Underwhelmed by SP1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hank
  • Start date Start date
H

Hank

Well, I've had no problems with Vista Business on this
high-end laptop, but nevertheless expected SOMETHING
when I updated with SP1 this afternoon.

After all the hype, I thought there might be drumrolls,
trumpets, flashing lights, dancers tripping across the
screen, a banner announcement. In fact, there was...
nothing.

How can it be more stable than perfectly stable, or more
compatible than perfectly compatible?

So... what can this thing do now that it couldn't do
yesterday?

Hank
 
Hank said:
Well, I've had no problems with Vista Business on this
high-end laptop, but nevertheless expected SOMETHING
when I updated with SP1 this afternoon.

After all the hype, I thought there might be drumrolls,
trumpets, flashing lights, dancers tripping across the
screen, a banner announcement. In fact, there was...
nothing.

How can it be more stable than perfectly stable, or more
compatible than perfectly compatible?

So... what can this thing do now that it couldn't do
yesterday?

Hank
Click to expand...


You need to look *inside* SP1

here is the link to what you must have missed

http://morningcup.files.wordpress.com/2006/07/co-dancers.jpg
 
Good questions, Hank.

'Bout the only thing I noticed, visually, is SP1's ability to now recognize
all 4 gigs of RAM. Before SP1, Vista only "saw" 3.5. I'm sure there are
other improvements, but I'll leave those comments to the people who are much
more technically savvy than I.

Ernie
 
Overview of Windows Vista Service Pack 1
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/417467e7-7845-46d4-85f1-dd471fbc0de91033.mspx

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

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

:

Well, I've had no problems with Vista Business on this
high-end laptop, but nevertheless expected SOMETHING
when I updated with SP1 this afternoon.

After all the hype, I thought there might be drumrolls,
trumpets, flashing lights, dancers tripping across the
screen, a banner announcement. In fact, there was...
nothing.

How can it be more stable than perfectly stable, or more
compatible than perfectly compatible?

So... what can this thing do now that it couldn't do
yesterday?

Hank
 
After years using Win95, and before, and onwards, I've learnt to avoid new
upgrages like the plague. Let the young eager guns take the hit!!!
Alan.
 
Alan said:
After years using Win95, and before, and onwards, I've learnt to avoid
new upgrages like the plague. Let the young eager guns take the hit!!!
Alan.
Click to expand...

Wise advice.

Alias
 
'Bout the only thing I noticed, visually, is SP1's ability to now recognize
all 4 gigs of RAM. Before SP1, Vista only "saw" 3.5. I'm sure there are
other improvements,
Click to expand...


I don't think that's an improvement at all. In fact, I think it's much
worse. The situation is exactly the same as it was: 32-bit Windows
still can't use more than something around 3.1GB (the exact amount
varies, depending on what hardware you have installed). The only
difference is that now if you've installed 4GB, the 3.1GB that you can
use is reported as 4GB.

That's downright misleading, if not plain dishonest. Yes, it avoids
the common question "what happened to the rest of my RAM," but at the
expense of misleading people.
 
Ken Blake said:
I don't think that's an improvement at all. In fact, I think it's much
worse. The situation is exactly the same as it was: 32-bit Windows
still can't use more than something around 3.1GB (the exact amount
varies, depending on what hardware you have installed). The only
difference is that now if you've installed 4GB, the 3.1GB that you can
use is reported as 4GB.

That's downright misleading, if not plain dishonest. Yes, it avoids
the common question "what happened to the rest of my RAM," but at the
expense of misleading people.

--
Click to expand...

I would agree with that as well, already I have seen folks posting in some
other forums, they look forward to SP1 so they can use all 4gb of their ram
they have installed on their 32 bit OS, and nothing could be further from
the truth.
 
Alias said:
Wise advice.

Alias
Click to expand...

Yes, It Is Best To Avoid Upgrades Like Ubuntu Puts Out Every 6 Months
Because They Can't Get Their Act Together. Just FYI. Ubuntu Is Just A
Bunch Of Clowns Writing Software Because They Have Nothing Better To Do.
Just FYI.
 
Well, I've had no problems with Vista Business on this
high-end laptop, but nevertheless expected SOMETHING
when I updated with SP1 this afternoon.

After all the hype, I thought there might be drumrolls,
trumpets, flashing lights, dancers tripping across the
screen, a banner announcement. In fact, there was...
nothing.

How can it be more stable than perfectly stable, or more
compatible than perfectly compatible?

So... what can this thing do now that it couldn't do
yesterday?

Hank
Click to expand...

I hope SP1 fixes the annoying bug of Explorer not remembering folder
view settings. Mine jump all over the place, at what seems like
random.
 
That's a fascinating comment, Ken. I don't doubt you for a minute. Here I
was presuming SP1 fixed Vista's RAM limitations. Ha!!! Well, even when I
think I finally understand something, I don't!!!

Take care,

Ernie
 
Well, the best 'fix' for Vista ram issues is "Ram Boost". Put two 4 gig ram
drives in the usb slots, and assign them to ram boost and your Ram plus
Virtual memory acts like you have 3+8 gigs of ram, or at least way faster
than plain hard drive VM.

--
Was this helpful? Then click the Ratings button. Voting helps the web
interface.
http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales/help/help_en-us.htm#RateAPostAsAnswer
Mark L. Ferguson
..

Scrivener said:
That's a fascinating comment, Ken. I don't doubt you for a minute. Here
I was presuming SP1 fixed Vista's RAM limitations. Ha!!! Well, even when
I think I finally understand something, I don't!!!

Take care,

Ernie
Click to expand...
 
I don't think that's an improvement at all. In fact, I think it's much
worse. The situation is exactly the same as it was: 32-bit Windows
still can't use more than something around 3.1GB (the exact amount
varies, depending on what hardware you have installed). The only
difference is that now if you've installed 4GB, the 3.1GB that you can
use is reported as 4GB.

That's downright misleading, if not plain dishonest. Yes, it avoids
the common question "what happened to the rest of my RAM," but at the
expense of misleading people.
Click to expand...


Yeah but Ken, it's like the LT used to say us, "we need to fight only
those battles we can win".
Frank
 
Indeed a blatant attempt at reducing support costs from people asking why
they can't use their RAM. Instead of telling the OEMs to use 64-bit if
they advertise systems with 4GB of RAM.
Click to expand...

My vendor put 64 bits on the disk with 4GB RAM and included 32 bit CDs. But
made OEM 64 bit DVD recoveries all the same.

While not happy so far (pre SP1) about Vista, I can say this, I haven't had
any problems attributed to 32 versus 64 bits. This to me is one of the
things I like so far about Vista/64, as when I open VMWare I can go crazy.
Refitted the 4GB to 8GB, and can go VMWare nuts with 5 - 1GB sessions going
with other stuff.

Fresh SP1 install....quirky install, but seemed to work so far.

Plus, I think for shipping and handling MS does let you download 64 bit, a
first. But true. Just don't have the links handy.
 
Go Away Imposter, Just FYI.

Kevpan815 said:
Yes, It Is Best To Avoid Upgrades Like Ubuntu Puts Out Every 6 Months
Because They Can't Get Their Act Together. Just FYI. Ubuntu Is Just A
Bunch Of Clowns Writing Software Because They Have Nothing Better To Do.
Just FYI.
Click to expand...
 
Bob Campbell said:
I was wondering about this. Unless SP1 restored the PAE hack* (and thank
god it did not), there is no way that a 32 bit OS will USE more than ~ 3.3
GB of RAM in a 4 GB RAM system.

Folks, if you want to use more than 3 GB of RAM, use 64 bit Vista. Are
you old enough to remember the DOS "640K barrier"? That was the limit of
the (hacked) 20 bit addressing of a 16 bit CPU. 20 bits = 1 meg address
space. Subtract 360K for video space and other reserved space, and you had
640K.

Well, we are now at the "3.3 GB barrier" for exactly the same reason!
32 bits = 4 GB address space. Subtract ~700 megs for video space and
other reserved stuff, and you have 3.3 GB.

64 bits gives you an address space equivalent to approximately 17.2
billion gigabytes, 16.8 million terabytes, or 16 exabytes of RAM. To
coin a phrase - " 16 exabytes should be enough for anyone"!

Although I'm sure that in 20 years or so, we'll all be whining "Why can't
Windows use all 16 exabytes of my installed RAM! It only sees 13.3
exabytes! WTF?"

128 bits to the rescue! :-)

*The PAE (Physical Address Extension) hack added another 4 bits to the
address space, giving a 36 bit address space of 64 GB on an otherwise 32
bit system. Server versions of 32 bit Windows (and XP before SP2) used
this to get around the 4 GB physical RAM limit, but the other 32 bit
limits remain. It is every bit (no pun intended!) as much of a hack as
the 20 bit addressing hack of the 8088/8086 in the original PC to get
around the fact that the 8088/8086 were 16 bit CPUs and could really only
address 64K. That's why it had 64K "segments".
Click to expand...

I went Vista 64 right off, but I thought Vista 32 could do PAE? Almost
bought a 32 bit one. Was planning right form the get go to put 8GB in this
new machine. $160 for 4 x 2GB ea done. Makes no sense to even ship//buy 32
any more. Vendors are being dumb.

Bill was wrong, 640K isn't enough for anything any more. Period. And 64k
segments, I can't remember the last time I dealt with those. But sure beat
16k RAM.

XP Pro 64 was OK. In fact would buy a copy if I could.
 
Back
Top