Vista 5728

[andrewpayne]

No - afaiaa the target dates still stand: Corporate/Volume/Open available November 2006 and Retail Feb 2007.

I installed 5728 and although the installation does appear to take longer than 5600 - various fixes have been implemented, as previously discovered with startup sound etc. One fix I have been waiting for has been done now - in 5600 the vpn would reboot the workstation almost immediately on a connection attempt. 5728 now allows a PPTP connection - with superb performance! Excellent feature which appears far better than XP's equivalent system/setup and control.

Also the Widgets work in this build (weather and currency) - and the new 'rev counter' to display the CPU/RAM load is a really nice touch. Some new screen savers and wallpaper have been added with better grouping/classification.

On the downside - the Media Centre appears worse - and my Freecom USB DVB stick which worked great in 5600 now works very intermittently and the controls delay badly between screens - but only in the 'MCE' mode. Hopefully this will be addressed in the next build, but bearing in mind that the 'corporate'/'business' features do seem to be getting the focus of attention which is not surprising looking at MS attempt to ensure that the Corporates get their RTM on time!

I advise that you install 5728 if you can, just if only to see the latest enhancements and fixes.

[epic]

wow 128 builds since RC1, <blah, blah, blah....>

bit disappointing this release really....

Quit complaining. Besides, the build number is not a literal digit.

There is only 1 RTM version - the actual release of Windows Vista.

Of course you have to pay for it!! Unless you get it bundled with a new PC that is.

You won't be able to download it from Microsoft (Well, not yet - maybe one day?). You go to your local computer shop, pick up a Windows Vista box and take it to the till. Once you hand it over to the assistant, they will swap the display box for the actual thing and at this point you hand over some money (Around £200). Then you now have a copy of Windows Vista RTM.

That is how you get Windows Vista RTM when it is released.

Its only going to be complete next month, not released. Coporate customers get it in November with everyone else getting it rearly 2007.

Cough... downloadable to MSDN / TechNet members

[fletch33]

so does anyone here have any idea when i will be able to sync my WM5 device with outlook in vista?

i find it very annoying that i am using windows on my pc and pda and can not sync the most valuable information. the reason for my pda is to keep my info from outlook up to date on my pda so i can take it with me on the road.

i know you can sync music and pictures and get into the filesystem but i would trade that in a second for outlook.

thanks

[Biohead]

It still under development. REMEMBER THAT IT IS STILL BETA!!!!!

There is a way to enable to though. Create a new key in the registry called WHOS under HKLM\Software\Microsoft

Then just go to Win Update and you will see a nice download available. But again - it is BETA. They don't let you download it by default for a reason!!!

[fizban2]

so does anyone here have any idea when i will be able to sync my WM5 device with outlook in vista?

i find it very annoying that i am using windows on my pc and pda and can not sync the most valuable information. the reason for my pda is to keep my info from outlook up to date on my pda so i can take it with me on the road.

i know you can sync music and pictures and get into the filesystem but i would trade that in a second for outlook.

thanks

there is a reason that the WMDS is only available to technical testers, it still has alot of bugs to work out, those who can get it to work should send what feed back to MS that they can so they can learn of anymore issues they may not have caught yet

[Eck]

Spooky,

Yes, my desktop does appear pretty quickly along with the systray icons (Avast, AnyDVD, the Network, and the Volume Control). But then, after a few seconds the hard drive light will start blinking like Vista's loading some stuff in the background for about 3 or 4 minutes.

It's possible that's the Index building going on. I've read about Vista's performance improving after several days of use and a user slowing down on software installations. Since I installed it just recently I do every so often install a program. I generally install basic stuff like Office during the first day then relax and use things a bit before going on another install spree.

Perhaps the Search Index's catch up a bit during startup's.

For SystemRestore points, I open the tab and Windows starts searching for the most recent restore point. This takes about a minute or two. Then I set a checkpoint and Windows pretty quickly tells me it created it successfully, but then the hard drive churns (the light flashing, the HD working) for about 5 or 6 minutes before finally finishing.

Hey, it's not bad. Just a bunch of waiting I don't experience with 9x or XP. I used to deal with stuff like this when I used GoBack, but almost never when not using it. I'm thinking it may be that file restore tab for files when you right click and choose properties needs more indexing and cataloging than when it is not there.

I'm wondering whether there's a way to turn that file version restore thing off. I've read it only comes on the Ultimate version. I sure hope there's an off switch for it if it causes all this hard drive work. Plain old SystemRestore that makes quick checkpoints and doesn't cause program installs to take a long time (see, I wait for the HD light to stop flashing) is good enough for me.

I successfully used DVD Decrypter, DVDShrink, IMGTool Classic, and IMGBurn to make a DVD. DeepBurnerPro is great for usual Nero type operations. It's funny that all that encoding and file moving worked a lot smoother with less hard drive thrashing than simple Windows Startup's and program install's.

It seems that Windows uses more resources for its own functions than do highly memory and processor intensive programs!

[Spooky]

Eck,

OK, I understand what your seeing now. I think your right, its more than likely the indexing going on. Vista has a tendancy to do that at startup and idle times. You can turn it off however, and then see if it helps you out. One of the key things about Vista is its new search engine, and it needs to keep that up to date all the time so I expect there will be a lot of people thinking its simply hard drive thrashing. Some of those things your seeing with the disk activity might also be the services that are 'delayed start'. If you look in services.msc you can which ones these are, there are many of them.

For system restore and restore points, i'm not sure how long it should actually take on the average. I know mine comes up almost instantly, well...at least within a few seconds, when I look for past restore points.

File version restore, yeah I think your right that it may only come on the Ultimate version but i'm not really sure. I do know that the Ultimate version is what your going to want because it has all the bells and whistles that do not appear in the other versions of Student, Basic, Home, Business.

Something I did find for Vista that will be important and might affect how people perceive Vista, Memory. The amount of memory is going to be very important. Of course, generally, adding memory always helps. But just as an example, the beta machine originally had 2 GB of ram when the beta started, I was seeing a lot of odd things I thought were bugs that some people could not verify but others could, this was with RC1 but I had seen the same things in previous builds. One day I had a motherboard fail on another machine. When I pulled the board out I took the memory and plugged it into the beta machine, I though "Might as well use it while i'm waiting for a new mother board". This bought the beta machine to 4GB of ram. When I booted back into Vista RC1 I began to notice how much smooter and faster it ran, the odd 'bugs' I had seen before were completly gone and I couldn;t duplicate them any longer. I thought at first that maybe I had some bad memory, so I ordered some new corsair memory, 4GB, in 1GB sticks. When it arrived I took out the old memory and put the new corsair memory in 1GB at a time, the old 'bugs' came back and while the OS was performing it wasn't very fast. then I added 1GB more of memory, same thing, Then I put the whole 4GB in and once again the things I thought were 'bugs' before were gone and everything was fast and crisp and the hard drive rarely had activity unless there was actual indexing going on or i was moving stuff around or adding something. Don't get me wrong, Vista will probably work fine with 1GB or 2 GB, but my own experience is that after I went to a full 4GB it was like the difference between night and day.

Spooky,

Yes, my desktop does appear pretty quickly along with the systray icons (Avast, AnyDVD, the Network, and the Volume Control). But then, after a few seconds the hard drive light will start blinking like Vista's loading some stuff in the background for about 3 or 4 minutes.

It's possible that's the Index building going on. I've read about Vista's performance improving after several days of use and a user slowing down on software installations. Since I installed it just recently I do every so often install a program. I generally install basic stuff like Office during the first day then relax and use things a bit before going on another install spree.

Perhaps the Search Index's catch up a bit during startup's.

For SystemRestore points, I open the tab and Windows starts searching for the most recent restore point. This takes about a minute or two. Then I set a checkpoint and Windows pretty quickly tells me it created it successfully, but then the hard drive churns (the light flashing, the HD working) for about 5 or 6 minutes before finally finishing.

Hey, it's not bad. Just a bunch of waiting I don't experience with 9x or XP. I used to deal with stuff like this when I used GoBack, but almost never when not using it. I'm thinking it may be that file restore tab for files when you right click and choose properties needs more indexing and cataloging than when it is not there.

I'm wondering whether there's a way to turn that file version restore thing off. I've read it only comes on the Ultimate version. I sure hope there's an off switch for it if it causes all this hard drive work. Plain old SystemRestore that makes quick checkpoints and doesn't cause program installs to take a long time (see, I wait for the HD light to stop flashing) is good enough for me.

I successfully used DVD Decrypter, DVDShrink, IMGTool Classic, and IMGBurn to make a DVD. DeepBurnerPro is great for usual Nero type operations. It's funny that all that encoding and file moving worked a lot smoother with less hard drive thrashing than simple Windows Startup's and program install's.

It seems that Windows uses more resources for its own functions than do highly memory and processor intensive programs!

Edited September 28, 2006 by Spooky

[gdogg]

I went from beta 2.0, to this build.

I must say, wow, what happend between beta 2.0 and post rc1

did they optimise all the code or what.

Its faster than my prefetech enabled full version of windows xp

and a few of my nlited ones

still need more game support, but other than that. Its great.

never thought i'd say that lol. guess all thats left to do.

cause I got my nvraid working in rc1 and post rc1, in 32bit vista. if anyone needs the method, just ask.

Edited September 28, 2006 by gdogg

[WBHoenig]

Microsoft has gotten me temporarily away from Linux with these near-RC1 builds, which I thought was impossible, and really impressed me. They deserve credit for that

[gdogg]

I dislike the new performance rating system in rc1, using the weakest part of the system as the score.

Really, most my stuff is 5.7 - 6.0

but why is my score 4.5, just cause of having 1GB of memory?

its ddr 500 2-2-2-5, did microsoft add conroe's with ddr 1211 4-4-4-8 to the tests or what, cause my memory is dirty fast.

now all I need is a 2GB usb stick, and get superprefetching setup.

edit

warcraft 3 Frozen Throne is running great, even without my sli.

but I cant understand, why its sooo much faster at loading warcraft 3 in vista. Can anyone answer that?

who wants to start shrinking vista, its getting close to rtm

oooo, first error, wmp11 in tray mode, had a cpu leak (used 50% which is 1 whole cpu on my machine), opening it back out, fixed that. (this

comes and goes randomly in tray mode)

edit 3

vista must manage memory alot better than xp, even while runnings wmp11 , and downloading cs source from steam, everest scores are barely phased, where in xp, they'd lose a bunch.

edit 4

no steam working, but ive disabled alot of services and even though it didn't have the impact it did in earlier builds, everything still works, and its honestly a great speed.

I only hope this rc1 reflects the performance of the rtm and hope an rtm comes soon, cause with rc1 ill be happy with just real drivers out of nvidia for video cards and chipset.

maybe nvidia has been spending too much time on linux (sry that was a bad joke, to poke fun at ati's linux support but their great vista drivers, that perform almost as good as in windows xp)

I also tried my best to add in sli, or really any extra screens to that new nvidia control panel available under vista. None of the coolbits worked, or their current nvtray. Even with its sli option, its plainly not their in driver.

I am willing to hose my vista install for sli. Anyone have ideas?

Edited September 29, 2006 by gdogg

[dAbReAkA]

the speedy loading of warcraft III must be because u have lots of ram (superfetch doing its job).. i have 512mb only and it loaded the map 5 seconds slower than it does in XP, and the in-game performance was horrible.. i usually dont experience low fps or stuff while playing warcraft on XP, while on vista the hdd was reading like a b***h from times to time and 0.5sec freezes occured randomly.. also warcraft III (1.20e) had no sound under build 5600.. 5728 seems to have fixed the problem.. didnt try how's the in-game performance, but with 512mb ram only u cant expect much..

SLI for warcraft? lol.. performance is great on my radeon 9600 non-pro at 1280x1024x32 - all maxed..

[Spooky]

The beta machine is rated at 4.2 with every being maxed out at 5.5 except for the hard drives which are rated at 4.2, so the overall rating is 4.2. But then again these are older drives that have been thru 6 different MS betas, so overall not too bad for a beta test machine.

I've got mixed feelings about the rating system myself. I think it should have a higher top end value available, right now its limited to 5.5 for the top end, or at least it was in RC1 - I haven't investigated the top end value in 5728 yet. I do know that it does give some false readings at times and can be 'tricked', but maybe they will get it finally fixed by RTM.

[Francesco]

Please if you find bugs on vista try to report them on MS forums: we risk that those bugs will end up in the final version. As everybody can realize the current builds are still full of pesky bugs everywhere and unless they're security bugs it's very hard that MS will fix them after vista release.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Francesco

[Thunderbolt 2864]

Is there an option to change the icons inside the folders back to classic view? I think the size of the new icons inside the folder look kinda messy and weird.

Oh, and I noticed they changed the size of the arrow shortcut on the icons, which looks horrible.

[dAbReAkA]

hold control and move the scroller up/down while in a folder