If SP1 contains "stability improvements, a roll-up of previous patches, a bunch of security fixes" why would people wait for SP2 instead? BTW, you left out that SP1 contains a bunch of bug fixes for customer reported problems - why would these customers not want to install SP1 and wait for SP2?

@GreenSkid,

I think Zoomba means that those people who said they wouldn't upgrade from XP to Vista until SP1 was released may now decide to wait until SP2 is released. (Not that Vista users wouldn't install SP1.)

Personally, I think it's great that they're putting out SP1 this quickly. I'm sure that SP2 will have the 'bigger' changes and improvements.

Now, where are those Ultimate Extras?!

Well, by the time Microsoft releases SP2 for Vista, they'll probably be about ready to release Windows Seven. Why wait to switch to Vista SP2 when a whole new OS won't be far behind?

Zoomba did not give any reason as to why people would now wait until SP2 rather than use Vista with SP1. I think the comment is misleading in that it implies that SP1 does not address our top issues that we communicated to Microsoft. Eh, if SP1 fixes any upgrade/install blockers we may have had then, all is good now - install Vista and have fun. BTW: Service Packs are not Feature Packs.

Yes, that IS what Zoomba meant.  [sometimes you have to be a mind-reader.....or have kept up to speed with previous postings]....

Great, i spend $250 on a DX10 card and now i have to upgrade to a DX10.1 Oh well EVGA has a step-up program, i think i got like 65 Days left, i'll do something before then.

I have been using Vista Ultimate for 8 months and find it less buggy/more stable that XP even with SP 2. In that time I've not once had a BSOD or a "Windows has encountered an error and needs to close." message. Hence I can see no logical reason (other than cost) to wait for SP 1 or 2 before upgrading to Vista.

Sure it has a bit of a learning curve, but it's not that steep that a reasonably computer literate person couldn't master it relatively quickly. And yes, Vista skins a little differently to XP, but that doesn't make it a bad OS, and with WB6 and SKS6 available to ODNT subscribers (soon as standalone) there's a whole new wealth of skinning options in Vista to be explored.

Vista is probably less buggy than XP was at the same stage, but I guess there's just no convincing some people....I know people who are still clinging on to 98 for grim death ....and one bloke I know still refuses to upgrade to that cos his copy of 95 ain't broke.

Since installing Vista Ultimate only a few months ago, I can honstly say that so far (and everything crossed), I have been lucky in that I have had no major problems at all with Vista. OK, I did have 2 BSOD but that was only because I was installing new Vista drivers for my MOBO. and that was it. No errors or nothing. And believe me, my computer is the lowest of the low being only a basic Acer Aspire T180, although it does have a crap Dabs Value nVidia 8500GT 512Mb DDR2 GPU (DX10), 2Gb of Corsair RAM and a 550w PSU. So you can see, it's nothing special at all and Vista runs like a dream on it with the exception of having a very low-end CPU (AM2 3400+ 64), thats the only thing really letting the side down I think, as that gets the lowest score on WIE @ 3.8 but that is soon to be rectified with a dual core CPU (I hope)? As for the SP1 and possible SP2 releases, will they actually do anything for those of us without the 'all whistles and bells' computers seeing as ReadyBoost seems to do absolutely nothing at all (but I doubt that it would with 2Gb of RAM installed)? BTW, is there anywhere on this forum where I can get advice on what type of dual CPU to buy as I don't know what make the MOBO is. I was told that someone (who had seen pics of the MOBO)thought it was probably a Foxconn, that had been adapted to Acer specs (only 2 PCI slots - boring)! I was also told that if it's an AM2 socket (and forgive me if I get the terminology wrong - not that wise about the guts of a computer), then it should take any AMD AM2 dual PCU? I don't know as these type of problems confuse me on account of my age,lol, and I don't want to fry my new(ish) computer. Hope somebody can maybe advise and assist? With thanks. Mike (UK)

There is going to be so little in changes to DX 10.1 that currect DX10 cards will be perfectly fine. So little infact that game developers for the most part have nothing different from the coding aspect.
A slashdot link: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/11/0524250&from=rss


But this is all becides the fact that every DX10 card on the market is total trash when it comes to running in a full blown DX10 environment. Silly people, you always give new hardware time to mature before investing in it.

One of the biggest barriers to the adoption of Vista, especially in the enterprise setting is the perceived instability and incompatibility of the new OS.  In the past, a MS operating system wasn't really "ready" for major prime-time use until Service Pack 1.

However, there are those saying that SP 1 is overall a pretty minor update by comparison to previous service packs, and that it may be a rush-job because MS knows folks are waiting for SP 1 before migrating and figure if they get it done sooner rather than later, they can push adoption rates quicker. 

Then there are the seemingly pointless updates like DirectX 10.1. 

From what I've personally experienced and wittnessed, Vista's stability and compatibility varies greatly from system to system.  I'm running it on my laptop at work, and it's great.  I tried running it on my desktop at home and it was a disaster (slow game performance, no 3d audio, lockups and crashes for no apparent reason).  It's been about as mixed here at the office too, some people love it others hate it. 

The question becomes now is if SP1 will bring the OS to an acceptable level for those holding off on upgrading until the OS reaches a "finished" state.  This is especailly important for enterprise customers for whom compatibility with older systems and software is paramount.

I grabbed Vista Ultimate (full install) shortly after it became available though the store I work for (I'm a tech). All of my hardware is newer (within 1.5 years) so I had little to no trouble installing drivers etc. ATI was a little slow on getting out the Vista drivers but it wasn't TOO much of a problem.

As an avid gamer, I've had many problems with Vista. Some older games don't do so well and even in XP compatibility, it was a bit of a fight to play games like Freelancer and System Shock 2 (brushing up mentally before BioShock, w00t). Random crashes and incompatibilities are common with games older than 2 years or so. WoW, BF2142, FEAR etc had little problems other than a 10-15% performance hit, which has actually gotten better as the months have gone on, mainly due to (in my case) ATI getting back on the ball with their Vista based drivers.

I've told friends of mine to wait until SP1 to install Vista mainly because I said the same thing about XP when it was released. Now, I personally didn't wait that long, but I don't mind fighting through a few bugs. As a tech, I thrive on it, but some of them with lesser patience or OS knowledge might not appreciate it too much.

where I work we still deploy xpsp2 corporate wide and re-image new leased machines that come pre-installed with vista with an xpsp2 image. Supporting a new os always comes with it's own set of issues and when you have a decent sized user base, it can really cut into preset budget $$$ when you have to move move a large# of IT staff that are developers and put them in tech support mode to assist the helpdesk with dealing with new os issues instead especially when you have alot of IT projects that have established deadlines that won't get finished because you're dealing with the implementation & administration of a new OS corporate wide.

... speaking of waiting till vista sp2, if you wait that long, shouldn't you technically wait for the next windows os at that point. At service pack 2 stage isn't the os considered old at that point? XP is currently at SP2 and I've heard that sp3 isn't even on the release horizon yet.

Microsoft is shortening it's maintenance cycles with regards to os service packs.
- Windows NT Server/Workstation 4.0 last service pack was sp6a (sp7 was mentioned but never released)
- Windows 2000 Server/Pro last service pack was sp4 (sp5 was mentioned & even quoted on a few MS websites but all that was released was an update rollup package)
- Win95/98 rec'd something like a service pack 1 (too small to really consider it a service pack),
- Win98SE same thing I think but I can't remember for sure
- WinXP Home/Pro is up to Service Pack 2 with SP3 possibly coming out next year (don't quote me on that), after which you will not see any further service packs for this OS

- Vista will only get as far 2 service packs and will be replaced by a newer OS afterwards.
I currently have machines with both XP & Vista but if I have to tell the truth, I probably prefer using my xp machines, that may change by next year but that is still a ways away   

Well this is only a beta after all. The real SP1 is not supposed to be released until next year, which seems like enough time to have matured into an OS worthy of adoption. It does seem like the changes would have a rather minor impact on the average user, but one thing that might not be so minor is the Windows Server 2008 kernel that will replace the current one.

How about the most important one of all - Critical software you use in your job does not have a version which is Supported on Vista yet? I'm personally either waiting until SP2 for Vista, or just plain skipping it for Windows v7. It's been bad enough that MS has been charging an arm and a leg for minor version updates for the past 8 years... Now they finally put out a new major version and in order to get the full-blown package you need to pay close to $400! What was BillG smoking?