I've just installed SP1 (via MSDN) and I'm pleased to say it appears to do
the trick...or at least so far so go.

I've just copied a 200MB file from PC to server and it went like a rocket!
In addition, I'm noting a responsiveness in the odd application; for
example, I use Windows Mail to access USENET, and under SP1, I'm in and
starting browsing much quicker - pre-SP1 there would be a slight delay
before I could pick a NG.

Hardly a scientific study, but a few visible improvements and no bugs
spotted... can't be bad.

Anyone else got SP1 installed?

Yes there is an improvment indeed with SP1, but MS is trying to convince us
that VistaSP1 is as fast
as XPsp2... and that is a lie.

Vista with SP1 is "ok" if you have fast enough hardware.. the majority of
big problems have gone away

When I say "ok" I mean its ok.. but still not as great as I would expect
after so much work time and money from MS to make Vista.. I was expecting
something fantastic.

--
What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007/..._windows_vista

50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free



"CJM" wrote in message
...
I've just installed SP1 (via MSDN) and I'm pleased to say it appears to do
the trick...or at least so far so go.

I've just copied a 200MB file from PC to server and it went like a rocket!
In addition, I'm noting a responsiveness in the odd application; for
example, I use Windows Mail to access USENET, and under SP1, I'm in and
starting browsing much quicker - pre-SP1 there would be a slight delay
before I could pick a NG.

Hardly a scientific study, but a few visible improvements and no bugs
spotted... can't be bad.

Anyone else got SP1 installed?

"On the Bridge!" On@the,Bridge wrote in message
...
Yes there is an improvment indeed with SP1,

What kind of machine were you installing it on? What changes did you notice?

but MS is trying to convince us that VistaSP1 is as fast
as XPsp2... and that is a lie.


I haven't seen that myself - perhaps you could point out some sources?

Vista with SP1 is "ok" if you have fast enough hardware.. the majority of
big problems have gone away


Indeed, Vista is more demanding than XP, just as XP was more demanding than
98/2000. Such is life.

Personally, I have not had any major problems with Vista.

When I say "ok" I mean its ok.. but still not as great as I would expect
after so much work time and money from MS to make Vista.. I was expecting
something fantastic.

Well, for a start, if it's not your time and money spent developing it, what
does it matter?

It's good, but I'm not sure about 'fantastic'. But then again, I remember
when the original XP came out - it was good but not fantastic. I seem to
remember problems with stability (because of driver issues) and performance
problems. XP improved after SP1 and was probably considered 'mature' after
SP" - I imagine it will be the same with Vista.

"CJM" wrote in message
...
I've just installed SP1 (via MSDN) and I'm pleased to say it appears to do
the trick...or at least so far so go.

I've just copied a 200MB file from PC to server and it went like a rocket!
In addition, I'm noting a responsiveness in the odd application; for
example, I use Windows Mail to access USENET, and under SP1, I'm in and
starting browsing much quicker - pre-SP1 there would be a slight delay
before I could pick a NG.

Hardly a scientific study, but a few visible improvements and no bugs
spotted... can't be bad.

Anyone else got SP1 installed?

CJM,

I've been running SP1 on my Vista Ultimate for appx. two weeks. It has
caused no problems and my system is now very fast indeed.

C.B.


--
It is the responsibility and duty of everyone to help the underprivileged
and unfortunate among us.

I haven't seen that myself - perhaps you could point out some sources?

http://www.winvistaclub.com/i8.html

What changes did you notice?

I have installed sp1 on about 10 machines.. the best way is to do a clean
install..
on all of them there was an increase in performance mainly the data access
and transfer of data from and to the disk... I would say that SP1 is about
10-15% faster overall than RTM

Indeed, Vista is more demanding than XP, just as XP was more demanding
than 98/2000. Such is life.

Vista is far more demanding than XP with no real important innovations and
improvments upon XP.
see the minimum configurations of XP and Vista


Xp:
233 megahertz (MHz) processor
64 megabytes (MB) of RAM
1.8 GB of available hard disk space during installation

Via http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sysreqs.mspx

Vista: 1 GHz 400% MORE than XP!!
512 MB of system memory 800% MORE than XP!!
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space around 1000%
more than XP!!!

Via:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...uirements.mspx







"CJM" wrote in message
...

"On the Bridge!" On@the,Bridge wrote in message
...
Yes there is an improvment indeed with SP1,

What kind of machine were you installing it on? What changes did you
notice?

but MS is trying to convince us that VistaSP1 is as fast
as XPsp2... and that is a lie.


I haven't seen that myself - perhaps you could point out some sources?

Vista with SP1 is "ok" if you have fast enough hardware.. the majority of
big problems have gone away


Indeed, Vista is more demanding than XP, just as XP was more demanding
than 98/2000. Such is life.

Personally, I have not had any major problems with Vista.

When I say "ok" I mean its ok.. but still not as great as I would expect
after so much work time and money from MS to make Vista.. I was expecting
something fantastic.

Well, for a start, if it's not your time and money spent developing it,
what does it matter?

It's good, but I'm not sure about 'fantastic'. But then again, I remember
when the original XP came out - it was good but not fantastic. I seem to
remember problems with stability (because of driver issues) and
performance problems. XP improved after SP1 and was probably considered
'mature' after SP" - I imagine it will be the same with Vista.

In message "On the Bridge!"
On@the,Bridge wrote:

Indeed, Vista is more demanding than XP, just as XP was more demanding
than 98/2000. Such is life.

Vista is far more demanding than XP with no real important innovations and
improvments upon XP.

I'd argue with that, the disk queuing system alone is worth it, as is
the integrated search. UAC, while being a royal pain in the ass, may
finally force software authors to pay attention to minimal security
principles (applications in Program Files, data in the user profile,
documents in the documents directory).

Offloading the GUI overhead to the graphics card is brilliant. I've
personally been a big fan of transparency for some time now, although
depending on your workflow it may or may not be of value to you. I have
several applications configured to go semi-transparent when not active,
and find this to be very useful. "Glass" is of questionable value, and
I've currently got transparency disabled, but Aero is fantastic.

see the minimum configurations of XP and Vista

First, be sure to take a look at the types of machines that were readily
available and their price point when XP and Vista were each released.

Xp:
233 megahertz (MHz) processor
64 megabytes (MB) of RAM
1.8 GB of available hard disk space during installation

Via http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sysreqs.mspx

Vista: 1 GHz 400% MORE than XP!!
512 MB of system memory 800% MORE than XP!!
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space around 1000%
more than XP!!!

Consider the state of computing today, vs when XP was released. Both
minimum requirements reflect very close to the nearest minimal
configuration you can possibly buy brand new at the time.

In other words, there is actually very little change in the relative
system requirements compared against the price to purchase said
components at release.

"On the Bridge!" On@the,Bridge wrote in message
...
I haven't seen that myself - perhaps you could point out some sources?

http://www.winvistaclub.com/i8.html

What changes did you notice?

I have installed sp1 on about 10 machines.. the best way is to do a clean
install..
on all of them there was an increase in performance mainly the data access
and transfer of data from and to the disk... I would say that SP1 is
about 10-15% faster overall than RTM


I must say I haven't noticed an outright speed increase (apart from copying
files), but certain aspects appear more responsive.


Vista is far more demanding than XP with no real important innovations and
improvments upon XP.
see the minimum configurations of XP and Vista


The security improvements and the re-engineering of important parts of the
kernel were long overdue, yet these changes are what people are grumbling
about. You just can't please some people.

[actually I'm being hypocritical, because I would certainly have implemented
UAC better/differently]


Xp:
233 megahertz (MHz) processor
64 megabytes (MB) of RAM
1.8 GB of available hard disk space during installation

Via http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sysreqs.mspx


A modest spec from 2001.


Vista: 1 GHz 400% MORE than XP!!
512 MB of system memory 800% MORE than XP!!
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space around 1000%
more than XP!!!

Via:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...uirements.mspx


A modest spec from 2007.

What's the problem? You couldn't run XP on very old machines when it was
launched either. Well actually you could, but it would run like a dog -
almost unsable.

Thus if you have an old machine now, I wouldn't recommend upgrading to
Vista, but if you buy a new (vista-compatible) machine, I certainly would.

Actually quite the opposite with 64 bit ultimate. A dramatic slow down in
every way and it is now doing strange errors it didn't ever do before, too.

"On the Bridge!" On@the,Bridge wrote in message
...
Yes there is an improvment indeed with SP1, but MS is trying to convince
us that VistaSP1 is as fast
as XPsp2... and that is a lie.

Vista with SP1 is "ok" if you have fast enough hardware.. the majority of
big problems have gone away

When I say "ok" I mean its ok.. but still not as great as I would expect
after so much work time and money from MS to make Vista.. I was expecting
something fantastic.

--
What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007/..._windows_vista

50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free



"CJM" wrote in message
...
I've just installed SP1 (via MSDN) and I'm pleased to say it appears to
do the trick...or at least so far so go.

I've just copied a 200MB file from PC to server and it went like a
rocket! In addition, I'm noting a responsiveness in the odd application;
for example, I use Windows Mail to access USENET, and under SP1, I'm in
and starting browsing much quicker - pre-SP1 there would be a slight
delay before I could pick a NG.

Hardly a scientific study, but a few visible improvements and no bugs
spotted... can't be bad.

Anyone else got SP1 installed?

"On the Bridge!" On@the,Bridge wrote in message
...
I haven't seen that myself - perhaps you could point out some sources?

http://www.winvistaclub.com/i8.html

What changes did you notice?

I have installed sp1 on about 10 machines.. the best way is to do a clean
install..
on all of them there was an increase in performance mainly the data access
and transfer of data from and to the disk... I would say that SP1 is
about 10-15% faster overall than RTM


Not on Ultimate 64 bit it isn't. A DRAMATIC slowdown from pre SP1.

"C.B." wrote in message
...


"CJM" wrote in message
...
I've just installed SP1 (via MSDN) and I'm pleased to say it appears to
do the trick...or at least so far so go.

I've just copied a 200MB file from PC to server and it went like a
rocket! In addition, I'm noting a responsiveness in the odd application;
for example, I use Windows Mail to access USENET, and under SP1, I'm in
and starting browsing much quicker - pre-SP1 there would be a slight
delay before I could pick a NG.

Hardly a scientific study, but a few visible improvements and no bugs
spotted... can't be bad.

Anyone else got SP1 installed?

CJM,

I've been running SP1 on my Vista Ultimate for appx. two weeks. It has
caused no problems and my system is now very fast indeed.


Vista Ultimate 64 bit SP1 actually causes MANY slowdowns and if you check
out Google looking for those terms you will find that to be the case with
many people. I hope MS fix this "fix" soon.