Windows Vista SP-2 (Beta)

[RobDog888]

Ok, I think its ok for me to post this now...

SP2 supports new types of hardware and emerging standards that will grow in importance in the coming months and years
SP2 improves the administration experience and eases certain management and support challenges
By providing these fixes integrated into a single service pack, covering client and server versions, Microsoft provides a single high-quality update that minimizes deployment and testing complexity for customers.
Windows Vista SP2 builds on the solid foundation laid by Windows Vista SP1. The incremental improvements provided in SP2 come primarily from the feedback we have received from customers and partners.
In addition to all previously released updates, SP2 will contain changes focused on addressing reliability and performance issues, supporting new types of hardware, and adding support for several emerging standards

• Emerging Hardware Support
• SP2 contains Blue tooth 2.1 feature pack supporting the most recent specification for Blue tooth technology
• Ability to record data on Blu-Ray media,
• Adds Windows Connect Now (WCN) Wi-Fi Configuration to Windows Vista SP2,
• exFAT file system now supports UTC timestamps, which enables correct file synchronization across time zones.
• SP2 provides support for new form factors, such as ICCD/CCID. new form factor support --example USB form factor as opposed to PCMCIA).
• Support for the new VIA 64-bit CPU
• Security
• SP2 includes all previously released security updates, and builds on the proven security benefits of Windows Vista
• Secure Development Lifecycle process updates, where we identify the root cause of each security bulletin and improve our internal tools to eliminate code patterns that could lead to future vulnerabilities
• Reliability
• SP2 addresses previously released reliability updates, as well as addressing crashes, caused by Microsoft code, discovered since the launch of SP1
• Performance
• Resume performance when Wi-Fi connection is no longer available after resume from sleep
• Inclusion of Windows Search 4 for improved indexing performance, improved relevancy in search, broader indexing scenario inclusion, as well as new Group Policy integration for Windows Search,
• Improvements to the RSS feeds sidebar gadget to improve update performance and responsiveness,
• Application Compatibility
• It is our goal that applications that run on the Windows Vista Operating System today and are written using public APIs will continue to work as designed on Windows Vista SP2.
• Previously released Application Compatibility updates are included in Windows Vista SP2.
• Spysweeper and ZoneAlarm now working with POP3 email accounts
• Administration and Support Improvements
• Customers installing .net framework 3.5 service pack 1 will notice shorter download and installation times with Vista service pack 2 or Windows 2008 service pack 2 already installed,
• Service Pack Clean up tool (Compcln.exe): This tool helps restore the hard disk space by permanently deleting the previous versions of the files (RTM & SP1) that are being serviced by Service Pack 2.
• Single installer for both Vista & Server 2008
• Ability to detect an incompatible driver and block service pack installation or warn users of any loss of functionality
• Better error handling and providing more descriptive error messages where possible
• Better manageability through logging in system event log
• Componentization for Serviceability of the installer
• Some Specific Fixes/Additions Include:
· Inclusion of Hyper-V
· Event logging support in SPC
· DNS Server now listens over ISATAP address
· Fixes DRM issues from WMP upgrades
· Windows Vista Feature Pack for Wireless
· Reduction of resources required for sidebar gadgets
· Improved power settings for WS08

More info...
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l...?ITPID=sprblog

Download (should be working in a few hours):
http://technet.microsoft.com/windows/dd262148.aspx

[Kasracer]

Nice list of improvements though I won't install it until the full release (I use my computer for work, school, etc so I don't install beta patches anymore; even though it's fun).

[RobDog888]

Yes, it should only be installed on a system that is not your production or main system.

[JuggaloBrotha]

SO MS is still throwing perfume and confetti on a dog turd.

Like kasracer, I'll install it on my 1 vista comp when the official one is released.

[Kasracer]

SO MS is still throwing perfume and confetti on a dog turd.

On a dog turd? Are you saying Vista is a dog turd? Why?

[dilettante]

It appears to me that it pushes Vista even further ahead of Windows 2001.

[RobDog888]

It appears to me that it pushes Vista even further ahead of Windows 2001.

Its ok, just say it like it is... Vista > XP

[JuggaloBrotha]

On a dog turd? Are you saying Vista is a dog turd? Why?

Yes, because it's functionally flawed, they rushed it and sp1 didn't fix much. That being said SP2 could actually make Vista work reasonably but I'm wondering if SP2 was rushed like the whole project's been.

[Kasracer]

Yes, because it's functionally flawed, they rushed it and sp1 didn't fix much. That being said SP2 could actually make Vista work reasonably but I'm wondering if SP2 was rushed like the whole project's been.

What are you talking about? What's flawed and what needs to be fixed? Vista will work great if you're not running it on 8 year old hardware. I currently have it running on 4 machines and all of them are just as fast as they were with Windows XP. They crash less and are so much more usable (Windows Key + start typing what you want to open = heaven to a keyboard junky).

Windows 7 looks really great but I don't get the whole "negativity" around Vista. Most of it seems to be complete FUD. For instance, many state that Vista uses too much memory but this is not true. Unlike XP where it would just let your memory sit there, unused, Vista actually caches your commonly accessed applications so while my Vista machine with 4GB of ram only has 1.2GB free, it's not wasting memory like XP did. If an application needs the memory it immediately frees it up and overwrites it. When I jump into a game of Team Fortress 2 with my settings cranked up while 3 instances of Visual Studio, SQL Management Studio, IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Zune iTunes, Media Center and Outlook are running my game still loads and runs as fast as it did on XP Pro.

Also, I would hardly call 5 and a half years "rushing" it. Vista had many components re-written to remove old code from the Windows 3.1 days. That's huge and makes updates and other parts of the operating system work much better.

[JuggaloBrotha]

What are you talking about? What's flawed and what needs to be fixed? Vista will work great if you're not running it on 8 year old hardware. I currently have it running on 4 machines and all of them are just as fast as they were with Windows XP. They crash less and are so much more usable (Windows Key + start typing what you want to open = heaven to a keyboard junky).

Windows 7 looks really great but I don't get the whole "negativity" around Vista. Most of it seems to be complete FUD. For instance, many state that Vista uses too much memory but this is not true. Unlike XP where it would just let your memory sit there, unused, Vista actually caches your commonly accessed applications so while my Vista machine with 4GB of ram only has 1.2GB free, it's not wasting memory like XP did. If an application needs the memory it immediately frees it up and overwrites it. When I jump into a game of Team Fortress 2 with my settings cranked up while 3 instances of Visual Studio, SQL Management Studio, IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Zune iTunes, Media Center and Outlook are running my game still loads and runs as fast as it did on XP Pro.

Also, I would hardly call 5 and a half years "rushing" it. Vista had many components re-written to remove old code from the Windows 3.1 days. That's huge and makes updates and other parts of the operating system work much better.

Some people have no trouble at all, but when I gave Vista a try and it doesn't run stably on a 4 Ghz dual core with 4gb ram, what's the point in using it? I also noticed right off the bat that it doesn't like Logitech mice or Hp and Cannon printers, I know MS doesn't care that they're severing compatibility with existing hardware (even though the mouse and printers were purchased 4 months before Vista was purchased), but I can't afford to buy new hardware (again) to run a Mac lookalike.

If Vista SP2 allows my Hp 1006 printer to work on Vista I'll give it a go again, otherwise I'll just wait for Windows 7 inwhich whether my hardware works or not I have a need to upgrade to, I'll probably purchase new hardware when Win7 is publicly released.

[dilettante]

It looks like HP has printer drivers for that one Select software and drivers.

[Kasracer]

Some people have no trouble at all, but when I gave Vista a try and it doesn't run stably on a 4 Ghz dual core with 4gb ram, what's the point in using it?

Sounds like you have a hardware configuration issue then. What were the full specs?

I also noticed right off the bat that it doesn't like Logitech mice or Hp and Cannon printers, I know MS doesn't care that they're severing compatibility with existing hardware (even though the mouse and printers were purchased 4 months before Vista was purchased)

Actually, Vista includes more drivers than any previous version of Windows. I've used 5 mice with my Vista machines and never had any issue (I didn't need to install any drivers) (my previous logitech mouse went up and I tried many in search of a good replacement, heh). Actually, how did your mouse not work? I haven't seen a mouse just not work in about 10 years and that was on Mac OS 9.

As for printers most / many work without any driver installation but that support falls on the manufacturer of the printer, not Microsoft. Having said that, I find it hard to believe Hp and Cannon didn't have drivers for your printer. My Vista machines interface, remotely, just fine with my 2 HP printers (1 is about 8 months old, the other is about 4 years old).

but I can't afford to buy new hardware (again) to run a Mac lookalike.

What looks like a Mac and why would you need to buy new hardware? Is it that out dated? What's your configuration? If it's still fairly new then just download the latest drivers and I'm sure it'll work well.

[JuggaloBrotha]

Sounds like you have a hardware configuration issue then. What were the full specs?

That could be, except WinXP and Ubuntu Linux work fine on the system, even after performance tweaks, Vista didn't from the start and I couldn't get it to after playing with it for a few weeks.
I'll post the actual specs this weekend, the system's running XP SP3 at the moment.

Actually, Vista includes more drivers than any previous version of Windows. I've used 5 mice with my Vista machines and never had any issue (I didn't need to install any drivers) (my previous logitech mouse went up and I tried many in search of a good replacement, heh). Actually, how did your mouse not work? I haven't seen a mouse just not work in about 10 years and that was on Mac OS 9.

That may be but when you plug in a Logitec MX518 mouse on WinXP and Ubuntu and it works from the get go then plug it into the vista comp and Vista tells you there's invalid hardware on the system and the Logitec drivers on the vista comp tells me it doesn't find the mouse on the system and I need to plug it in is an indication that vista's not working.

As for printers most / many work without any driver installation but that support falls on the manufacturer of the printer, not Microsoft. Having said that, I find it hard to believe Hp and Cannon didn't have drivers for your printer. My Vista machines interface, remotely, just fine with my 2 HP printers (1 is about 8 months old, the other is about 4 years old).

When installing the printer from the HP installer (after downloading the Vista drivers, because Vista doesn't come with native drivers) and Vista comes up with a blue screen hardware error forcing a restart when the printer works fine on XP and Ubuntu is an indication that Vista's crap.

What looks like a Mac and why would you need to buy new hardware? Is it that out dated? What's your configuration? If it's still fairly new then just download the latest drivers and I'm sure it'll work well.

MS put a lot of work into the UI and while some things work but it looks gay as hell (albeit better than the default XP theme, but XP has more themes now and eventually there'll be a good one for Vista too) and I've noticed it's awfully similar to Mac OS X.

[Kasracer]

That sucks you had a rough time with it. I've had the invalid hardware before on other machines and it always turned out to be a bad USB controller but if it works for XP then that's probably not the case (unless Vista has a lower fault tolerance).

I still don't see how Vista looks like OS X though. I worked for Apple for a year and I was in OS X all day and I don't see any similarities other than both UIs are accelerated via the graphics card.

[JuggaloBrotha]

That sucks you had a rough time with it. I've had the invalid hardware before on other machines and it always turned out to be a bad USB controller but if it works for XP then that's probably not the case (unless Vista has a lower fault tolerance).

Could be, thing is that Ubuntu 8.09 or whatever version was right before v8.10 worked on the comp just fine too and I've noticed that Ubuntu's not exactly lenient about hardware (It's not a resource hog but it picky about whether the drivers allow it to support hardware or not).

I still don't see how Vista looks like OS X though. I worked for Apple for a year and I was in OS X all day and I don't see any similarities other than both UIs are accelerated via the graphics card.

That could be because you've actually used Mac OS X more than 10 minutes so you have a different view of it.