SP1 is a yawner

[Babrbarossa]

This is not going to come as a surprise to many people as it's fairly well known that it's primarily a driver update- I still had my hopes up for a little performance bump- at least faster boot up.


Many Windows customers are excited about finally getting their hands on Windows Vista's first service pack, SP1, which promised to deliver not only bugfixes, but performance upgrades. After a slow release schedule, Microsoft picked up the pace and made plans to ship early to select customers. The service pack already went out to testers, volume English-language customers will be receiving it before the end of the week, and MSDN and TechNet subscribers will receive it by the end of the month.

One key question on Windows Vista users' minds is exactly how does Windows post SP1 measure up against the initial copy of Windows Vista in terms of performance. In initial testing at CNET Labs, the results are in, and they are rather mixed. Testers found that while SP1 improves performance under some condition, it actually decreases performance under others. For the most part, testers concluded, few will notice the difference between the base installation and an SP1 installed system.

Vista does offer bundled updated third party drivers which do upgrade performance significantly, but most of these were already available. Customers who have kept current with Window's Updates and their third party driver updates will find little new here, and thus will see no real performance change. Microsoft definitely can take credit in a big picture sense for providing improved performance, though, as it has been devoting considerable resources to helping third party vendors make their products better compatible with Windows, gradually improving performance over the last year.

Probably the single biggest changes in performance have to do with file copying. Windows XP used an cached I/O mode to improve write times. Windows Vista on the other hand used a slower predominately uncached I/O system. The upgrade to SP1 adds caching back into the mix, which in most cases, testers discovered, improves results.

On the other side of things, the SP1 update has somehow created a performance degradation in copy times to external USB 2.0 hard drives. Something is going wrong in Windows Vista SP1 during USB copies, and the issue is currently under investigation. Meanwhile Windows Vista SP1 takes a 40 to 50 percent performance hit in this type of file copies, when compared to base Windows Vista.

Testers did comment on SP1's rather good job in delivering bug fixes. This leads to a more stable environment. Still, feelings towards SP1 will probably depend heavily on users' expectations as it delivers a mixed bag of performance changes.

from Daily Tech

I just want my networking performance to improve...

[enaberif]

surprise surprise.

can't bring something back from the grave.

[belgolas]

Originally Posted by enaberif

surprise surprise.

can't bring something back from the grave.

except in halo (kill someone after you are dead like by a grenade you get an award)

[b1lk1]

Vista is not that bad. XP is much worse for USB issues. SP3 for XP offers nothing new as well yet noone seems to care to report that. Vista bashing is fun, but it is pointless. It will be around for a long time considering the next Windows release will be lucky to see beta before 2011. XP will get less and less support so time to deal with it. I don't think people need to run out and upgrade to Vista, but for a new PC it makes no sense to go XP. I also believe it was a huge mistake to release Vista in anything but 64-Bit. 32-Bit needs to die as well. Sure wish they'd get their act together.........

[enaberif]

Originally Posted by b1lk1

Vista is not that bad. XP is much worse for USB issues. SP3 for XP offers nothing new as well yet noone seems to care to report that. Vista bashing is fun, but it is pointless. It will be around for a long time considering the next Windows release will be lucky to see beta before 2011. XP will get less and less support so time to deal with it. I don't think people need to run out and upgrade to Vista, but for a new PC it makes no sense to go XP. I also believe it was a huge mistake to release Vista in anything but 64-Bit. 32-Bit needs to die as well. Sure wish they'd get their act together.........

1) Never had a single issue in XP with USB unlike Vista

2) XP will be around for people to use long after the release of the next Windows because people will be STILL waiting for a good replacement unless Windows 7 blows everyone away which I have doubts.

3) 32bit will not die nor will it ever as a lot of propietary software will only run on a 32bit arch and software developers will not change that. Also whats the point of 64bit? So you can use more than 4gb of ram? Well most people don't even use 2gb of ram.

[-n7-]

Originally Posted by enaberif

1) Never had a single issue in XP with USB unlike Vista

2) XP will be around for people to use long after the release of the next Windows because people will be STILL waiting for a good replacement unless Windows 7 blows everyone away which I have doubts.

3) 32bit will not die nor will it ever as a lot of propietary software will only run on a 32bit arch and software developers will not change that. Also whats the point of 64bit? So you can use more than 4gb of ram? Well most people don't even use 2gb of ram.

LOL, quoted for hilarity in the future.

Only way you'll still be using 32-bit more a few years from now is if you jump over to Linux, where they don't force the same 32-bit 4 GB limitations.

Though not on this forum, i said on other forums last summer that people who were waiting for SP1 to magically fix things would end up disappointed, as the fixes are largely internal, not stuff people will notice in their day to day tasks.

For those of us who have run Vista for so long now, SP1 is nice, but not something vital or necessary.

[enaberif]

Originally Posted by -n7-

LOL, quoted for hilarity in the future.

Only way you'll still be using 32-bit more a few years from now is if you jump over to Linux, where they don't force the same 32-bit 4 GB limitations.

Though not on this forum, i said on other forums last summer that people who were waiting for SP1 to magically fix things would end up disappointed, as the fixes are largely internal, not stuff people will notice in their day to day tasks.

For those of us who have run Vista for so long now, SP1 is nice, but not something vital or necessary.

SP1 won't make me jump to Vista.. theres still no need.

[-n7-]

Originally Posted by enaberif

SP1 won't make me jump to Vista.. theres still no need.

Oh, i wouldn't expect you to switch over to Vista anytime soon, & for many people, there's no real need to.

But i also find it amusing how much you bash & hate on Vista, when it is replacing XP whether people like it or not, & for those planning to skip Vista & waiting for Windows 7...lol, they'll likely hate it even more, since it's certainly not being based off XP; it'll be built around Vista, & even less like XP.

[enaberif]

Originally Posted by -n7-

Oh, i wouldn't expect you to switch over to Vista anytime soon, & for many people, there's no real need to.

But i also find it amusing how much you bash & hate on Vista, when it is replacing XP whether people like it or not, & for those planning to skip Vista & waiting for Windows 7...lol, they'll likely hate it even more, since it's certainly not being based off XP; it'll be built around Vista, & even less like XP.

Its not replacing XP and only nieve people think that :) Theres probably way more people still running XP than Vista despite what anyone says.

XP is still better than Vista for day to day tasks than Vista ever will be.

Bash it? No. Dislike it? Yes.

I hadn't proven itself to me and never will.