Microsoft releases Vista SP1 Preview on MSDN, takes it back

By on November 2, 2007, 9:24 PM
Earlier today our friends at Neowin spotted that a preview of Windows Vista SP1 was made available through the MSDN Subscriber website, just to be removed hours later.

Although the final Service Pack is not expected until early 2008 this gives a good hint that Microsoft is making good advances on Vista SP1. While many are expecting SP1 to be a panacea, it's been reiterated that SP1 won't add any major functional changes in the OS, however a number of important bug fixes and performance improvements are to be expected, or so rumors indicate.

The fact is Vista is slowly acquiring the maturity many people expected at launch, although to be fair with Microsoft, it's near impossible to control such things as third party driver development and it's also hard to compare the scope of a new Windows release to say OS X, which is run on a very controlled environment. I probably belong to the minority of Vista users who have been running the OS since day 0 and have had little complaints on its overall stability and performance, but for the rest of the crowd SP1 will likely become the milestone they have been waiting for.




User Comments: 17

Got something to say? Post a comment
canadian said:
This probably wont be enough, there will still be lots of people complaining and bashing the OS for no good reason.
windmill007 said:
The reason being is its windows ME II! Its just a prettied up XP that takes more hardware to run. Really its different...which can be good... but I wouldn't say its an upgrade to XP. XP is great in the fact its stable, fairly lean , and works on older equipment. In fact I run it on some old 500MHZ machines with 256 MB ram with no problem. Try that with Vista. Vista is nothing to write home about. And why did they move everything around? I could see if it was something new but trying to find the same thing just under different names and such is just plain stuupid. If I were to upgrade a xp user to vista they would be confused. At least for awhile because they would have to learn where the same stuff has been moved to. I just don't get that?!???! I like many other people have XP and have no complaints ... Why upgrade? Sure if you have 98 and buying a new computer and it comes with Vista and you have never used XP you will probable not have a problem. But for XP power users and in business enviroments Vista just doesn't fly. I work in a bank with over 200 computers all running XP and Server 2003. Everything works great. Why would we need VISTA? Sure when we had 98 computers we had problems so there was a reason to upgrade to XP. Oh I tryed Vista for about a month but gave up because it doesn't have the wow I expected...LOL Sorry Vista fanboys.... But Vista is not as great as you think it is. It may be fine but not an upgrade to XP. Its a downgrade if anything. XP will stick around alot longer than you think. I would like a OS company to make a new OS that is fast...Not needing the latest hardware. I think that new Ubuntu Linux has the right idea. Microsoft take notes...!!
Mictlantecuhtli said:
Here we go again...
windmill007 said:
Well instead of saying that why don't you explain why I am wrong. People like me who work in business enviroments are key to Microsoft getting more businesses to switch over to Vista. Just because you have Vista and the latest hardware and are happy doesn't mean that you are like the majority. I looked at your specs. You have the latest everything. Sorry most people arn't like that and don't have that much money. I just want to either have the reasons why I am wrong and Vista is better than XP or warn other people with XP that Vista isn't worth the money if they are happy with XP.[Edited by windmill007 on 2007-11-03 08:23:19]
Mictlantecuhtli said:
I'm not saying you're wrong, I just agree with the first comment - news about Vista are going to be filled with "how it sucks" comments.
canadian said:
I have honestly given up on fighting back anymore.
Julio said:
Lol... I have to be honest. Everytime I hear arguments like Vista is the new ME, or that it is a downgrade from XP I can only come up with so many explanations:1) The user is completely risk averse2) The user is completely out of luck (his hardware doesn't get any driver love even after months of Vista's release)3) The user is a Mac fanboy - unfortunately too many of those around the web4) The user is a complete noob.There you go :)Don't misunderstand me, it's perfectly fine to prefer XP over Vista, it is a mature OS at this stage and there may not be enough reasons to justify an upgrade for everyone, but in general Vista is a good OS and an evolutionary step in the right direction for Windows.
canadian said:
I used to try and get the people to read a little bit, and look into the advances in Vista. The main point, is the fact that they re-wrote most of the background stuff to update it and improve it. While this isn't obvious, its significant. Unfortunately, when ever I bring this point up, I usually get blasted with the usual Drivers, Stability, Requirements argument and I just cannot convince the person that there is anything good.
johnsonlam said:
As a PC support for so many years from DOS to Vista, this is the most hatred product I've even seen, under the "mimic" cover of brilliant graphics, tons of junk code causing extreme unstable and slow behavior.Most PC with 2GB RAM should run WinXP happily, under Vista it's almost slow as Win95, tasks fail to unload when shutdown confuse users, unknown errors all the time ...I've to face PC all the time in my work, it's really a torture with Vista, maybe this article writer rarely switch on Vista or just browse the Internet only, run a few more free program download from Internet or just the new Outlook surely made you pull your hair off.I've bought a iMac after all this, thanks to Vista I'm free from Windows, I'm totally new to Mac, never use a single Mac in my life, also I've not yet installed Leopard, but Tiger already feel 'what is a real OS'. Applications are good except not enough quality free programs outthere, but I guess should catch up with years or two.
Rick said:
[quote]The reason being is its windows ME II! Its just a prettied up XP that takes more hardware to run.[/quote]No, it has been changed quite dramatically 'under the hood', as well as some nice, new features. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vi
ta[/url][quote]... I wouldn't say its an upgrade to XP. XP is great in the fact its stable, fairly lean , and works on older equipment. In fact I run it on some old 500MHZ machines with 256 MB ram with no problem.[/quote]Fantastic. And XP worked well on systems that were 6-7 years old? Ever install XP on a Pentium I 133Mhz (circa 1995)? I bet you haven't and there's a good reason why! In order to make advancements, legacy equipment NEEDS to be left behind. Considering we're talking about almost 7 years later, Microsoft did a pretty decent job. Vista is compatible with the vast majority of applications that XP was - out of the box. What doesn't work, generally, has been updated to work. What is it that you are asking for?[quote]And why did they move everything around? I could see if it was something new but trying to find the same thing just under different names and such is just plain stuupid.[/quote]Things change. Some are for the better. Others may not be. I've noticed a number of changes which remove some of the technical jargon from XP... Vista reads friendlier to less experienced users. Despite your difficulty with the changes, the interface is intuitive enough to figure out where most things are WITHOUT a manual.[quote]Why upgrade? Sure if you have 98 and buying a new computer and it comes with Vista and you have never used XP you will probable not have a problem. But for XP power users and in business enviroments Vista just doesn't fly. I work in a bank with over 200 computers all running XP and Server 2003. Everything works great. Why would we need VISTA? [/quote] Your bank doesn't NEED Windows XP... Why aren't you using Windows 2000 instead?! Did your bank need the "Fisher Price" interface? Perhaps your bank liked XP had the "same thing just under different names"? What OS your bank runs obviously is determined by their budget, needs and wants. Vista addresses a wide array of people, not just your bank. If you bank doesn't need features like full disk encryption, memory randomization or integrated TPM, for example, then these are all one less reason to choose Vista. No big deal. XP will last a long time at your bank, just as Windows 98 did. There's still plenty of business using DOS terminals and Dot matrix printers - that's because that 'junk' still works perfectly, but it is hardly applicable to anyone else.[quote]Its a downgrade if anything.[/quote]What exactly is a downgrade about having more features, looking nicer and supporting newer technologies? Sounds like an upgrade to me.[quote]XP will stick around alot longer than you think.[/quote]Stick around? It will at your bank - certainly. As for people like you and me, I've known a LOT of people who clung to Windows 95... 98... 2000. It's the same crap every release - rinse and repeat. Nothing new here.[quote]I would like a OS company to make a new OS that is fast...Not needing the latest hardware. I think that new Ubuntu Linux has the right idea. Microsoft take notes...!![/quote] I'm actually posting this from an install of Kubuntu 7.10 and I have to say, I agree with you on this, mostly. BUT, Gnome and KDE are certainly [b]far[/b] from minimalistic... And that's not even taking into consideration things like compiz-fusion etc... And when the day's gone and your work/play is said and done, your apps and games are what require the most resources. Not your OS (even if you're using Vista).Supposedly, Microsoft's next Windows endeavor is focused on trimming the Windows kernel down a great deal. 'MinWin' is the buzzword. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7[/url] Even if MS does a good job though, it won't surprise me when people complain about it being bloated and slow still because it doesn't run on appliances or cell phones in 2011...Gah, I don't even know why I bother. You people complain about Vista 'fan boys', but you are the exact, negative version - 'vista haters'. Glowing cheer about Vista is no better than dismal ragging - although it does seem to be 'cooler' to do. Try to be a little more understanding and use it with SP1. Let us know what you think then. But don't assume because [b]you[/b] don't like it, its junk for everyone.[Edited by Rick on 2007-11-04 01:13:17]
jimwalt said:
I've never had a problem with Vista, and I really don't know what all the fuss is about. I use Vista for work, school, and everyday activies (MS Visual Studio 2005, Office 2007, email, internet). I have never had a problem that made me upset with the OS. Sometimes when installing new apps, you are warned that there are compatitbility issues, and it will show you what you have to do in order to run it on Vista. Although I rarely have compatibility issues, Vista will basically hold your hand and solve the problem for you with updates.
papercut_2008 said:
Amen jimwalt. I have never had a problem with Vista, and I have had it about 4 months now. It's not slow at all- in fact, it actually seems faster. No software problems, no hardware problems, and no driver problems. I do gaming, graphic design, web design, and video production on it and I have never had a hiccup. I have nothing but praise for Microsoft.
icye said:
Other than problems with drivers when Vista was launched, which is expected with any new OS; Microsoft's current OS hasn't given me any problems. Its running fine and I too don't see if its XP with a prettier interface. Love it or hate it, Microsoft will make sure people adopt Vista when XP support is either downgraded or eliminated altogether. Just look how long XP Service Pack 3 has taken, its not Microsoft's priority to offer for XP these days.
phantasm66 said:
Windows Vista is NOT the new ME.There's a great number of under the hood changes. And the first thing I normally do is turn the Aero glass stuff off.Please stop being so dismissive. It sounds like ignorance.
windmill007 said:
One thing that I keep seeing repeated is that VISTA is slower. I have 2GB ram in my system at home and as a gamer system it flys(XP). I don't think Vista will do the same without me investing in another 2GB ram. And as for business systems most of our standard systems has 256MB ram and the power ones have 512MB ram. Hows Vista going to do on that? Sure if you spend more money it will work but why? Why can't I turn everything off and have it run as XP does on these systems? Thats is also the main reason I won't upgrade my system at home to vista...I'm all about speed and Vista seems to be all about resource hogging. Sure you can point out this has been changed to help things but in real world test I am not seeing that. In every single benchmark on gamming it is slower. I have looked over many reviews from different sites and all say the same thing and as to DX10 it isn't that big of an improvement to really force a gamer like me to upgrade. I should be able to use dx10 on XP but its just another way microsoft is trying to force an upgrade. So maybe to some of you who like bling bling and don't really game or are forced to use it for the little improvment dx10 gives you then ya I would be signing the Vista tune but for use power users XP is where its at. I am not ignorant just stating facts.
lordbf1 said:
[b]Originally posted by windmill007:[/b][quote] I think that new Ubuntu Linux has the right idea. Microsoft take notes...!! [/quote]amenbrother!long live Ubuntu!PS i think vista is a stepping stone, much like ME was. not many will use it or like it and it will be short lived. the New MS os will be better "we hope" it can't get much worse can it?\lordbf1
guilee186 said:
Ah well...Vista Lags. period. its lags so much that on a 3.2Ghz Dual-core and a 1gb RAM, it takes me five minutes just to load it. XP, on the other hand, on a 2.56Ghz celeron and 768RAM, took the same timing. 768 is a slow combination, but 1gig is very powerful, and the vista had a 256Mb graphics card to match as well, but the Xp only had a 64meg one. so, in my case, i conclude that vista lags much more than Xp. Xp took an average of 7sec. to open a web browser, but vista took 15secs. plus, the xp had more applications to run. i also feel that other than that RAM wasting graphics interface, the irritating warnings, 'administrator' needed windows (of which i am the admin) and frequent crashes in six months than an XP in 3 years, i say that Vista is the start of Microsoft's downfall. Sheesh!
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.