Vista SP1 RTM

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 7, 2008, 12:48 am

Vista SP1 final is out as is:

Microsoft.Windows.XP.SP3.Build.3300.RC2.READ.NFO-WinBeta (not final)

Just backed up my OS partition so I can try it out. (the Vista SP1)

http://winvistaforums.com/blogs/bios/9- ... grade.html

I grabbed mine off the newsgroups.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » February 7, 2008, 2:23 am

Just out of curiosity, how many times do you have to tell it "Yes" when it asks if you REALLY want to install this?

I kid.

(not really)

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 7, 2008, 4:08 am

Well, it installs fine. The SP1 itself is about 400mb. It warns you that it will take up to an hour or more to install. It took about 45 minutes for me.

It seemed a little faster for the brief time I used it. Another interesting thing is that it showed 4GB of memory as opposed to 3.51GB before. I don't know if the 32 bit Windows can actually use the full 4GB after SP1 or if they just make it show 4GB now to shut people up.

Anyway, it resets the activation to 15 days. I tried to use an old Activator hack and it completely screwed the entire install so that it wouldn't even boot or show up on the MBR.

I booted up my trusty Acronis Disk Recovery CD and located the OS backup I had just completed. It told me it wasn't a valid backup. It took me a few minutes to figure out wtf was going on. Turns out my Acronis Recovery Disks are all from version 10.0 of True Image and I had upgraded to version 11 of True Image so the new v11 backups weren't recognized. I had to grab True Image 11 off the newsgroups using my laptop, install it on my laptop, and then make a recovery CD. My backup installed fine after that in 17 minutes. (a little longer because I have Oblivion with all expansions on my OS partition atm, making it a little bloated) Still, 17 minutes isn't bad to be back up and running (don't forget to copy your MBR along with the partition)

So, if you have a legit copy of Vista, it will work fine, if you have hacked, wait until new activation hack is released.

I saw a copy of Vista with SP1 integrated on the newsgroups so those that want to try Vista/SP1 can track that version down and not have to worry about installing SP1 separately.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 7, 2008, 8:03 am

Err guys, that version is not the final RTM. It's most likely Release Candidate 1 Refresh 2. Yes it's build 18000 and that is the final code of the service back itself, the the RTM hasn't been distributed to anyone else outside MS except for a few high profile bloggers(Paul Thurott posted his screenshots yesterday) and probably a few OEM partners.

I'm a beta tester for it through MS Connect and we haven't received our copy of RTM yet...

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » February 7, 2008, 10:06 am

Does it do anything to fix the rampant plague of TDR errors that still exist?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 7, 2008, 12:43 pm

Animalor wrote:
I'm a beta tester for it through MS Connect and we haven't received our copy of RTM yet...

Does your version show RC2 when you check the computer properties?

Microsoft Windows Vista SP1 Update 32Bit RTM Build 6001.18000

Vista fans, yup here is it! Long awaited Service Pack 1 in RTM version released by nDn (funny is, they are movie group mainly). What RTM - “Release To Manufacturing” does stands for? Well, in short it’s exact same version which will appear in March aka final version. Check wiki for more details about RTM. Keep in mind that this is only Service Pack 1 itself, it’s not Vista SP1 ISO! So, you can download it and install on any (32bit) Vista edition. Also make sure to READ NFO for more details & explanation. For those ones who have pirated copy of Vista (well, who doesn’t?), I’m not sure will this work with that popular OEM BIOS emulation crack by PARADOX (Microsoft’s states something like - No way dude). Anyway, try it out and drop us a comment…

UPDATE: I’ve personally tested this release with Microsoft.Windows.Vista.Ultimate.X86.OEM.DVD.READ.NFO-NoPE (one of those which uses OEM BIOS cracking method), fresh Vista install + this SP1 and all i can say is that works fine (still says it’s genuine). Here is a proof.

http://www.max-save.org/images/5827391.png

Looks like the RTM to me. It's 18000 so let me know if you ever get something with a higher release number.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 7, 2008, 1:20 pm

Winnow wrote:
Animalor wrote:
I'm a beta tester for it through MS Connect and we haven't received our copy of RTM yet...
Does your version show RC2 when you check the computer properties?

Unfortunately I had to remove it cause there's a deal-breaking bug that I'm experiencing with the Media Center Extender software.

After a fresh boot everything will work fine until I watch a recorded TV show through the xbox 360. When that first show finishes or I stop it, I won't be able to play any other content until I restart the PC. The process that the extended starts on the PC freezes.

I've bugged this three of four times and it hasen't been resolved yet..

I'll test once I get the official bits from MS.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 7, 2008, 8:24 pm

MS confirmed that 18000 was the RTM version today on their beta boards.

It's still labeled as RC1 Refresh 2 on the UI which led to my confusion.

It's the real deal and it's on Bittorrent if you guys want it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 7, 2008, 8:29 pm

Animalor wrote:MS confirmed that 18000 was the RTM version today on their beta boards.

It's still labeled as RC1 Refresh 2 on the UI which led to my confusion.

It's the real deal and it's on Bittorrent if you guys want it.

I need a hack! I haven't looked very hard for one yet. 18000 doesn't display anything about RC1 or refreshes. It's simply "SP1" when you check your computer properties.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 7, 2008, 9:02 pm

Winnow wrote:
Animalor wrote:MS confirmed that 18000 was the RTM version today on their beta boards.

It's still labeled as RC1 Refresh 2 on the UI which led to my confusion.

It's the real deal and it's on Bittorrent if you guys want it.
I need a hack! I haven't looked very hard for one yet. 18000 doesn't display anything about RC1 or refreshes. It's simply "SP1" when you check your computer properties.

Clarification - It's still labeled as RC1 REfresh2 on the connect website and Windows Update when you have that script applied that allows you to download SP1

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 7, 2008, 10:10 pm

Vista benchmarks faster than XP believe it or not.

The trick is disabling Aero and Indexing. With those two unnecessarily stupid resource consuming cum dumpsters, vista is suppper faster than XP. and with SP1, its even faster

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 8, 2008, 12:26 am

(for testing purposes only) I was able to get SP1 installed using this method:

wadup just thought this might help some users out there who get this update, firstly this will make paradox activation stop working on some PCs very rare but possible, if so you must simply remove the paradox activation which can be done through many programs (just google it) from this re-apply the patch to activate again, personally my paradox stopped working also and so i used this method to reactivate and it does work, again for some n00bs out there steps below should help

If your paradox stops working do the following:

1) Remove paradox from your PC i used VOATK Tools:
http://depositfiles.com/files/1460469 (the rest
should be quite simple to do just follow the steps
given, then restart your PC

2) Re-apply the the paradox activation crack i used a
random one that i found on rapidshare, worked fine
http://rapidshare.com/files/83884330/activatores.rar
again just follow the steps given and then restart
you PC

Done Activated!

Tutorial by: P8Z

I used NEC but I suppose you can pick any vendor on the list. I had something called "One Click Activator" which I had previously used. That was uninstallable from the normal program maintenance menu in Vista. I then used the linked activation above before installing SP1 and afterwards Vista was still activated so no need for step 2.

Will have to copy some files and use for awhile to see if it feels any different. Still curious as to why 4GB shows up now as opposed to 3.51GB. I think DX 10.1 is installed with SP1 as well.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 8, 2008, 12:01 pm

Winnow wrote:
Vista benchmarks faster than XP believe it or not.

The trick is disabling Aero and Indexing. With those two unnecessarily stupid resource consuming cum dumpsters, vista is suppper faster than XP. and with SP1, its even faster

I just turned off Aero at the office yesterday and it made a hell of a difference in my Vista performance. I'm going to be installing SP1 this morning.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 8, 2008, 12:07 pm

Animalor wrote:
Winnow wrote:
Vista benchmarks faster than XP believe it or not.

The trick is disabling Aero and Indexing. With those two unnecessarily stupid resource consuming cum dumpsters, vista is suppper faster than XP. and with SP1, its even faster
I just turned off Aero at the office yesterday and it made a hell of a difference in my Vista performance. I'm going to be installing SP1 this morning.

Pretty funny you have to disable 2 of the main exclusive features of Vista to get the performance you were used to. Vista is a stain on Winnows PJs.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 8, 2008, 12:36 pm

Fash wrote: Pretty funny you have to disable 2 of the main exclusive features of Vista to get the performance you were used to. Vista is a stain on Winnows PJs.

Indexing should be done by Copernic. Everyone should know that by now. Aero isn't the main reason to use Vista. All the small upgrades that don't wet people's panties are the real reason but most just are into visuals. If Vista had /blinking text it would be the bomb and convert Mac peeps.

Vista is solid.

Turn off UAC (nice feature for people over 90 years old)
Turn off Indexing (Copernic is the best indexing software available and free)
Turn off Aero (I like it and leave it on but if you're anal about speed, turn it off)

Those three things don't make up the bulk of Vista.

SP1 takes care of the slow copy issue.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 8, 2008, 12:45 pm

My point being... besides UAC, Aero, and Indexing... What does Vista bring to the table that XP does not?

They are the main new features, and you have to turn them off to stop your computer from being a piece of shit. Do you have to turn anything off in XP to make it not a piece of shit?... No.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 8, 2008, 12:59 pm

That's my point. It's "under the hood" enhancements.

So what if you have to turn those features off. Copernic is best indexing app for XP as well as Vista.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 8, 2008, 2:44 pm

One of my favorite things about Vista is the enhanced searching capabilities.
Once you groom indexing to only index the folders you want, it stops being a resource whore.

The new Windows Explorer changes are real nice too(The address bar folder hopping thing)

There's other stuff like ReadyBoost which are worthwhile. I'm a fan of the sidebar as well(although this can be 3rd partied on XP quite easily.)

There's a lot of small wins on Vista that make it an overall better cmoputing experience for me personally.

Oh, and I still have Aero turned on on both my home computers. I just find it unnecessary at the office.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 8, 2008, 2:49 pm

Animalor wrote:One of my favorite things about Vista is the enhanced searching capabilities.
Once you groom indexing to only index the folders you want, it stops being a resource whore.

The new Windows Explorer changes are real nice too(The address bar folder hopping thing)

There's other stuff like ReadyBoost which are worthwhile. I'm a fan of the sidebar as well(although this can be 3rd partied on XP quite easily.)

There's a lot of small wins on Vista that make it an overall better cmoputing experience for me personally.

Oh, and I still have Aero turned on on both my home computers. I just find it unnecessary at the office.

New Windows Explorer in Vista sucks. Sidebar, while having some handy things available. really sucks the resources.

And when I was running it I did have Aero turned off and it was still using a lot more memory than I would have liked.

Pretty sure we already had a thread (or two) detailing why Vista sucks! Er... I mean why Vista isn't for everyone. Use what works best for you I guess. Nothing else really matters.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 8, 2008, 2:51 pm

Animalor wrote:One of my favorite things about Vista is the enhanced searching capabilities.
Once you groom indexing to only index the folders you want, it stops being a resource whore.

I don't use the sidebar either. I turned that off right after UAC.

I'm a huge fan of indexing but Copernic simply does it better. Much better. I'd use the Vista indexing if Copernic wasn't available. This is no reason to stay with XP though.

Vista is faster with indexing turned off. Copernic doesn't slow the system and is better than Vista's indexing. So using Vista with Copernic is better (and faster) than XP.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 8, 2008, 2:54 pm

I didn't really benchmark 'speed' while using Vista so I wont say it was or wasn't faster than XP. That wasn't one of my main complaints or concerns. Ease of use and conservation of resources topped my list. I didn't really have an issue with the speed of the OS while doing normal tasks.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 8, 2008, 2:58 pm

Well I'm using a laptop at work with a 2Ghz Dual-Core and 2GB of ram.

Running all the daily apps on Vista and the Admin Tools on an Virtualized Windows XP System(VMware Workstation 6, I'm using on average about 5-10% of my cores at any time and about 55-60% of my RAM.

Seems pretty efficient in my books.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 8, 2008, 3:01 pm

I don't understand the memory issues. I had zero problems with 2GB and upgraded to 4GB just because memory was so cheap. I can't recall ever even coming close to being low on memory with 2GB. It's possible I did in photoshop but I didn't know it or it didn't slow the performance if I was low.

With 4GB (3.51 or whatever it is), I have lots of excess memory.

Anyways, SP1 fixed the file copying slowness which really would be a factor in performance.

Don't care if people upgrade to Vista but it's not a bad OS and XP isn't better, especially after SP1.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 8, 2008, 3:03 pm

I was using Vista on a 3Ghz Core 2 Duo with 4GB (3.25!) RAM and I wasn't satisfied with how it operated and used memory.

Again.. Use what works for you. That doesn't change how I perceive it based on my using it for 2-3 months.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 8, 2008, 3:07 pm

I noticed that Readyboost was mentioned above, and I have wondered about the experiences of others in using it. I noticed that one of the 4gig USB Memory sticks I received for Christmas was Readyboost enabled, but I wasn't sure how much of an impact it would have. I only have 2gig in my Vista machine, and it has run fine, but would you think I would see much improvement by using the stick with Readyboost turned on?

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 8, 2008, 3:13 pm

Boogahz wrote:I noticed that Readyboost was mentioned above, and I have wondered about the experiences of others in using it. I noticed that one of the 4gig USB Memory sticks I received for Christmas was Readyboost enabled, but I wasn't sure how much of an impact it would have. I only have 2gig in my Vista machine, and it has run fine, but would you think I would see much improvement by using the stick with Readyboost turned on?

The thing with readyboost is that if you have oodles of RAM already, it won't really do anything for ya.

If you have 512MB of ram and a 2GB stick lying around, it will help trim literally seconds off your access times as it learn what your computer usage patterns are and keeps frequently accessed data on the stick instead of a page file.

Anandtech did a good writeup and some tests about it.
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdo ... i=2917&p=6

The most important thing about using readyboost is that your stick/flash memory needs to have really good read/write speeds. Not all USB sticks are created equal.

Oh, and to answer your question, I have 2gb in this laptop and I have a 2GB MicroSD card dedicated to Readyboost in it that I had lying around and it really didn't made an appreciable performance difference in the laptop.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » February 10, 2008, 8:35 pm

According to Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of Zdnet, Microsoft has put an end to two popular hacks used by priates to install copies of Windows Vista. Hughes claims that tests he's carried out suggests that MS has been true to their aims and blocked out the hacks for good. He says some in the 'underground' community believe this will put an end to Vista piracy, while others say hackers will just a find a new way around the blocks.

Even as a 'free' OS Vista wasn't worth installing!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 10, 2008, 9:28 pm

Aslanna wrote:
According to Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of Zdnet, Microsoft has put an end to two popular hacks used by priates to install copies of Windows Vista. Hughes claims that tests he's carried out suggests that MS has been true to their aims and blocked out the hacks for good. He says some in the 'underground' community believe this will put an end to Vista piracy, while others say hackers will just a find a new way around the blocks.

Even as a 'free' OS Vista wasn't worth installing!

Obviously it doesn't stop it as I'm still up and running. It does require you to do what I did above which isn't all that hard as soon as you find out how. Although, if peeps try it without researching first, they're going whack their install. All it does is reset Vista to a 15 day trial but if someone tries an old hack afterwards it will fuckerize it completely and will cause some people to buy Vista (or go back to XP/OSX) if they don't have an easy Backup image to reinstall.

So,

step zero: Use Acronis True Image and backup your OS partition which shouldn't be more than 50GB if you use a smart partition scheme (15 minutes)
step one: remove old hack
step two: install new hack (can skip and go to step three if want to install hack afterwards)
step three: install SP1
step four: install paradox hack again if Vista is reset (mine was still a genuine install afterwards)

I do think Microsoft should rethink their pricing and make Vista Ultimate the only version and make it $99.00. I'd buy it!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 29, 2008, 8:04 pm

Looks like nice performance boosts using Vista SP1 and only minor hits in FPS vs XP in other games.

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes from ZDNet.com executed the tests using the AMD Phenom 9700, Radeon 3850 graphics card, 2GB of RAM and ATi Catalyst drivers 8.2.

The three games which performed better on Vista than on XP SP2 were Call of Duty 4, F.E.A.R. and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Vista gave The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion the best performance boost compared to XP SP2, working out at an average of 9 frames per second faster on Vista RTM and 13 frames per second faster on Vista SP1.

Seven out of ten of the games tested produced frame rate averages which were lower under Vista than XP SP2, however, a closer look at the numbers shows that when Vista is slower than XP SP2, the actual frame rate differences are only in the single digits.

Here are the results: average frame rates for each game on each platform

CoD4
XP SP2: 56 fps | Vista RTM: 58 fps | Vista SP1: 62 fps

Fear
XP SP2: 70 fps | Vista RTM: 71 fps | Vista SP1: 71 fps

Oblivion
XP SP2: 56 fps | Vista RTM: 67 fps | Vista SP1: 69 fps

Bioshock (DX9)
XP SP2: 50 fps | Vista RTM: 46 fps | Vista SP1: 47 fps

CoH
XP SP2: 30 fps | Vista RTM: 28 fps | Vista SP1: 28 fps

Crysis
XP SP2: 27 fps | Vista RTM: 24 fps | Vista SP1: 23 fps

Doom3
XP SP2: 157 fps | Vista RTM: 138 fps | Vista SP1: 142 fps

SC
XP SP2: 47 fps | Vista RTM: 44 fps | Vista SP1: 44 fps

UT3
XP SP2: 68 fps | Vista RTM: 64 fps | Vista SP1: 65 fps

WiC
XP SP2: 24 fps | Vista RTM: 22 fps | Vista SP1: 22 fps

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 6, 2008, 4:57 pm

I have no issues with Windows Vista and like using if, but for you holdouts:

Microsoft Corp. has dropped two strong hints in the past two days that the next version of its Windows operating system will arrive in 2009, shaving up to a year off previous expectations. It could also be a signal that Microsoft intends to cut its losses with Windows Vista, which has been poorly received or shunned by customers, especially large companies. Microsoft has long said it wants to release Windows 7 about three years after Vista, which was released to manufacturing in November 2006 but not officially launched until January 2007. Given Microsoft’s recent track record - Vista arrived more than five years after XP — most outsiders had pegged sometime in 2010 as a safe bet for Windows 7’s arrival.

Microsoft is targeting the middle of next year for some sort of release milestone for Windows 7 — the only codename known at the moment — though whether that would be a final release to consumers or an RTM, which allows businesses and resellers to start installing it, is unknown. Gates also said that he was “super-enthused about what [Windows 7] will do in lots of ways” but didn’t elaborate. What could those be? Microsoft has divulged a few things. Responding to criticism that Windows has become unnecessarily bloated, the company has 200 engineers developing a slimmed-down kernel called MinWin that uses 100 files and 25MB, compared to Vista’s 5,000 files and 4GB core and is so small it lacks a graphical subsystem. Microsoft has also confirmed that the operating system will come in consumer and business versions and in 32-bit and 64-bit editions.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » April 6, 2008, 5:01 pm

Down with Vista boooo! Unfortunately I'm sure even the next version after Vista will continue many of its sucky ways. Take for example the revised Windows Explorer and go from there.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 6, 2008, 5:18 pm

Haven't used window's explorer for at least four years. Directory Opus is the way to go! People don't take the time to customize it which is a shame considering how often a file manager is used.

Note: I wouldn't use the crap ass Apple file explorer either. I'd use Forklift if I was forced to use OSX.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » April 19, 2008, 2:22 pm

I'm giving Vista another shot. Got a version with SP1 integrated... So far, so good. No problems, all my hardware was detected and works fine.

Post by **Xouqoa** » April 20, 2008, 1:38 pm

Yep, same here. I upgraded my PC a month or so ago and installed Vista 64-bit and haven't had a single trouble.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 20, 2008, 1:59 pm

Xouqoa wrote:Yep, same here. I upgraded my PC a month or so ago and installed Vista 64-bit and haven't had a single trouble.

I haven't had problems since SP1 was released (and not really many issues before that) with 32bit Vista but now that the drivers have matured for 64bit Vista, I'll head that direction during my next PC upgrade.

miir · Post by **miir** » April 21, 2008, 10:48 am

From last April, I have two systems running Vista Ultimate, no problems.
Last month I did two SP1 installs, no problems.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » April 21, 2008, 11:52 am

I run Vista Home Premium at home and Vista Business at work and both systems run like champs.

The only really annoying thing is that the Server 2003 admin tools don't work on Vista so I run an XP VM on my vista laptop to host those.

valryte · Post by **valryte** » April 21, 2008, 12:51 pm

Well I just installed SP1 on Vista Business. So far its ok. I haven't experienced any major problems. Thought I did ran into an issue last night when I tried to do a CVS update on a project I'm working on. I had to reboot and then it started working again. Also now my sidebar says my CPU is running at 0.8 Ghz. Anyone hear of anything about that one

As far as Vista goes, lets just say I have it installed on my laptop simply because that is what Sony puts on my model and they don't really have WinXP drivers. Though, some people have been able to install XP on it. I went through some hell disabling all that security crap to get all my development tools working correctly.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » April 21, 2008, 12:55 pm

Fash wrote:I'm giving Vista another shot. Got a version with SP1 integrated... So far, so good. No problems, all my hardware was detected and works fine.

Still going well... I haven't even turned off the UAC, yet. I got an urge and installed Age of Empires III and both expansions... getting some great performance at 1920x1200.
I guess I will have to stop talking trash about Vista now.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 21, 2008, 12:59 pm

valryte wrote:Also now my sidebar says my CPU is running at 0.8 Ghz. Anyone hear of anything about that one

Ran across this on a quick google search:

Like WinXP, Vista can't detect the CPU throttling from 2GHz to 0.8GHz and takes the boot reading.

Closed the window before copying the link though...

I did notice that this was all from during the beta testing period for Vista.

valryte · Post by **valryte** » April 21, 2008, 1:25 pm

Like WinXP, Vista can't detect the CPU throttling from 2GHz to 0.8GHz and takes the boot reading.

Yeah that was it. I just noticed the throttling was turned on. I put it back to the high performance settings and its back to 2.4 now.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » May 22, 2008, 10:25 pm

Does Vista 64bit have any issues running older software and games? I've heard tell it has issues with a number of peripherals (printers, scanners etc) but that thats just lack of drivers, and in any case isnt very important to me. But being able to properly run my various games is. Any feedback?

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » May 22, 2008, 10:59 pm

VariaVespasa wrote:Does Vista 64bit have any issues running older software and games? I've heard tell it has issues with a number of peripherals (printers, scanners etc) but that thats just lack of drivers, and in any case isnt very important to me. But being able to properly run my various games is. Any feedback?

How old? I am pretty sure that anything which worked in windows 98/xp will run fine (I play games from 1995 and 1998 commonly). I would give a higher chance to games older than 98/xp working under Vista than XP, but haven't really tried any myself.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 22, 2008, 11:29 pm

As long as it doesn't have 16 bit code, it should run fine on x64.

Windows 32 bit has support for 16 bit, 64 has support for 32 bit.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » May 23, 2008, 2:48 am

Hmm, okey dokey. Any specific high-rated 16 bit games you can think of, offhand?

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » May 23, 2008, 6:50 am

Home: I re-enabled UAC a couple of weeks back now that my system has settled unto a normal usage pattern and the UAC has popped up once that I can remember when I was updating a peice of software(Firefox 3 RC1 I believe). This is completely acceptable to be since it pops up with the same frequency as Apple's or Linux's password prompt.

Work:
I've been tasked with testing out USB/Endpoint security software for implementation and I found a couple of contenders that seem like they will do the job. Vista support is spotty at best in this field and I managed to get the BSOD to pop up and do a memory dump a couple of times.

Software in this category that doesn't support Vista Properly:
GFI Endpoint Security 4 while using certain devices like Sandisk Cruizers that emulate a CD though embedded software. CD portion is allows, USB stick isn't. Pull the thing out from the PC, BSOD. Again, cause of a driver installed by this agent software.

Device Wall - The agent's service tries to interact with the user, a big no-no in Vista. Click on the box to see what the agent is trying to do and you see nothing. Click on the button to go back to Vista and BANG, BSOD

I've also been running into an issue with HP drivers on the particular model of laptop I'm running(8510p) and the OEM graphic drivers(god I hate OEM drivers...) crashing every now and again while running Vista Aero in a multi-monitor configuration. I had to hack the 8.4 drivers using the Mobility Modder application from Driver Heaver and install the latest and greatest Catalyst Control Center and it hasn't happened to me now in about 2 weeks so I'm about to consider this particular problem solved as well.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 23, 2008, 11:04 am

VariaVespasa wrote:Hmm, okey dokey. Any specific high-rated 16 bit games you can think of, offhand?

Seriously doubt it... games are usually early adopters, chances are any game that had 16 bit code would run so fast on a new rig it would be unplayable anyway.

People still sell business software today that runs 16 bit code, but they're more interested in leeching every dollar out of their 15 year old code than making the most of current hardware.