stands. Grant it, two service packs later, but Vista has just seen its first naked lady. Give it time and Vista will be a real Casanova.

Sorry for the terrible metaphor.

[crewzen]

I tried to download SP1 and I burned up 2 disks. Boy do they stink when they burn.:D

[Neocorteqz]

Laptop startup times were supposed to have been significantly decreased. I can't wait to install it on my wife's laptop. I'm expecting miracles...or hoping anyway. :p I haven't noticed any decrease. but what the hell, if i can't wait i guess i need to find some kind of help group. :)

[Albanu1800]

I had trouble from Win98 until Se came out. XP I had rarely had trouble although I had a few installs freeze on me.

My destktop will not install Vista sp1. I have the icon on my desktop but did all the updates from Windows Update and I get an error message saying something like the update is installing but nothing happens.

[DFranch]

It's funny because XP was greeted with the same type of attitude and now look at where it stands.
I feel the same way. Has everybody forgotten about converting from Win 98Se to Win XP. The exact same problems occurred, older hardware with no updated drivers stopped working, older software stopped working, people complained about how much memory XP needed (512mb) compared to 98SE (128mb). The only difference is that Vista really is not drastically better than XP. In fact initially Vista is a small step backwards (at least before SP1), where XP was drastically better than 98SE. By the time the next version of windows is ready then the whole process will be repeated.

[Albanu1800]

The mistake I made was to buy a machine from Best Buy instead of build the rig myself.

[Miscommunication]

Finally got the SP1 to place with my PC (original install wasn't too smooth so I reinstalled). Vista 32bit, feels a bit snappier like people say. I do a lot of backups through USB and let me tell you all, it's not so bad now and doesn't take all day and a half. It's much closer to XP speeds if not spot on. I had a stable Vista install before with no crashes, this continues to be the case still. I did find that reinstalling Vista is a single shot solution for the problems.

SATA2 drivers are overrated for my chipset too imo, I'm running a SATA2 drive under "IDE" mode (apparently some kind of emulation mode?) and my average read speed is now 60+MB/s vs. 50MB/s in AHCI/SATA mode with drivers and I can notice the difference. My burst speed dropped from 250MB/s to 175MB/s in the "IDE" mode, but that's overrated anyway :p (no noticeable perf. drop).

[milkweg]

I got a stop error after SP1 but since shutting the computer down and starting it up again today all seems ok. Now I just have to figure out why my goddamn brand new Microsoft keyboard is not recognized until I get to the welcome sreen in Vista. No such issue with it on XP. It's always something.

[milkweg]

I feel the same way. Has everybody forgotten about converting from Win 98Se to Win XP.

XP was pretty much universally accepted and liked after about 6 months after release. Vista has been out for well over a year and is still hated with a passion by many so don't compare the two because it is not the same thing at all. Only fanbois make those type of claims.

[DeaconFrost]

XP was pretty much universally accepted and liked after about 6 months after release.
Not even close. Check out some studies from about two years ago, and look into how many companies didn't upgrade to XP by that point. It took several years for XP to be universally accepted, and there were MANY people in the enthusiast crowd who hung on to Win98 SE for a while, claiming XP was nothing more than fisher price eye candy. The very same criticisms of XP are now being re-used against Vista. That's why so many people are labeled as fanbois, as you say, when in fact they just simple see through the bullshit and realize this is just a repeating pattern. It is a simple concept, yet so hard for many to grasp.

[Miscommunication]

I think XP's compatible driver support was quicker than Vista's is now, Vista is simply taking longer to get to that level of "hassle-free-ness". Stability wise, Vista's been more stable for quite some time vs. XP in my experiences and from what I understand from others as well. XP w/ SP2 would still get one of the key system files corrupted during POST. You could attempt to repair it, but that seldom succeeded.

Therefore, I think the 2 even out in some aspects. All I know is that Vista's been extremely stable. The only time I was able to even hang my system was a combination of using beta drivers not made for my card while trying to alt+tab out and in of Crysis 1.0 & 1.1. I've never had Vista just crash to a reboot or fail to boot because of a corrupted file of any kind. We all have different setups and different adjustments made to our systems so blanket statements are only valid to a point. Even if you include popular statements or a "status-quo", things will never be the same across the board 100% (although 75% or more is good enough :p).

As Deacon' said, it's a repeating process. Get used to it and expect it. Another 2yrs from now, the majority of people will be on Vista. Watch, history repeats it self (especially Windows :p).

[milkweg]

Not even close. Check out some studies from about two years ago, and look into how many companies didn't upgrade to XP by that point. It took several years for XP to be universally accepted, and there were MANY people in the enthusiast crowd who hung on to Win98 SE for a while, claiming XP was nothing more than fisher price eye candy. The very same criticisms of XP are now being re-used against Vista. That's why so many people are labeled as fanbois, as you say, when in fact they just simple see through the bullshit and realize this is just a repeating pattern. It is a simple concept, yet so hard for many to grasp.

OK, then explain this. Why pretty much on the first day of release of XP there was lots of praise from enthusiats like me on Usenet (that's back when web forums here didn't mean squat to people like me) and yet the opposite is true of Viista? Because you a are a Microsoft fanboi. I call them as I see them and it is not BS.

[TechieSooner]

OK, then explain this. Why pretty much on the first day of release of XP there was lots of praise from enthusiats like me on Usenet (that's back when web forums here didn't mean squat to people like me) and yet the opposite is true of Viista? Because you a are a Microsoft fanboi. I call them as I see them and it is not BS.

There are tons of people that praised Vista on the first day.

Someone linked back to an article clear back in 2001... It was a Windows 2000 forum, and folks were bashing XP.
It was almost eerie how identical the arguments are today, the only difference is 2000 is now XP and XP is now Vista.

[Met-AL]

Quote:
I have an good router and a hardware firewall but some of the hacks get through and that is why I load some more protection.

You really need to spend some time learning more about what you talk shit about. :rolleyes:

[griffinhart]

There are tons of people that praised Vista on the first day.

Someone linked back to an article clear back in 2001... It was a Windows 2000 forum, and folks were bashing XP.
It was almost eerie how identical the arguments are today, the only difference is 2000 is now XP and XP is now Vista.


Add to that, forum usage has exploded in the past 7 years and many of these new posters don't actually know what they are talking about. For example, I have two friends that are highly anti-Vista yet their problems with it are all based on reading posts online and they always refer to the same information independently of each other. The same information that has been debunked time and time again. Even more telling, neither of them have even touched a Vista machine.

[crewzen]

You really need to spend some time learning more about what you talk shit about. :rolleyes:


Well I know not much about software but use a lot of it. When some of the programs report an attempt and what kind of an attempt it was, then it reports the IP address and traces it back to the origin. Then gives the local ip address to report to my isp if needed.

That is what the software is doing. Its not something I do. My days of computer programs are long over with since I have been diagnosed With MS and cant work anymore. I am not trying to pick on anyone just stated a fact as to why I load protection software right after my graphics drivers which I have burned into a dvd so I don't have to go on line to load them, and then I install the protection suite or so.

So what is so wrong with that?

[DFranch]

OK, then explain this. Why pretty much on the first day of release of XP there was lots of praise from enthusiats like me on Usenet (that's back when web forums here didn't mean squat to people like me) and yet the opposite is true of Viista? Because you a are a Microsoft fanboi. I call them as I see them and it is not BS.

Could be lots of reasons. Did you upgrade an old machine to XP? If so if you did not have any compatibility problems then your machine and software must have been pretty new. I know I had to get newer versions of a couple of programs. I really can't remember if I had to replace any hardware, but I think I had to replace something.

If you got a new XP machine, then of course everything went smoothly. My parents bought a new laptop with Vista and I have not heard 1 complaint about it.

I updated a 98 machine to XP back when it first came out, I also upgraded a machine to Vista when it first came out. The experience was pretty much the same. for each upgrade there was a program or two that needed to be upgraded, or a device driver that was not upgraded to work with the new OS. With Vista most of my problems were with hardware. Logitech decided not to make vista drivers for my mouse or webcam. the mouse still works with reduced functionality, but the webcam is sitting in the closet because it useless.

[DeaconFrost]

OK, then explain this. Why pretty much on the first day of release of XP there was lots of praise from enthusiats like me on Usenet (that's back when web forums here didn't mean squat to people like me) and yet the opposite is true of Viista? Because you a are a Microsoft fanboi. I call them as I see them and it is not BS.
Ha ha ha, I wasn't aware that one person's experience dictated the entire industry. Please. I'm a fanboy of using my head to think rationally and stick to facts. I could give all kinds of examples from my own personal experience with XP, and the launch events in Philly I attended, the huge tech company I worked for at the time that was a partner of Microsoft on the XP launch, etc etc etc, but instead of using ridiculousness, I'll just stick to facts, and say it once again:

This is the same process that occured when Windows 2000 was released, and many people questioned the idea of melding the features of Win98/ME with NT's structure. It is the very same process when XP was bashed for providing nothing but eye candy and resource hogging or Windows 2000, since that was very stable, and offered things like plug and plug for home users as well. Sound familair? Yep, that's right...it is a cycle that's been repeated several times over.

[gesicht]

TechieSooner: i meet a lot of other people in the IT field and a lot of people that are not but still are computer users. i would say over 90% reject vista and express hate for it.

i remember the transition from 98 to XP. the complaints lasted about 3 months. the stability of XP is what won over most users. i was a win2k user so switching XP was cake and i loved it.

vista on the other hand, going on 15 months. from IT people normal end users, i hear more complaints about vista then any other computer related problem. i put vista on my second box. i find that i never even touch that computer anymore. i dont want anything to do with vista. sure it works fine as an OS it does everything my XP machine can do. i just dont like using it.

same goes for using an apple computer, sure it is a computer has a working OS. no real big issues. i just HATE using the apple OS. that is how people feel about vista. it is not that is anything wrong with it, THEY JUST DONT LIKE IT.

there are a dozen technical reasons why people dont like vista just in this thread and reasons why XP is better but it all comes down to personal preference and that is the hardest thing for people understand. yet i think it is the biggest reason people reject vista.


their attempts at making the OS more user friendly failed horrible. if you work for a call center that logs calls with information about OS's vista people are still a small percentage of average end users but their calls make for 3x high percentage then XP users.

[pigster]

When some of the programs report an attempt and what kind of an attempt it was, then it reports the IP address and traces it back to the origin. Then gives the local ip address to report to my isp if needed.

:p, yeah, that's pretty much what I thought....that's just the run of the mill port scans and connection attempts that everyone on the internet sees, it's nothing special. You really don't need to install 2 firewalls and a hard wired firewall and a pretty good security system
and I think the statement some of the hacks get through isn't really the case

[DFranch]

TechieSooner: i meet a lot of other people in the IT field and a lot of people that are not but still are computer users. i would say over 90% reject vista and express hate for it.

i remember the transition from 98 to XP. the complaints lasted about 3 months. the stability of XP is what won over most users. i was a win2k user so switching XP was cake and i loved it.

vista on the other hand, going on 15 months. from IT people normal end users, i hear more complaints about vista then any other computer related problem. i put vista on my second box. i find that i never even touch that computer anymore. i dont want anything to do with vista. sure it works fine as an OS it does everything my XP machine can do. i just dont like using it.

same goes for using an apple computer, sure it is a computer has a working OS. no real big issues. i just HATE using the apple OS. that is how people feel about vista. it is not that is anything wrong with it, THEY JUST DONT LIKE IT.

there are a dozen technical reasons why people dont like vista just in this thread and reasons why XP is better but it all comes down to personal preference and that is the hardest thing for people understand. yet i think it is the biggest reason people reject vista.


their attempts at making the OS more user friendly failed horrible. if you work for a call center that logs calls with information about OS's vista people are still a small percentage of average end users but their calls make for 3x high percentage then XP users.
Wow, over 90% don't want to change to Vista. Think that might be a slight exaggeration? It seems like there should be no vista computers using that logic.

Of course IT people don't want to start using Vista, it would require them to do more work. XP has been around for 7 years, IT people are familiar with it. A new operating system requires people to re-learn everything and many people don't want to rock the boat. Your own quotes say it all. "i dont want anything to do with vista. sure it works fine as an OS it does everything my XP machine can do. i just dont like using it.". Why do you suppose that is?

I'll be the first to say that so far Vista does not really bring much new to the table, at least not yet. Initially vista had some problems, but from what I've seen that has gotten steadily better and with SP1 I really have no complaints with Vista. It's really a moot point, Vista is the new OS and XP's is time is drawing to a close. You will have no choice but to convert (be assimilated), so why resist?

[robman_rob]

has anyone noticed after installing SP1 onto vista, the boot times are significantly longer? I'm saying 2-3x or more longer

[DeaconFrost]

I think most would say, if there was a change, it was to make the boot process faster. I can't say I've noticed a change in booting on any of my three updated systems.

[snaggletooth]

i just updated.

let the update run and cooked some dinner. when i came back i was greeted with the welcome screen. i typed in the password and was greeted with a friendly message that windows had shut down unexpectedly, citing a problem with my nForce SATA2 driver; which is up to date and has never given me a problem before.

i figure i'll just ignore that until i lose all my data and my monitor explodes. SP1 installed successfully imo, at least that's what the pop-up taskbar thingy said right before i came to that conclusion. :D

[TechieSooner]

Of course IT people don't want to start using Vista, it would require them to do more work. XP has been around for 7 years, IT people are familiar with it. A new operating system requires people to re-learn everything and many people don't want to rock the boat. Your own quotes say it all. "i dont want anything to do with vista. sure it works fine as an OS it does everything my XP machine can do. i just dont like using it.". Why do you suppose that is?

I'll be the first to say that so far Vista does not really bring much new to the table, at least not yet. Initially vista had some problems, but from what I've seen that has gotten steadily better and with SP1 I really have no complaints with Vista. It's really a moot point, Vista is the new OS and XP's is time is drawing to a close. You will have no choice but to convert (be assimilated), so why resist?

QFT exactly right.

I'm not rolling Vista out in my company for quite some time. Like DFranch said above, users hate change.
We know all our applications (propriety ones, mainly) work on XP.

And I'll also say Vista doesn't bring a ton new to the table, but thinking back, comparatively, neither did any other new Windows release.
It's just a more "polished" OS. Runs more efficiently, less corruption problems, and more flexibility for managing the network with UAC (And tons new features, like being able to control power settings through group policy now, Server 2008/Vista).

But all in all, what we have works. For home users, if XP works... fine. But anyone getting a new machine I highly suggest Vista over XP.

[junglicious]

Why are people fighting over XP and Vista? You like XP, that's fine. You like Vista, that's fine. Its your preference and use whatever works for you. Just remember sooner or later you are going to or might switch OS unless you last long enough for the next OS release. Some people don't like change and it takes them time. For me the only constant is change. I like Vista, is it better than XP? In some areas yes and in some no. I am on my second Vista Administration book and learning all kinds of new features. There are some features I really do like about Vista even if it cause the system to run "slower".

As far as SP1 going wrong. Its a computer and we all know that when something goes wrong it takes a lot of time and patience to figure out exactly what it is, not what you think it could be. There are a lot of variables and if your lucky it might be something "easy" to figure out. When you blame SP1 is causing problems to your system when others have installed it just fine your asking for debates. It makes you sound like you don't know what your talking about. Computers only do what they are program/build to do. Everything else is the users/engineer/programmers fault. We are the ones who "make" the stuff.

[TechieSooner]

Just remember sooner or later you are going to or might switch OS unless you last long enough for the next OS release.

Only problem with this, is the folks skipping a generation of OS generally have even bigger compatibility hurdles to jump all at once...

[junglicious]

Only problem with this, is the folks skipping a generation of OS generally have even bigger compatibility hurdles to jump all at once...

Then that will be on them. The world is not going to slow down because some people or people in general have a hard time adapting. Our technology is moving faster than before. I don't mean to sound heartless but the world is changing fast. With all the events going on and new election, its going to be a shocker to some.

[milkweg]

Add to that, forum usage has exploded in the past 7 years and many of these new posters don't actually know what they are talking about.

I hope you are not talking about me. It would be unwise of you to assume that just because my current user name says 7 months that I have only been a member here for 7 months.

[milkweg]

Why are people fighting over XP and Vista? You like XP, that's fine. You like Vista, that's fine. Its your preference and use whatever works for you. Just remember sooner or later you are going to or might switch OS unless you last long enough for the next OS release. Some people don't like change and it takes them time. For me the only constant is change. I like Vista, is it better than XP? In some areas yes and in some no. I am on my second Vista Administration book and learning all kinds of new features. There are some features I really do like about Vista even if it cause the system to run "slower".

As far as SP1 going wrong. Its a computer and we all know that when something goes wrong it takes a lot of time and patience to figure out exactly what it is, not what you think it could be. There are a lot of variables and if your lucky it might be something "easy" to figure out. When you blame SP1 is causing problems to your system when others have installed it just fine your asking for debates. It makes you sound like you don't know what your talking about. Computers only do what they are program/build to do. Everything else is the users/engineer/programmers fault. We are the ones who "make" the stuff.

That's all fine and dandy with me. I use both Vista and XP and don't hate either of them but then I am a computer geek and enjoy dealing with all of the quirks and issues of computer use. But you have to admit, it's a far cry from being as easy to use as a toaster as Microsoft and Apple would like to have the masses believe . What I have an issue with is the how some of the people on this forum are derogatory to people who do have issues with Vista and immediately start to ridicule them when they post their issues of why they don't like Vista. They really do make themselves look like fanbois and I hate fanbois of any persuasion. Especially Linux fanbois. :) I install SP1 and get a stop error. Next day all is fine for no obvious reason. Somehow you equate that to it is my fault because I don't know what the fuck I am doing? Well, fuck you and the horse that you rode in on.

I've been using computers since 1989 and was originally trained to use the Mac. Two types of Mac and that is professionally trained. Also XT PC, again, in a professional capacity.

[Michaelius]

TechieSooner: i meet a lot of other people in the IT field and a lot of people that are not but still are computer users. i would say over 90% reject vista and express hate for it.


And how many of those actually used Vista at all ? Or for a more than a day ?

Becouse it's very easy to find Vista haters who relly on opinions from internet but it's much harder to find one with serious experience in using new OS.

I for one fell discomfortable when i have to use my XP from dual boot after using Vista for few weeks.

[Neocorteqz]

I for one like vista, I used XP since it's birth, and loved it, never really had a problem. The only dislike I've had with vista was UAC but that's easy enough to fix.

Boy this thread almost looks like a soapbox thread. :p

[Albanu1800]

Thanks Milkweg!

I agree with you, just becuase people are having problems with Vista is no reason to bash. Vista has been out over a year and why are there websites dedicated to the hatred of Vista. I'm not an XP fanboi but I want to embrace Vista but I can't. My problems continue on my store bought pc one after the other. I'll keep going until I find a solution because all I have is time!

[griffinhart]

I hope you are not talking about me. It would be unwise of you to assume that just because my current user name says 7 months that I have only been a member here for 7 months.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular. It's just true. 10 years ago people that were using the internet on a daily basis tended to be tech pros and computer savvy people more than any other demographic. Today, that is just not the case. Today there are many vocal people out there, but the technical level of those people are comparatively lower than what it was a decade ago.

[HvyMtl]

I miss my old 98 se build - it was stable fast and crash proof - After MS quit support I switched to XP Corp SP2 and after tweaking got it almost as stable as my old 98 se and a little faster - now I have Vista premium and regret not going ultimate - and there are certain issues with it - but generally, needs more resources to run almost as well as XP - when will it be the opposite? I understand the need to make it look good - but I would rather have a slimmer and quicker running os.
So far I have been fortunate with Vista - runs almost as fast as XP - but the pop up question box when I run proggys is quite annoying, like the OS is trying to hold my hand or believes I haven't a clue as to what I am doing... I guess they had to go to the lowest denominator when creating the OS. I do have issues running older software (pre MS 2000/ME forget it) and I have had issues finding drivers for printers (sadly, printers purchased within 6 months of Vista coming into market...) But generally, I find it just effectively another version of 3.11 - with neato graphics that really do not add to the speed, stability, and effectiveness of the OS, but just adds to the minimum hardware requirements to run this thing. (I remember how 32mb ram ran 95 perfectly fine, and 512 was great for XP, just try to run Vista on less than 2gb and see how well it runs.
(Vista capable hardware my @ss... MS and the OEMs should be hit for that on anything that was called, or had stickers claiming Vista capable, that had less than 2gb ram and dual core, or at least a high end single core)

Now - I believe using direct foul language can be a "no-no" on this forum...

[kirk121]

Why dont we all just agree that there are some people that dont like it for one reason or another. Be it hardware problems or software problems, but just because vista does not like some hardware or that the people dont want to make new drivers for vista. It is not the end of the world, if you must have certain hardware / software then just stay with XP.

I have been running vista for 6-7 months now, and have installed SP1 and had no problems with software that was new enough to run on vista. Sure there were some that didnt work but it is not the end of the world, I lived on and so can you.

So why keep complaining about something that you cant change? Use it if you want dont, if you dont. Just end the I hate Vista because bla bla bla stuff.

I mean if you are really having problems running things like BSOD's from windows vista then you need to make sure that you use the error report feature if you are able to, so MS knows that there are alot of people having problems and then they know that there is something they need to looking to .

I am not a MS lover or hater, I use it because it is more stable for me than XP ever was. XP BSOD on me more than Vista ever has, and if it did usually it was because of something I did that caused it. I am not saying it is this way for everyone, but this is how it is for me.

So like I said use it if you want or just dont, but dont just blame Vista for any and all problems you have.

So it it your choice and no one else's, you like XP use it untill it is no longer supported then decide if you are ready to make the change.

[dark_reign]

But generally, I find it just effectively another version of 3.11 - with neato graphics that really do not add to the speed, stability, and effectiveness of the OS, but just adds to the minimum hardware requirements to run this thing. (I remember how 32mb ram ran 95 perfectly fine, and 512 was great for XP, just try to run Vista on less than 2gb and see how well it runs.
(Vista capable hardware my @ss... MS and the OEMs should be hit for that on anything that was called, or had stickers claiming Vista capable, that had less than 2gb ram and dual core, or at least a high end single core)
512MB is okay for running XP for the average user. 1GB RAM or more is optimal. With Vista, 2GB RAM or more is optimal. Why anyone would think a new OS from MS would run just as well with the same amount of RAM from a previous OS is beyond me. With RAM so cheap these days, who cares if you need to add more to get better performance?

I agree that the 'Vista Capable' program was a joke and should have never been put into place. That shit was just wrong and very stupid.

[DeaconFrost]

So like I said use it if you want or just dont, but dont just blame Vista for any and all problems you have.

So it it your choice and no one else's, you like XP use it untill it is no longer supported then decide if you are ready to make the change.
In a perfect world, it would be this easy. Hell, even if people checked things out or participated in normal discussions it would work out fine. The problem is, people make up things or post ridiculous crap, only to start an argument.

Look at this thread for example, specifically the title. One person has a problem with SP1, so instead of just asking for help and participating in discussions to find a solution, they go on a rant bashing anything and everything, including newborn puppies. It is this level of ridiculousness that brings about the arguing.

There are some legitimate issues with Vista, just as their are with XP, Leopard, Ubuntu, etc etc etc. A good community would be where people come with questions, and walk away with answers. That's how it is on several BMW forums I visit. Instead, we have people posting incorrect or ridiculous information, and then they are quick to label anyone who defends the truth as a fanboy. The point of these boards is to help people and all learn from each other. Unfortuntely there are some who would rather debate and argue every topic, and it is making the correct information harder to find for those looking for it.

[DeaconFrost]

Why anyone would think a new OS from MS would run just as well with the same amount of RAM from a previous OS is beyond me.
That's all goes back to the repeating cycle that a few people can't open their eyes enough to see. It has always been this way. 2000 was bashed for using more resources than 98. XP was bashed for using more resources than 2000. Vista is bashed for using more resources than XP. It is funny how our vehicles are always increasing in horsepower and we're fine with that...but when computers increase in horsepower, we want to use less and less of that power.

[TechieSooner]

but generally, needs more resources to run almost as well as XP - when will it be the opposite?
Never.

All operating systems need more RAM as they progress. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux...
The user interface is a big topic nowadays. People don't want a fugly looking system... And having things like Flip 3D and Expose` definitely has their places to increase productivity (I just don't think it's there quite yet).

And while you could design an OS to use the same resources, it just wouldn't have a good feature set at all... Folks would have to resort to downloading a ton of third-party applications and add ons to get it to work the way they want it to. The trend now is bundling up the basic apps so it just works out of the box. This is true with Windows and Mac OS for awhile, and even Linux (Ubuntu) is catching on.


And another fact why requirements will always be higher is applications. Applications, as the operating system grows, they grow. They continue to grow more functions, features, and options as well- which all means they need better hardware. Look at Photoshop. Tons of new stuff going into that all the time.

[DFranch]

I miss my old 98 se build - it was stable fast and crash proof - After MS quit support I switched to XP Corp SP2 and after tweaking got it almost as stable as my old 98 se and a little faster
Win 98 SE was great, but ont of the biggest benefits of moving to XP was stability. in XP when a program crashed usually only that program would crash in 98SE the os needed to be rebooted. If your 98 was more stable than XP then consider yourself fortunate, because I don't think that is the norm.

now I have Vista premium and regret not going ultimate - and there are certain issues with it - but generally, needs more resources to run almost as well as XP - when will it be the opposite? I understand the need to make it look good - but I would rather have a slimmer and quicker running os.
every new version of windows requires more resources than the last and I doubt it will ever change.

So far I have been fortunate with Vista - runs almost as fast as XP - but the pop up question box when I run proggys is quite annoying, like the OS is trying to hold my hand or believes I haven't a clue as to what I am doing... I guess they had to go to the lowest denominator when creating the OS.
I'm pretty sure there is a way to disable the popups, I'm not sure of the procedure, but I think there is a way.

I do have issues running older software (pre MS 2000/ME forget it) and I have had issues finding drivers for printers (sadly, printers purchased within 6 months of Vista coming into market...)
That is really more of a problem with the software and hardware makers not making their products compatible with vista, not the other way around.

But generally, I find it just effectively another version of 3.11 - with neato graphics that really do not add to the speed, stability, and effectiveness of the OS, but just adds to the minimum hardware requirements to run this thing.
Really ... Vista is just 3.11 with better graphics! Exaggerate much?

[junglicious]

That's all fine and dandy with me. I use both Vista and XP and don't hate either of them but then I am a computer geek and enjoy dealing with all of the quirks and issues of computer use. But you have to admit, it's a far cry from being as easy to use as a toaster as Microsoft and Apple would like to have the masses believe . What I have an issue with is the how some of the people on this forum are derogatory to people who do have issues with Vista and immediately start to ridicule them when they post their issues of why they don't like Vista. They really do make themselves look like fanbois and I hate fanbois of any persuasion. Especially Linux fanbois. :) I install SP1 and get a stop error. Next day all is fine for no obvious reason. Somehow you equate that to it is my fault because I don't know what the fuck I am doing? Well, fuck you and the horse that you rode in on.

I've been using computers since 1989 and was originally trained to use the Mac. Two types of Mac and that is professionally trained. Also XT PC, again, in a professional capacity.

I don't have a horse, a bike yes. I don't care how long you been doing something, that doesn't make you good in that field. Example, people play football all the time, but there is a difference between the pros and the rookies. People who try to prove themselves on the net with whatever backgrounds look stupid too. That still doesn't tell me anything.

"Next day all is fine for no obvious reason"
Yea, no obvious reason to you, but there was a reason.

If you read this sentence again you should understand that I was not directing at the user in general.

"Computers only do what they are program/build to do. Everything else is the users/engineer/programmers fault. We are the ones who "make" the stuff."

[junglicious]

In a perfect world, it would be this easy. Hell, even if people checked things out or participated in normal discussions it would work out fine. The problem is, people make up things or post ridiculous crap, only to start an argument.

Look at this thread for example, specifically the title. One person has a problem with SP1, so instead of just asking for help and participating in discussions to find a solution, they go on a rant bashing anything and everything, including newborn puppies. It is this level of ridiculousness that brings about the arguing.

There are some legitimate issues with Vista, just as their are with XP, Leopard, Ubuntu, etc etc etc. A good community would be where people come with questions, and walk away with answers. That's how it is on several BMW forums I visit. Instead, we have people posting incorrect or ridiculous information, and then they are quick to label anyone who defends the truth as a fanboy. The point of these boards is to help people and all learn from each other. Unfortuntely there are some who would rather debate and argue every topic, and it is making the correct information harder to find for those looking for it.


I solute you. One of the more intelligent response to this thread.

[milkweg]

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular. It's just true. 10 years ago people that were using the internet on a daily basis tended to be tech pros and computer savvy people more than any other demographic. Today, that is just not the case. Today there are many vocal people out there, but the technical level of those people are comparatively lower than what it was a decade ago.

You can blame AOL for that. ;)

[milkweg]

like the OS is trying to hold my hand or believes I haven't a clue as to what I am doing...

That's exactly what it is doing. That's why I made the comment about toasters earlier. They want the average person to think a computer is as simple as making toast in the morning but of course a computer is a very complex machine and prone to all kinds of issues. It's a wonder they work at all.

[CpuMan]

Win 98 SE was great, but ont of the biggest benefits of moving to XP was stability. in XP when a program crashed usually only that program would crash in 98SE the os needed to be rebooted. If your 98 was more stable than XP then consider yourself fortunate, because I don't think that is the norm.

LOL,
My first PC had windows 98se, and I remember the 1st few times I saw "this program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down" I thought shit I did something illegal, lol.

Windows XP was a huge increase in stability in that regard. No more reboots due to the dreaded "this program has performed an illegal operation" bull crap.

Back on topic,
Both XP and Vista have been very stable OS's for me. The rule of thumb I go by is simple, any existing PC that has XP on it don't bother upgrading. Any new PC that you are buying or building put Vista on it.

[milkweg]

Why anyone would think a new OS from MS would run just as well with the same amount of RAM from a previous OS is beyond me.

Because they possibly had a moment of genius and realized we want efficient and not bloatware? Nah, it'll never happen.

[DFranch]

Both XP and Vista have been very stable OS's for me. The rule of thumb I go by is simple, any existing PC that has XP on it don't bother upgrading. Any new PC that you are buying or building put Vista on it.
Excellent rule of thumb. that is definitely the way to go. Anybody I know who bought a new machine with vista preinstalled have been happy, I think it tends to be the upgraders who expect there machine will suddenly perform better who are dissapointed the most.

[milkweg]

It is funny how our vehicles are always increasing in horsepower and we're fine with that...but when computers increase in horsepower, we want to use less and less of that power.

That couldn't be further from the truth. Vehicles are becoming more efficient and not increasing in horse power at all. The smart man buys an efficient vehicle and not a high horse power gas guzzler.

[milkweg]

XP BSOD on me more than Vista ever has, and if it did usually it was because of something I did that caused it.

BSOD is a hardware issue and not something caused by the user.

[milkweg]

I don't care how long you been doing something, that doesn't make you good in that field.


Considering you don't know me one iota it makes you look very stupid to make assumptions about people you know nothing about or their abilities. Only thing I can think of that caused the stop error is this brand new *Microsoft* keyboard I changed to just prior to installing SP1 that won't work until it gets to the Vista welcome screen. IBM keyboard on the same USB port works perfectly. Yep, that is definitely my fault and lack of understanding of how PC's work. Tell me? Why are some computer geeks such arrogant asshats?

[kirk121]

BSOD is a hardware issue and not something caused by the user.

Sorry I should have said programs that I ran or drivers, I was not saying that it directly was the user's fault.

I am sure that people have had BSOD's from things like nvidia drivers, so that is a hardware issue not that the driver its self has crashed?

Also I should say that if you install the wrong driver you can and will cause a BSOD if it is something like a chipset or raid or even satadriver.
everything is not always a hardware problem.

[snaggletooth]

BSOD is a hardware issue and not something caused by the user.

that's definitely not been true in my experience with bsod's. often times, ooops! my fault.

[milkweg]

"Computers only do what they are program/build to do. Everything else is the users/engineer/programmers fault. We are the ones who "make" the stuff."

What moron are you quoting there? "Users" don't make the stuff and are not to blame because some engineer or programmer fucked up.

[milkweg]

that's definitely not been true in my experience with bsod's. often times, ooops! my fault.

PLease give an example of how *you* caused a bsod.

[snaggletooth]

PLease give an example of how *you* caused a bsod.

installing hardware/drivers in the wrong order.

if you ask me, there's an order.... at least for p5n-e sli's....and any other boards i've worked with.

every board has quirks that will cause bsod's. the trick is finding out how they're caused and then not allowing those conditions to be met.

*shrugs*

[milkweg]

Sorry I should have said programs that I ran or drivers, I was not saying that it directly was the user's fault.

I am sure that people have had BSOD's from things like nvidia drivers, so that is a hardware issue not that the driver its self has crashed?

Also I should say that if you install the wrong driver you can and will cause a BSOD if it is something like a chipset or raid or even satadriver.
everything is not always a hardware problem.

I've never seen a BSOD caused by a Nvidia driver. We are specifically talking about a BSOD and not some other error. Maybe there are some drivers that have caused BSOD but I can't remember any. I remember on Win98SE if the cdrom couldn't read a cd it would BSOD but that is a hardware issue too and not software.

[milkweg]

installing hardware/drivers in the wrong order.

if you ask me, there's an order.... at least for p5n-e sli's....and any other boards i've worked with.

every board has quirks that will cause bsod's. the trick is finding out how they're caused and then not allowing those conditions to be met.

*shrugs*

OK, I just can't remember a BSOD happenign because of that. Crashes yes, and the OS not loading because of it but not an actual BSOD. Anytime I have had BSOD it has been due to some bad hardware. Bad ram, bad block on the HDD, cpu overheating etc.

[dark_reign]

Because they possibly had a moment of genius and realized we want efficient and not bloatware? Nah, it'll never happen.
Knowing Microsoft's OS history should have hampered that kind of thinking.

[snaggletooth]

OK, I just can't remember a BSOD happenign because of that. Crashes yes, and the OS not loading because of it but not an actual BSOD. Anytime I have had BSOD it has been due to some bad hardware. Bad ram, bad block on the HDD, cpu overheating etc.

well then something new! check your order of driver installation, another something to use.

i know it's helped me troubleshoot certain problems... nv4xxx.whatever ftl when combined with linksys in the wrong order :p

[XOR != OR]

Never.

All operating systems need more RAM as they progress. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux... No, this is false. As your expectations progress, you need more resources for your system. That's true. But if you have a machine that has a singular purpose, it's needs are not going to magically increase. Even with the latest distros out now, you won't need to bump your memory requirements unless you are going to be adding to what you are doing. A firewall running CentOS runs just fine in 32megs if you know what you are doing, for example.

[kirk121]

What moron are you quoting there? "Users" don't make the stuff and are not to blame because some engineer or programmer fucked up.

Users can and do make programs, some people can code. And as for the engineer or programmer part, can you make a operating system or program that works with no problems with every kind of hardware and with every kind of software out there? If you can you are a god in the programing world:rolleyes: Sorry to sound like a ARSE but you got to admit that it has some truth to what I am getting at.

Yes MS does not make perfect OS's, but no one can. You can only test and code for so much or you will never be done and it would not even be worth working on it, if it took forever to make.

[kirk121]

I've never seen a BSOD caused by a Nvidia driver. We are specifically talking about a BSOD and not some other error. Maybe there are some drivers that have caused BSOD but I can't remember any. I remember on Win98SE if the cdrom couldn't read a cd it would BSOD but that is a hardware issue too and not software.

I have had a few Nv.sys errors or something like that, and video card driver errors. Not that it is always a software issue I am just saying that it is not always hardware that can cause them.

[DFranch]

I have had a few Nv.sys errors or something like that, and video card driver errors. Not that it is always a software issue I am just saying that it is not always hardware that can cause them.
I've definitely had nvidia drivers cause a BSOD before. I would say video drivers have been among the biggest causes of BSOD's on my systems. Overclocking and bad memory account for the rest.

[junglicious]

Considering you don't know me one iota it makes you look very stupid to make assumptions about people you know nothing about or their abilities. Only thing I can think of that caused the stop error is this brand new *Microsoft* keyboard I changed to just prior to installing SP1 that won't work until it gets to the Vista welcome screen. IBM keyboard on the same USB port works perfectly. Yep, that is definitely my fault and lack of understanding of how PC's work. Tell me? Why are some computer geeks such arrogant asshats?

You contradict yourself. I was making a point and wasn't even directing the "you don't know" towards you. Geek? HA! Please, I am far from it. Its just funny to piss people off who think they know it all or blame it on something that is their own doing. I don't care who you are either and I wouldn't waste my time thinking about who you are. People really do flatter themselves on the net don't they.

[junglicious]

The smart man buys an efficient vehicle and not a high horse power gas guzzler.

That is a stupid comment. Think about what you just said.

[junglicious]

What moron are you quoting there? "Users" don't make the stuff and are not to blame because some engineer or programmer fucked up.

Again, I'm done with your incompetent to read. You sir are ignored.

[TechieSooner]

The rule of thumb I go by is simple, any existing PC that has XP on it don't bother upgrading. Any new PC that you are buying or building put Vista on it.
I think that is a good general rule of thumb I'd agree with...

Vehicles are becoming more efficient and not increasing in horse power at all
Bull. Compare a Model T to a Mustang GT...
Vehicles are a TON different technology, and don't change near as fast nor as often as computer technology.

In much the same way, look at our beginning computers and to the ones we have now- we are always increasing.


No, this is false. As your expectations progress, you need more resources for your system. That's true. But if you have a machine that has a singular purpose, it's needs are not going to magically increase. Even with the latest distros out now, you won't need to bump your memory requirements unless you are going to be adding to what you are doing. A firewall running CentOS runs just fine in 32megs if you know what you are doing, for example.
This is true. Would even be true in a Windows system though... If 98 worked for you and is all you needed, you'd be fine.

But we are talking about advancements and later versions. Look at Ubuntu. Lots of eye candy, packaged features and whatnot that needs more system requirements...

[milkweg]

Users can and do make programs, some people can code.

If a user can code then he is a programmer and not a simple user.

Anyway, figured out the issue with my SP1 stop error. The auto setting on my ram in the mb was too aggressive. And that came about because I stopped overclocking and set everything back to auto. When I was overclocking I was using a ram divider so it was running slower than the auto setting. I'm sure someone will say that is my fault for using the auto ram settting though. Everything ran fine on auto and never had any problems until I installed SP1. So ran mem diagnostics and that showed the error.

[milkweg]

I
Bull. Compare a Model T to a Mustang GT...


That's a niche product for people with penis envy and not the kind of car most people buy or want. With the price of gas a smart car shopper would get a very efficient 4 banger.

[TechieSooner]

That's a niche product for people with penis envy and not the kind of car most people buy or want. With the price of gas a smart car shopper would get a very efficient 4 banger.

That's besides the point. Your original argument was that cars run on the same horsepower as before :rolleyes:

[dark_reign]

That's a niche product for people with penis envy and not the kind of car most people buy or want. With the price of gas a smart car shopper would get a very efficient 4 banger.
So are high end computers. PC enthusiasts are niche market.

Not everybody cares about the cost of gas. Some people have vehicles that they only drive on the weekends. Some people just don't drive that much. Buying a gas hog doesn't make a person stupid unless they have a limited monthly income or they drive a lot.

[LstOfTheBrunnenG]

Jeez guys, if you're going to make a Vista bash thread, at least keep it on topic and sane.

Do we need a Godwin's Law for car analogies?

[gaspah]

If a user can code then he is a programmer and not a simple user.

That is a load of garbage.. when i was a little kid 10-13... I used to code all sorts of little games in pascal and basic on my 80286... and through and through I'm an average user... i think you need to be more specific with "if a user can code"... i can code all sorts of things... I'm not a programmer by profession nor do I do it for a side income, I'll use code when whatever personal project I'm doing requires it..

and Vista.... it is definately NOT garbage (as i once thought).. it's simply designed for modern computers (makes me wonder about the 32bit version though as i reckon Vista needs 4GiB).... all complaints (besides the very early ones) are all because of insufficient hardware or incorrect drivers (which windows update in Vista is more than happy to help you through)

[milkweg]

That's besides the point. Your original argument was that cars run on the same horsepower as before :rolleyes:

They do. Actually they run on less horse power. Go compare the average cars of the '60's to today's average car and you will see I am correct. In the 60's it was common for cars to have 300hp or more. Today the average is 150hp. We don't need 300hp any more because the cars are designed to be more efficient and are much lighter than the tank bodies they used to use. Your analogy is just plain wrong.

[TechieSooner]

makes me wonder about the 32bit version though as i reckon Vista needs 4GiB
That is why some believe Windows 7 won't be offered in anything but 64 bit... And I would tend to agree.

[Archer75]

That is why some believe Windows 7 won't be offered in anything but 64 bit... And I would tend to agree.

They initially said that it would be 64bit only, but soon after changed their minds and said it would also be 32bit.

[brokentilez]

I'm still running xp... waiting for more users to say it's more stable...

[gaspah]

I'm still running xp... waiting for more users to say it's more stable...

It's rock-solid stable... more stable than XP IMHO... i might just be me but it seems to have better thread isolation... or maybe thats the core2 talking

there you go.. one more :)

[milkweg]

That is a load of garbage.. when i was a little kid 10-13... I used to code all sorts of little games in pascal and basic on my 80286... and through and through I'm an average user...

That's not an average user! An average user is the secretary using Microsoft Office, the average user is your mum checking out cooking recipes on the web, an average user is your Dad checking out today's stock market charts. You are a computer geek.

[Foxcow]

I'm still running xp... waiting for more users to say it's more stable...

I haven't had a problem yet. It was a little bit of a pain to setup at first due to the differences (wireless issues), but I am liking it a lot so far. I am running Ultimate 32-bit on a laptop.

[DeathFromBelow]

I updated my parent's systems yesterday. Another two machines without a hitch.

I'm still running xp... waiting for more users to say it's more stable...
Vista has always been more stable than XP.

[gaspah]

That's not an average user! An average user is the secretary using Microsoft Office, the average user is your mum checking out cooking recipes on the web, an average user is your Dad checking out today's stock market charts. You are a computer geek.

ROFL geek huh :p

i was just a kid playing with a computer back then.. no training, no previous experience, I was just given a dead computer some disks with software and told if you can get it to work you can play on it... so i did... my only reference was help files contained within software... i learned a fair bit of pascal and basic like this...

I am not a genious, i'm not even that smart... i was just an average kid with a computer... just because computers have become very simple and society is progressively getting dumber.. doesnt mean i at wasn't an average user... as there were (and still are) SOOOO many levels up from where i was.. i was definately bottom floor...

back then this types of things was one of the only things you could do on a computer... there was no ebays, wikipedias, ok there was pr0n (not that i was supposed to know what that was at that age LOL), no myspace, no facebook, no 3d engines..

but maybe it's because the 'average user' wont take time to look under the hood of their machines (code isnt that scary really) that the IT industry (esp tech support) is frustrating as hell... I have been personally blamed for many peoples bad internet/computing habits...

[TechieSooner]

They initially said that it would be 64bit only, but soon after changed their minds and said it would also be 32bit.

Really... hmmm...
Look at where XP started (256/512) and where it is now (1GB/2GB).
Following logic, 4GB will be the norm by the time Windows 7 gets around... making 32 bit obsolete.

Do you have a link to their statement on this, was hoping they had a reason or something, I'm curious as to why.

Vista has always been more stable than XP.
Yep. Is also better in crash recovery (not just applications, but the whole OS). In XP, if you had a sudden loss of power or whatnot, you ran a risk of some corruption, rendering your computer unable to boot or work properly. With Vista, it performs alot more like *nix, in regards to running things in RAM vs. Hard Drive (which also decreases the need to reboot for updates)... But more importantly, if it crashes, you run a very very minor risk of any files getting corrupted due to suddenly getting cut off.

[milkweg]

Vista has always been more stable than XP.

Can you qualify that? Xp never crashes and Vista never crashes so how does one go about confirming one is more stable than the other without looking like they are just making it up?

[milkweg]

but maybe it's because the 'average user' wont take time to look under the hood of their machines (code isnt that scary really)

Maybe they don't look because they don't find it interesting. I rarely look under the hood of my car because it just doesn't interest me.

[gtg465x]

Can you qualify that? Xp never crashes and Vista never crashes so how does one go about confirming one is more stable than the other without looking like they are just making it up?

Maybe he meant Vista has been very stable from the get go whereas XP required 2 services packs to become as stable. However, as you said, I do think they are probably about on par at this point. It's hard to say.

[TechieSooner]

Maybe he meant Vista has been very stable from the get go whereas XP required 2 services packs to become as stable. However, as you said, I do think they are probably about on par at this point. It's hard to say.

That's pretty close for me...
XP still has bigger chances for corruption and whatnot (and is still subject to the "slow down" factor)

[DeathFromBelow]

Can you qualify that? Xp never crashes and Vista never crashes so how does one go about confirming one is more stable than the other without looking like they are just making it up?

Just my experience. I build and repair computers for a living. I've only seen a handful of problems under Vista so far, and most were due to bad memory.

Microsoft was much more aggressive about security and getting companies to make stable drivers this time around. It shows.

[milkweg]

When Vista was first released my Lgitech MX518 mouse would randomly no longer work and it turns out it was purely because it was connected to a KVM with a PS2 adapter. Had to go buy a new KVM with USB. My Uli ethernet was a real PITA on Vista so had to put in a PCI ethernet card. Never had either problem on XP, or Win2K for that matter, using the exact same hardware. Vista has it's own set of issues that depends on the hardware and configuration you use.

[dark_reign]

When Vista was first released my Lgitech MX518 mouse would randomly no longer work and it turns out it was purely because it was connected to a KVM with a PS2 adapter. Had to go buy a new KVM with USB. My Uli ethernet was a real PITA on Vista so had to put in a PCI ethernet card. Never had either problem on XP, or Win2K for that matter, using the exact same hardware. Vista has it's own set of issues that depends on the hardware and configuration you use.
For many Win9x users, there were problems with XP and hardware/software upgrades were necessary. This is nothing new.

[imzjustplayin]

This has done in two of my computers now.

I just got the latest update form MS and it took a long time. When it finally re booted it BSOD and kept BSOD and now it in a loop of restarting and BSOD.

Vista 64 Ultimate was working pretty good until now. Now nothing but BSOD.
This was an auto update with MS. Pretty crapy of a SP1. This should realy impress companies since I am on a $7,000.00 work station that is only 1 year old. Not a good sign. Time for companies to run not walk away from this Vista crap. At last count it has restarted 26 times now. Without a good reboot. Can not even get safe mode to work. It just keeps cycling.

Three days of work down the tubes. What a really reliable Operating System!!!!!!
:mad::mad::(:(

Even tried to go back to last good time. Still will not go into windows Vista.... BAd BaD BAD baD
I think what Microsoft is trying to tell you is to upgrade your machine.

Because you know, for only a few $$$ you can get all the features you want, and I'm sure you could spare the money since you clearly can afford to spend $7000 in the first place, what is a few $$$ more anyways?

[LateraLex]

Somewhere between the claims of $7000 systems with a single 8800GTS or car analogies that don't apply, this thread went downhill.

Kudos to the few people who wrote things like "If you like WinXP that's great - go use it". That's the right way to think about it...

[milkweg]

My analogy that people don't look under the hood of their PC like many people don't look under the hood of their car just because they are not interested works. :)

The horse power one certainly doesn't work though.

[crewzen]

Somewhere between the claims of $7000 systems with a single 8800GTS or car analogies that don't apply, this thread went downhill.

Kudos to the few people who wrote things like "If you like WinXP that's great - go use it". That's the right way to think about it...


So now we judge what a computer is by the graphics card? Well top end raid cards and scsi hd's are way more expensive than a $350.00 graphics card.

[Brahmzy]

This thread is turning real GHEY, real fast.

[aethelwulf]

They do. Actually they run on less horse power. Go compare the average cars of the '60's to today's average car and you will see I am correct. In the 60's it was common for cars to have 300hp or more. Today the average is 150hp. We don't need 300hp any more because the cars are designed to be more efficient and are much lighter than the tank bodies they used to use. Your analogy is just plain wrong.

Your arguement is inane.
First off, 300hp on a 1960s car is not equal to 300hp on a modern car. Why? Measurement starndards. They're very different now than they were then. 300hp now is a lot more than it used to be. Also, not every car is the 60s was a 300hp monster. Sure there were GTOs and Mustangs, but those were not the norm. Just like today... LOTS of cars have upwards of 300hp and plenty of grocery-getter family sedans easily hit 250hp.
"HP reached it peak in 2000, surpassing 1960-70 era." (http://www.automotivedigest.com/research/research_results.asp?sigstats_id=573)
That's not even counting the difference in measurement standards! Perhaps you haven't noticed the perpetual HP wars that have been going on for the last decade?

Also, cars have been getting heavier for the past several decades.

Don't need 300hp anymore? Well, we never did, but that won't stop me from wanting it.

[PaHick]

this has got to be the most idiotic thread ive seen in a LONG time. vote to LOCK THREAD, potentially ban some ass's, if not for thread crapping, then for stupidity.

[number69]

This thread is tanking. Surprised nobody as linked to this yet:

http://blip.tv/file/340692/

[milkweg]

Cars are getting heavier? 300hp cars are common? Bollocks.

This whole thread is inane so am butting out.

[dark_reign]

This thread is tanking. Surprised nobody as linked to this yet:

http://blip.tv/file/340692/
LOL.:D