Vista Service Pack 1 Available

[Lemur]

I know, I know, it's just a release candidate, but still, if you're interested, here it is.

[Husar]

Ehm, I like being a beta tester but only if I can play the final thing over this one without reinstalling the whole OS. That's possible, isn't it?

[Lemur]

Two thoughts: Release candidates are not betas. In the normal world, they are usually quite polished. Hence they are candidates for release. No idea what Microsoft's track record is with them, though.

Also, Windows has been able to do system rollbacks since XP. Not sure if you can do that with Service Packs, but I can't see why you wouldn't be able to do so ...

[Whacker]

Some thoughts to build on our Lord Prosimian's comments

Two thoughts: Release candidates are not betas. In the normal world, they are usually quite polished. Hence they are candidates for release. No idea what Microsoft's track record is with them, though.

MS has had mixed track records with SPs throughout their past, however it is safe to say they've generally got better at it. The old adage, "3rd time is the charm", really holds true with MS. NT 4.0 was finally reasonably stable at SP3, Win2k was decent at SP3, and WinXP, while not bad, could stand another SP also. Vista however seems to be on track to surpass that (as in they'll need more to get it right), given what I've seen both firsthand and from other experienced knowledgeable folks.

Also, Windows has been able to do system rollbacks since XP. Not sure if you can do that with Service Packs, but I can't see why you wouldn't be able to do so ...

This is true, but in reality one should always expect problems when trying to back out of a patch the size and scope of a service pack. You can do it, but I would never recommend it, both in commercial and consumer settings. Just my $0.02 USD.

[Husar]

I know it's a RC but without using an abbreviation it's a longer word to write...

Ehm, anyway, like Whacker, I'm not very fond of anything that says rollback or repair because in my experience it either won't work or produce unexpected problems so I guess I'll wait for the final thing.

Vista Beta 2 and RC1 ran pretty fine for me except that one or two features seemed incomplete or buggy, like setting the standard browser to Opera was impossible.

[Lemur]

IVista Beta 2 and RC1 ran pretty fine for me except that one or two features seemed incomplete or buggy, like setting the standard browser to Opera was impossible.

That's not a bug, that's a feature.

[Whacker]

That's not a bug, that's a feature.

Obligatory "monopolies lol" response

[Lemur]

Got a good laugh from The Reg's take on it:

Caution: If you install this on any mission-critical machinery you are quite simply mad. We are contacting the authorities. The nice men arriving shortly will make sure the voices go away forever. If you are among "individuals, organizations, and technical enthusiasts who are comfortable evaluating pre-release software," you can continue. And may God have mercy on your soul.

[Husar]

That's not a bug, that's a feature.

I was wondering that as well at the time but it works just fine in the full version. I'll wait a bit with SP1 though.

[Papewaio]

Pre-release candidates should be viewed by home users with the same aversion as rabbits view large pots of boiling water.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Filled with sharks.

Sharks that sell Windows Vista.

[Bijo]

Got a good laugh from The Reg's take on it:

Caution: If you install this on any mission-critical machinery you are quite simply mad. We are contacting the authorities. The nice men arriving shortly will make sure the voices go away forever. If you are among "individuals, organizations, and technical enthusiasts who are comfortable evaluating pre-release software," you can continue. And may God have mercy on your soul.

Hah hah! That and this whole thread are giving me a good laugh!

[Blodrast]

Mister Prosimian, Sir, you forgot to mention one tiny detail: it comes with DX 10.1, for which (surprise!) you need new hardware, if you want to enjoy all the amazing features it provides!

Considering that one of the major reasons for people to switch to Vista was DX 10 (even though there isn't an abundance of video cards - or games - for it), the folks who forked the cash to get those brand new video cards will have to do so again, if they really want the greatest and bestest in graphics (and if they didn't, they wouldn't have switched to DX 10, now would they ?).

Now, dear customer consumer, please bend over and enjoy our monopoly some more.

[Husar]

Oh please, those who want the bestest and latest have to buy new cards all the time anyway, it's their problem for wanting the bestest and latest, they'd get a new card from a new generation anyway even if it was just a faster DX10.0 card.

The normal customer will get it a bit later just like most of the games supporting it will come out a bit later. If it weren't downwards compatible, then you might want to talk about forcing customers.

[Whacker]

Oh please, those who want the bestest and latest have to buy new cards all the time anyway, it's their problem for wanting the bestest and latest, they'd get a new card from a new generation anyway even if it was just a faster DX10.0 card.

No, that's not the problem. The problem is that the general understanding was that the Nvidia 8x00 series had full support for DirectX 10. Now we're hearing that this new DX10.1 requires fully NEW hardware and wouldn't be supported 100% by the current 8x00 gen and whatever ATI's current gen is. This would be the equivalent of a card supporting DX9.0a and 9.0b, but needing to buy a new card for DX9.0c. In other words, one expects that their hardware is going to work for whatever the current generation and any iterations/patches to it. Sounds like they either halfassed the DX10 spec and are just now fixing it, or what we're really getting is DX11 but it's called DX10.1.

Bleh.

[Xiahou]

Sounds like they either halfassed the DX10 spec and are just now fixing it, or what we're really getting is DX11 but it's called DX10.1.

The difference is really just academic. Either way, they're really just half-assing it. Kinda sums up my opinion of Vista in general right now.

In my case, I don't really care since I bought my budget 8800 for it's DX9 performance with no serious intention of running Vista or DX10. However, people who sprang for a high-end graphics card and Vista in an attempt to future proof their system for a few years with the latest and greatest could be understandably upset to hear that their expensive new graphics card is now obsolete.

[Husar]

The problem is that the general understanding was that the Nvidia 8x00 series had full support for DirectX 10. Now we're hearing that this new DX10.1 requires fully NEW hardware and wouldn't be supported 100% by the current 8x00 gen and whatever ATI's current gen is.

Then complain to NVidia or ATI for false advertising or maybe tell Microsoft what interval your lordship deems appropriate between two Direct-X releases.
The 8x00 series does fully support DX10, just not DX10.1.
One might say that's what you get for buying 1(0).0 hardware.

[Lemur]

Vista SP1 has been released to manufacturing; expect to see it for download in March.

[drone]

Vista SP1 has been released to manufacturing; expect to see it for download in March.

50% faster copying and moving of files!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm still going to wait for Win 7. Vista is just ME2.