Vista SP1 messes up computers

Moederloos said:
The standalone exists for a reason.
Click to expand...

As I posted above, the update process fails on my system, after it downloaded 45%. It's something in the update itself as it fails at the same spot every time. Selecting other updates works fine.

So, the reality is that for some you have no choice but to load the standalone.
 
Solid_snake62 said:
wierd... i havnt experienced any of those problems,infact mine hasnt run better
Click to expand...

You are one of the lucky few. Our company tried to move to Vista last year November, but after a month decided to stay with XP.

Vista is fine for the normal PC user, but really hampers many development platforms- it's biggest claim to fame being the 3D windows "tabbing" feature and those annoying animated backgrounds. No large corporate in SA has even considered moving away from XP and this seems to be a world-wide trend.

Read that Windows "7" (the follow up to Vista) was anounced by MS for release in 2009. I would rather load XP SP3 and wait the 2 years. MS stopped short of admitting Vista was a rushed failure according to some insiders.

Vista wil be filed in the history books, in the same category as Windows ME - a failed Ms experiment.
 
Ekhaatvensters said:
...new versions of Ubuntu come out more often than service packs.
Click to expand...
Which IMO indicates that there is a lot more development & maintenance activity within the Linux community than there is within Microsoft which has become extremely sluggish.
dablakmark8 said:
agg man its company data,what do you care:D:eek:
Click to expand...
AFAIK v3g pays for his data usage on Vodacom's network.
while "Bikkja" said that the update had drastically slowed down the computer.
Click to expand...
That's actually hard for me to believe - my experience with Vista [without SP1] is that it's already deathly slow and barely functional with 2GB of memory to hog, how can SP1 make Vista any slower than it already is...:rolleyes:

PS: my notebook is much more responsive since I ditched Vista & installed Ubuntu 7.10 a week or so back :) :) :).
 
ic said:
Which IMO indicates that there is a lot more development & maintenance activity within the Linux community than there is within Microsoft which has become extremely sluggish.AFAIK v3g pays for his data usage on Vodacom's network.That's actually hard for me to believe - my experience with Vista [without SP1] is that it's already deathly slow and barely functional with 2GB of memory to hog, how can SP1 make Vista any slower than it already is...:rolleyes:

PS: my notebook is much more responsive since I ditched Vista & installed Ubuntu 7.10 a week or so back :) :) :).
Click to expand...

I've got mine in a dual boot, and speed wise Linux beats Vista hands down. Shut down on Linux takes like less than 5 seconds:eek:.
 
Saule said:
I've got mine in a dual boot, and speed wise Linux beats Vista hands down. Shut down on Linux takes like less than 5 seconds:eek:.
Click to expand...
Shutting down Ubuntu on my notebook takes a bit longer than that - I haven't timed it, but still it's definitely much faster than Vista - especially with booting which used to take ages in Vista on my notebook.

All I can say is that I'm happy the divorce with Vista is finally over - it has been an unhappy marriage ever since I got my notebook with Vista pre-installed, and I've been moaning about Vista ever since then [it was actually Vista that finally forced the divorce proceedings when I tried burning backups to DVD it decided to delete the stuff I was trying to backup instead of burn copies of the files].
 
ic said:
Shutting down Ubuntu on my notebook takes a bit longer than that - I haven't timed it, but still it's definitely much faster than Vista - especially with booting which used to take ages in Vista on my notebook.

All I can say is that I'm happy the divorce with Vista is finally over - it has been an unhappy marriage ever since I got my notebook with Vista pre-installed, and I've been moaning about Vista ever since then [it was actually Vista that finally forced the divorce proceedings when I tried burning backups to DVD it decided to delete the stuff I was trying to backup instead of burn copies of the files].
Click to expand...

Vista boot up was painful when my notebook had 512MB of RAM, but now with 1.5 GB it is definitely better. Also I used msconfig to disable about half of the auto-start items.

I backed up everything from Vista using the backup and restore centre. It used 2 DVDs and took like 2 hours.

Edit: SP1 doesn't show up in my update windows menu even after I installed all other updates.
 
Saule said:
Vista boot up was painful when my notebook had 512MB of RAM, but now with 1.5 GB it is definitely better. Also I used msconfig to disable about half of the auto-start items.
Click to expand...
I bought my notebook with 1GB installed, and a few days later was forced to buy another 1GB, IMO Vista needs a minimum of 2GB to run reasonably well, except that I found Vista still hogged ~86% of that 2GB for itself.
Saule said:
I backed up everything from Vista using the backup and restore centre. It used 2 DVDs and took like 2 hours.
Click to expand...
It took me a whole day to backup all of my data to a bunch of DVDs - after my experience with using Vista's native DVD burning in Explorer, I used Nero instead - I should have done that from the start. I didn't bother backing up Vista itself - there are 2 partitions and BIOS boot support on my HP that allow for reinstalling Vista at any time - which I tested before installing Ubuntu.

I suppose I could have waited to see what Vista SP1 would be like, but I was livid at the time and just wanted to get rid of Vista as quickly as possible.
 
ic said:
I bought my notebook with 1GB installed, and a few days later was forced to buy another 1GB, IMO Vista needs a minimum of 2GB to run reasonably well, except that I found Vista still hogged ~86% of that 2GB for itself.It took me a whole day to backup all of my data to a bunch of DVDs - after my experience with using Vista's native DVD burning in Explorer, I used Nero instead - I should have done that from the start. I didn't bother backing up Vista itself - there are 2 partitions and BIOS boot support on my HP that allow for reinstalling Vista at any time - which I tested before installing Ubuntu.

I suppose I could have waited to see what Vista SP1 would be like, but I was livid at the time and just wanted to get rid of Vista as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

Mine usually sits at 50-70% usage of RAM and also has a partition with the Vista system files to re-install.
 
Saule said:
Mine usually sits at 50-70% usage of RAM and also has a partition with the Vista system files to re-install.
Click to expand...
Interesting, which version of Vista have you got? - mine was Vista Business Basic 32bit, one of the first things I did was to stop auto-startup of a whole bunch of junk, and like I say with no apps running [just Vista] ~86% of the 2GB was being hogged by Vista.
 
ic said:
Interesting, which version of Vista have you got? - mine was Vista Business Basic 32bit, one of the first things I did was to stop auto-startup of a whole bunch of junk, and like I say with no apps running [just Vista] ~86% of the 2GB was being hogged by Vista.
Click to expand...

I've got Home Basic 32 bit.
 
ic said:
Interesting, which version of Vista have you got? - mine was Vista Business Basic 32bit, one of the first things I did was to stop auto-startup of a whole bunch of junk, and like I say with no apps running [just Vista] ~86% of the 2GB was being hogged by Vista.
Click to expand...

You use norton antivirus?

I've got ultimate and I average 60% from my 1GB
 
ic said:
Nope, NAV was pre-installed, but that was one of the first applications I nuked when I got my notebook, I installed AVG Free instead.
Click to expand...

Ok, then it must be drivers taking up all that Ram, I disable all unnecessary stuff in Bios like IDE, floppy, PPorts and install a fresh copy of Vista on my minimal resource system.

Just my theory btw don't quote me on it ;)
 
ic said:
Nope, NAV was pre-installed, but that was one of the first applications I nuked when I got my notebook, I installed AVG Free instead.
Click to expand...

Where I worked previously, the manager had an Xp laptop that had Norton preinstalled and the security centre was Norton branded which had to be uninstalled separately from the AV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X