Vista SP1 is live!

[EHaskins]

Originally Posted by Protronie

A SP-1 for Vista already...
Never thought I'd type this, I LOVE MY XP!

Vista's SP1 addresses only a few issues that haven't already been adressed by hotfixes. SP1 is really just realligning Vista and Windows Server 2008.

The only functional difference I've seen is that defrag now allows you to choose which volumes to defragment.

EDIT: My machine also appears to be more reliable retuning from sleep/hibernate.

[Protronie]

Originally Posted by ham90mack

Hey, don't forget that XP DESPERATELY needed its SP1, since it had many more major issues on its original release compared to Vista's original release.

But it was also a lot longer wait for SP-1

I've heard Vista is a love hate thing, some love it others....
I'm real big in Virtual Railroading... 80% of my train stuff hates Vista
Maybe when MSTS-2 comes out in Dec (crossed fingers) I might have to convert to it but for now... (hugs my XP lappy)

btw... I know a few people that ran out and bought new computers to run the FSX (Flight Sim 10) on... meet Vista and hated it so bad they wiped it out and installed XP in the Vista machines and are getting frame rates in the 40 ~ 50 range now.
I've heard of dual booting systems running Vista and XP together but thats way over my pay grade to even think about trying.

I will confess , I have runned my XP'er with a Vista look theme... it does look cool

[ham90mack]

Originally Posted by EHaskins

The only functional difference I've seen is that defrag now allows you to choose which volumes to defragment.

Now why in the world did they remove that feature in the first place...

Just wondering... Does Vista's defragmenter appear to be any faster than XP's defragmenter? Or are they still living in the past with an extremely slow algorithm?

Hmm, according to Wikipedia, Vista has improved the GUI defragmenter by allowing low priority defragmentation and scheduled defragmentation; plus it does not defragment files if it has fragments larger than 64 MB when using the GUI. But the article does not say if it performs any faster if there was no 64 MB fragment restriction (this feature reduces the disk space needed when doing a normal defrag, but would also speed up the process if there were many large files on the drive).

EDIT: Yes Protronie, it didn't take as long. But that would be because there were less major fixes needed.

DISCLAIMER: I have not used Vista and I probably will not for another year, only because I have decided that the best time to buy a new laptop is when I am ready for college. The biggest reason is that the best hardware today will probably become the low budget hardware of next year, more or less.

[EHaskins]

Originally Posted by ham90mack

Now why in the world did they remove that feature in the first place...

Just wondering... Does Vista's defragmenter appear to be any faster than XP's defragmenter? Or are they still living in the past with an extremely slow algorithm?

Hmm, according to Wikipedia, Vista has improved the GUI defragmenter by allowing low priority defragmentation and scheduled defragmentation; plus it does not defragment files if it has fragments larger than 64 MB when using the GUI. But the article does not say if it performs any faster if there was no 64 MB fragment restriction (this feature reduces the disk space needed when doing a normal defrag, but would also speed up the process if there were many large files on the drive).

I have no idea why they removed the selection option, but it really irritates me when I want to defrag one of my external HDDs.

I don't know or care about the speed of the defrag, since all of my machines are scheduled to do daily background defrags starting at 12am, and they're always done before I'm awake.

[gurellia53]

above post reported

[A_Reed]

Above post reported

[AndyB]

Reported as well.