VISTA SP1 Accidentally Released On Windows Update*CONFIRMED*

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: nerp
Off topic, but it's fairly common. Many couples opt to combine names rather than the woman take on the man's last name.

I see.

Disrespect the husband and honor her father.

Interesting!

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: archcommus
Oh well, I don't have SP1, but I shouldn't have to wait till mid March to get it, should be available as a separate download on their website shortly right? As long as I see some decent file transfer gains and less UAC prompts I'll be happy.

You will...

There are many documented and UNDOCUMENTED* changes in SP1 - it's NOT a minor update!

Benchmarks aside, SP1 simply feels spunkier, all the way 'round! :thumbsup:

You'll see...


* Some vulnerable code patterns have been removed.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: Mem
I updated the thread title to stop new users trying to get SP1 since its no longer available until mid March.

Atta boy!

You a mod yet?

I gave it my best!

MOD!!!!!....:shocked: don't scare me.

As to SP1 I can say that my Vista x64 is still very solid,gaming is still great,you asked about 32 bit browsing on Vista x64 ,no issues that I'm aware of except one(I can never get Quicktime VR to work in Firefox on my Vista x64,I know it works fine on my lappy which has Vista x86).

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: Mem
MOD!!!!!....:shocked: don't scare me.

LoL!

I sense a *feeling* of growing unease...

I know AT protects the anonymity of Mods, unlike most web boards.


SOURCE

Granting our moderators anonymity was designed to help gaurd [sic] them while enforcing our somewhat rigid guidelines. The goal was to set up a buffer that could protect them from dealing with the flack that necessarily comes with a heavily moderated community.

Don't want to create a rip current - just curious!

 

[archcommus]

Damn, looks like I was wrong about it being available from microsoft.com before mid March when it's released on WU. Apparently mid March is the time frame for both the download on the site and WU, and mid April for automatic (passive) updates.

Oh well, another 4 weeks or so then.

So really more responsive with general use? This is not something I've heard much.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: VinDSL

Originally posted by: Mem
I updated the thread title to stop new users trying to get SP1 since its no longer available until mid March.

Atta boy!

You a mod yet?

I gave it my best!

MOD!!!!!....:shocked: don't scare me.

After a while, you hardly notice the beatings any more

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: archcommus
So really more responsive with general use? This is not something I've heard much.

I gotta run, but...

Yes, SP1 makes Vista more responsive!

Some paranoid users have suggested that Microsoft has merely changed the way windows are rendered, e.g. the speed at which a window opens when you click something. LoL!

Shutdown time has been dramatically reduced - dittos for coming out of a hibernation/sleep state, yada, yada, yada.

Gotta go... BBL

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: nerp
Off topic, but it's fairly common. Many couples opt to combine names rather than the woman take on the man's last name. Their children end up with the hyphenated last name. When I went to school ten years ago, there were about a dozen kids with hyphenated last names. It works well when you have two last names flow together well, like Steele-Stone but can be awkward when it's Schiedenflug-McCormick.

Awkward if those kids merge their names? Steel-Stone-Scheidenflug-McCormick? Sounds like a law firm.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: archcommus
Damn, looks like I was wrong about it being available from microsoft.com before mid March when it's released on WU. Apparently mid March is the time frame for both the download on the site and WU, and mid April for automatic (passive) updates.

Oh well, another 4 weeks or so then.

So really more responsive with general use? This is not something I've heard much.

Seems WAY more responsive to me...

 

[QuixoticOne]

Here's a way to get the standalone installer SP1 files.

This lets you get the all the likely needed prerequisite and SP1 cab files or MSU installer files right from the Microsoft download server and gives you a way to save the files for standalone use on non-networked PCs.

If only I had known about this a few days ago I wouldn't have wasted 72+ hours fighting with getting a Vista install working and updated to SP1 on a PC whose wireless networking didn't work right without SP1.

Last time I looked they weren't on the general microsoft download center, and I couldn't be bothered to check MSDN / TechNet at the time to see what exactly was there.

http://www.mydigitallife.info/...rtm-with-wu-cab-files/

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne
Here's a way to get the standalone installer SP1 files.

This lets you get the all the likely needed prerequisite and SP1 cab files or MSU installer files right from the Microsoft download server and gives you a way to save the files for standalone use on non-networked PCs.

If only I had known about this a few days ago I wouldn't have wasted 72+ hours fighting with getting a Vista install working and updated to SP1 on a PC whose wireless networking didn't work right without SP1.

Last time I looked they weren't on the general microsoft download center, and I couldn't be bothered to check MSDN / TechNet at the time to see what exactly was there.

http://www.mydigitallife.info/...rtm-with-wu-cab-files/

Thanks a lot. Was that link found through MSDN or TechNet or something? Anyway, I got it, but are the improvements really worth going through this process instead of just waiting another month? If I install this way will the updates show up in my update history?

 

[QuixoticOne]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Thanks a lot. Was that link found through MSDN or TechNet or something? Anyway, I got it, but are the improvements really worth going through this process instead of just waiting another month? If I install this way will the updates show up in my update history?

You're welcome. I hope it will work well for you if you try it.

I don't know exactly who found those links, they could have been documented / posted, or they could simply be just observations of what links are actually pulled by the Windows Update process when SP1 is installed.

Is it worth installing? Sure, why wait another month if you're going to install it anyway. I suppose if your system is functioning well enough to suit you there's no harm in waiting and maybe there will be a few more tips / subsequent patches available to facilitate your update. But I've noticed improvements in SP1 so I think that any immediate benefit is welcome and there have been no problems that I've experienced with SP1 to contraindicate its use for me.

Will it show up in the list of updates? Yes, they should show up normally since they're "KBxxxxx" updates installed with the normal microsoft installer. So they should be normally handled by "Add/Remove Programs & Windows Components", and in the list of installed updates.

I suppose you could still (maybe?) do the registry change and get Windows Update to semi-automatically install these for you as I've done before I got the standalone files, though really I think it's faster / easier to have the manuall installers for this rather than wait for WU to decide to work...

 

[Lord Banshee]

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne
Here's a way to get the standalone installer SP1 files.

This lets you get the all the likely needed prerequisite and SP1 cab files or MSU installer files right from the Microsoft download server and gives you a way to save the files for standalone use on non-networked PCs.

If only I had known about this a few days ago I wouldn't have wasted 72+ hours fighting with getting a Vista install working and updated to SP1 on a PC whose wireless networking didn't work right without SP1.

Last time I looked they weren't on the general microsoft download center, and I couldn't be bothered to check MSDN / TechNet at the time to see what exactly was there.

http://www.mydigitallife.info/...rtm-with-wu-cab-files/

Thank you also,

This has been the only SP1 install that did not give me a unable to finish update error.

Installed flawlessly

 

[bacillus]

listen up guys!

if you intend to keep sp1 and not uninstall it then run Vsp1cln.exe in Command Prompt with Adminstrator rights.

I recovered around 700MB after using that application.

 

[JustaGeek]

Here is the official word from Micrsoft, based on the PC World:

http://www.pcworld.com/article...icle.html?tk=nl_dnxnws

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: bacillus
listen up guys!

if you intend to keep sp1 and not uninstall it then run Vsp1cln.exe in Command Prompt with Adminstrator rights.

I recovered around 700MB after using that application.

Ok that was fast. Now I wonder what the ramifications are! :evil:

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne

Originally posted by: archcommus

Thanks a lot. Was that link found through MSDN or TechNet or something? Anyway, I got it, but are the improvements really worth going through this process instead of just waiting another month? If I install this way will the updates show up in my update history?

You're welcome. I hope it will work well for you if you try it.

I don't know exactly who found those links, they could have been documented / posted, or they could simply be just observations of what links are actually pulled by the Windows Update process when SP1 is installed.

Is it worth installing? Sure, why wait another month if you're going to install it anyway. I suppose if your system is functioning well enough to suit you there's no harm in waiting and maybe there will be a few more tips / subsequent patches available to facilitate your update. But I've noticed improvements in SP1 so I think that any immediate benefit is welcome and there have been no problems that I've experienced with SP1 to contraindicate its use for me.

Will it show up in the list of updates? Yes, they should show up normally since they're "KBxxxxx" updates installed with the normal microsoft installer. So they should be normally handled by "Add/Remove Programs & Windows Components", and in the list of installed updates.

I suppose you could still (maybe?) do the registry change and get Windows Update to semi-automatically install these for you as I've done before I got the standalone files, though really I think it's faster / easier to have the manuall installers for this rather than wait for WU to decide to work...

Thanks, I too often prefer to do big updates like this manually instead of through WU. It may be better with Vista, but trying to do something like a service pack via WU on XP was painful and sometimes nearly impossible.

If installed manually I know it will show up in the list of installed updates, but will it show up in "update history" in the Windows Update applet? Probably not. Not a big deal though.

I may be getting a new hard drive soon anyway, but I'll still try this shortly to make sure it works well. Speaking of that, sort of off topic, if I do this update, then image the drive, can the image be restored to a partition bigger than it on the new drive? For example, current partition 55 GB, about 26 used, can I image that and restore it to a 200 GB partition on the new drive?

 

[Mem]

I found a legit SP1 RTM version with a simple exe setup so no fumbling with command lines etc...,installing on my lappy(Vista x86)as I type this on my main PC.

Installed fine up and running as they say .

 

[SunnyD]

I picked mine up from MVLS (legitimate MS site). The ISO weighs in at 1.1GB, has 1 setup and 2 KB exe's, each of the KB exes are respective 32 and 64 bit service packs, 32 bit being 400+MB and 64 bit being 700+.

 

[JustaGeek]

The latest word from MS, based on CNet News.com:

"Update: Microsoft revised earlier comments, confirming that those with automatic update settings configured in certain ways may have had the update pushed to them automatically.

A company representative also stated that the version pushed out is the final RTM version even though it may carry a beta designation."

 

[archcommus]

Well I did the process. I already had all 3 pre-reqs so I went straight to the SP1 cab. BIG MISTAKE: Leaving the cab file on my desktop! I left it there, and modified the path appropriately when running the command. This caused a few problems. First, the cab file exploded its files all over my desktop, racking explorer.exe up to 100% CPU, and I was afraid to end it in case it needed to be running for the upgrade (didn't think it needed to be but wasn't sure). Then, because my shell folders (of which Desktop is one) are on D:, the install took absolutely forever, over 2 hours. But, it did finish, eventually I got a new prompt in the command window, meaning the start command was complete. I was never prompted to restart, so I just did, and then got the "Installing Service Pack" screens (three stages). Phew, good. It rebooted. Checked version, SP1 was installed successfully. Great. Ran Vsp1cln, good. However, having all those files and folders on the desktop were still creating a big problem. Explorer was always at 100% CPU. Had to wait forever to get a window open, and painfully browsed to the folder and deleted it all.

So thanks VERY much for the link. But words of advice: never install something big like this across drives (duh), and never let your desktop get exploded with files (also duh). The first one I should've realized ahead of time, but I definitely wasn't expecting the second one.

And yes, wow, it definitely feels faster in common tasks just like opening windows and such. This is great for me since I'm only running on a gig of memory right now (planning to upgrade soon). Wonder what kind of stuff they changed to just...make it faster? I write code for school and my job, and this kind of thing still amazes me. What could they have changed in something as simple as opening a window to improve its speed? I guess some cleaner explorer code, graphical code, who knows.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: archcommus
Wonder what kind of stuff they changed to just...make it faster? I write code for school and my job, and this kind of thing still amazes me. What could they have changed in something as simple as opening a window to improve its speed? I guess some cleaner explorer code, graphical code, who knows.

I don't think opening windows is faster. What it looks like to me is they sped up the animation. It's sort of faster, but not really. I liked the old way better, you got a better look at the window expanding, and I'm not a robot with speed of light reflexes, so the extra .008 seconds of time to open wasn't a big deal.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: archcommus
Wonder what kind of stuff they changed to just...make it faster? I write code for school and my job, and this kind of thing still amazes me. What could they have changed in something as simple as opening a window to improve its speed? I guess some cleaner explorer code, graphical code, who knows.

I don't think opening windows is faster. What it looks like to me is they sped up the animation. It's sort of faster, but not really. I liked the old way better, you got a better look at the window expanding, and I'm not a robot with speed of light reflexes, so the extra .008 seconds of time to open wasn't a big deal.

You could be right, it did appear to be a faster "expansion", maybe not any faster to actually load the content.

I thought there was only going to be 1 UAC prompt for adding/removing etc. stuff in a protected folder now, doesn't seem to be the case. When I paste a new folder in Program Files, I still get one prompt telling me it WILL need permission, and then a second actually asking for the permission. Lame.