Maybe I missed the post, but I don't really see any gains or changes with SP1. Is there a list of its features somewhere?
I just don't remember a service pack being so useless. I think it is just so OEM's customers don't have to spend a long time on WU after buying a new rig.
Not quite. Windows update only has security, critical, and the very ocassional other update. By far the majority of fixes, tweaks, and changes are in hotfixes, including those with kb articles and the internal ones which are leaked by Zukona for example. A service pack isn't meant to be radically different, Service pack 2 for XP and Service pack 1 for vista were only through necessity. A Service pack is a culmination of all of most of these changes, meaning a service pack despite its appearance as being similar to the first release or the previous service pack, is actually quite different. A service pack also includes support for new technologies. For example, future programmes that can make use of AVX will not be able to make use of AVX without Service pack 1. Further to this, its probable that AMD's future CVT16, XOP, and FMA4 (and of course AVX) on its Bulldozer CPU's won't be able to be utilised without SP1. SP1 also includes native USB 3.0 support, meaning third party USB 3.0 drivers won't be needed. It also properly supports Displayport, which if used and trying to install Windows 7 7600 meant a black screen and the inability to finish the setup. There are lots of other changes too, many of these may seem unimportant to you since AVX, CVT16, XOP, FMA4, USB 3.0, Displayport etc are new/fairly new technologies and its most likely you won't be utilising them, the issue with trying to describe the changes is that its not easily definable in only a line or two. If you looked at the release notes for SP1, the big list of issues fixed aren't actually all of them, if you tallied all the changes, minor or otherwise, you will find its much more significant than what is apparent. What a service pack doesn't include as yet. This may change with future service packs, although the IE in europe issue has probably curtailed that: - New versions of IE - New directx versions - New Net framework - Absolutely all hotfixes, updated hotfixes possibly under different KB articles are made available after SP1 release. Hotfixes aren't distributed through WU, you need to request them or download them from the hotfix repository. If installing SP1 on an already installed system, and IE 9 is already released (talking future here), you should install IE 9 first. The service pack does update IE, but only to the level of fixes as was previously distributed via WU and not to a new version. Reasons why you should always use the latest SP: - Future updating is easier - Better support for cutting edge technologies - tweaked performance, many solved minor bugs and compatibility issues - many other reasons that although are minor are usually beneficial. - by not installing it, it only shows that either you are or have been influency by, stubborness or obstinance - Its free! Unlike a certain fruit-related company that would charge for the same thing despite the hardware support really only being in the hundreds not hundreds of thousands, and comapny programme support being less than ten (probably overestimating) compared to thousands... There's nothing wrong with waiting till its officially released, its the not utilising it after it has been released thats really an issue.
Hey thanks for the great response, I was playing devil's advocate a bit for really the general audience like me. One thing you mentioned that caught my eye was the native USB3.0 support. I installed an NEC based usb3.0 ICE card a month ago. It doesn't work with all my USB devices (a high end usb soundcard and magic jack), still doesn't work with them after trying SP1. Is there a means to force windows to use these new native drivers rather than the NEC's ?
If you don't have the NEC drivers installed, it should default to the Windows drivers. The considerations for running in USB 3.0 mode are: - You use a USB 3.0 port - You use a USB 3.0 device - You don't have any USB 2.0 devices plugged into the USB 3.0 controller - You use a USB 3.0 cable To make use of USB 3.0 speeds, all the above things must be considered. If you don't comply to any one of those the device will only run in USB 2.0 mode. USB 3.0 cable is important as the cable has extra data connectors, although it is backwards compatible. I think the main reason why even on the new p67 etc chipsets Intel didn't go fully USB 3.0 is simply because they know people will never be able to run their USB 3.0 devices at USB 3.0 speeds. On a typical motherboard, despite there being numerous controllers available, only one is usually physically connected to the ports at the back of the motherboard (the USB connectors on the motherboard for separate USB ports are separate controllers). Basically this means that if you have a USB 2.0 device plugged into the motherboard, it will slow down any connected USB 3.0 devices!... Anyways, check that the above conditions are met, then remove the NEC drivers and then see what happens.
Understand the bug so to speak is not USB3.0 speed, but the issue is backwards compatibility. These are USB2.0 devices that don't work on the NEC USB3.0 card. I guess I should try unistalling the NEC drivers, and see if the SP1 are better.
That technology is unlikely to replace USB anytime soon, if it does become a proper standard. It looks like implementing it on both the controller and device side will be much more expensive than USB, which is an obvious drawback. Intel not fully implenting USB 3.0 on the new chipsets is purely because they know they don't have to, simply because in almost all cases the four criteria I outlined earlier won't be met, so even if a users intentions is to utilise USB 3.0, at best they'll only get USB 2.0 speeds. Having distinct USB 3.0 ports at least negates the USB 2.0 on a USB 3.0 controller issue like I said earlier. It is really quite a drawback motherboard manufacturers cheap out on the USB ports, each of those ports should really be on a different controller since there are many controllers available. Having all the motherboard ports off one controller, or even having several on each controller is a big disadvantage, especially if you run numerous USB devices such as a wifi stick, external hard drive, USB keyboard/mouse, and whatever else you have connected as even though they may be on different ports, they're all sharing the bandwidth of one USB controller, which although on paper is 480MBPS is more like 270MBPS at best. This is because USB 2.0 only allows one way transfers, meaning even if you are copying it has to switch transfer directions for signalling. USB 3.0 allows simultaneous bi-directional transfers. Anyways, unless motherboard companies utilise the controllers properly, having anything more than the current specific USB 3.0 ports is pointless. Even then, people will most likely use USB 2.0 cables which I think should be banned from being made since USB 3.0 cables are backward compatible and saves possible compliance issues.
It took them a few years and lots of cash to realise that though, if you troll the net you will find a long going argument between Intel and the people that set the USB3 standards..............