View Full Version : Vista SP1
Get it here:
32-Bit (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=2fa54665-7716-47d9-b9b7-5cfdf71198cb&DisplayLang=en)
64-Bit (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=88128a77-6107-46df-89d8-b93c248496e3&DisplayLang=en)
Cheers,
Stephen
Think I'll wait for the official gold release!
[GPO]Solitaire
15-12-2007, 00:18
Just don't want to install and uninstall every time it changes! I'll wait till a few weeks after the official release, just incase.
I did have to re-activate it after installing the SP1...
But it's been fine so far. :)
Cheers,
Stephen
I decided to give it a shot, not being a patient type of fellow.......
After getting the necessary prerequisite updates installed first (the standalone SP1 wouldn't even start to install without them) it seemed to go on via the windows update without a hitch. Haven't really had much time to see what is different, but it has certainly improved my boot-up time a tad.
I'll see how it goes over the next few days.
:)
I'll wait a little while longer I think :D
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/13/1435232&from=rss
Won't be rushing out to get it myself... everything is working just fine on my laptop as it stands!
The stuff in that Slashdot article is a bit sensationalist, to be honest. All I did was downloaded the SP for x64, ran it and it did all the rest, rebooting as needed. The only fly in the ointment was having to reactivate, but the IVR for that now means you don't even need to speak to somebody, it's all automated, including the bit where they ask where you purchased the software and how many machines it's running on.
Cheers,
Stephen
Fair play... I suppose they did make a fuss with XP SP2 when there was nothing really wrong with it...
But you need to remove the RC version when they release the RTM version...
Which I will concede isn't the world's biggest issue, but I just can't be bothered!
[GPO]Solitaire
15-12-2007, 20:36
Only worrying thing is that it tells you to wait at least one hour after uninstalling any rc or beta version before you install the official sp1! Even after a reboot, wonders what it's doing in the background.
Just installed it see if it fixed a problem im having, and wow what a difference!
Seems slower, didn't fix anything, and now i have "Windows Vista (TM) Evaluation copy. Build 6001" embedded in the bottom right of my screen!
At least it didn't ask me to re-activate though lol =/
If it says 'Evaluation Copy' then I expect it's de-activated...
If it says 'Evaluation Copy' then I expect it's de-activated...
No, it tells you it will do this in the readme. Otherwise, it doesn't affect anything. :)
Cheers,
Stephen
And with a little tinkering, that annoying watermark is easily removed : -
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=watermark+vista+sp1&meta=
:)
Came across the official list of changes (http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/005f921e-f706-401e-abb5-eec42ea0a03e1033.mspx?mfr=true) (in plain English) for Vista SP1, on Slashdot.
Some interesting ones in there, EFI support for one. No mention of Ext2/3 filesystem support though. :(
FlyingHaggis
25-01-2008, 01:17
I know it's still in Beta, but what've peoples experiences been?
My friend installed, and it caused him to reinstall Vista, though he has incredible bad luck with his PC, so no surprises there.
Anyone else tried it? Not sure whether to go for it or not.
Tweaker002
25-01-2008, 01:21
I've tried it, network copy time's have vasty improved, for me it changed from 800kbps to 11MBPS.
No errors occured, all my programs still worked and installed fine.
One thing that was different was the boot time, Added around 2/3 seconds, on a STOCK Vista Ultimate installation.
DieselLives
25-01-2008, 09:33
I've had no trouble with it whatsoever.
Infact, before SP1 was installed, i often wondered about how 'true' the reported utilization of my RAM was, which often clocked around 60-80% usage, but since SP1 it now reports on 45% usage MAX when idling at the desktop, which makes me happier, as otherwise my 4GB RAM wouldn't be enough!
The one thing I really dislike is that the stamp it leaves in the bottom right of my screens, "Vista Service Pack 1 BETA" etc.... :p
I tried the rc edition - all my main programs appeared to work and the overall network speed increased, however vista glazz (which I like) didn't work fully so I'm waiting for the final release etc.
FlyingHaggis
29-01-2008, 22:02
Installed and running on my laptop now (nice and shiny new still XD).
Agree with the tag in the bottom right, don't see the point in it really, unless the person looking over your shoulder is particularly interested in what version of Vista you have installed.
Not noticed any differences with performance really, only use my laptop for internet and college work with a bit of movies and music,
I'll install it to my main rig when I get a new motherboard, my ASUS has packed in for no reason whatsoever.
master baits
31-01-2008, 19:29
looks like my p5b deluxe is heading the same way , 2 weeks past warranty.
Tweaker002
31-01-2008, 19:30
Final Release is apparently floating around according to XS
Oh that will be nice timing if it comes out in the next few days, will be able to test it before rolling back when my gfx card comes back. :) Mind you anything has to be better than the current state of file transfers - I didn't realise how often I transfer files till today :rolleyes:
Fireblade
01-02-2008, 12:13
looks like my p5b deluxe is heading the same way , 2 weeks past warranty.
Typical... innit :rolleyes:
Chrisonator
01-02-2008, 15:57
anyone got a link to the beta? whats this watermark i keep hearing about?
Tweaker002
01-02-2008, 16:08
Its a little "Windows Vista Service Pack 1.xxxxx Evaluation Version" Watermark that overlays your desktop picture on the bottom right hand of the dekstop.
Tweaker002
01-02-2008, 17:22
Well it seems like they found a major bug in this build so now they gave us another build and this should be the final and are able to grab it february 4th via WU
the new build is
6001.18000.080126-2040
............
or if you're really clever you'll find the redistributable and download it especially if you have more than one system running vista :)
Chrisonator
01-02-2008, 17:46
im not much of a fan of beta's. i believe i shall leave it until its released as an official auto update. plus i dont wanna ruin my lovely desktop:D
im not much of a fan of beta's. i believe i shall leave it until its released as an official auto update. plus i dont wanna ruin my lovely desktop:D
God keep up we're on about the final release now :rolleyes:
Chrisonator
01-02-2008, 18:45
woops! trust me to be so lazy as not to read everyones posts. lesson learnt!:D
None of you found the original thread (http://forums.kustompcs.co.uk/showthread.php?t=44820) on SP1 then? :rolleyes:
Cheers,
Stephen
Big Adam
01-02-2008, 19:04
None of you found the original thread (http://forums.kustompcs.co.uk/showthread.php?t=44820) on SP1 then? :rolleyes:
Cheers,
Stephen
Threads merged Monsieur Stephen. :)
Threads merged Monsieur Stephen. :)
Merci bien :)
A bientot,
Stephen
Tweaker002
01-02-2008, 20:16
Release Date - 15th February :)
Tweaker002
01-02-2008, 21:09
http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/4554/sp1uz0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
No more Watermark :)
<snip>
No more Watermark :)
Isn't the watermark on the desktop so it would be missing with a window open in front of it :rolleyes:
Tweaker002
01-02-2008, 21:45
Lol OK, heres the proof :p
I only added that as a extra comment :D
Here we go...
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9985/sp1avz7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
With vista sp1 installed windows now regognises my 4 gb of ram:)
With vista sp1 installed windows now regognises my 4 gb of ram:)
Someone who hasn't read the read me file and I assume you're using 32 bit.
It does not use the 4GB any differently than before sp1, all it does is report it accurately (or not depending on your perspective). You have not gained any ram in 32 bit vista, it still only able to use about 3GB as before.
Looks like SP1 is being rolled out via Windows Update - One of my machines downloaded it automatically, the other hasn't yet
[GPO]Solitaire
21-02-2008, 21:23
ermmm... wasn't one of the patches required to run SP1 withdrawn due to is "FUBAR"ing some PCs when they boot?
It does not use the 4GB any differently than before sp1, all it does is report it accurately (or not depending on your perspective). You have not gained any ram in 32 bit vista, it still only able to use about 3GB as before.
Slight [pedandtic] correction: 32bit Vista (like 32bit XP SP2) uses PAE, so it can allocate <64GB of memory, but you're limited to 3.7~GB per process.
No replacement for a 64bit OS though, as you know. :)
Slight [pedandtic] correction: 32bit Vista (like 32bit XP SP2) uses PAE, so it can allocate <64GB of memory, but you're limited to 3.7~GB per process.
No replacement for a 64bit OS though, as you know. :)
I think you may have got /3GB and /PAE muddled a bit there
The max a 'process' (I assume you mean the programs and the os here)can use is 3GB in 32bit and thats only with the required /3GB is in the boot.ini (not used vista 32bit but I assume its there already) and if the program is coded to make use of it, if the switch is not there its a 2GB limit. The /3GB switch allows windows and programs with the required coding to make use of some of the additional ram stored by windows for other purposes.
Having said that I've successfully used /3GB switch on a system with 2GB and it improved ram usage in 3DS Max.
PAE does not change the amount of memory a process can use. All PAE does is allow windows to see the 4GB of memory and add it to its allocated amount - the system then takes out graphics etc which generally reduces the overall available ram in windows to about 3-3.5GB (motherboard supporting) depending on configuration.
But as you say 64bit is really the only way to go with 4GB or more ram.
Solitaire - thats been corrected now supposedly
I think you may have got /3GB and /PAE muddled a bit there
The max a 'process' (I assume you mean the programs and the os here)can use is 3GB in 32bit and thats only with the required /3GB is in the boot.ini (not used vista 32bit but I assume its there already) and if the program is coded to make use of it, if the switch is not there its a 2GB limit. The /3GB switch allows windows and programs with the required coding to make use of some of the additional ram stored by windows for other purposes.
Having said that I've successfully used /3GB switch on a system with 2GB and it improved ram usage in 3DS Max.
PAE does not change the amount of memory a process can use. All PAE does is allow windows to see the 4GB of memory and add it to its allocated amount - the system then takes out graphics etc which generally reduces the overall available ram in windows to about 3-3.5GB (motherboard supporting) depending on configuration.
That last paragraph is contradictory. You started it by repeating exactly what I said, but then it turned a little confusing. PAE's a 36bit memory extension, which means an OS utilising PAE can 'see' (eg. address and allocate up to 2^36 bits (64GB) of memory.) This has been on by default in Windows since before Vista, to the best of my knowledge.
Without PAE, you will suffer the drop in available memory for the reasons you describe above; addresses ranges are required for devices. IIRC though, the only difference in SP1 is that it displays the correct amount of memory to the user, as opposed to displaying it with a 32bit register.
Just like if you enable PAE support in Linux, 'cat /proc/meminfo' will show you the total amount of RAM available to the system. In an 8GB system, that'll be 8GB with PAE turned-on. Recompile the kernel without PAE, and you're down to 3.75GB.
However, each individual 32bit process (yes, that's an application if you want to be quaint about it) is only able to address 2^32 bits of memory. As far as I know this is because any userspace process is restricted from directly accessing the kernel (and thus the PAE extensions in-hardware.)
If you say there's a /2GB limit that's switchable to /3GB, then fine, I wasn't aware of that. Probably because it's bloody backwards. :rolleyes: I'm certainly not confused about PAE though.
That last paragraph is contradictory. You started it by repeating exactly what I said, but then it turned a little confusing. PAE's a 36bit memory extension, which means an OS utilising PAE can 'see' (eg. address and allocate up to 2^36 bits (64GB) of memory.) This has been on by default in Windows since before Vista, to the best of my knowledge.
Assume this bit
PAE does not change the amount of memory a process can use. All PAE does is allow windows to see the 4GB of memory and add it to its allocated amount - the system then takes out graphics etc which generally reduces the overall available ram in windows to about 3-3.5GB (motherboard supporting) depending on configuration.
Let me try and explain differently.
Windows 32bit - because of coding only able to access a total of 4GB including device memory allocation so generally speaking you can get upto 3-3.5GB RAM to use in xp in my experience when configured correctly.
PAE allows windows to register the full 3-3.5Gb for use within the OS but it has no bearing on the programs/processes that run within windows.
On a basic install (ie no tweaks) each process (program/driver whatever) can access upto 2GB of the memory that xp has registered. Windows has a 50/50 type split for memory to start with.
If you add the /3GB switch to the boot.ini it allows programs which are correctly coded to take upto 3GB and remove it from what xp reserves for other purposes.
Remember this is windows and it's always backwards in comparison to linux/unix etc.
Fireblade
22-02-2008, 06:50
Solitaire;432974']
ermmm... wasn't one of the patches required to run SP1 withdrawn due to is "FUBAR"ing some PCs when they boot?
I'll be damned if I can remember where I read it now - but I read just yesterday, that the SP1 download itself is being withdrawn... for that very reason!
If I can remember where I read the article, I'll post it.
Meantime... if anyone else has read about it - do share ;)
[edit] Found it!! Microsoft Pulls Vista SP1 Update (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/21/1526225&from=rss)...
news.com reports that Microsoft is withdrawing SP1 for Vista.
Nick White, Microsoft product manager blogged: 'We've heard a few reports about problems customers may be experiencing as a result of KB937287.'.
'Immediately after receiving reports of this error, we made the decision to temporarily suspend automatic distribution of the update, to avoid further customer impact while we investigate possible causes. [edit]
jacobzcoool
22-02-2008, 14:06
Seems vista SP1 will break a huge load of security software :rolleyes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7205059.stm
Typical!
Well nothing broken on my SP1 rig - KAV working fine... so far ;)
nicky munchkin
22-02-2008, 14:56
Seems vista SP1 will break a huge load of security software :rolleyes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7205059.stm
Thats not specific to Vista, XP SP3 will probably do the same just as SP2 and SP1 did.
Me and my Nod32 seem to be doing just fine after I upgraded the other day. Also I am sure that instaliing SP1 freed up about 16Gb of hdd space. Before updating I had 88Gb free then after it was 103Gb.
Think it could be something to do with the prerelease version I had on before not cleaning up all the updates properly. I noticed that in the updates list in programs and features listed all the updates and the SP but when I installed the release SP it cleared out all the updates other than the SP.
Windows 32bit - because of coding only able to access a total of 4GB including device memory allocation so generally speaking you can get upto 3-3.5GB RAM to use in xp in my experience when configured correctly.
PAE allows windows to register the full 3-3.5Gb for use within the OS but it has no bearing on the programs/processes that run within windows.
You're contradicting yourself again! What you've just said is: PAE is there to help Windows recognise "the full 3-3.5Gb", whilst the reason that a system is subjected to that limit, is because of a lack of PAE?
PAE enables an otherwise 32-bit system to recognise up to 64GB of addressable memory. Get it right: with PAE enabled, you have a full 4GB of RAM to allocate amongst processes.
On a basic install (ie no tweaks) each process (program/driver whatever) can access upto 2GB of the memory that xp has registered. Windows has a 50/50 type split for memory to start with.
If you add the /3GB switch to the boot.ini it allows programs which are correctly coded to take upto 3GB and remove it from what xp reserves for other purposes.
Remember this is windows and it's always backwards in comparison to linux/unix etc.
It does seem overly daft that a single process cannot be allocated more than 2GB of memory by default, but there. The limit is 2^32 in any system I've touched that even required such use...
Each process is still limited to ~3.7GB by 32bit limitations. However these /2GB and /3GB boot parameters are neither here nor there, as they're completely separate to the workings of PAE, so I don't know why you keep including them. It really matters not, seeing as the original question concerned the amount of memory available to the system.
It's worth pointing out (once again) that any sane 32-bit OS, without daft super-imposed restrictions, would be able to assign a full ~3.7GB to any single process. :)
You're contradicting yourself again! What you've just said is: PAE is there to help Windows recognise "the full 3-3.5Gb", whilst the reason that a system is subjected to that limit, is because of a lack of PAE?
Not quite - windows XP 32bit (and vista too iirc) is coded to only use 4GB even with PAE, PAE allows windows to 'see' and use the 3-3.5GB for programs.
I think your term of process is different to mine by the looks of it. A device (say gfx card) taking part of the 4GB allowance is not a process in the eyes of windows (it might be in linux/os-x but I don't use it enough to know for certain), a process in the eyes of windows is fundamentally a program/code/driver running that can access the available ram to run stuff in - in the case of 32bit windows this is 3-3.5GB (would be 3GB tops without PAE).
Now when the ram is increased so theres more than 2GB - the 2GB limit to a program/process comes in and requires /3GB switch to get a better allowance out of the OS.
It does seem overly daft that a single process cannot be allocated more than 2GB of memory by default, but there. The limit is 2^32 in any system I've touched that even required such use...
Nobody ever accused windows of being well written :D
These /2GB and /3GB boot parameters are completely separate to the workings of PAE, so I don't know why you're including them.
probably because you got onto processes being able to use 3.7GB earlier on.
Not quite - windows XP 32bit (and vista too iirc) is coded to only use 4GB even with PAE, PAE allows windows to 'see' and use the 3-3.5GB for programs.
I think your term of process is different to mine by the looks of it. A device (say gfx card) taking part of the 4GB allowance is not a process in the eyes of windows (it might be in linux/os-x but I don't use it enough to know for certain), a process in the eyes of windows is fundamentally a program/code/driver running that can access the available ram to run stuff in - in the case of 32bit windows this is 3-3.5GB (would be 3GB tops without PAE).
Are you trying to tell me that even with PAE extensions, Microsoft purposefully restrict the 32bit version of Windows to a maximum of 4GB system memory? It wouldn't surprise me if it was purposefully-crippled, but I've never heard of it before.
My definition of a process doesn't include graphics cards: where the hell did you come up with that? :p A process is not a driver under Windows: Program or Service is definition-enough for the thread.
Your last line is true. Funny how I've said that three times already, though. ;)
Now when the ram is increased so theres more than 2GB - the 2GB limit to a program/process comes in and requires /3GB switch to get a better allowance out of the OS.
Far enough, I believe you. It's an archaic 'feature' though, and one which still remains extraneous to the conversation (in my opinion.)
Are you trying to tell me that even with PAE extensions, Microsoft purposefully restrict the 32bit version of Windows to a maximum of 4GB system memory? It wouldn't surprise me if it was purposefully-crippled, but I've never heard of it before.
yes - linky (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx)at least with xp and server 2003 sp1
yes - linky (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx)at least with xp and server 2003 sp1
Ugh. I knew the Server OS had limits, but that's annoyingly-low..
It's only Microsoft forcing customers that need more RAM to buy a 'better' (i.e. more expensive) version of their OS. What else is new?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.