seems fairly stable on my home premium setup ; x32 refresh client installed over previous build no problem

I have used Vista from day one, bought OEM from an E-tailer. I have had more funny glitches post SP1, but after a year of little tweaks here and there, and with the same hardware I get about 400 pts more in 3Dmark06 and Vista than XP Pro. It looks and feels better now than XP .

There have been no updates to the SP since it's release to the public that I have seen.

But, me hopes me "Master Microsoft" will give just a few more crumbs before death!

I see people complaining about how horrible Windows Vista is but for me it performs better than XP did when it first came out . I think you must have hardware powerful enough to run it like at least a dual core around to gigs & at least 2gigs of memory also have a quad core and vista is superfast on it.

I have tried on a Tablet PC to install both the first public beta and the refresh.... and both get to a certain point and error out. I have thus far been unable to install it via Automatic Update or when I download the complete executable

I own a HP Pavilion dv2135 laptop, w/ Intel Core 2 Duo T5500 (1.67ghz), 120GB, 2GB 667mhz ram...
Windows Vista Home Premium installed.

SP1 RC ran perfectly, i haven't been able to see or feel anything different, except for the fact that its been 3 days, and "Windows Update" keeps telling me to restart the system in order to finish installing updates. My system has been restarted quite some times. PLUS, the watermark at the bottom of the screen, that reads "evaluation copy"; microsoft said that it would go away after 3 restarts, or so... its still here.

On another subject; anyone knows if y intel core 2 duo is 32 or 64bit? Im running vista x86 (32bit), but ive been told some times, that core 2 duo is a 64bit processor. Anyone?

Overall, SP1; i suppose it has some bugs fixed; but i wouldnt recommend installing it, until Microsoft Update downloads it on its own.

halt.

Paul Suquet
Mexico City.

Core 2 duo = x64.

http://www.intel.com/pro...=prod_core2duo+tab_spec

Google is yer bud. :)

"Windows Vista SP1 did not install. Reverting changes" This is the message I received after waiting one hour for its installation. Microsoft has no references to this problem. Please help. Thanks

I confirmed that the beta and RC refresh versions caused the metadata information not to be displayed in ESRI's ArcCatlog application. An interface related to XML or something causes the HTML page that it creates to display the info fails with an interface NOT IMPLEMENTED warning. I'm guessing it is some security setting MS changed. Uninstalling the SP fixed the problem.

I purchased Vista Ultimate the day it came on sale... I have no regrets! I love the fact I can run video as wallpaper (Dreams). I kind of have my system tweaked a little more then the average joe you might say. I installed the service pack and everything installed with no problems encountered. The whole thing took about 20 minutes or so. My system has always ran pretty clean, only the services I want running. I do push my systems video quite a bit. My system is a P4 Dual Core 4800, 2 gigs of ram, 256 mb X1300 running @ 1023 megs of ram. At the moment I can't say I have seen any major improvements because of the update... Vista's always been pretty good for me. Only issue I can really say I had was a 3 year old black laser printer that I could not get a driver for vista, one other thing is sometimes you have to change permissons to some folders on your C drive to make some games work properly... but that could have been Windows Live One Care.

Running Vista Enterprise x64. I kinda enjoy it, doesn't run bad although I'm still trying to figure out why my screen went totally blank after RC1 refresh was installed. It required a hard reboot and all seems fine now. No doubt about needing some major hardware to get the most out of it. Had fun trying to install my Lexmark printer. Looking forward to more x64 programs in the near future.
My system - C2D E6600 @ 3420mhz, 4g OCZ DDR2 @ 760 and 4,4,4,12, 8800GTX, X-Fi, 3 x 74G Raptors and 1 x 150G Raptor on 680i mainboard.

The thing i hate most about windows vista is the fact that there is nothing for the 64bit version everyone seems to be making updates and software changes for 32bit only and i just don't see the development of more 64bit apps. also vista does run slow really slow compared to my opensuse 10.3 think thats sad since i paid 400.00 bucks for windows vista and opensuse is ummm free and it runs better. im just sick of windows or Microsoft they never seem to get it right. I mean sure windows vista is more stable than xp was but at what cost it seems they give us more stability for less functionality and speed its a never ending battle with windows os. Im sick of it

Faster. But still slower than XP.

Benchmarks?

I'd love to see some 3DMark and PCMark comparisons on the same machine between Vista RTM to Vista SP1.

I heavily benchmarked Vista (32 and 64-bit) RTM and XP Pro SP2. Vista 32-bit scored 80% of the score of XP for 3DMark2000 and 3DMark2001 SE. Vista x64 scored 45% (yep, only 45%). I found that scores online varied widely between game and graphics card but my results were actually typical. There was a HUGE comparison done (forget the link) with many games and about 8 graphics cards posted July 2007 with the average agreeing with my particular results. My system at the time was: NVidia 6600GT 128MB, 2GB DDR3200, X2 4800+.

My understanding is that SP1 provides little in the way of increased gaming performance but there has been significant stability fixes. I have a very good grasp on programming and my calculations indicate that a properly coded Vista should theoretically be within 2% of XP scores. My CPU is at 2% when writing this. Despite Vista's graphics requirements, there's no reason for the Operating System to use the card when a full screen game is running. As well, the System RAM should flush to the Hard Drive if needed to optimize the gaming experience. Since the CPU should be the main increase, the loss of Frame Rates is especially curious considering very few games actually Max out the CPU; most games in a dual-core CPU system are limited by the Graphics card. (It appears to be a combination of Vista and the drivers and I'm not sure how many people know which is causing the greatest hit.)

*Again, this is not a review, but a request for the above benchmarks. Again, the numbers do vary by Graphics card. If I find the time I'll benchmark the 32-bit version of Vista RTM and Vista SP1 on my new ATI HD 3870.

(There are also other issues, such as how new the card is. Also, Vista has dropped support for EAX. While probably a tightening of security possibly around the Kernel, the loss of game Frame Rates, EAX and other significant issues really makes me wonder how ready Vista was at release. I mean, Microsoft touted the ported game "Halo 2" which had high graphics requirements for the aged graphics quality as a reason to get Vista when a simple crack made it run on XP. A LOT of early adopters where gamers so where are we now? By all indications, I'm not switching for a while... not even for DX10.)

Benchmark comparisons (RTM to SP1) for:
- 3DMark series ?
- PCMark series ?

SPI SEEMS TO HAVE REMOVED ANNOYING NAG SCREENS CONCERNING STARTUP PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN STOPPED. THERE ARE STILL SOME MAJOR GLITCHES WITH MEDIA PLAYER.

What kind of glitches do you consider major in WMP?

well, i think the one that sticks his capslock key on SO THAT THE MORON SHOUTS would be a good one to fix

CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!!!

/sarcasm

Some good feedback here, thanks.

Sticking with Ubuntu (and XP for my Adobe CS3 that is not Wine friendly yet...if ever) for myself, but I get this question a lot from my consulting clients so I will post it here.

For a business user, what are the reasons to upgrade to Vista? Are there any productivity gains that I can present.

I am not opposed to Vista, I just don't want the headache myself and would rather run XP because I don't see compelling value for me, but in the interests of giving good advice to clients I am trying to fix my ignorance and keep away from any unwarranted bias in my recommendations.

XP was a fairly easy sell, especially for those that skipped Win2k. Stability, security, and ease of use were much better than 98 and ME. How does Vista stack up there compared to XP?

I realize that there are increased hardware requirements and that does factor into the equation, but if a guy is buying a new PC for his office, why choose Vista over XP aside from Microsoft support ending sooner for XP?

I respect the people that post here as very knowledgable (well many of them) and I hope you are willing to share what you have learned. Of course you all realize that you recieve extra points for sarcasm and posting a clever and belittling response, so let's hear it...

Right now?

Not much. The network/multimedia issue (priority of the multimedia killing network performance) is what has kept it out of our infrastructure. SP1 *seems* to be taking care of some of that. More testing will need to be done once it's final, to be sure.

As for the benefits, the security is a big one. Sure, we've got our firewalls, filters, anti-virus, etc., but our license with Microsoft makes "more security at the same price" pretty much a no-brainer once they solve the issues with networking, even if, as many will quickly knee-jerk, some don't think the security improvements are that great. There is also the reworking of the memory heaps and such, which is a bit out there for most folks but could potentially mean a lot more stability...again, once the network kinks are worked out and people start writing programs *for* vista.

So, we'll wait for SP1, test it, and, if it passes, swap our systems later this year (which we'd be doing anyway so it works out pretty well). Otherwise, we'd probably just ease it in like we did with XP.

Reap_r:

Only benefit i see is network configs(great for lappies)... and a slew of negatives.

I'd hold out until mature 64bit materializes.

Reap_r:

I'd say there's no overwhelmingly important reason to go to Vista or to recommend it.

Here's how I see it...if you/your clients are running high end dual cores or quad cores and 3gb or more of memory, go ahead and recommend Vista. As long as they understand that it's a departure from XP and they'll have to kind of open their minds, be ready to re-learn and get used to it, then I think they'll enjoy the OS for doing what they need to do.
Sure the same systems running XP will run 'faster', XP is 7 years old!. Vista carries with it security improvements (sometimes the little things matter, for instance, asking for install priv. shows users that this program is changing something in the system, goodbye to 'silent' installs from web sites and spyware), and there are other things that I think after you're used to is just cake to do. There are also many tool running hidden inside Vista (this is the source of the memory suck), monitoring tools, stuff that measures your hard disk performance, things that are constantly prodding and poking to make sure your hardware is running OK. It's a pretty big system 'overhead', you might call it. Because of this the OS will report things like failing hard drives, dips in performance etc. Not everyone wants or needs this, but it's there.
Not to mention that the OS is prettier and more streamlined. For the gamer, once you have a good card, losing 10 or so fps is no big deal when you've got 65+. DX10 is worth it, trust me.

Using Vista on a single core, a low end dual core or 2gb or less is a no-no for sure. You CAN, but the system WILL take a hit. Vista and all my programs right now, uses 1.4gb of RAM....doing almost nothing! All the things in the background are total resource hogs and I imagine running more things on a lower end PC would be hell. People thinking they're buying 'top of the line' dual core E6400s with 2gb of Ram are just in for a rude awakening. I'd liken' that to running XP on a celeron with 256mb of ram.

Vista over XP?

You have a kickass system and you're not afraid to use at. At the minumum, a high end dual core (X2 6000 or better, Dual core 6600 or better) or quad core chip, 3gb or MORE memory and a good gfx, I'm not talking anything under an 8800 GT.

Easier to use in the short run. (typing program names to run them, easier navigation, easier networking, etc. etc.)

More devs will embrace the architecture and write programs that take advantage of the OS' hidden features.

Enhanced security in the long run. (people will slowly 'train' on what kind of programs to run, etc. Windows defender will 'catch' malware they 'allow' to run and they'll know that the 'cutesy buddy' toolbar is BAD).

DX10 (for gamers, once you don't mind taking a small fps hit over XP)

More streamlined experience, nicer looking OS - for those who care.

XP over Vista?

Mid-ranged to low end PCs just can't handle Vista. The majority of machines on the market now for sub $900 are indeed mid-ranged to low end and despite being sold with Vista, don't handle it - at least, not the same way they'd handle XP and that's a shame, but that's how it is. I believe this is one of the biggest reason Vista hasn't been embraced. You can't throw it on a machine with 2gb of Ram and a low end dual core and do it justice, you just can't.

It's faster over Vista, period. XP was designed and built computers that are now over 6 years old. Obviously the hardware now will run it like it's nothing. Like running Mario 64 on a Wii.

Software galore. Everything works on XP because it's been here for 7 years.

Hardware galore. (same as above). One of the biggest gripes for users is that the printer or xxxxxxx hardware they bought a year or 2 ago no longer work on Vista. Nothing will change that, if they can't replace it or wait for drivers then XP is the only other option. In my experience, NEVER use non-vista drivers in Vista, no matter what.

Resistance to change...some people will never embrace a 'new' product so it's no use arguing about it. No amount of features will be good enough to change, these kind of people you set on the path back to XP. Kind of like people who decide that Windows 2000/ME/98 are the best and only up to last year or so decided to go to XP. Again, there's nothing you can do...
they will get Vista when Windows 7 is released.

RC1 RC Refresh
1. Did not really fix many visible bugs
2. Installing Programs still do not create shortcuts (exists even without RC1)
3. More crashes, BSOD
4. Explorer may lag, and asks you to CLOSE PROGRAM or WAIT, if you wait, you will wait forever.
5. Stick to the original non-SP1

Holy hell, man, what are you running this on? No shortcuts? BSODs? Explorer lag?

Sounds like your system is hosed, and I ain't talkin' about the software. What are the system specs on that thing? Sounds like you're initial install of Vista went horribly wrong or you have some RAM/CPU issues. Big time...

Spec (Laptop)
T7700 2.4GHz
2GB DDR2-667

Vista runs much better on non-RC1-patched Vista.
Don't understand. Hardware is fine.

Then your software is the problem!

Did you rollback to pre-SP1?

I can't imagine, unless the install itself somehow got hosed, how it could possibly have the effects you listed (barring hardware issues).

Just for grins, run the Vista memory diag before boot-up. Let it run for a bit. Failing a corrupted SP1 installation, bad RAM or CPU is likely what is going on here.

Only time I've ever seen problems like that, all at once, was a bad RAM issue. Is the system new?

Your system's hosed, Lobo Negro. Format, wipe, reinstall.

I'm running myriad Vista versions on numerous systems with no issues like yours-- other than performance sucks compared to XP.

While SP1 is stable on my x64 Vista Ultimate, here are some of my rants:
1. Still not expanding "Connect To" and Printers menu. Going to network connections is a PITA, esp if you have multiple network connections.
2. URL's still show up in Load/Save boxes.
3. No ability still to customize file types completely.
4. No TweakUI :(
5. Completely screwed up Windows Explorer and all shell and networking UI. No choice but to use a different file manager.
I like everything about Vista except its Explorer.

Try winfile.exe

This is day two for me and I am enthused:

Faster boot up
Applications open and close faster
The internet is now snappy
Improved benchmark speed using PC Wizard to test

The "Vista performance bottleneck" seems to be uncorked. I have the kind of functionality I can live with.

The first sp1 RC did two things that I did notice.

1. It made DVD playback in my laptop go haywire, dvd's would skip, studder and freeze using media player. I know this was sp1, because before I installed it things were great, installed, things were messed up, uninstalled things were fine. No amount of troubleshooting fixed it.

2. My computer would not remain in a low power state after I told it to. I would push the put windows into a low power state, it would shut down. I would come back a little later, there it would be up and running.

Once again, before sp1, it did not do this. I uninstalled it, returned to normal.

So yeah, without any real noticable gains, and those two big problems, sp1 RC, at least the original had some deal breakers if you asked me. Shouldn't those have been fixed in the Beta phases? I mean RC should be pretty close to being done with a few minor bugs to work out.

Odd. Most folks are experiencing the opposite. Better power management and better file transfer (possibly what's causing the DVD issue).

I'd uninstall it and wait for the final (or if things are going well, don't "fix" what ain't broken. :P)

Hopefully someone reporting issues with the SP is having similar issues so they can address them.

Yah that is odd, just about every other comment regarding that is the complete opposite.

RC1 (non-refreshed) works GREAT!!! I'm afraid to 'refresh' since too many people saying control panel issues.. I'll wait for final build to update my rc1,

so far so good :-) I've had no issues since the day i got vista 1 year ago, exept for itunes..but now all works great! just like xp pro :-)

NO, i'm NOT a fanboy, just speak the facts as they pertain to me and my machines...later haters

Well, I have no control panel now and Microsoft's hot fix for it is "not for your system"

Yay Vista!

lmao...

It's not Vista that is the problem here. ;)

Do you have any idea of what BETA software is, dumba**?

lol!

I notice Microsoft says:
"Microsoft does not recommend installing this software on primary or mission critical systems."

One would think they mean Vista period, not just the beta of SP1.

But seriously after first booting it takes about three min for the first window for "computer" or "control panel" to open the first time I click on it. Also I have to use the touch pad to go into control panel and click on the blue tooth icon to enable my blue tooth mouse after a hard boot but not a soft boot.

Without system specs, your tale of woe is pointless. We'd expect that behavior on single-core 32 bit processors with less than 2 GB of RAM. If that's what you got, then you're not really telling anyone something that isn't already widely known.

It natively shows 4gb as 4gb now. I don't think it uses it though, not sure (but from what I know of 32bit software architecture). I'm not seeing a network speed issue, but I'm only dealing with 2 other computers. Otherwise I can't really tell what's different. I had no issues. It took about 25 mins to install from download of the RC1 itself (not including all the little packages it required beforehand) to installation and went without any issues.

BetaNews? There seems to be a complete lack of news in this story. Seems to me this should be called BetaYouWriteTheNewsForUsInTheFormOfaDiscussion.

Why don't you guys just bite the bullet and set up a BetaNews forum?

Dude, chill.

Nate is asking a simple question.

Answer it, don't answer it, or whine about it. I think we know which option you're going for...

Nothing but fail. Uninstall fails on one machine and install fails on other machine.

So I guess...SP1 == failure.

Yeah, because if the pre-release version fails on one or two systems, OBVIOUSLY the final will be a complete failure....

/sarcasm

Took about 55 mins from uninstall of previous service pack to getting new updates to prepare for refresh and to complete.

Not really noticing much from the previous sp1 everything is much better then vista with no sp and for me it moves just as fast as xp, and network performance has definitely improved. The only thing that seems different from the previous sp it seems to be more fluid less hiccups, less lag...

Truly wish this thread stayed on topic but per usual the same people who hang out in MS threads come on here to insight their wisdom when the majority have never touched it.

Not a bit of difference in our professional environment ,Vista still does not play nice with others and file transfer rate is just down right painful Local or over a network , We Alpha tested it in May-ish of 2006 it sucked then , We beta tested it in November of 2006 it sucked as well , We ran it at release of Jan 07 it still sucked and now in 2008 after the much anticipated Sp1 , once again it still sucks.

That is a lot of sucking. Perhaps you could go into detail about why it actual sucks instead of vague references. Network performance is back up to normal XP speeds at my workplace with SP1 RC in place.

Not so testing here. Still has network speed issues between XP and Vista machines.

We also see network speed issues. The issue is related to Vista and switches. If you have a crossover connection the speed is as expected.

If it sucks so much (Alpha, Beta and release) then why are you not staying with XP? If I disliked it as much as you I would not use it. Personally I find it better than XP albeit a little quirky in operation, and XP is definately more "mature". Hopefully SP1 will close the gap.

Because we have to support this POS.

So you're company let you use beta software on business computers, or did you try to network a beta SP1 Vista system with vista systems that dont have it.

All in all i think your story is full of holes, but I think I'll read more BS stories like yours while skimming through these comments.

Because in order to go into detail, he'd have had to have actually used the OS at some point in his life.

I highly doubt that has ever occurred...

You obviously know nothing about the inner workings of a IT department , next troll please.

Im working as the primary code/scripter for the networking services on an automated Vista rollout to 15000 PCs and Im dreading the final product... Does that count :)

Csewell, my first install died and reverted as yours did too. But for some reason I ran the installation again, this time it worked.

MS it really should work the first time!

It's still beta software. Issues like this are why they release the test builds.

It's not running. SP1 refresh chugged for an hour through updates and reboots and finally had an install error and reverted all changes. The previous service pack beta didn't do that and ran fine.

Wow. At least it reverted the changes.

You had the firewall, av, and so-on disabled, right?

I'm running SP1 Refresh 6001.17128. First I disabled all software firewall, anti-virus, anything monitoring registry changes, or even an uninstall can fail.
Uninstalled the old SP1 RC first.
No problem installing the new one and Vista Ultimate maintained the edge in performance speed that I noticed with the previous build.
No major problems, just odd application errors here and there, nothing permanent, thus far at least.

I've installed it on two desktops and a laptop so far. Two are Vista Business, one is Vista Ulimate. No problems thus far. It's been about four months, and I installed the latest refresh (Jan) on all three. Working fine.

It works better I think, I see some performance improvements. I never had any reliability problems so I guess thats the same. Get over it guys, Vista just needs a lot of ram and a decent processor to run nicely. And to betanews, thanks for going back to the original layout of the website. Its a lot better :)

I uninstalled the 052 build per the instructions and then followed the steps to get the new build installed. It installed on the 1st try without issue (through remote desktop, even! I was feeling brave.)

It seems as solid as the 052 build did. Not a single issue so far, performance is way up over RTM and no programs have stopped working.

So far so good, no clue why so many haters on here appear to be having trouble.

Because they are complaining about a pre-release service pack they have never touched for an Operating System they have never used...

I have already "upgraded" to Windows XP.

hooray for you.. here's a cookie.

Great! Send me your Vista!

lmao

Very pleased thus far. Network performance is certainly much improved. The annoying bug in previous RC builds where when you would logon to a domain account, then log off, and try to logon to another account and suffer a 2 minute or more hang after pressing Ctrl+Alt+Del is gone!

Installed on 3 PC's so far, one a 64-bit Business install. 2 of the 3 were after uninstalling the previous RC and then installing this one. Not a single hiccup for any of them. Going for #4 later this week.

Network performance is certainly much improved

I like the sound of that. When the final hits the net I can finally start testing vista on our systems again.

Downloaded - installed - rebooted: BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH!
Automatic System Restore does not work.

I AM TOAST!

Have to re-install.

RECOMMONDATION: Use XP!

Instead of a beta product? Good idea if you have to rely on your machine and have a speck of brain.

and thats why its a beta, idiot!

Flagged as a troll fro two reasons:

1.) You installed a pre-release SP and didn't back up.

2.) "Use XP" Not, "Wait for the full release", or "Wait 'til it's done" like a normal user.

As with treworld, I doubt you've gotten closer to vista than seeing it on the computers in stores.

..and just so you know, the caps lock key really isn't cruise control for cool. It just makes you look idiotic.

Downloaded, then set a system restore point and then installed. No problems to report after a reboot. All went very smoothly and my systems seems a bit quicker to respond, although I didn't time responses before or after.

It already sets a system restore point during install. A better avenue to take would be an image of your machine using windows backup or acronis/ghost.
imaged bits > software based file restoration

Before SP1, my laptop always froze when I went into sleep mode. After it didn't. But explorer still takes too long when using the Open or Save dialog box. But at least I can use sleep mode without having to restart anyway.

We've held back our Vista migration based solely on our testing in mid-2007 of hibernation/suspend failing miserably. Good to hear there will be some improvements.

I was having the suspend / hibernate problem as well and one day Vista "checked for problems and solutions online" for me and found a hotfix. Coincidentally this hotfix was documented in the Vista team's blog a couple days later as the fix for the hibernation / suspend issues. It had something to do with USB drivers and ACPI or something. Anyhow, you don't need to wait on SP1 to get that fix.

TTFN

Wow, has the anti-ms crowd come out, PEOPLE CANNOT READ, it states HOW IS SP1 COMING NOT VISTA.

I want to know what changed from the refresh from the rc?

Do you have to uninstall the previous beta before installing this? If you do how painful/painless is it to do? (meaning any issues after uninstalling it)

After the final is released again will it be another uninstall?

I'd love to know if they've done anything regarding the multimedia prioritization. Is that still killing network throughput?

I installed it Sunday. It took over 3 hours to complete. Once it finished it was a *yawn*.
Nothing to see here folks. I wouldn't waste my time doing it again.

3 hrs? were you running on dialup on a pent II?

Or could it be you are trolling?

Sounds like you are one of the usual clowns trying to run Vista on a 1GHz P3 with 128MB Ram. Do yourself (and us a favor) and go install Linux.

Who would do such a thing here??

BTW, I just noticed that BetaNews has gone back their their previous layout. This is much better than what I had replaced it with as well. Eyecandy is not always better.

They always spoof it up for CES! lol

Whatever happened to constructive discussion...

Are you kidding me? Let me know when you've ever seen that here!

I spent the hour un-installing the previous beta.(6001.17052)
It now hovers in Windows Update trying to get me to reinstall it.

See solid to me. The last build was solid too. I can tell you I have less aero failures now.

I see speed improvements, the only problem I have had with Vista is it keeps increasing the size of my C drive with system restore. I have to turn it off and on again to clear it.

I personally like Vista alot. You can't blame Microsoft for third parties sitting on their a**es and not putting out a driver for their devices. As I see it that was the biggest issue not having a driver, I know it opened my eyes to some of the companies I will never do business with in the future when I need to replace hardware. A year later and some of these companies still are not supporting their hardware with new drivers. Pretty sad.

*cough* Creative */cough*

By PC_Tool said:

Hmmm...

System restore?

Uninstall the SP?

Restore from backup?

Most folks would try any one or more of these options before dumping the OS all-together.

That, combined with the oh-so-clever "upgrade" schtick, leads me to believe you might actually be full of it...

Something makes me doubt, in fact, that you've ever even seen Vista Business 32bit....
---------------------------------------------
For a change, I'm gonna agree with Tool on this one. Me thinks this guy is as full of pucky as a Christmas goose.

That's it. You've just lost any respect anyone here had for you.

Congratulations. ;)

running vista home prem 64 bit since day one and have had no issues before or after sp1

this still will not install on my legit copy of vista business. i get an error code 80070059

http://www.theexperience...ror-0x80070059-solution/

The solution was simply to copy the file winusb.inf from c:\Windows\system32\DriverStore\FileRepository\winusb.inf_0362a280\winusb.inf to c:\Windows\inf. After copying the winusb.inf file there the Vista SP1 RC1 installation completed with no error codes at all!

Try that, let me know if it works.

treworld,

was it exactly Refresh version of Release Candidate or just RC that lead to results so terrible?

Installed Vista SP1 RC for Business 32 bit:

I lost my Control Panel after installing the last release. I tried to open it, but it wouldn't open. After getting it to open, it would come out blank. So, after an hour of trying to find a solution online, I gave up and "UPGRADED" to XP Pro.

Hmmm...

System restore?

Uninstall the SP?

Restore from backup?

Most folks would try any one or more of these options before dumping the OS all-together.

That, combined with the oh-so-clever "upgrade" schtick, leads me to believe you might actually be full of it...

Something makes me doubt, in fact, that you've ever even seen Vista Business 32bit....

not to mention...even IF all he said was true (and being to dumb to try any of your suggestions on his own)...dumping an OS because you have an issue with BETA software you installed...just makes him that much dumber (or that much more full of it).

Or maybe people just want it to WORK! ...Not fooling around with what SHOULD be a simple upgrade trying to get their computer to just work. lol@brainwashedwintards

Ill just stick to a working *nix OS thanks.

After trying Vista for 6 months I found that System Restore didn't always "solve" the problem and I had to reinstall Vista to actually fix it. I finally upgraded to XP myself as well. Now I've completely dropped Windows and I'm now running Ubuntu Linux instead. After nearly 25 years of Microsoft I can now say that I can enjoy my system without all of the hassle that Microsoft brings along. It truly is liberating.

BTW, if you like the eye candy in Vista you should take a look at this and see why even Linux beats the crap out of Vista yet again with Compiz-Fusion.

http://www.youtube.com/w...zNQ&feature=related

You got to remember that you're talking to pc-tool, and as his alias proves he is a tool.

lol
both combined...that would be truly sad, but simple true? :D

BTW, if you like the eye candy in Vista you should take a look at this and see why even Linux beats the crap out of Vista yet again with Compiz-Fusion.

Yeah... if your hardware can run it, and you can actually get it to work. I mean seriously, how can you mock the stability of Vista and then praise Compiz-Fusion in the same comment? I love Ubuntu as much as the next Linux-evangelist, but let's not get carried away.

"I mean seriously, how can you mock the stability of Vista and then praise Compiz-Fusion in the same comment?"

I couldn't have said it better myself. Compiz-Fusion and Beryl... Windows Me crashed less than those Jell-O emulators.

Ok....So Microsoft has yet again managed to hose its own OS...What's knew? We should be used to this by now.

Ubuntu is nice, i agree with that, but having good eye-candy does not mean that one system beats another. Vista is still beter.

It's a pre-release, n00b.

...and you're an idiot.

Shall we throw around some more insults or will you grow up?

You are so full of crap.

Ubuntu doesn't even compare for the majority of users.

CoD4. WoW. Office 2003.

Just a few of the most popular titles out there that either flat-out don't work, or take an enormous amount of tinkering to get the bare-minimum of performance. Whereas, in Vista...they work.

And compiz? lmao...

Sure, if you want to go against the "OSS" crowd and install restricted NVIDIA or ATI drivers. But hey, you get Jell-O windows.

What's knew?

Apparently the English language?

Im betting hes an American... they bas****ised English so much, they can call it what they want.... Theyre Americans, they do what they want and you better like it (unless your Oil beds are dry)

Funny, that...

I'm an American.

...and you're missing quite a bit of punctuation there, my friend. Glass houses and all....

it is running pretty good. Delete and copy seems to be working faster with SP1 RC.

I guess DVD Decrypter will never run on Vista.

Right click the shortcut, run as administrator and in compatibility mode (Windows XP).

Works fine here in Vista 32-bit. (might have to turn UAC off)

DVDDecrypter has run fine on Vista for me, through-out the original betas, RTM and even with SP1... Didn't need to disable UAC or run in compatibility mode either

SP1 has been running just fine for me for the last couple of months. All around improvements. Sure there are always things you'd like to be included, but it's a definite step up over RTM

dvd decrypter seems to run fine on my vista(32) pc.

If you have to do that than why get Vista at all? You shouldn't have to do that at all. As the motto for Ubuntu goes, "It should just work...."

It works fine on my 64 bit Vista as well.

you're right.. wanna play some call of duty 4? oh wait, that's right, you can't..

Then why do my windows programs not work on it?

And very little actually *does* work.

Office 2003? Good luck.

Word Of Warcraft? Sure, if you want it at it's lowest video settings, and only then after messing with numerous config files...

But right clicking a shortcut...*that's* too much work for ya.

/valley
What Ever...