Underwhelmed by SP1

[Canuck57]

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.

Win95 was worth early adoption. No kidding, how we forget how bad Win 3.x
sucked. Hacked TCP/SLIP/PPP....my god. Win 95 was the best upgrade ever in
MS history and hasn't been repeated since. DRM free, TCP inside (not a
retrofit), more stable, could use more memory effectivrly. Worked on old
hardware....insecure as hell, but if security was an issue...don't get me
started on that.

But after I would agree. Key management, DRM, HDMI, fat ware, licencing you
need to be a Philidelpia lawyer to understand. And Win 95 was $95 for the
install version, not $289. There is a progressive deteriorioring in
quality, privacy and control I don't like.

 

[Canuck57]

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.

Nothing wrong with Ubuntu. In fact my old PC that is somewhat under powered
for Vista runs it just fine thank you.

In fact, it could copy files faster than Vista REL, disk to disk or over the
network. Yet it was 7 years older in hardware vintage. 1/8th the ram, and
less than 1/8th the processor. Has sat on the internet raw, IPSec works
too, not like broken IPSec on XP. Unbuntu developers can actually read
specs. Go figure.

If Ubuntu writers are clowns, that makes Vista writers illiterate jack-asses
and twits like you Borg machinery.

If you can't sell Vista on it's merits, then shut up. You sound like an
ignorant vendor - there is room for other OSes, like there is room for
idiots like you.

 

[kevpan815]

At Least My Friend President George W. Bush Doesn't Have A Raciest Priest As
One Of His Religious Advisor's, Just fYI.

 

[raymondvillain]

This idea is most appealing. How does one "assign them [two 4 gig ram drives
in the USB slots] to ram boost" etc.? I have the USB sticks and Vista keeps
forgetting they're supposed to do Readyboost stuff. Is "ram boost" something
one does from the control panel?
--
leave well enough alone

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
.

 

[Lang Murphy]

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

Was this a rhetorical question? Because I see you have not replied to -any-
of the many folks who responded to your original post... just throw it over
the fence and see who bites?

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

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,

As always, appreciate your take on things... just for those of us who don't
know... off the top of our heads... how does one validate that although the
OS is reporting 4GB's free, or whatever, that there is really only <>3.1GB's
free?

Regards,

Lang

 

[Not Me]

Sure...my Driver information center tells me I have 16 cylinders too, but it
doesn't say 8 of them are in the crate in the bed of the truck...
no more RAM is useable, it just changes the reporting format.

 

[Brian W]

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.

You still don't get all the available RAM with SP1, it doesn't magically add
extra 32-bit address space to the system. It tells you how much installed
RAM you have, as you correctly pointed out.

 

[Mark L. Ferguson]

+No, sorry, I was meaning to write ReadyBoost.

--

Mark L. Ferguson
..

This idea is most appealing. How does one "assign them [two 4 gig ram
drives
in the USB slots] to ram boost" etc.? I have the USB sticks and Vista
keeps
forgetting they're supposed to do Readyboost stuff. Is "ram boost"
something
one does from the control panel?
--
leave well enough alone

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
.

 

[Tim Slattery]

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.

It will tell you that 4GB is present, but it can't use any more than
it could before.

 

[Tim Slattery]

That's a fascinating comment, Ken. I don't doubt you for a minute. Here I
was presuming SP1 fixed Vista's RAM limitations.

Those limitations are inherent in the hardware, MS really can't fix it
in 32-bit software.

 

[Tim Slattery]

I went Vista 64 right off, but I thought Vista 32 could do PAE?

I understand there is a 32-bit PAE implementation, but only to enable
DEP, not to get more address space.

 

[Hank]

Was this a rhetorical question? Because I see you have not replied to
-any- of the many folks who responded to your original post... just
throw it over the fence and see who bites?

Lang

The first question ("How can it be...") was rhetorical,
but not the second. I've learned a few things from the
thread, but remain unsurprised by the differences in
SP1. In fact, I don't know of any.

How can I tell whether SP1 "took"?

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken,

As always, appreciate your take on things...

Thanks for the kind words, Lang.

just for those of us who don't
know... off the top of our heads... how does one validate that although the
OS is reporting 4GB's free, or whatever, that there is really only <>3.1GB's
free?

That's a good question, and I don't know the answer. I only have 2GB
here, so can't even readily look around to see where, if you have 2GB,
the actual amount of available memory (*around* 3.1GB, but it can be
as much as 3.5GB or so, depending on what hardware is installed) is
displayed.

Hopefully someone else knows, and will answer.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken:

Vista is showing 4 GB installed, but an application I have running only
shows 3.325 GB available.

Yes, that's a fairly typical number, but the exact amount depends on
what hardware you have installed.

I'm presuming the remaining RAM is being used
by the video system

No, that's not what happens. Note the last paragraph in my canned
reply below:

All 32-bit versions of Windows (not just Vista) have a 4GB address
space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.
But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
That's because some of that space is used by hardware and not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but is
usually around 3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it too.

(512 mb on the 8800 GT, but total video memory is 1+
GB according to dxdiag).

I hope this helps.


--
Joe

_[image:
http://uswave.net/vistax64/joetmvx64.png] (\"http://www.vistax64.com/index.php?referrerid=17621\")_
_*::Click_here_for_the_Vista_Forums::* (\"http://www.vistax64.com/index.php?referrerid=17621\")_
_Geekbench_Rating:_4050 (\"http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/42901\")_
_CPU-Z_Verified (\"http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=323179\")_

 

[Hank]

One reason I'm underwhelmed is that my system is still
showing Version 6000. I downloaded nearly 200MB of
update and went through the process. A dialog indicated
that it was complete and asked for a restart. Everything
went smoothly.

But V 6000

??

 

[Hank]

Hank:

If you installed SP1, then it should have restarted multiple times, and
of course your version # would be different. I'd take some time to
examine the Microsoft support center for anything similar. This is the
only case of it's kind that I'm aware of.

My trip began on the Windows Update site, where I was
offered a 5-language Vista SP1 download of over 500MB.
There was a statement that if I'm only updating ONE
computer, I should use another download. I went to that
link and did as I was told, just like all of Mr. Gates'
obedient slaves.

I *THINK* I have installed Office 2007 SP1. Whoopee!

 

[DarkSentinel]

Actually, you answered yourself - the 3.1GB or so displayed (depending
on what hardware you have installed), was the -available system ram-,
and the labeling was perhaps a little confusing by not stating this.
With Vista SP1, the memory displayed is now the -total installed
memory-.

One of the common misconceptions about this whole "I have 4GB installed
but Vista only shows 3GB" issue that that most everyone wrongly believes
this to be a bug in Windows Vista. This is not true.

The apparent "lost" memory is taken up by hardware devices, even before
the OS boots. This never used to be an issue, because in years past,
when the most common memory configurations ranged from 256MB to maybe
1024MB (1GB), we never noticed this, because installed hardware mapped
their memory into the 3 - 4GB range. Now that 4GB or more is common, we
see an overlap. The hardware receives preference, and the ram that is
installed at those locations is "turned off", for lack of a better
description. This is why pre-SP1 system with 4GB installed ram showed
around 3GB available. My old motherboard (ASUS A8N32-SLI-DELUXE, for
those of you who want to check this statement), during the boot POST
phase, showed two number - 4096MB installed memory, 3380MB available
memory.


Under conditions such as this, it does not matter which OS you have -
Vista 32, Vista 64, Windows XP, Windows 2000 or even Linux. If the
hardware memory mappings overlap physical ram, the ram is "lost", and
the OS cannot us it. If the BIOS only provides 3.3GB memory, then that
is all that the OS can get.


Personally, what I think Microsoft should have done with Vista SP1 is
provide two numbers - one showing installed memory, and another showing
available memory, perhaps with a paragraph or two in Help about why the
two are different. That perhaps would end the argument once and for all
about where the "lost" memory has gone.

I think this is probably the best explanation I have seen of how this works.
Very clear and concise for those that don't understand it. If people cannot
understand it now, I don't know what to tell them. Kudos!

 

[GT]

All the problems you face are part of Vista. You can't properly run Vista on
laptops yet. I suggest getting XP or Linux.

 

[Keith B. Rosenberg]

All the problems you face are part of Vista. You can't properly run Vista
on
laptops yet. I suggest getting XP or Linux.

I have a Vista laptop doing quite well actually. I did set
Vista to maximum performance which got rid of much of
the overhead realted ot the GUI. But I also did that
on my desktop. both run about as well as XP did.
Took some doing early on, but SP1 and patches
have made a real difference.