text:
A Second Shot: Windows Vista SP1by Ryan Smith on 2/27/2008 12:00 AM EST
- Posted in
- Systems
62 Comments
Back to Article
siniranji - Saturday, April 26, 2008 - linkwhen i apply service pack 1 to my licensed Vista, it turns to
evoluation version and due date is june 2008 Reply
siniranji - Saturday, April 26, 2008 - linkwhen i apply service pack 1 to my licensed Vista, it turns to
evoluation version and due date is june 2008 Reply
shinomen - Saturday, March 08, 2008 - linkWhen Vista was first about to hit shelves I was all for upgrading to the new OS. But once I started using it in real world environments, I found that my productivity started to suffer due to the revamped interface, lack of support for some older hardware and software, and added security.
I understand anything new is going to be a learning experience, but it doesn't help when every move I make is preceeded with an extra step or message of confirmation (are you sure you want to continue, how about now, do you want to continue).
For example, I'm trying to troublshoot networking issues with a client of mine. I'm use to window key + R , type cmd, press enter, ipconfig /release and the computer does what I want. But with Vista, I have to take the extra step of right clicking the cmd program and running with elevated privilages (I have now found a keyboard shortcut to do the same)
Or for the same scenario, I need to telnet into the dsl modem. So again, I hit Window Key + R, cmd, telnet. But with windows vista, this is not installed. Ok, now I have to go to add remove programs, windows components, and install the telnet. (I hope I remembered to bring my DVD!)
I understand that hardware support is largely due to manufacturers writing new drivers to be compatible with the new OS, but there were so many times I would install a peice of hardware (or printer specifically) and there would be no driver support. But because the manufacturer is making no real money off updating the driver and would in fact lose money by going back and writing the driver, they take their time realeasing it in hopes that the consumer will purcahse a newer model that already is supported in Vista. Again, not specifically Windows fault, but windows did change the way drivers are installed or supported (I don't know the techical details why it doesn't work, but I know it doesn't work).
Software support, you're lucky if you can get the older software to work, (i.e. quickbooks 2006) otherwise just go out and purchase new software. No one likes to have to drop money to upgrade their line of business software just to get back to a functioning state that they were in with Windows XP. (Might not be a big deal with one computer, but when you're talking 5 to 10 computers, the money adds up)
Performance. If your going to buy a new machine that has higher end hardware, then vista most likely will perform well (not as well as the same machine running xp, but well). But if you're going to take a machine running xp and upgrade it to vista just to take a performance hit, then it is not wise to upgrade. (Also, don't forget that now that you upgraded the old machine to vista, you may need to purchase more ram, and also update any software that is not compatible with vista)
So, those are my gripes for the people that say Vista is a better operating system, or for the people that say they have had no problems with their vista computers.
(side note: many times when I ask my pro vista customers what they think about vista, their response is "Oh, I love it, I don't know why people say they have problems, I haven't had any trouble with it". So my response is "Yeah, alot of people with older hardware and software were have compatibility issues", and my customer says, "Oh yeah, I couldn't get my printer to install, so I just bought a new one" ----great if you have the money to "just buy a new one") Reply
ufoall - Monday, March 03, 2008 - linkI was running vista on my E4400 with 2g memory and PCi e .. vista runs very slow after install couples of software.. if i install same software on my xp it runs much faster than vista... vista is a crap compare to oldies windows os... Reply
Beartwo - Monday, March 03, 2008 - linkSince buying a new pc just before christmas I have been plagued with Messenger, Windows mail, Explorer and other internal applications crashing.
The system is based on an Asus P5K-E mb with Core 2 Quad cpu, 3 Gb of RAM, Nvidia GeForce 8800GT gfx.
From the first moment I turned the pc on I kept getting these errors. I flashed the bios and installed all the latest drivers (certified ones), but the problems persisted.
It got to the point where Vista was simply not usable, the error reports I got from Vista were about as useful as a bicycle would be to a fish...
I am back to Windows XP, with a few less dollars in my pocket and a useless OS sitting in a drawer.
As far as I am concerned Vista has been a waste of time and money... kinda reminds me of a friend who bought a pc with Millenium preinstalled... sheesh.
just4U - Sunday, March 02, 2008 - linkI've been using Vista64 for 2 weeks now and I must say .. I am very happy with it. I was so leary about moving to a 64bit os and then adding Vista on top of it .. but it worked out fine. It accually seems to be more responsive in windows aplications and load times. Not sure if that's just because it's a fresh install or not yet. Anyway...
That's without SP1 installed by the way. I've been waiting for the official launch of it instead of beta versions and release candidates. Reply
jkantor - Sunday, March 02, 2008 - linkI don't know what's worse: settling for a world in which software "development" means shipping it before it works - or excusing a monopoly for forcing us to purchase an overpriced upgrade that offers no real improvements over the previous version. Reply
Mark Huson - Sunday, March 02, 2008 - linkI have read somewhere that with SP1, Vista allows the user to install Windows XP from within Vista, and automatically adding the Windows XP install to the bootloader. Is this true? Reply
hoelder - Friday, February 29, 2008 - linkI beta tested Vista and was very dismayed about it's resource hungry attitude and the money I would have to fork over to upgrade hardware so I would not lose any performance. It was not worth it with the enormous sticker price of Vista Ultimate. I still insist that Vista needs 4 GB of RAM (people were laughing at me then) and a SCSI RAID controller with 4 74GB drives RAID 5. And then something amazing happened. I was contracted by a company that used Linux. First, Linux is for geeks, second I get everything I need to do everyday business work. I discovered that for a business solution Linux was a more reliable solution if you looked at Enterprise Linux Desktop by SUSE or Red Hat and has a lot to offer to developers or administrators. So forget Vista, get Linux. Reply
mczak - Thursday, February 28, 2008 - linkThis is really lame to just show 4GB even if only 3GB or so are usable. Ok maybe some users got confused if it didn't show all ram installed, but now make them believe all ram is available is better? Now it will be even harder to convince people that 32bit windows CAN'T use 4GB ram... Come on it can't be that difficult to show something like "4GB ram installed, 3GB addressable" instead.
And the multimedia scheduler is still pathetic. Almost looks like MS didn't want to admit the concept is fundamentally broken, instead they offer some way for powerusers to make its behaviour acceptable... Reply
7Enigma - Thursday, February 28, 2008 - linkIt's probably to prevent all the tech calls saying, "Gee golly, I have 4 Giga-bites of RAM, but the screen only says I have 3! Where'd the other one go!".
I don't see a problem with doing this, as if you care enough to know how much is actually addressable you probably already know the rest of the story anyway. Reply
sprockkets - Thursday, February 28, 2008 - linkAny word if you can use a non sp1 key with a sp1 disk?
Most of us hate vista for some reasons, like it for others. It just happens to be that the reasons why we hate it are more than why we like it, such as the way you have to pick how audio is sent to outputs (i.e. analog or digital, but not both at the same time as in previous versions, also that darn cdrom audio input I need), UAC, the fact that after your initial install of Vista that those 80 updates will then cause it upon shutdown to process, then upon restart will spend even more time processing the updates (albeit it only happens once and sp1 will do it for you, for now that is), and of course, everyone's favorite, why the hell did they have to change things like how to remove programs?
Did SP1 restore the cdrom audio input? Probably not. No, I use it for my TV tuner card which Microsoft feels I no longer need to use, which I can still buy.
And for UEFI, perhaps now we can take control of features that should be in the BIOS, yeah, right (I'm looking at you Intel for not putting in S3 standby support on your D201GLY v1 and 2 boards!). Reply
7Enigma - Thursday, February 28, 2008 - linkMany people use nLite or other programs to slipstream a service pack (among other programs and hotfixes). You can then burn this as a new .iso cd and use that in place of your original disk. Short story:
I have a 3 year old system that I never reformatted (I know, the shame). When I built the system SP2 had just come out so my XP disk already has sp2 included. But obviously in 3 years quite a few (100's?) updates and hotfixes have come about and it would be a real pain to reformat and then have to go through all the reboots and installs. Not to mention the chance that during this my system could become compromised from a previous exploit.
So I started hearing about "slipstreaming" and spent some time reading about it. These programs basically create a custom installation disk with exactly what you want (and excluding what you don't want), so that you can reformat the drive, install the slipstreamed version of XP or Vista, and have only a handful of updates (I think I had 8 updates total, and required 2 reboots). This is a fantastic way to start from scratch without spending a lot of time.
RyanVM (at least for XP) keeps an infrequent update pack that I used with my SP2 disk to enable the reformat I described above. Once SP3 for XP comes out you could slipstream it to your existing disk in 20min and be ready to reinstall. Really I'll never go back to the old-fashioned way of hosing a system.
HTH (and I apologize if you already knew this) Reply
kdog03 - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkWell? Reply
Ryan Smith - Thursday, February 28, 2008 - linkNo. That's a fundamental limit of 32bit operation, it can't be fixed. Reply
mcnabney - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkIn regard to the network throttling to make room for audio. A gigabit connection will be trimmed back to 80Mbs, 8% of capacity. Anandtech writes:
"We'll fully admit the problem will only affect a small number of users (those with gigabit networks who need high network performance while using multimedia applications), but then we're exactly that kind of user."
Hmmm. Lets think. What might need more than 80Mps while using audio? Hmmmm. How about, playing HD video off of a local media server? Reply
HaZaRd2K6 - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkI just recently bought an eSATA enclosure for backups (FAST!) and in the article you mention "The only significant loser here are file operations over high-latency high-bandwidth links". Would eSATA be included in this list? Any chance of some numbers to check eSATA performance? Reply
trparky - Sunday, March 02, 2008 - linkThe only difference between eSATA and SATA is the connector. Everything else is the same, even the data encoding used to transmit it across the wire. Reply
ellis - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkDoes anybody know of any good benchmarks made measuring the multitasking performance on Vista? (vs. XP?)
And I'm not talking about the ability for multi-core optimized applications ability to distribute it's load on several cores, but on the ability to run several demanding single threaded applications in parallell nicely distributed on the avalable cores.
So does anyone know of any test that has focused on this aspect of utilizing a multi-core CPUs?
Perhaps comparing dual-core with quad-core, on XP and Vista? Reply
Griswold - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkI cant think of a single benchmark for this other than the "benchmark suite" they use here at AT sometimes (bunch of apps doing certain things creating alot of load and timing it). But I wouldnt really need that as vista always felt more responsive with multiple heavy load tasks than XP - and it even does so on this almost 1 year old install.
I would like to expect MS being able to improve on the far from perfect task scheduler that comes with XP for their new flagship OS. As far as i'm concerned, they succeeded. Reply
blppt - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkI could be just imagining things, but I could swear that Aero is noticably more responsive after the SP1 update.
System has been up for 14 days since I installed the RTM SP1 on x64 Home Premium. I'd say so far it is quite stable. Reply
Griswold - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkIt does feel snappier, especially switching to non-aero mode, for example when maximizing/minimizing mediacenter.
Fruthermore, the UAC secure desktop mode doesnt feel as sluggish anymore when the system is under heavy load. Reply
Etern205 - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkCan any tell me what buid number is this sp1 and is this the same version as it was released to RTM?
From what I've read some where it says the build number 1806 or is it 1084 has a major bug and there is another version with the build number 20xx.
Tristesse27 - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkI'm always amazed at the way some people refer to Vista ("wretch" was used in this thread I believe). Vista Hate has taken on a life of its own, with I think many people claiming to hate Vista despite never having used it.
The benchmarks that review sites keep coming out with seem rather silly. Vista vs SP1 vs XP SP2 vs Vista x64 SP1 vs XP SP1 vs .... As a user I'm more concerned with stability, and Vista has been very good to me throughout all my gaming. One horrible BSOD loop occurred from what I can remember, and that's because I was trying to use Alcohol 120's XP version. Plus I have to admit I'm a sucker for prettiness, and Vista is pretty damn slick. Reply
WaltC - Thursday, February 28, 2008 - linkEvery time Microsoft introduces a new OS the nutballs come crawling out of the woodwork to post their "expert" hypercritical opinions...;) It's happened every single time, without exception. The "Vista sucks" bandwagon is par for the course at the moment, as basically you're hearing from people who don't like change and are really, really upset that Microsoft is forcing them back to school once again, or forcing them to buy new hardware, or both. I think it's fairly sad. But not to worry--a year from now these same hypercritical "experts" will be using nothing but Vista and they'll be swearing up and down that they never, ever said what they said about Vista...;) It is as inevitable as the sunrise.
I was going to comment about what a poorly written article this was, but it's so full of mistakes and propaganda that I just don't have the time or inclination to write the lengthy rebuttal to this article that ought to be written, point by point. So a general critique will have to suffice.
I've been using Vista on several networked machines at home for a year and have been running a lot of 3d-games and application software without experiencing any of the problems alluded to in this article. I did not "wait" on SP1 and have absolutely no regrets. The only thing about Vista SP1 that mildly interests me is that like all service packs it rolls months of updates into a single installation package.
What's really ironic to me is that when I installed XP in November of 2001, I had a lot more issues--mainly driver issues--with XP than I have ever had with Vista. None of these so-called "experts" seems to have experienced that for themselves with XP (I think they really did but don't choose to remember it because it might get in the way of their Vista bashing).
Indeed, in the lopsided and dishonest way that these "experts" write about XP, someone new to computers in general today would think that the current state of XP in terms of drivers and updates is the same as the original state of XP when it shipped. The truth is that on both counts the XP experience today is nothing like the XP experience just one year after XP initially shipped.
Furthermore, prior to Vista shipping, these same people couldn't criticize XP enough; but once Vista shipped then they adopted XP as the Holy Grail of OSes...;) I don't have time to speculate on the reasons why these people are doing this, but I will say that I think that their fear that Vista is too good of an OS is actually what drives them. They think that by criticizing Vista and instead recommending yesterday's XP (which prior to Vista they could never say anything good about) they will be hurting Microsoft in the process, and that I think is their real goal as unfortunate as it may be.
The really pathetic part of all of these Vista-bashing festivities is that the people who write these kinds of silly articles focus on gnats while they swallow camels whole. I mean, take for instance the teeny tiny spectrum of complaints this author pontificates on to the point of tedium in this article.
You would think by reading it that this handful of complaints constitutes all the difference there is between XP and Vista. The author would have the reader focus on the tree and remain blind to the forest behind it. From new driver models to greatly enhanced security, just for starters, Vista is leaps and bounds ahead of XP. But you'd never, ever guess that to be true from reading this article, would you?
Here are just *a few* problems I had with this article:
*"We're still waiting for someone besides Apple to start shipping consumer machines (or motherboards) with UEFI support, so this will be an issue we'll pick up another day. (Ed: We did see a few demonstrations of UEFI boards at CES, though they're not yet publicly available.)"
As I understand it, EFI is merely an Intel technology that Apple ships in Macs alongside a lot of other Intel technology, and I see the primary benefit of that to Apple being that it makes it that much harder to install and run OSX on non-Apple x86 hardware platforms which are essentially all BIOS driven--which is exactly the way Apple wants to keep it for as long as possible.
It would have been nice if the author had bothered to tell us why he thinks EFI is better than a BIOS for x86 32-bit machine environments. It would also be nice and lend additional credibility to authors hypercritical of anything Microsoft does if they'd refrain from alluding to "Apple" every time they want to criticize Microsoft. That sort of allusion is a dead giveaway of their intent, imo.
*"Developers may simply skip Direct3D 10.1 and go for Direct3D 11 when it is finally released, otherwise sticking with 10.0 for the time being. (Ed: We've heard from Microsoft and several game developers that DX10.1 is not a major update and that they will do exactly that.)"
Ahem...developers did not "skip" DX9 to go to DX10. Not even close. Of the developers currently supporting DX10, *all of them* also support DX9 with those games. Indeed, Vista itself did not skip DX9 in order to support DX10, but Vista also supports DX9 completely and fully--as DX9 is but a subset of DX10, and thus it has always been with D3d. All of my DX9-only games run great under Vista, without exception.
The implication that developers may "skip" 10.1 to "wait" for DX11 is therefore ludicrous and silly as , just like DX9.0c, developers could support it or not as they chose without the necessity of having to "wait" on DX10. DX9.0c was also billed by Microsoft as a minor update--which did not keep any software developer who wished to do so from supporting it. Indeed, now, most of them support DX9.0c, don't they?
The salient point is that minor update or not, DX10.1 is real and some developers will choose to support it even though they will also continue to support DX9 and DX10.0 at the same time and in the same games. There is no need to "wait" on DX11 at all, nor is there a reason to do so.
*"With the addition of this API, developers will be able to control how DEP functions, so that if their code isn't completely DEP-safe, they may disable certain parts of DEP for their specific application, allowing some protection from DEP without the need to rewrite the offending code or require that DEP be disabled for that program entirely. This is effectively a precursor towards Windows being globally DEP enabled at some later point."
While the last sentence above is certainly true, I fear the author has once again allowed his obvious prejudices and personal opinions to influence his judgment. As I understand it, the purpose of the DEP API is *not* to provide developers with a way to get around DEP, but is rather to teach them how to program their software so that it will not break when DEP is enforced. Think about it a moment...the purpose of DEP is purely security--if Microsoft was to provide an API to developers to show them how to get around DEP then Microsoft might as well simply remove DEP from the OS altogether. Obviously, the purpose of the DEP API is *not* to allow developers to "get around" DEP.
*"Among the 24 pages(!) of hotfixes that have been rolled into Vista SP1 are favorites such as the virtual address space fix and a fix for a conflict with NVIDIA's USB controller and >2GB of RAM. Other additions include fixes for ejecting iPods, a fix for HybridSLI/HybridCrossfire (which is why the launch of these technologies is tied to SP1), and a fix for AMD Barcelona processors causing system reboots during Windows installations. While we could rattle off the entire 24 page list of hotfixes, the important thing to note here is that there are a number of small issues that have been "fixed" prior to SP1 but are only now being widely corrected."
Talk about bias--note the exclamation point rendered after the phrase "24 pages(!)"...;) The intent here, of course, is to greatly exaggerate the "bugginess" of pre-SP1 Vista. There is no other intent possible here, because the "24 pages (!)" the author alludes to without explaining what he means by saying "24 pages" is not just a list of the updates and patches--it is the number of pages listing not only the updates and patches themselves, but also *all of the accompanying documentation* on each and every one of those updates and/or patches.
I know this must be true because when I go out to Vista Update and display my history of patches applied, the entire list takes up less than a single on-screen page display. This kind of tactic is just too sad for words--as the author also fails to mention that people like me, who haven't yet installed Vista SP1, but who have already updated their installation via Vista Update *already have* better than 90% of SP1 installed and running at the present time.
Here again we see some mention of Apple--this time for the iPod eject mechanism. It would have been nice if the author had bothered to remember that Apple had updated its own iPod-related software to run properly under Vista some months ago--which was not a Microsoft fix but purely an Apple fix. But obviously he can't be tasked with criticizing anyone except Microsoft.
Last, of course, here I am puttering along with pre-SP1 Vista, which the author more or less characterizes as being non-usable because of the "24 pages (!)" of bugs--and, gee, I'm not having any problems!!!! Wonder how that's possible? Could it be because out of the *tens of millions* of lines of code in Vista that the "24 pages(!)" of bug fixes in Vista SP1 are very, very small potatoes? I certainly think so.
*"This won't change the public perception of UAC (or Apple jokes on the subject), but any reduction is welcome and perhaps will stem the tide of Vista users who are completely turning off this critical system feature."
Apple jokes?...;) Wow, what an informative bit of drivel that is...;) Apple people routinely crack jokes about subjects they have no understanding of, so what else is new? It would have been nice if the author would have bothered to tell us what UAC is about and why it exists--but he cannot be bothered with doing anything aside from talking about his own impressions of "public perceptions" it seems. Such a pity.
My own perception of UAC is that I have become so used to it that it simply doesn't bother me at all anymore, and the thought of "turning it off" seems really ridiculous--as why would I want to drop back to the lesser security levels of XP??? So sad that in his haste to write negative commentary the author cannot manage to find the time or the words to explain what UAC is and why it's not a good idea for people to turn it off.
The change that SP1 brings to UAC file operations strikes me as entirely positive--where's the beef? Are we to encourage the ignorance of general computer users by letting them think that turning off UAC is a good thing simply because "Apple users" might ignorantly crack jokes about it? How does that sort of attitude help AT's readership?
*"The advantage of this is that it will reduce the number of computer owners thinking something is wrong because Windows doesn't "see" all of their RAM; on the other hand this is clearly disadvantageous because they will no longer be informed that Windows in fact isn't using all of their RAM, nor will there be an easy way any longer to tell how much RAM it is capable of using."
The whole point of this change is that users will correctly see that the amount of ram they have installed is present and accounted for. It would be nice if the author would tell us what *his* solution would be for this situation. But, alas, he doesn't--he just, once again, criticizes Microsoft whether they do or they don't.
*"For SP1 we were hoping for a complete overhaul of the MMCSS so that it ceased adversely affecting network performance, unfortunately what we're getting is something about mid-way towards that."
I don't have much to say here except that the "problem" the author spends a great deal of time and wordage expounding upon is one I have not experienced. Possibly that could well be because I'm too busy using and enjoying Vista to run benchmark after benchmark in hopes of uncovering something wrong with it which only those benchmarks will indicate...;) I have better things to do with my time.
*"When it comes to performance, anything is better than Explorer here. The silver lining here is that SP1 has improved WinRAR's already fast performance by a further and unexpected 28%, making the argument to use anything but Explorer a very easy one."
If there's something wrong with the idea that Vista is not intended to allow the end user to avoid purchasing or using third-party software, I'd like to know what it is...;) I mean, criticizing "MineSweeper" because it isn't "The Witcher" just strikes me as ludicrous and a waste of verbiage. Who cares? These ancillary programs in all Windows versions are meant to provide basic functionality and that's all. To complain that they aren't the best available just makes no sense. But I guess when your basic goal is to dump on Windows everything is in bounds, isn't it?
*"We're not convinced Microsoft is going to see much use of exFAT outside of Windows Mobile 6 devices given the high degree of overlap with NTFS; if the time comes for mobile devices where FAT32 is too little, they may very well switch to NTFS due to the much wider base of support."
So? This is a "problem" for whom, exactly? Seems to me the more choice people have in matters of this type, the better off they are. Yawn...another mountain out of a molehill.
*"Vista vs. Vista SP1"
Gee, after presumably reading through the "24 pages (!)" written about SP1, you'd think the author might have concluded that SP1 doesn't contain anything relative to the three little software benchmarks he wastes an entire page talking about, including a display of colorful frame-rate bar charts.
I mean, what is the point here, relative to SP1? When the author says "Vista versus Vista SP1, is he talking about Vista with *no updates* versus Vista with SP1? Or is he contrasting Vista + all updates currently obtainable through Vista Update versus Vista with SP1? We don't know and he doesn't say. What is his point here? Is it to suggest that there's no reason to go to SP1 because he sees no performance improvement in these three benchmarks? He doesn't tell us.
*"One thing that is unfortunate for Microsoft with SP1 is that there is a good chance that system performance immediately following the patching process will be lower than it was prior to patching."
Oh, gee--installing SP1 clears the caches and the author seeks to imply that SP1 is going to "run slower" than non-SP1 for up to "a couple of days." Wow, what a criticism that is--I need to chuck Vista out of my window right now!...;) Pity he doesn't bother to tell us whether or not after SP1 rebuilds the caches if our performance for the next *few years* will be a bit better. I guess it just didn't occur to him to think about it that way...Oh, well...
*"Finally, coming into SP1 we heard some concerns about application and driver compatibility."
Really? I didn't. What I heard was that there was a problem with some driver *install* routines that didn't mesh well with SP1 precisely because the driver developers had not adhered to Microsoft's guidelines when they wrote their driver install software. That's what *I* heard--I heard zero about "driver compatibility."
You'd think the author would have researched this as opposed to relying on "what I heard"...;) Wouldn't you? Indeed, the only software I have ever seen to "break" under a service pack is software that was improperly coded by its developers in the first place. Microsoft doesn't publish its programming rules and guides for the heck of it. Microsoft has a purpose in doing so, and much of that purpose revolves around future compatibility. Most developers follow the guidelines and that's why the great bulk of software and driver install routines *don't break* under a service pack.
I've said all I want to say here and I'll close with the admonition that AT much better vet it's articles in the future so that they provide relevant and informative information as opposed to providing little more than anti-Microsoft, or as in this case, anti-Vista, marketing propaganda. I still use XP on my principle machine at work because my employer is too cheap to update his hardware and software, and there's not a day goes by but when I think to myself how crude and rude XP is by comparison to Vista. That's my opinion on the matter.
chizow - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkGood job covering the main changes and fixes in SP1 Ryan. Very readable yet maintains a lot of technical info without getting bogged down. Linked for future reference once I get SP1 RTM installed as I'm still running RC1.
As others stated though, it would've been nice to have compared to original RTM or even XP. I know that's exceedingly difficult to do with Windows since its very hard to run snapshots and your system may not run at all without Windows updates, but once you start updating you can't stop the flood of updates. Still, I think a lot of "performance" and "compatibility" improvements will be lost when comparing a fully updated/hotfixed pre-SP1 install to SP1 as many of the SP1 hotfixes were released and available prior to SP1.
At first I thought you overlooked file and network transfers but on closer examination saw it covered on Page 3 extensively. That was a big concern about Vista and while initial speeds with RTM were very slow, there were a few patches that gradually brought my copy speeds closer to those of XP. Also, wouldn't testing copy speeds with a single HDD skew your copy testing a bit? When I copy Raptor to Raptor my copy speeds are very close to the synthetic scores I see with HDtach/HDtune etc at ~70 MB/s.
In any case, nice job again with this and I enjoy reading your articles on Vista/Windows. You seem to be extremely familiar with Vista and the various stack changes compared to XP as demonstrated in your Messy Transition articles and some keen insights here (like the multimedia stack/transfer caps). I believe Derek (any relation?) mentioned AT would be doing a final XP to Vista 64 comparison for gaming/performance prior to switching to Vista 64 for all test suites and I'd personally think you would be best suited for the task. Now that SP1 has RTM'd this would be the perfect time to document the differences as well. Reply
jamawass - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkI'm interested in the comments on recommending Vista 64 as one's main system. Aren't there still driver issues? Also I use citrix clients for remote access does anyone know if it's compatible with x64? I haven't had any problem with it on vista 32 even though MS pops up a message stating that it isn't compatible. Reply
7Enigma - Thursday, February 28, 2008 - linkInterested here as well. I'll be building a new system in the next 2-4 months and will need it to do everything from general OS to gaming. I'm leaning towards Vista64 with 4gigs of ram (2X2) allowing me to upgrade to 8 if needed in the future. I just don't know how the driver support is currently. Reply
takumsawsherman - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkOne of the more interesting experiences I've had is moving a file to the desktop. For example, an HP LaserJet PCL6 driver, (12-15MB?) being moved to the desktop under Vista took something like 20 seconds on a customer's system.
Now, the clever among you will ask "why move a laserjet driver to the desktop?". Good point. It doesn't matter what file. Pick any file of that size. What's the hold up? Also, UAC wants to crab about it unless disabled. Has this been improved? XP takes just a couple of seconds to move it (really, isn't it just updating the record on the filesystem anyway?). It took longer to move than to download, on Vista.
I can't say I've tested Vista too extensively, as I have mostly business customers, and I have been having them stick to XP. However, a few people went out and bought laptops. They call me, miserable, because of the lousy performance and confusing nature of this wretch called Vista. Reply
TA152H - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkThey use the term x64.
The term x86 came from the fact there were processors like 186, 286, 386, 486. x86-64 is OK, or something like that, or 64-bit x86, but x64 is derived from what? There were 164 chips, made by Intel? It sounds more like something of Alpha origin.
Stop being lazy and learn how to type.
whatthehey - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkThe only thing they can do is nitpick about the use of a term like x64, when everybody knows what it means and Microsoft uses it all over the place (i.e. "Update for Windows Vista for x64-based Systems").
You, sir, add new meaning to the term anal retentive.
"The sky is falling - someone said x64 instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64">x86-64! Help!" Reply
PrinceGaz - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkThey probably use the term x64 because Microsoft used it for the 64-bit x86 version of XP - "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition", to differentiate it from the old 64-bit Itanium version - "Windows XP 64-bit Edition".
Everyone knows what x64 means (everyone who actually needs to know, anyway), so it makes sense to use it as it is quicker and easier than alternatives like x86-64 or 64-bit x86. Reply
Martimus - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkIs exFAT an open standard? It sounds like a promising File Management system for a non-Microsoft OS. Reply
mmjjzz - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkREAD, interest problem found!!
client: Intel Q6600, 4GB RAM, Vista 64bit
server: Intel Celeron 2.53, 2 GB RAM, Windows 2003 SP1
Gigabit network (Jumbo Frames Enabled, SP1 didn't improve anything without jumbo frames enabled)
Pre SP1 (large file)
client (non OS drive) -> Server (share 1) = 43MB/s
Server (share1) -> client = 6MB/s
Post SP1 (large file)
client (non OS drive) -> Server (share 1) = 45MB/s
Server (share1) -> client = 33MB/s
on client, Copying from Share1 to Share2 on server = 900K/s
Share to share TAKES FOREVER.. i never tested this pre SP1, but i am assuming it is the same
gimper48 - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkI may have missed this in the article. However, some people see it in update some do not. I have vista 64 and it has never come up as an option. Anyone know the methodology to determine who gets it and who does not? Also is the it sp1 only available to technet subscriptions? That kinda screws the small systems admin at a small company. They cannot upgrade all in one shot then. Reply
DigitalFreak - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkNo-one is supposed to be getting it via Windows Update yet (except maybe some Beta testers). The fact that it was up there briefly the other day was a mistake on Microsoft's part. It should start showing up some time in March. Reply
haplo602 - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkWhile you mentioned UEFI, it would be an interesting separate article/guide. With technology description ad current state of affairs.
Are you planning any such article ? Reply
TheJian - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkI'm wondering about the comment made regarding XP64 being bad for consumers. Why? Myself I'd like to see XP64 vs. Vista64 benchmarks done (games and all). Is there something stopping you from benchmarking XP64? It's been 2.5 years since this article at Tom's:
XP64 looked pretty good then, 2.5yrs later it should SURELY be better correct? Why no testing for XP64? Most of Tom's benchmarks show a dead heat for xp32 vs xp64. On Steampowered.com Vista 64bit only counts for 2.5% of their users and Vista total is only 16.5%. Shouldn't you have a go at 64bit XP? Unfortunately they didn't breakdown the XP32 vs XP64 numbers. Reply
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkThe issue with XP64 is that it is effectively an orphaned operating system on the consumer side of things. It was never even intended for consumer use, it was a slightly retooled version of Server 2003 designed to fill a gap for workstations that needed a 64bit version of Windows. Very few companies in the consumer space are testing their wares against XP64, this goes for both hardware and software. Compatibility problems are still few and far between, but never the less going forward it's only going to get worse particularly when it comes to drivers. Reply
TheJian - Thursday, February 28, 2008 - linkAre you sure? Nvidia's latest WHQL driver is dated Dec2007 with these notes:
# WHQL driver for GeForce FX, 6, 7, and 8 series GPUs.
# Added support for GeForce 8800 GTS 512 GPU.
# Recommended driver for the latest DirectX 9, and OpenGL applications.
# Numerous game and application compatibility fixes. Please refer to the release documentation for more information on features, driver fixes, and known issues.
They are still improving gaming with these! I don't see it as Orphaned when people are revolting against Vista. Read the fixes in the readme. There are quite a few issues fixed in 64bit. Don't forget people were buying this OS for years before Vista. Both Intel and AMD were selling 64bit chips before vista for years. People were running XP64bit and still are (if they wanted to use their chip's abilities that is). Is it so tough to throw up some benchmarks for xp64? Is MS telling you not to do it in some agreement like stopping XP SP3 benchmarks from being published in their EULA? Just checked ATI/AMD and their drivers are updated for 64bit FEB 13th! That's just 2 weeks ago and includes the 3870x2 boards.
If movement in this area picked up (cough up the benchies!) I could see MS backing away from Vista and just re-releasing XP with DX10.1 and Aero Glass which would make Vista pointless. Vista could end up just like WinME. We ended up with Win2k, and for games that wouldn't run in that OS we dual booted to 98-OSR2 :) LOL I see drivers for my chipsets on Intel P35 and Nvidia boards also. I don't see waning support. Same date for Nvidia's xp32/64 drivers so they are developed together (the readme covers both also). It seems to me only Microsoft wants it orphaned. Crappy benchmarks would prove it (or not if they're great!) so lets see some please. Reply
Per Hansson - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkOn the steam survey I think Windows 2003 64 bit is the same thing as XP x64, they share the exact same codebase (even serivcepack and hotfixes) It accounts for 0.73%
But yes, I agree, XP x64 is a very nice OS
It is IMO more stable than XP (it is afterall a server OS since it's based on Server 2003 x64) Reply
Brunnis - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkAlthough more of academical interest, I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see the performance difference between an unpatched Vista RTM installation and Vista SP1.
One pretty serious issue with Vista, that I can't seem to wrap my head around, is the folder types and how they're applied. They actually seem to be applied arbitrarily and without any sort of reason. They also sometimes seem to change without user interaction. I was hoping Vista would somehow address this, but it seems Microsoft is content with how it works.
Otherwise I'm actually quite happy with Vista. I view SuperFetch as one of its most important features and one that actually makes Vista feel a good deal faster for general usage. Reply
amandahugnkiss - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkin the article: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10781">http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10781
it was reported that MS was bricking PCs, I would have imagined you guys would have adressed that issue here. At least report if it was still an issue, was a false lead, or what the issue was and what the was that MS implemented.
Any info on this topic you can share? Reply
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkWe mention it a bit on the last page; basically it looks like a very small number of computers having problems, but it's hard to cut through the echo chamber effect of the internet. AFAIK that update still hasn't been reinstated on Windows Update though.
We haven't experienced the issues on any computers we own. Reply
amandahugnkiss - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkMy bad, you did indeed mention it.
I'm curious what the problem was, be it user, MS, 3rd party, etc... I've not seen it and the only place I have heard about it was on the user forum linked in the article. Reply
IAMGOOSE - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - link"We're still waiting on someone besides Apple to start shipping consumer machines (or motherboards) with UEFI support, so this will be an issue we'll pick up another day."
Current intel branded boards allow booting from UEFI
You guys should try it out, in a mini review or something Reply
kilkennycat - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkHeading asks the question....... Reply
mechBgon - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - link...but may I make a suggestion: Vista and WinXP aren't, like, video cards, where framerates are all that matter. I frankly feel that the security advances of Vista are getting important in today's security landscape, and a comparison of WinXP SP3 versus Vista SP-anything deserves to cover that. Not much point in having another 10 frames per second in WoW, after the bad guys dropped an undetected keylogger into your system and stole your WoW stuff to auction it off. ;) Drop me a PM if you want to pick my brain on the subject... Reply
yyrkoon - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkCant say I agree with your security views. Any OS(with a few exceptions . . .ME comes to mind) is only as good as the user using it.
Not only that, the 'bad guys' can not 'drop' a key logger onto your system, unless the 'bad guys' you're referring to are in fact yourself. Files do not auto-magically appear on a system by osmosis, they are downloaded by the user using said system whether the user is actually aware of this or not. Setting up a system correctly will fix a lot of this, while common sense computing habit will take care of the rest. This includes setting up proper user/group policies, permissions, etc, and MAYBE using web based email if you're having issues with you email client being exploited in unexplainable ways.
Been running XP Pro here for the last 3 years or so, and I have to say that since SP2, it has been fairly secure(once again; when set up proeprly), and I would not expect Vista would be any more reliable. Now since I beta tested Vista early on through to RC2, I KNOW for a fact that compared to XP, there ARE performance issues. Reply
SilthDraeth - Thursday, February 28, 2008 - linkYou may be a security professional, but I have no knowledge of you on the ATOT security forums. MechBgon however is very active and has a proven record of being extremely knowledgeable. Heck he spends most days trying dissecting this stuff to find out how to fix it.
I think you are fighting a losing battle if you go up against him...instead try to learn. Reply
Griswold - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkUnless you are using vista NOW, you're not qualified to claim knowledge about performance issues NOW.
mechBgon - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkI think you should brush up on Windows Integrity Control and Kernel Patch Protection (for x64). These mandatory access controls are > users.
Also, you are sadly incorrect in thinking that malware can only get onto a system with user cooperation. As the 4th-ranked SiteAdvisor reviewer worldwide (by total reputation), I have a fair amount of insight on the subject. ;) Between trusted sites being hacked and turned malicious, Mpack/Icepack-type exploit suites and vulnerable third-party software that people don't think to update, there's plenty of need for proactive security and mitigation.
You like WinXP? Great. For a 7-year-old OS, it can be secured fairly well, if you want to, and I even have tips to help with that: http://www.mechbgon.com/build/security2.html">http://www.mechbgon.com/build/security2.html But it's time for OSes to be more secure by default, in my opinion. The latest Security Intelligence Report from Microsoft showed WinXP SP2 is 2.5x more likely to have malware detected by the Malicious Software Removal Tool than Vista SP-zero, to throw one statistic out there.
Food for thought. I haven't seen much at AnandTech yet on that aspect of Vista.
Microsoft MVP ~ Windows Shell/User Reply
kmmatney - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkI don't see exFAT being useful right away unless windows XP is updated to support it. Reply
Staples - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkVista SP1 mostly has all the updates that MS has released over the past year on Windows Update. I did not notice a difference either and I installed SP1 a few weeks ago. If this was a vanilla install I was installing it over, I am sure I would notice quite a few improvements. I have been using Vista Home Premium since Jan and it definitely had some problems then. Since about July, the drives were mature enough and other than the slow slow file copying (which now still is slower than XP), everything has been running well for months. Reply
KeypoX - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkOn both laptop and desktop :( but i didnt really have any problems before... or after. Reply
johnsonx - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - link"That experience has been unified somewhat with SP1, now the x86 environment can install the x64 version of the OS (but ____ the other way around, interestingly enough)."
I do think a 'not' goes in that blank.
(btw, none of the comment buttons like B, I, U, Quote, etc. are working for me atm) Reply
InternetGeek - Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - linkI've been using SP1 on Vista Ultimate and it does bring some improvements. It took about one hour to install without any trouble at all. I simply started it and one hour later it was up as running.
In general I find my laptop to be more responsive (Toshiba P105-S921). It restarts faster and comves alive from suspend faster as well. Applications in general feel the same, though tonight I'll play Oblivion and get a more "objective" feel of it. I used VS.NET 2008, Sql Server 2005, Photoshop CS2, Office 2007, DVDFab Platinum, Alcohol 120%, iTunes/WMP for media.
Div 6.8 stopped working all together after applying 6.1. It either crashes while analyzing the subtitles or while encoding. The movie is Transformers.
In general, I find that SP1 does bring good things for Vista on which, in general, I'm having a better experience than on XP. Reply
aguilpa1 - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkFrom that list you don't use any heavy duty applications, so yes you probably wouldn't notice a difference... Reply
Spivonious - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkPhotoshop, SQL Server, and VS2008 aren't "heavy-duty" applications? Just what is heavy-duty in your opinion? Reply
Griswold - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkI bet using his favourite browser, posting crap like that in comments like this, is what he considers "heavy-duty". Reply
stryder256 - Wednesday, February 27, 2008 - linkIs there any need to be arrogant? He was trying to provide people with a review and you jumped on him...for what? How does that make you a superior intellectual force? Reply
7Enigma - Thursday, February 28, 2008 - linkStryder, re-read the comments. They aren't being arrogant towards the OP, they are commenting on the poster after the initial post. Reply


text:
^ Lighting
- Chandeliers
- Pendants on Sale
- Kitchen Island Pendants
- Drum Pendants
- Bowl Pendants
- Hall and Foyer Pendants
- Down-Light Pendants
- Specialty Pendants
- Unique Designer Pendants
- Top 20 Pendants
- New Pendants
- Mini Pendants
- Island Lights
- LED Ceiling Lights
- Hall and Caged Lights
- Tiffany Ceiling Lights
- Swag Plug In Pendant Lights
- Kids and Novelty Lighting
- Dual and Triple Mount Fixtures
- Tray Lights or Pot Rack Chandelier
- Ceiling Medallions
Narrow your search for
External Ads:
Lamps USA » Lighting » Ceiling Lights » Pendants » Art Glass
Open Box Deals
Up to 80% Off
10% Off Most Items*
Top Pendants
There are no products here.
Still searching for Pendants?
Live Chat with an Expert and we'll be happy to help you search.
Or try expanding your selection in Ceiling Lights...
Type: Show more than just pendants
Style: Show more than just art glass
Type: Show more than just pendants
Style: Show more than just art glass
Also see related categories below, or view our Full Site Map
Did you see these other categories in Ceiling Lights?
Also try these nearby departments

subset: commoncrawl


text:
ASUS EeePC 1215N: Bringing NG-ION to the 1201by Vivek Gowri on 11/25/2010 12:00 AM EST
41 Comments
Back to Article
MeSh1 - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - link" Intel has essentially left the Atom core the same since the launch in mid-2008" This is what happens when there is no competition. Reply
Alexstarfire - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkTrue, there aren't other netbooks without atom, but there are other CPUs to compete. Unfortunately they all suck. All of the "competitors" use more power, save for ARM processors. Not sure if they'll ever use ARM processors in netbooks though. Tablets and smartphones seem to promising for them. Reply
VivekGowri - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkNo x86 license means no ARM netbooks. Qualcomm was trying to get the whole "smartbook" deal off the ground, basically just thinner netbooks running Snapdragon and either Linux, Chrome OS, or Android. They all sucked big time, then the entire segment got basically axed for tablets. Toshiba released this Tegra 2/Android smartbook, but it hit the market and basically disappeared, so that says enough about the segment.
We'll see, I'm interested to see if AMD's impending release of Ontario can change anything, but the Ontario cores are clocked at a pitiful 1.0GHz (for the dual core, 1.2GHz for the single) so it might not beat Atom by too much. For single core apps, I'm thinking maybe a 20% boost in performance - whether this will be faster than Atom by enough to be usable is the question. But seriously, I would like for something (anything) to kick the Atom team into action. They basically created the netbook market with the release of Atom, but after that they've done nothing other than moving the graphics onto the CPU package. Every time I get a netbook, it's like "oh boy, Atom....again....greaaaaat" I want some interesting netbooks lol. Reply
Eug - Friday, November 26, 2010 - linkNon-Atom netbooks already exist in 2010. The Acer listed in the review is arguably in this netbook/hybrid class, at 11.6" inches with a street price LESS than the Asus Atom/ION machine, but sporting a CPU that runs circles around Atom and which also has an integrated GPU (Intel 4500MHD) with full 1080p H.264 decode capability like NVIDIA ION provides.
Hopefully 2011 will see more of these decently powered netbooks, whether it'd be with CULV Core 2 Duo class chips, or from Zacate, beginning in the sub US$400 price segment.
Actually, just as important as the CPU is the keyboard. Using 10" keyboards is utterly painful. Just one and a half inches more and you get a full-sized keyboard. It makes all the difference in the world, not for productivity apps, but for basic netbook-style internet consumption as well. It's much more pleasant typing an AnandTech comment on a full-sized keyboard. For this reason, any 10" model IMO isn't even in the running compared to the Asus 1215N, regardless of performance. Reply
Terodius - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkyou do realize Sony has a 13.3 inch vaio with core i7, nvidia discrete graphics and a full HD screen? I mean seriously... netbook on steroids? I consider 12 inches more of a ultraportable. with another extra inch you get the experience of a desktop replacement. Reply
monomer - Friday, November 26, 2010 - linkDid you seriously just compare a $500 netbook to an $1800 laptop?
Well played. Reply
jigglywiggly - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkTHIS LAPTOP BE DISSAPOINT
ATOM SUX GTFO Reply
damianrobertjones - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkWhat? Reply
erwos - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkI ordered a 1215N, but promptly returned it unopened after finding out online about the number of people who are breaking the flimsy power pin in the course of normal use. This is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed in the review. Reply
Scott_G - Friday, November 26, 2010 - linkWhy wouldn't you just give it a try on your own, you can't always believe what people say on the Internet about defects. If you did believe everything then you wouldn't own anything tech related. Reply
StrangerGuy - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkUntil I saw this review, I didn't knew the D525 doesn't even have speedstep...What was Intel thinking? Isn't the whole point of Atom is to SAVE as much power as possible even if this was meant for nettops?
Back to the 1215n...ION 2 with Atom is just going to handle Flash and HD videos and... that's it, anybody who's buying a 1215n for gaming really, really needs a reality check. If current-gen Atoms actually came with an IGP that accelerates both I don't think anyone would even bother with ION... Reply
sprockkets - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkBeen like that since day one, but why is it an issue when you take around 10-15 watts anyhow?
Heck, my 2.5ghz dual core pentium only takes 3 watts less at idle when clocked down. That's why I didn't care when I went from the 65nm 2.2ghz to the 45nm 2.5 since for whatever reason Linux couldn't scale the new version down. Reply
Geraldo8022 - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkI have an Asus with the ten inch screen and single core. I find I can tolerate most everything about it except the small screen size.. The concept of the tablets eludes me. I do like the battery life. I am wondering if Ontario, or even Atom for that matter, will be available in 15 inch laptop. Reply
ajp_anton - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkI'm still confused about your x264 battery life test. Do you mean x264, as in the program that *encodes* h264 videos, or just general h264 playback?
You also mention x264 in the text, "[...] with slightly worse x264 battery life [...]". Is this when encoding (actually using x264), or h264 playback (which has nothing to do with x264)? Reply
JarredWalton - Friday, November 26, 2010 - linkThis is playing back an x264 encoded 720p video file, which is a very common use for laptops on planes (i.e. watching movies). Encoding battery life would be far worse I think, since that would effectively max out the CPU. Reply
ajp_anton - Friday, November 26, 2010 - linkBut the test itself has nothing to do with x264. An x264 encoded file is like any other h264 file, nobody cares where it came from.
A much more relevant thing would be what you're using to decode the file (and if DXVA was used), because that's what's using the battery. Reply
JarredWalton - Friday, November 26, 2010 - linkWe've stated this in the past: we use Media Player Classic Home Cinema 64-bit, with DXVA enabled. It's a ~7Mbps file as well, if that's important (though in my testing to date I haven't seen much difference between this file and a higher 15Mbps bitrate 1080p file, provided you have DXVA decode available).
Anyway, we're playing an x264 encoded file, so it has everything to do with x264. It is also representative of general H.264 playback, though some H.264 content isn't quite so friendly. As an example, some of the QuickTime H.264 stuff behaves quite a bit differently.
A 9.4Mbps QuickTime H.264 file uses 21.5% average (12.1 to 34%) in QuickTime. Played back in MPC-HC with DXVA, the same file uses nearly 8.4% (5.1 to 18.0%) but looks like absolute crap. VLC uses 13.5% (7.0 to 25.4%) but at least looks as good as playing it with QuickTime. The main point being that the file type does matter, though you are correct that the playback software is equally important. Reply
ajp_anton - Saturday, November 27, 2010 - linkYes I remember you mentioning MPC-HC before, I'm just pointing out that it's not in the actual test.
And saying that x264 has "everything" or anything to do with the playback test is the same as saying it's important to know if the 600MB file you're testing HDD performance with is an .avi or a .mkv.
If it weren't for the encoder info that x264 puts in the file header, there'd be no way of telling what it's been encoded with.
Sure the file format may make a difference - different containers may need different amounts of CPU power (mov, mkv, m2ts...). However, this has nothing to do with the h264 stream inside, or x264. You can make a quicktime file out of an x264 encoded video, and you can make a mkv out of a quicktime video.
Here I actually don't know what it is you're playing back in the test... avi? mkv? mp4? Reply
stancilmor - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkaside from a using a dell ultra-sharp quality LCD/LED panel why can't manufacturers just do away with the track-pad, push the keyboard forward,and include a wireless logitech mouse. Reply
justaviking - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkIf you accept that a fundamental premise of a laptop/netbook is portability, the less you have to carry around, the better.
I like the option of not having to pick up a mouse and juggle it along with my other stuff (coffee cup, a paper notepad (gasp!), donut, power cords, whatever) when I move from one room to another.
I know some people like the little joystick nubbin thing, but I've always detested them. The first laptop I used, and old Compaq, predated the trackpads and the joystick thing was very difficult to use. It had two speeds; really slow, and zoom across the screen, not much in between.
So while i do prefer a mouse, especially for longer use, and I love mice with the nano receiver that I can leave plugged in all the time, for me the lack of a touchpad for mousing would be a deal breaker. Reply
kmmatney - Saturday, November 27, 2010 - linkI have to say that I'm almost as productive with the track pad as I am with a mouse. I just have to turn off the double-click feature - that drives me nuts. Overall, trackpads are a very good built-in solution - I just wish mine was larger, like the track pads on Apple's laptops. Reply
slagar - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkOn a netbook? Ew, no. Trackpads are fine for light computing use, carrying around a mouse (and having a decent surface to use it on) is not. Reply
stancilmor - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkwell perhaps just provide a way to disable the track pad, I have clumsy hands that are always hitting the track pad and messing up my typing...usually have to tape over the track pad and use a mouse. Reply
Evil_Sheep - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkVirtually all trackpads can be disabled in software (typically Synaptics drivers) ...most laptops even have a Fn keyboard shortcut to do that. Try looking for that or use control panel and go to mouse settings. Reply
Nataku - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkactually, I think if they embed the mouse into the laptop like how some mouse embed the receiver into the mouse as an option from the trackpad, i might actually jump on it ;-) Reply
b.kenobi - Friday, November 26, 2010 - linkmaybe not such a bad idea to remove the trackpad... how about using a smartphone as your trackpad... Reply
Xipto - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - link"all in a tasty aluminum wrapper"
Funny thing, I've just hold one and there's no trace of aluminium in the chassis. Like most Asus laptops now available, it's plastic painted as brushed aluminium. Only a few feature some aluminium screen cover or palm rests but I didn't found one where it was applied all around. Reply
slagar - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - link"The webcam has the same gimmicky manual shutter over it that the U33Jc has. In my opinion, that's just one more part to break, but if someone sees value in it, so be it."
Why do they feel the need to include this? So people can stop spying on themselves?
Perhaps it's to evade potential lawsuits: 'oops I left a video-conference open while I got undressed - I better sue my laptop manufacturer for not including a safety shutter!!'. Honestly, it baffles me. Reply
Evil_Sheep - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkWe live in an era where school administrators use laptop webcams to secretly spy on their own students (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61L5R5201002... governments will go to any length to spy on their own citizens, including photographing them naked, and hackers control networks of millions of zombie computers because the incredible complexity of modern technology is far beyond the comprehension of the average citizen.
A simple webcam shutter is not only a sensible countermeasure, it should be mandatory on all computers. Reply
Evil_Sheep - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkThe lesson of the 1215N is that while there's lots of choice in this market (10-12" budget ultraportables), nobody offers a product without at least one significant drawback. Though the 1215 is a flawed product, there is no clearly superior alternative.
The conclusion mentions a few possibilities but look at them: if you go with a 10" netbook, you have to live with their cramped 600p screens and keyboards and crippled Win7 Starter. If you go with EOL CULV, typically an Acer Timeline 1400 or 1800, you have to live with Acer's awful keyboards, LCD's, and bottom of the barrel plastic. And if you go with AMD, you get poor to awful battery life and still anemic performance. It's a no-win situation.
Only the Macbook Air 11 comes close to perfection...but at $1000 you're blowing the budget and of course you have to take OSX. Reply
mutter - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkAgreed with Evil_Sheep aside from the Macbook Air being nearly perfect... more so than even most apple products the air is an expensive toy.
Since 2003 I have prefered laptops under 4 pounds with 12-14" screens. My selections were from the Dell XPS series, Satellites and even some offerings by the shitty company Averatec... my latest is a 1201n and it has been my most loved. I hope a better alternative to the Atom can be used to push variety and usefulness of machines in this size and capacity. Reply
86waterpumper - Thursday, November 25, 2010 - linkI have had a lenovo ideapad s12 for awhile now. I agree with what most are saying. I love the size of this netbook and it has worked out well. I think 12 inch is the perfect compromise in size.
I knew when I bought it that the atom cpu would be the achilles heel of the system but at a 400 dollar pricepoint I saw nothing to compete with it.
I like the fact that mine has the more usable 1280 x 800 screen resolution. I have used some of the 10 inch netbooks and they are pretty well worthless for web surfing and the keyboards suck bad if you are able to type at a decent speed.
I also do NOT want a 16:9 screen. This machine does have regular windows 7 and 2 gigs of ram, in fact it is very similar to the tested asus here except obviously for the dual core. It has been used alot lately for watching dvd rips on trips for the kids, and to play games such as plants vs zombies and of course email and internet surfing. I do wait for the cpu here and there, I found that the main place it really lagged was trying to stream hulu in 480 or 720p over the hdmi. However it will do this smoothly when it is run at 1.8ghz via oc software :P
One thing I am really jealous of is the ability to turn off the ion graphics this is the only thing killing my battery time. Eventually I will hand this down to the kids but I am hopeful that in the next couple of years we will get some real solutions for a better netbook type cpu that still gets a good battery life. A decent 2ghz dual core would rock whether it be from amd or intel either one. Reply
svojoe - Friday, November 26, 2010 - linkI feel like this article should have mentioned something really important. Unless I am very mistaken Intel removed Nvidia's ability to access the ATOM directly when it released pinetrail. Forcing Nvidia to access ATOM via the pci bus. Basically killing ION. NG ION only brings one real advantage and thats the ability to switch between pinetrail and the ION chip. But while its a modest power saving feature. The real benefit of the ION is gaming and decoding and that can't really get a whole lot better. Regardless of cores or clocks because the bandwidth has been castrated.
I feel like if this is true at least some bone should be thrown to Nvidia for playing against a stacked deck. If it wasn't for Intel trying to protect there vision of our ATOM based future its entirely possibly NG ION could have been really worth while.
Yeah its better, yeah dual core atom is a little faster. But I don't think this is compelling enough better to jump from my HP Mini 311, almost two years and no real advancement in the 12" and under portable gaming market.
Well I guess I made a future proof choice being a early adopter of the ION platform. But its so frustrating to see so much potential. Reply
lowlymarine - Friday, November 26, 2010 - linkWith the U30Jc being readily available for $750 these days (http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-U30JC-X3K-13-3-Inch-Lap... I'd find it difficult to recommended a $500 12" netbook to anyone. For $250 (and the loss of internal Bluetooth, I suppose) you move from an Atom to a Core i3, NG-ION to a 310M (though the only real differences there are clocks and 1x vs 16x PCI-E, those add up to a fairly major performance delta), 2GB of DDR2 to 4GB of DDR3, a 250GB hard drive to a 500GB one, gain an internal DVD+/-RW drive, not to mention get markedly better battery life, which from a portability standpoint should outweigh the minor difference in weight to most people.
While it's true that $250 isn't exactly pocket change, I'd argue that over the life of the machine it'd be a small price to pay to avoid the unpleasant experience that is Windows on an Atom. I've been there, and I'm in no hurry to go back. Reply
svojoe - Saturday, November 27, 2010 - link$750 is too much, thats just it. If I was going to spend $750 I'd get a 'real' portable gaming laptop and skip ATOM or even CULV altogether.
The appeal of these gaming netbooks is bizzare but strong, Sure, it sucks at games. but IT DOES game (even if it sucks) You should see it, I play CIV 4 with friends, they have dual-core machines that superPI in 35 seconds. (my atom takes over 2 minutes) but my CIV 4 game is buttery smooth, scrolling/zooming etc etc. They are watching a slide show with the Nvida 7400's,amd 4225's and the Intel HD's on much faster computers. And my netbook is small, I have a 11.6" 1366x768 screen that is more crisp and looks sharp as hell since its so small compared to there 15.6" screens. If we figured out a price for dollars vs FPS in the $500 or less market I bet this comes out on top barring any black friday deals. You go near $400 and forget about it. ATOM+ION gives you something nothing else can compete with. Tiny and almost-real modern gaming, with good last gen gaming.
It tears up old games, Battery lasts 3.5 hours hardcore gaming, 4 hours light gaming and 5 hours dim screen browsing. Thats killer for almost anything with real discrete graphics.
I can expound about ION for a long time, but I think the biggest difference is that I k now its weaknesses and I have atoned for that. I feel like almost every reviewer and almost everyone that comments on this stuff really misses the point. ITS CHEAP! and Tiny! Decent battery! games! aaaahhhh!
Sorry just freaking out a bit. I agree with you 100% that a couple hundred bucks gets you into a whole new world, but this thing will be at $425 retail very soon, (who sells at list price?) and to kick it up to 700$ to get albeit a lot more performance is the equivalent of getting a 27,500$ car instead of a $18,500 car to get a 6cyl with automatic windows and locks and a higher trim package. Some people go for it, Others just need to get there even if it isn't pretty.
I want more products and competition in this market. I want bettering gaming, smaller, faster and cheap. I want it all! And as sad as it is Atom-ION is it when yo factor it all in. (size, price, gaming, battery) Reply
Penti - Friday, November 26, 2010 - linkDo you still have problem running Adobe Flash Player on NG-ION (high-res videos)? Have it gotten any better, I do see the bandwidth limit as a big usage issue and disadvantage. Why not build on GS40 and a Core 2 based Celeron instead in these cheap lappys? At least they should handle flash more or less fine. I mean come on for this price you can even get a 11.6" system with Nehalem/Core i based ULV. And just the OS is a fifth of the price really.
Can't these Atom models just die already? The point became meaningless when the OS got upped to more then $20 USD and the screensize got enlarged, but they still don't offer anything better then the ULV alternatives. It's actually just a pain that they do sell computers with just 1GB of ram, just because they has that as a limit for 7 Starter OEM-licenses. Upping to 2GB also means upping the OS cost by about 80 USD. Adding in a Broadcom CrystalHD accelerator and a 300 dollar netbook becomes a 450 dollar one, and then you could just get some dualcore Core 2 based thing. Which won't really have any worse battery life or anything. (Look at the comparison, they usually have worse battery life if they are atombased). Asus got much better options like outgoing UL30A/newer UL20FT or UL80Vt, or any of the Acer's with ULV. Reply
frederico - Monday, November 29, 2010 - link
I am an enthusiast with a powerful desktop, 3 laptops of varying ages and a netbook
At the moment I find myself using the netbook more and more
I can veg with it outside in the sunlight, pick it up and browse while watching the tv, use it on regular long train journeys, watch films on it at night falling asleep, etc, etc
I couldnùt do this if the netbook had the same weight portability and battery life as a laptop
Let me rephrase - a netbook is a thing with long battery life, portability and low weight.
A laptop is cumbersome, heavy and has short battery life (I have 3)
My current samsung netbook is tiny and has an 8 hour battery life - great.. BUT, like most netbooks, it cannot play HD, .mkv files, open a lot of flash, or do a spot of light gaming - something that is crucial to me (not most netbook users)
Its a lifesaver but I need something with just a tad more cpu power, graphics power, and that won't roast the legs off me - BUT maintains the same portability and battery power (very important)
This ASUS is about the only netbook out there with favourable reviews that fits the bill (except for the dodgy fragile power pin - check amazon reviews)
Just wanted to clarify the above - as the reviewers and comments here seemed to be a little hazy as to its function Reply
gralex - Friday, December 03, 2010 - linkTotally agree!
And would like to take it even further by saying "I'm tired of having a (full blown) laptop". I just don't see the point of having a laptop AND a netbook (assuming of course, one has a desktop). I actually DO need a "netbook on steroids". A lot of you are probably thinking "Yeah but then what you REALLY need then is a CULV that'll run circles around...". No, I don't. And here's why:
I'd rather spend 500€ now and another 500 in 2 years, instead of 1000€ now and another in 4 years. It's also easy to poke fun at an Atom (I'm looking at you, The0ne) and a dinky little ION, but here's the deal. I run Seti@home and have had the 1215n for almost 2 two months now. The Atom+ION combo is 15x faster than the 2,8GHz processor on my old laptop. Not to mention my old processor is rated at 73W! Plus Seti "sees" the Atom as having 4 cores and crunches 4 workunits simultaneously... go figure. Plus the ASUS can max out the Atom, ION, download non-stop over wi-fi at full connection speed (all in the background) while playing HD video on my Plasma (flawlessly I might add) and have the battery last approx. 4hrs! So for a "desktop" processor, an extra gig of ram, a larger hard drive, a higher resolution screen, "real" Windows 7, HTPC & light gaming capability.... It's totally worth the extra 200€! Especially since your browsers are going to be (officially) GPU accelerated soon. Not to mention the fact that your media players ALREADY are...
CONS: Vivek's comments on the screen are 100% spot-on. Also the charger-pin is somewhere between the old Nokia chargers and the new ones, in size. It really IS scary to use. Trip over the power cord and I'm pretty sure you'll be without a laptop 'till it get's repaired. Lid and palmrest are plastic of course as stated in other comments (I've got the silver one), but I was suprised at how nice it is (you'll have to see it for yourself to understand that comment). Sturdy too. But the bezel and keyboard-surround are made of a flimsy, shiny plastic that's both cheap and ugly. Reply
The0ne - Monday, November 29, 2010 - linkFinally a comment that is sensible and reasonable to accept from Anandtech,
"While most people label it a netbook, I wouldn't strictly call it so—I tend to define netbooks as anything with a 10" screen running Atom at a sub-$400 price point. The 1215N has more power, a larger screen, and a higher price tag, but it's still running Atom so it's not an ultraportable laptop either. CULV will eat the dual-core Atom for lunch and not even bother spitting the bones out. You don't even need to ask about Core i3 or its ULV equivalent."
I hope users and Anand reviewers, especially Anand himself, would abide by your stance. Reply
Hrel - Thursday, December 02, 2010 - linkASUS N53JF-XE1
I think it's a pretty amazing deal for 1K. BD drive, 1080p screen, a DX11 GPU that will run every game out there smoothly at 1280x720 ie 720p. USB 3.0. Reply
XxCoolHandsxX - Monday, April 11, 2011 - linkHey Anand, what are the chances that we could get a sibe by side comparison of the 1215N and the 1215B?? A true apples to apples since the two are outfitted almost identical save for the hard drive capacity as far as I can tell!
I need to get one of them (1215N/B) for my work truck for invoices and billing. I would love to see the results of benchmarking them! I have always been an Intel and Nvidia fan, but if the AMD E350 will beet the Atom/NG Ion in productivity apps ie: open office/quickbooks/etc.
I am game to get it!
Regards, Jim. Reply


text:
- Code: Select all
from __future__ import absolute_import
Unless you are using python 2.5 or lower I don't think you need the future import (I personally code to maintain compatibility with 2.7+ and 3.x. Anything below 2.7 is too much trouble).
One thing you do need to be careful of when using packages is the relative imports will work on python 2.x, but on python 3.x absolute imports are no longer optional.
Honestly they are a bit of a pain to work with in my experience but it ends up being worth it.
I will try to make an example project shell if anyone is interesting in seeing the setup.


text:
Call 01623 645 645 | Fax 01623 510 287 | Email email@example.com | Send an enquiry
Be the first to review this product. Review Product
|Part Number
|RL.161PB Sealed Pear Head Ratchet 1/4 in Drive
£26.04 (Ex VAT)
£31.25 (Inc VAT)
Estimated delivery is for guidance only, an exact delivery date will be confirmed on your order acknowledgement. Please contact us for further information.We make every effort to ensure that the information provided on this page is accurate, we can not be held responsible for any errors, typography or otherwise. Illustrations and images are representational of typical styles and designs may vary. Prices and specifications may alter without prior notice.
FREE delivery available!*
We know the products that you need!
We go the extra mile to be there
We find you the product for the job!
*Online orders over £39.99 (net) delivered to UK Mainland only. Excluding certain postcodes


text:
Subscribe to read
Marine Harvest 'concerned' over hydrogen peroxide use
Already a subscriber?
Click here to log in
Click here to log in
Get instant access to 5 free articles
Simply fill in your information in the box to access your articles now!
IntraFish Media is the news provider of choice for top executives in the seafood sector, offering:
- Unrivalled seafood news, insight and analysis
- Prices for the world's key seafood species
- The industry's largest archive: 180,000 articles
- An array of newsletter options
- Access editions of our industry-leading print publications
Get further insight with 5 free articles and stay ahead
Fill in the form to access 5 more FREE articles
Want more from IntraFish?
IntraFish.com is driven by quality original content and round-the-clock coverage from our reporters around the world.
- IntraFish doesn't just report the news, we set the agenda.
- Includes featured articles covering topics such as price developments, market analysis, marketing trends, food safety, stock price improvements, recruitment and more!
- We offer our readers ideas that will shape their business in the future.
Upstream offers global insight you simply can't get from any other single source!
Global news and insight for 14 days!
Your premium access includes:
- Around the clock coverage of the latest seafood news, easily accessed on any device
- Breaking news alerts sent directly to your inbox
- The industry's most powerful search archive containing more than 177 000 articles
- Exclusive commentary and analysis
- Complete access to all IntraFish sector channels: Aquaculture, Fisheries, Marketplace & Processor


text:
Bulgaria - A Hidden Life
With the coming to power of the Communists in Bulgaria, religious communities became increasingly oppressed. Continuously controlled, continuously observed the sisters were subject to ever more intimidating interrogations and ruder searches. Some of them, such as the Carmelites, awaited prison sentences. In 1948 the authorities started to confiscate Church run schools, convents and orphanages, forcing the sisters to move to a hidden life in tucked away corners such as choir lofts or abandoned buildings. This is the story of how two religious communities, the Carmelites and the Eucharistine sisters, survived this time.
DVD Title: Bulgaria - A Hidden Life Duration: 41 minutes
The duration of this clip is approximately 10 minutes.
Share Your Faith With Others
This item can only be shipped within the United States.


text:
Need assistance? Call 1-877-848-8476Chat Now
Enter your email below and we'll send you a temporary password.
We have sent a temporary password to your email. Retrieve it now to sign in & set a new password.
includes any frame and our best lenses.
Find a location nearest you!
we accept FSA accounts and most majorvision plans, including eyemed vision care.
No favorites yet
Tap on the heart icon to send frames to your favorites tray.
Go make a frame your favorite.
results: 2 of 2
schedule an eye exam*
keep your focus on goodhealth by scheduling anannual exam.
new arrivals, offers and promotions sent right to your inbox.
See our privacy policy.
Tell us a little about you and we'll connect you to a member of our customer service team.
Please note: None of your information will be sold or shared.
email exclusives. get special offers & more sent right to your inbox. read our privacy policy
*Eye exams available by Independent Doctors of Optometry next to Target Optical in most states. In California, Target Optical does not provide eye exams or employ Doctors of Optometry. Eye exams available from self-employed doctors who lease space inside of Target.
© 2017 Luxottica Retail N.A. All Rights Reserved. © 2017 Target Brands, Inc. Target and the Bullseye design are the registered trademarks of Target Brands, Inc. Privacy Policy/Terms of Use Sitemap
Features nicely balanced with chin slightly narrower than your forehead.Best frames: any shape (lucky you), dark or light colors.
A soft, circular shape with equal width and length.Best frames: strong angular shapes for contrast
A broader forehead and narrower jawline and chin.Best frames: ovals, rounds in thin, light colors
Nice strong, distinct angles in your forehead, cheeks and jawline.Best frames: rounds, ovals in dark or bold colors for contrast.
Pupillary distance measures the space (in millimeters) between the pupils of your eyes.
On previous eyewear receipts or your prescription. Or measure it yourself with our handy PD ruler.
Don't worry. Some doctors take your distance for each eye. Your just a simple equation away from your pupillary distance.
The first step is to add the numbers together. We recommend a calculator because no one's perfect.
Once you have the two numbers added together just divide them by 2 and thats you're pupillary distance!
Double check your number and then enter it in the pupillary distance field.