Vista SP2 available

[Jeff Flowerday]

It's on MSDN right now not sure about technet.

[burfadel]

If you do download if from a non Microsoft source, ensure it is version 6.0.6002.18005

Reason being, many people are passing off the final escrow build as the final build, Microsoft made a few last minute changes to it which weren't in the last RC. The build of the last RC was 6.0.6002.18003. Installation of that version will mean you will not be able to update windows.

[Jeff Flowerday]

I've been running it for a few days now and I have to say I'm impressed. Man everything is just smoother and more responsive now.

[lych_necross]

Nope, its not on technet yet, only MSDN. Could someone who downloaded it via MSDN post a MD5 sum of the file along with the file name?

[Jeff Flowerday]

Nope, its not on technet yet, only MSDN. Could someone who downloaded it via MSDN post a MD5 sum of the file along with the file name?

The MSDN version is lumped togethor with Server 2008, I don't think there are individual x64 and x86 vista only downloads.

[lych_necross]

Oh... :(
I'll just have to wait I guess.

[Doom9]

the individual downloads might be coming though.. the MSDN download contains an autorun info, a setup program and three KB files for the three architectures (x86, x64, I64). The files are named Windows6.0-KB948465-X64.exe -X86 and -I64 respectively.
I haven't found a slipstreaming guide so far though - everything out there seems to refer to SP1 and the rest is just musing about what could be but never any actual information about what will be possible (MS said they'd bring official slipstreaming for SP2).
And the ISO is named en_fr_de_ja_es_windows_vista_sp_and_windows_server_2008_sp2_x86_x64_ia64_dvd_342431.iso and has the following checksum: 26a6ce1b9addbed7810d8383768a2dde

[lych_necross]

en_fr_de_ja_es_windows_vista_sp_and_windows_server_2008_sp2_x86_x64_ia64_dvd_342431.iso
All that is the file name!?! :eek: I do hope they split the vista and server 2008 iso images into separate files (I can't use server, I don't have a license for it). I'll bet slipstreaming with SP2 will be similar to it was in XP (the only tricky part is making a bootable slipstreamed iso image).

[burfadel]

The manual, long, tedious method for slipstreaming SP1 also works for SP2. This isn't even really slipstreaming, more imaging. I wouldn't really recommend it! Slipstreaming using slipstreaming tools won't work either, there is something different about the sp2 pack. Vlite won't be updated any longer and won't have SP2 support, but the Vista slipstreaming utility will be updated.

Both methods of slipstreaming don't work currently, in terms of using the whole .exe file or extracting the contents and trying to slipstream the cab files. Even if you do manage to slipstream using a slipstream method you are still left with a Sp1 ionstall environment, not a Sp2 - you will need to download the preinstall environment if you want it. Actually, it might even be needed - but I can't say just for now.

[Sharktooth]

... throw vista in the trashcan and wait october for windows 7.

[Who Am I ?]

... throw vista in the trash can and wait october for windows 7.

and then after a month throw windows 7 away as well and switch back to linux :devil:

seriously , all microsoft try's doing is to make everything more fancy and eventually more ram and vga hungry trying to match up with the fancy leapord osx ( which in the first place is based on linux itself and being efficient ) , if you want to use a * windows * , xp ftw ! everything else = crap :rolleyes:

[Shakey_Jake33]

^Ordinarily I'd agree, but Windows 7 is very suprising. I'd like to use Linux, and actually did for ~2 years, but the gamer in me required a switch to XP 64-bit. Vista is exactly how you describe, but I was suprised with how transparently Windows 7 was running, it feels even lighter than XP.

Thay said, it's hardly going to convert the open source crowd (and nor should it), and I only grudgingly use a closed source OS myself (I'm a gamer at heart, and that outweighs my desire to reinstall Sidux), but I think you'll be suprised.

Anyway, from a gamers perspective, Vista SP2 includes the fixes to the DirectSound backwards compatibility that's also included in Windows 7. Many DirectSound games were broken in Vista and Vista SP1, and these have been fixed. This was the reason I stuck with XP, so this is pleasing.

[pdanpdan]

fancy leapord osx ( which in the first place is based on linux itself and being efficient )

In fact it has nothing to do with linux (it's BSD based)

[saint-francis]

Apparently you can't install SP 2 on a vlited Vista installation! :mad:

[lych_necross]

Or you can avoid slipstreaming entirely by downloading the Vista SP2 iso from msdn ;)

[Doom9]

I haven't found Vista with SP2 integrated yet the last time I logged in (to download the SP2 and Windows 7) - granted it's just a matter of time, but if you're used to slipstreaming (XP) it obviously begs the question how do those mysterious capabilities work for SP2. Not that I'd ever install Vista but I have an academic interest in it (and a more practical one for Windows Server which I use at work for various machines).

[Who Am I ?]

In fact it has nothing to do with linux (it's BSD based)

yep i figured it out later , my mistake , it indeed is bsd based :p

[burfadel]

once you install sp1 vista and install sp2 on top of it, and then use compcln.exe (run from command prompt), apparently a true sp2 version and an updated version is basically identical (even space wise)...

The fake streamline method (the long process) is kinda pointless unless you always reinstall. A proper slipstream is much better, simply because you can get the system up and running quicker. Thing is, it would be hard to run compcln as part of a slipstreamed image, so defeats the purpose just a little.

[microchip8]

Fista is a joke :p

[turbojet]

Vista works great for me and SP2 made a noticable difference in performance and yet to see any issues.

I dual boot with XP on not even a very fast box, X2 3800+ and 1 GB of RAM. 90%+ of the time I use vista and every time I've booted into XP over the past year things seem slower then I'm used to. I blame vista for using half my ram for superfetch so things have much better response.

[swaaye]

I use XP and Vista daily and I agree with turbojet that Vista isn't slower unless you are running it on older hardware. You really want a dual core with at least 2GB RAM and a modern HDD for the NT6 OSs. If you are equipped properly for them, they are faster than XP in some ways. Superfetch is a great mechanism for desktop users.

Win7 seems very nice. I have been trying out the RC of it for a few days now. I had a networking issue at home though so went back to XP x64 on that machine for now. I'm thinking it was a driver issue of some sort.

I have to say though that XP x64 deserves more love than it gets. It's a great OS and the driver support level isn't much different than Vista 64's. By that I mean that if hardware lacks Vista 64 support, it also usually lacks XP x64 support and vice versa.

[turbojet]

I use XP and Vista daily and I agree with turbojet that Vista isn't slower unless you are running it on older hardware. You really want a dual core with at least 2GB RAM and a modern HDD for the NT6 OSs. If you are equipped properly for them, they are faster than XP in some ways. Superfetch is a great mechanism for desktop users.

Win7 seems very nice. I have been trying out the RC of it for a few days now. I had a networking issue at home though so went back to XP x64 on that machine for now. I'm thinking it was a driver issue of some sort.

I have to say though that XP x64 deserves more love than it gets. It's a great OS and the driver support level isn't much different than Vista 64's. By that I mean that if hardware lacks Vista 64 support, it also usually lacks XP x64 support and vice versa.

First impressions go a long way in this day and age.

XP 32 to begin with was not all that good but it offered so much more then it's predecessor (ME\98) that it was a 'brealthrough'. But it took 2 service packs to really make it competitive with today's OS's.

XP 64 debuted with a lot of driver problems which is to be expected with the first 64 bit windows OS. There were also few computers that reached XP 32's limits such as 3 GB of RAM so upgrading was more of a hassle then a help.

Vista 32 was in my opinion the most mature windows OS at debut, it did have it's issues indeed and I think UAC is one of the biggest reason's why it got and still gets such criticism even though there's a simple on/off switch for it. It was also competing against XP SP2 which was a hard match. However 6 months later most of the issues had been fixed. For the corporate user there really wasn't any noticable reason to upgrade to a different looking gui that required better hardware. For the home user with acceptable hardware I don't see why you wouldn't want vista if given the chance as it's quicker for everyday tasks and it is just as stable as XP SP2\3. If it wasn't for all the criticism from the first impression I think vista would have been a huge success and no it's not just another windows ME which is a prettier face on a less stable, slower kernel.

With XP 64 vs Vista 64 you have to compare the 2 and I think vista wins in more areas then XP does.

Windows 7 I think will more or less be tagged as the windows ME of Vista at first. I already notice a lot more criticism of windows 7 then I ever did for Vista and look at how Vista is criticized today. Plus I think they did too much change of the Win7 gui without letting you retain old style such as quick launch and start menu. These are 2 reasons I won't be using Windows 7 at first.

[Shakey_Jake33]

I have to say though that XP x64 deserves more love than it gets. It's a great OS and the driver support level isn't much different than Vista 64's. By that I mean that if hardware lacks Vista 64 support, it also usually lacks XP x64 support and vice versa.
This is true, it has a bad reputation, but I've been using it for around a year (only recently switched to Windows 7), and it operated the same as XP 32-bit, but with support for 64-bit applications and 4GB+ address space. At no time did it function or perform any worse than XP 32-bit.

It's a real shame that it still has such a negative reputation, as it's perfect for anyone who wants to use a 64-bit OS but doesn't want to use Vista. It really was the first impressions that hindered this one - the driver problem is less of a problem today, but it's too late. Microsoft also seem to be trying their hardest to stop people from using XP 64-bit (no support for Windows Live Essentials, so you have to Google for the individual .msi files).

[Sharktooth]

Vista IS slower coz, as it has been said, it requires more powerful/newer hardware.
That is THE proof it is slower than the previous version of windows...

[swaaye]

Well, I think Vista and 7 are faster in some ways than XP. Superfetch is really excellent for desktop users. Apps can and will pop up much quicker on a Vista/7 machine because of it. Of course you need at least 2GB of RAM to take advantage of it, but RAM is so cheap now that it's a moot point IMO. I'd say that Vista/7 scale system performance up more than XP can given a modern system. Mainly cuz of better memory management. The prioritized I/O with NT6 is neat as well.

Vista and 7 will be slower than XP if you have a lower spec machine. There's no arguing that. Vista/7 need more of everything to really come into their own.

What I don't like about Vista is that some tasks take more steps to accomplish than they did with XP. UAC is one extra click right off the bat. Doing more to accomplish the same doesn't bring about a feeling of improvement, leanness or optimal design. Vista has lots of bad UI design changes IMO. The extra steps, the folder views that suck and don't remember your changes.... 7 is attempting to rectify things, but I'm not entirely blown away by it yet.

[turbojet]

I use vista's superfetch with 1GB of RAM just fine and have at times 15 or so things going but I think 1GB RAM is about the lowest limit it can stay a high performer. 512 MB for sure doesn't get it done, it swaps often.

Most of the RAM vista takes up is superfetch cache while some people consider this a resource hog others see it for what it really is, a way to speed up loading times, linux 2.6 kernels do the same sort of thing.

As for the number of processes in vista vs. XP, most are svchost which are services and if you actually go through services and compare numbers vista only has a few more enabled by default compared to XP. So in essence more vista services must be split off into their own svchost or vista is giving info that XP is hiding for some reason.

My main gripe with vista is that it takes up so much more HDD space then XP, 20 GB for a fresh Vista 64 install is kinda ridiculous but HDD space is cheap these days.

[Sharktooth]

nope. superfetch is way different from caching AND there is no doubt vista its filled up with a lot of useless software that user is FORCED to remove from the startup to not fill his RAM with useless crap.
oh, about speed, i dont know if you ever seen 64bit XP performance on a quadcore with 8Gigz of ram... if you dont, well, dont say vista is faster without proofs.

[burfadel]

Superfetch can be disabled if you don't want it. DO NOT disable the superfetch service, that is completely an utterly the wrong way to do it and will likely harm performance. Its been explained on here before, but its a registry setting where you set 'Superfetch' from 3 to 2. A lot of tweak programmes disable the service or set 'Superfetch' in the registryt to 0 or 1, which is also bad. 3 enabled superfetch for boot and app, 2 just for boot, 1 just for app, and 0 disable.

The difference between disabling the service and disabling it via the registry is the superfetch service also controls prefetch, something that you do not want to disable. Full memory use cacheing still occurs using this method, just Windows doesn't try to cram every free megabyte that appears with pre-cacheing data (which it is). The pre-cache (aka superfetch) can cause increase disk use and slower performance inside an application simply because typical applications have memory usage changes all the time. Think x264, fills several hundred megabytes of ram, once encoded clears that ram, superfetch caches that data back in to that ram, then next file starts encoding... It can lead to significantly higher disk use in an environment where memory use continually changes. Superfetch for applications does benefit programme loading, but can be detrimental when actually running that programme! The difference is fairly small anyway on a modern machine.

I find the whole argument of XP faster than Vista blah blah a funny one, it all depends on hardware. Hey guess what, Windows 3.11 loads instantly, and so does Word for Windows 2.0 on modern hardware (using Fat16 drive). Its instantaenous so it must be superior! Hey, even Windows ME is faster :D

[Sharktooth]

The fact is vista doesnt offer heartshattering changes from XP (DX10 apart) AND on the same hardware is way slower than XP. so moving from xp to vista is not a wise choice at all.

[burfadel]

I agree, going from XP to Vista on older or lower end hardware is pointless and not at all beneficial. For a new computer I'd get Vista, quite frankly if it can't run Vista its not worth buying. I do realise there is a lot of lower end computers out there, but if you're running such low end computers there's always Vista Basic - yes its crippled, but look at what it cuts out! it basically brings it back to XP level. Problem with defining it as older or lower end hardware is people tend to think what they buy or have is good. It may meet their needs, but in reality much of the computers that people upgrade with are not worth it. Computers such as those with 1gb or less of RAM (yes that can be rectified relatively cheaply), Pentium 4, lower end notebooks and desktops with integrated graphics, plenty of other examples!

[leeperry]

now all we need is evr.ddl/dxva2.dll to update EVR on XP :D