Topic: Vista SP1

[Pugnate]

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3233

Observations and Closing Thoughts

As far as the Vista user experience is concerned, users shouldn’t expect any significant changes with SP1. In this respect Vista SP1 is much like any other Windows service pack, rather than being another XP SP2. To that extent if you threw a pre-SP1 system and a post-SP1 system in front of us, we’d need to do some low-level benchmarking to identify which one was using SP1. In day-to-day use, the difference is not obvious outside of the specific improvements we’ve talked about.

For those curious about how long the SP1 installation process takes, Microsoft has said it will take anywhere between 20 minutes to over an hour. Some of this boils down to simple hard drive performance, with slower drives taking longer to update all of the files SP1 patches. Given our own installation efforts, we suspect that there are other factors that are non-obvious - in other words, your mileage may vary. In general Vista x64 will take longer to patch than Vista x32 due to the additional files that need to be patched under Vista x64 (e.g. there are a number of files and libraries that come in 32-bit and 64-bit versions). On our official test system we clocked Vista x64 at 33.5 minutes to install from start to finish, while a laptop took just shy of an hour. You’ll definitely want to go find something else to do for a bit while Vista is patching, and if you're running an ultraportable laptop with a 1.8" hard drive you will very likely break the one hour threshold.

One thing that is unfortunate for Microsoft with SP1 is that there is a good chance that system performance immediately following the patching process will be lower than it was prior to patching. As part of the installation process the SuperFetch and ReadyBoost subsystems are purged of all caches and learned behaviors, effectively reverting a patched system to that of a brand-new untrained system. Vista does not take long to retrain itself, and Microsoft notes the process can take a couple of days (we were back to perceived normal within a day), but nevertheless a lot of people are going to be thrown off by things such as longer application load times immediately following the patch.

Finally, coming into SP1 we heard some concerns about application and driver compatibility. While we cannot test everything, we have not run into any new issues with SP1. We have heard within the last day that a small number of systems are having an issue with one of the SP1 pre-patches (patches that are required prior to installing SP1) causing an infinite reboot sequence, but we have not experienced this first hand, nor do we have an accurate idea of how large the affected “small” group of users is, given the echo chamber effect on the Internet. We cannot recall a Windows service pack that didn’t break at least a handful of Windows installations, so this could simply be par for the course; it’s hard to say at this point.

At the end of the day, we don’t have much of anything bad to say about SP1 outside of the “fix” for displaying the amount of installed memory on 32-bit systems, so our recommendation is that all Vista users to install SP1 once it becomes available to the public at large. It won’t knock most people’s socks off, but the file and network performance improvements are long overdue and will be noticeable for most users. Ultimately, any user who has felt slighted by the poor copy performance of Vista will find relief in SP1, as will anyone whose pet-issue has specifically been fixed in Vista SP1. Anyone else who didn’t like Vista for other reasons will be no more impressed by SP1 than they were by the original version; there are a few quirks that should have been resolved in SP1 that were not.

Compared to where we were a year ago, our general recommendation for Vista is unchanged. We are however impressed with the progress of the x64 versions of Vista over the past year, after feeling like it was lagging behind Vista x86 from beta up through the release version of Vista. Vista x64 is now clearly on par with Vista x86 and we have no concerns about its compatibility or performance. There are still good reasons to stick with Vista x86, such as compatibility with specific applications and Vista x64’s higher memory usage due to WoW64, but these are the only reasons. A year ago we recommended using Vista x86 unless you specifically needed Vista x64; now we’re comfortable making the opposite recommendation of running Vista x64 unless you have a specific reason to stick with Vista x86.

Finally, for those Windows users still sticking with XP, they too will be getting Microsoft's long-overdue XP SP3 in the very near future. We’ll be bringing a review of that to you as soon as it goes gold later this quarter, along with a fully up to date performance comparison between Vista and XP to better illustrate what little gap remains between the two operating systems. The list of changes isn’t nearly as far-reaching as Vista SP1, but there are a couple of interesting items on the list. (Ed: It will also be nice to not install over 100 patches/updates/etc. after a clean XP SP2 install.) Stay tuned for that in the coming weeks.

I think this pretty much sinks any hopes people had for Vista.

I generally like Vista. It is more stable, and the interface is more intuitive. The annoying stuff can also easily be turned off, plus it does look pretty. However all of that isn't enough to shell out any amount of money if you already have XP. If you are getting a new OS, and have 2GB of RAM, then I'd say Vista is about as acceptable as XP.

My problem is the false DX10 promise. The DX10 visual improvements are a nice subtle change at best, -- which sums up Vista -- and come at a hit, not worth the resources. This is disappointing because MS promised the exact opposite. They claimed DX10 would not only look better, but run significantly faster as well. A large part of this could have to do with the sagging video card market. It could be that graphics card haven't caught up with Vista, with ATi going down the tubes, and Nvidia not having motivation to work past their 8xxx series (the 9xxx series is basically an enhanced 8xxx series).

So yes, a part of me did believe MS, and when it didn't happen, I thought it would with SP1. Unfortunately it still hasn't happened, and I think we all have to wait for Windows 7 for something significantly better. To me, this was the last throw of the dice.

[scottws]

I've heard different things about DX10.  Sure, there was that artist's rendering showing that DX10 was like super-duper-uber awesome looking compared to the same (fake) scene under DX9.  It is clear now (was it unclear then?) that was just marketing BS.

But I've seen mention of devs using DX10 rendering under Vista vs. DX9 because it's faster to do the same thing under DX10 rather than DX9.

So while the promises of completely awesome DX10 visuals are overblown, it does seem that it does have advantages and the devs see and are utilizing it.

In reference to the article, I can vouch that Vista x64 is a complete product, at least in comparison with x86.  I never had a problem that was isolated to the 64-bit version.

SP1 does seem to have vastly increased network performance.  That was one of my biggest issues.

[Cobra951]

DX10 was a false premise off the starting gate, because the implication was that Vista is needed in order to make it possible (which is a crock).  If you're MS, and you invested a shit-ton of time and money in developing the next great OS, on the heels of the terrific XP, and you learn in dismay that all that time and money only produced the disappointing Vista, what would you do?  Would you shelve it, and eat the past, present and future loss, or would you use your monopoly power to force it on most people?  I'd bet heavily on the latter, and if so, how would you go about it?  One tool is attrition.  People's systems die, and few people can build one and install the OS of their choice.  Most of them will buy it off the shelf or off the net somewhere.  Make retailers offers they can't refuse.  Sell systems with Vista, not XP, or pay a hell of a lot more in costs.  Another tool is to freeze improvements on XP, even when it's just as capable as Vista in anything that matters.  Hence, DX10 becomes a Vista exclusive, even when DX10 improvements can be hacked in to XP without much effort.

No news there.  I guess I felt the need to articulate it.  At least, for those who are stuck with Vista, things are looking a bit better.  Is SP1 something that just came out, as in the last week, or has it been out a bit longer?  I'm wondering if my daughter's laptop came with it already.  My thought is that it probably didn't, even if SP1 was out before her system was set up.  There has to be enough lead time to work it into the standard installs/disk clones/whatever they do to expedite system setups at time of sale.

[scottws]

SP1 came out this week, I think.  Windows Update prompted me to install it... Monday?  It took about 20-25 mins on my system.

[JacksRag(e)]

Are you sure it was SP1, scott?  I got the same update but it seems to just search for pirated software and shut it down then make you verify that you have a genuine copy of Vista installed.  Apart from that update, I haven't seen anything else.  Maybe I just missed it?

And I just got an 8800 GT yesterday on sale and have been dying to try it out, but I'm concerned about my power supply being too weak to run it...so I have to wait till I get around and pick up a higher powered psu.  Bah.

[Cobra951]

Are you sure it was SP1, scott?  I got the same update but it seems to just search for pirated software and shut it down then make you verify that you have a genuine copy of Vista installed.

This is one aspect of Vista I haven't heard a thing about since it was called Longhorn.  There were horror stories in the rumor mill about the OS intruding into the validity of files you used under it, be they programs or even documents.  What's the story now?  What do you mean by "pirated software"?  Do you mean strictly Microsoft's, like Office, or does that extend to third parties as well?  How would they even know where your copy of Program X came from, and whether it's legit?

[Pugnate]

So while the promises of completely awesome DX10 visuals are overblown, it does seem that it does have advantages and the devs see and are utilizing it.

Like yourself, I've heard several developers say this. Trouble is, it hasn't happened yet. Not that Vista's gaming performance is bad, but it is still not on par with XP. Meanwhile Crysis using the DX10 hacked settings in XP, runs better than on Vista. It could be because Vista is too big a resource hog, and gets in the way of the DX10 advantage.

As for DX10 being a Vista exclusive, Cobra, I wouldn't have minded that one bit, had DX10 been the graphical nirvana that it had been marketed as. I don't see a problem with Microsoft working on a feature and then making it a part of their new OS.

Why would they give it away for free?

The problem here is that expectations are different because MS are in competition with themselves. Had XP been another company's OS, would anyone have minded DX10 being a Vista exclusive. I still don't mind, because it is the only motivation MS had for working on DX10. Besides, when I paid for XP, I was never under the belief that I'd get more than DX9.

At the same time, DX10 has turned out to be totally overblown, and that's what makes Vista pretty useless for XP owners.

What I do have a problem with is Microsoft trying to cut XP's lifeline. That's just not on.

[Cobra951]

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle.  The fact is that DirectX is and always has been Microsoft's standard API to hardware rendering, not some competitor's.  It has always been a parallel development to Windows, where the goal is to provide the most up-to-date functionality as hardware evolves.  Supported operating systems get updates regularly.  Not only is XP still supported, it's even being sold by MS, and is due for a third service pack.  There is no technical reason to withhold the latest advances in DX technology from XP, other than as a political move.

[Pugnate]

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle.

LOL

[JacksRag(e)]

This is one aspect of Vista I haven't heard a thing about since it was called Longhorn.  There were horror stories in the rumor mill about the OS intruding into the validity of files you used under it, be they programs or even documents.  What's the story now?  What do you mean by "pirated software"?  Do you mean strictly Microsoft's, like Office, or does that extend to third parties as well?  How would they even know where your copy of Program X came from, and whether it's legit?

Well, from the description of the update, it looks like it's mainly scanning the validity of the OS.  No mention of third party or other Microsoft products, but it does mention that it scans for any exploits that may compromise the integrity of the installation, so it could apply to any other cracked programs on the computer.  

[scottws]

Are you sure it was SP1, scott?  I got the same update but it seems to just search for pirated software and shut it down then make you verify that you have a genuine copy of Vista installed.  Apart from that update, I haven't seen anything else.  Maybe I just missed it?

Huh?

[JacksRag(e)]

Well, the only important update in the last few days has been that Vista update, I haven't seen anything about SP1 yet on my end.