Should I wait for Vista SP1?

[bsobel]

The idea that people should not install Vista until at least the first service pack has come up in a number of threads. The logic appears sound, the '.0' releases of many products are viewed as buggy and people wait for the first round of updates before deploying the software. There was a time when software companies even played games with the version number (e.g. let's ship 1.1 instead of 1.0).

However, what is usually forgotten in these comments is that previously the service packs where the first realistic opportunity end users got to get code fixes. Given that model, waiting made a lot of sense.

So what's changed? The internet. Online code updating has for good and bad greatly changed the game. You install Vista today, you have access to numerous updates that fix issues today without waiting for 'the next service pack'. I did a clean Vista install yesterday (V32 to V64 migration on the kitchen machine) and 20+ updates where downloaded and installed automatically. The service pack has been replaced from a 'one time all fixes update' to an ongoing 'as needed' flow of updates.

Is there still a reason for service packs? Yes, they do provide a much needed milestone where a vendor can introduce compatibility breaking changes (XP SP2 broke lots of software, as an example). Vendors try to not release compatibility breaking changes in fixes which the user may not expect. Holding those changes for a service pack gives everyone a chance to prepare for the change. It also allows others to specify that milestone (minimum) you need to be at. I'm sure you've all seen software which now says XP SP2 required...

My 2 cents...
Bill

 

[Mem]

Vista is very solid at the moment,nobody will deny that SP1 will fix bugs etc...drivers seem to be getting better all the time,btw anybody remember the old threads where people had problems with SP1 ,SP2 installs in XP,I know somebody that installed SP2 and it trashed their XP PC.

My point is you can still get problems eitherway with or without service packs,waiting is not always the safest choice,if you want something I say go for it.

I don't know what SP1 will bring to my Vista with performance /stability etc.. however I would not (and did not )wait for SP1 if I wanted to install Vista now,by the time Vista SP1 arrives I'll know Vista like the back of my hand ,so if I do get any problems with SP1 I'll be in a better position to fix them then I would by waiting for Vista and SP1.

Only thing I can say for sure is by the time SP1 arrives drivers(graphics) should have some nice performance improvements by then(not like they are bad now).

 

[RebateMonger]

Good observation, Bill.

I remember the "good old days" before the Internet. In 1987, I purchased "Gunship", from Microprose. Their QA guy sent me FIVE complete floppy disk sets over the next two years, each with a different revision of Gunship (up to Version 6). That was the only way to get patches in those days. Each set of floppies introduced new features and new bugs. Those were the days......

 

[spherrod]

:thumbsup: to this thread. Vista is very stable and there's no reason to hold back for SP1

 

[Megatomic]

While I don't disagree, I like to wait for SPs as I slick them with the previous install CD. I'm hoping my XP boxes don't need a reinstall before SP3 comes out...

 

[n7]

I think people rely on service packs a little too much these days.

It might have made sense in the past, but these days, all that's accomplished by waiting is a false sense of security...

 

[Megatomic]

Hmm, just think of those users on extremely slow internet connections. Imagine how long it would take to update your WinXP install if your install media predates SP1. :shocked:

This is just one case where waiting for a new SP is beneficial.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
Hmm, just think of those users on extremely slow internet connections. Imagine how long it would take to update your WinXP install if your install media predates SP1. :shocked:

This is just one case where waiting for a new SP is beneficial.

Those users have the same issue in either case. Download the updates individually or download the entire service pack. If media needs tobe shipped, individual updates can be mailed just as easily as one large SP update.

 

[Zenoth]

Vista's vanilla status is much, much better than XP's was, at out-of-the-box status back in October 2001.

I, too, cannot deny that Vista could use some updates already, and that the Service Pack for it planned for this year will help a couple of situations get better and fix stuff, but the only real, definitive problem Vista is facing at the moment isn't the OS' own stability, but the quality of graphics hardware drivers for it to use it at its best potential. I don't recall XP had that many video-related issues caused by bad drivers back then compared to Vista. But the OS itself, Vista, is better as-is then XP ever hoped to be in the same time frame after its release, mark my words on that.

 

[Noema]

I'm waiting for SP1 to be released before I upgrade...not so much because I think Vista needs fixing, but rather, because that's a deadline I set to myself in order to give drivers more time to mature (particularly nVidia's and Line6's).

Other than crappy drivers, I think Vista is pretty solid.

 

[Kur]

I just dual boot vista and XP. Vista I use just to mess around with listen to music, and XP I use for all my programming programs and games. I got it free with my laptop and I love all the eye candy from vista when I want it, and go back to vista when I have to work.

The only funny thing I see is that I get more battery life on vista then XP >.>