If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
In article , Scotty© says...
"babaloo" wrote in message et... It is not the drivers that suck. It is Vista that sucks. I had more luck trying to run OS2 on the woefully underpowered 486 computers of that day than I have running Vista now. Vista is the worst product every issued by Microsoft, an unbelievable fiasco. what a turd you are...your best bet is to put your machine in the bin as you have no idea how to use it OK Scotty, here's an unbiased view from someone who has Vista Ultimate and thought it was the dogs danglies until last night. I've just installed XP on a Althon XP1500 system with 512MB RAM and a 6 year old 40GB HDD and chucked in all the software I normally do (CODECS, Media players, Office etc) plus several 3D shooters. All in all, the installation with apps is 34GB. It boots faster than my Vista installation and it opens apps faster than my Vista installation. All in all it feels far faster than my Vista box save the 3D gaming which would be the case as it's only got a GF4MX card in. My Vista system? AMD64 X2 4800, 2GB RAM, 2 SATA2 drives running RAID. -- Conor Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak......... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
In article , joey says...
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:39:55 GMT, "babaloo" wrote: It is not the drivers that suck. It is Vista that sucks. Spoken by a true technology expert (yawn). It's not Vista that interacts with the video card. The code between the graphics system of the of an operating system and the driver is all the same. The driver lies between the OS and the video card, and the driver is where people are having problems. Drivers are written by video card vendors, not Microsoft. Vista is the worst product every issued by Microsoft, an unbelievable fiasco. People said the same thing about XP at first. Ruling out graphics card drivers because we're not talking 3D gaming.... I've just installed XP and apps etc on a XP1500 system with 512MB RAM. It boots, opens apps and runs faster than my X2 4800, 2GB system with Vista on. I was fkin disgusted. -- Conor Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak......... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:35:41 +0100, Conor
wrote: In article , joey says... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:39:55 GMT, "babaloo" wrote: It is not the drivers that suck. It is Vista that sucks. Spoken by a true technology expert (yawn). It's not Vista that interacts with the video card. The code between the graphics system of the of an operating system and the driver is all the same. The driver lies between the OS and the video card, and the driver is where people are having problems. Drivers are written by video card vendors, not Microsoft. Vista is the worst product every issued by Microsoft, an unbelievable fiasco. People said the same thing about XP at first. Ruling out graphics card drivers because we're not talking 3D gaming.... I've just installed XP and apps etc on a XP1500 system with 512MB RAM. It boots, opens apps and runs faster than my X2 4800, 2GB system with Vista on. I was fkin disgusted. I was specifically addressing the post by bubaloo or whatever, but to address the problem you're describing, that same phenomenon has occurred with every MS OS release since the early days of DOS. Win 95 didnt have the responsiveness that Win 3.1 had. Win 98 didn't load apps as fast as 95, and so on and so forth through XP. As time goes by, people learn which services to disable to make things faster, third party drivers get optimized, performance issues get patched, and we all slowly upgrade to faster systems (the next Intel processor cominig out is 25% faster than the one they have now). And before we know it, we take the OS speed and responsivness for granted and expect the next generation OS to have not only twice the feature set of our current OS, but to also perform like DOS did on a 386. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
In article , joey says...
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:35:41 +0100, Conor wrote: In article , joey says... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:39:55 GMT, "babaloo" wrote: It is not the drivers that suck. It is Vista that sucks. Spoken by a true technology expert (yawn). It's not Vista that interacts with the video card. The code between the graphics system of the of an operating system and the driver is all the same. The driver lies between the OS and the video card, and the driver is where people are having problems. Drivers are written by video card vendors, not Microsoft. Vista is the worst product every issued by Microsoft, an unbelievable fiasco. People said the same thing about XP at first. Ruling out graphics card drivers because we're not talking 3D gaming.... I've just installed XP and apps etc on a XP1500 system with 512MB RAM. It boots, opens apps and runs faster than my X2 4800, 2GB system with Vista on. I was fkin disgusted. I was specifically addressing the post by bubaloo or whatever, but to address the problem you're describing, that same phenomenon has occurred with every MS OS release since the early days of DOS. Win 95 didnt have the responsiveness that Win 3.1 had. Win 98 didn't load apps as fast as 95, and so on and so forth through XP. As time goes by, people learn which services to disable to make things faster, third party drivers get optimized, performance issues get patched, and we all slowly upgrade to faster systems (the next Intel processor cominig out is 25% faster than the one they have now). And before we know it, we take the OS speed and responsivness for granted and expect the next generation OS to have not only twice the feature set of our current OS, but to also perform like DOS did on a 386. I've been building PCs since the early 90's so I know what you're on about but no version has had such a marked difference as the jump from XP to Vista. I mean, come on, performance wise how far ahead is a X2 4800 on 2GB of DDR over a XP1500 with 512MB of PC100? Massively ahead. -- Conor Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak......... |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
joey wrote:
People said the same thing about XP at first. No, actually, most people did not. Vista really DOES suck, just like ME really DID suck. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista DriverDevelopment"
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:41:38 -0400, joey wrote:
I was specifically addressing the post by bubaloo or whatever, but to address the problem you're describing, that same phenomenon has occurred with every MS OS release since the early days of DOS. Win 95 didnt have the responsiveness that Win 3.1 had. Win 98 didn't load apps as fast as 95, and so on and so forth through XP. The difference is that each of those operating systems brought new capabilities that users really wanted... win95 brought 32 bit support and a better GUI; 98 brought support for USB and much larger hdds; 2k/XP brought support for more RAM and even bigger hdds. What does Vista bring that anyone really cares about? What can users do on Vista that they can't do on XP? Charlie |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
"chrisv" wrote in message ... joey wrote: People said the same thing about XP at first. No, actually, most people did not. Vista really DOES suck, just like ME really DID suck. Wait till after the first service pack :-) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:03:08 GMT, Charlie Wilkes
wrote: On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:41:38 -0400, joey wrote: I was specifically addressing the post by bubaloo or whatever, but to address the problem you're describing, that same phenomenon has occurred with every MS OS release since the early days of DOS. Win 95 didnt have the responsiveness that Win 3.1 had. Win 98 didn't load apps as fast as 95, and so on and so forth through XP. The difference is that each of those operating systems brought new capabilities that users really wanted... win95 brought 32 bit support and a better GUI; 98 brought support for USB and much larger hdds; 2k/XP brought support for more RAM and even bigger hdds. What does Vista bring that anyone really cares about? 1. For gamers, DX10. The biggest issue here is that Vista moved the graphic driver model out of kernel mode space and into user space. This means much better stability and overall performance when the drivers are properly written by video card vendors. Even if the drivers are badly written, it means they cannot crash the core operating system components like they used to. 2. It solves a major problem: software development companies that have been continually releasing software that requires admin rights on the end user PC will find it very difficult to operate in the world of Vista. This was the core issue at stake that led to most of the securty problems that gave Windows a reputation as less secure than Linux et al. For a while, MS placed an emphasis on allowing backward compatibility and not breaking applications even if they are badly written. Those days are over. Software companies that release software that doesn't follow best practices are going to find their **** doesn't work right under Vista. The unfortunate side effect of that for Microsoft is that of course idiot users are going to blame the OS first, which means for the next couple of years we are going to have to listen to people bitch about how Vista broke their software, when the truth is its the software and hardware vendors that have been ignoring the writing on the wall that has been there for 10 years. And sadly, MS gave the whiners a way to disable the security protection, so that if they really wanted to they could open themselves up to a world of viruses. What can users do on Vista that they can't do on XP? From a general user's perspective: Have the peace of mind that there kernel cannot be modified/patched by an third party application like Norton AntiVirus, or even worse a virus/worm. From a gamers' perspective: Play games against XBox360 users Play DX10 games There's a lot more from a programmers perspective but they get more complex so I won't go there. Charlie |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:48:40 -0500, chrisv
wrote: joey wrote: People said the same thing about XP at first. No, actually, most people did not. Vista really DOES suck, just like ME really DID suck. Yes they did, go back and look at google group archives what gamers were saying when WinXP was released "waaaaI want my 98 back!!" is all over the place. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:31:40 +0100, Conor
wrote: In article , joey says... On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:35:41 +0100, Conor wrote: In article , joey says... On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:39:55 GMT, "babaloo" wrote: It is not the drivers that suck. It is Vista that sucks. Spoken by a true technology expert (yawn). It's not Vista that interacts with the video card. The code between the graphics system of the of an operating system and the driver is all the same. The driver lies between the OS and the video card, and the driver is where people are having problems. Drivers are written by video card vendors, not Microsoft. Vista is the worst product every issued by Microsoft, an unbelievable fiasco. People said the same thing about XP at first. Ruling out graphics card drivers because we're not talking 3D gaming.... I've just installed XP and apps etc on a XP1500 system with 512MB RAM. It boots, opens apps and runs faster than my X2 4800, 2GB system with Vista on. I was fkin disgusted. I was specifically addressing the post by bubaloo or whatever, but to address the problem you're describing, that same phenomenon has occurred with every MS OS release since the early days of DOS. Win 95 didnt have the responsiveness that Win 3.1 had. Win 98 didn't load apps as fast as 95, and so on and so forth through XP. As time goes by, people learn which services to disable to make things faster, third party drivers get optimized, performance issues get patched, and we all slowly upgrade to faster systems (the next Intel processor cominig out is 25% faster than the one they have now). And before we know it, we take the OS speed and responsivness for granted and expect the next generation OS to have not only twice the feature set of our current OS, but to also perform like DOS did on a 386. I've been building PCs since the early 90's so I know what you're on about but no version has had such a marked difference as the jump from XP to Vista. I tend to disagree -- the jump from 98 to XP was huge because its an entirely different operating system.. XP was the next version of Win2000 based on the NT kernel, whereas Win98/WnME were the last of the mohicans that were based on the DOS kernel. I would agree that Vista is a dramatic change. I mean, come on, performance wise how far ahead is a X2 4800 on 2GB of DDR over a XP1500 with 512MB of PC100? Massively ahead. I'm really not an AMD user, Core2Duo is where its at right now so I can't comment. On these machines we have here (ranging from a P4-3.2 to a Core2Duo 6800), overall system performance is roughly the same between XP and Vista (not including games, which I'm seeing maybe a 5-10% frame drop on Vista on some games but all my vid cards are nVidia and they admit to not having good Vista drivers yet). The new Penryn processors are benchmarking at 20-30% faster than the fastest processors Intel currently has, and they will be out in a matter of months. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
(OT) "Vista sales outpace Windows XP launch." | S.Lewis | Dell Computers | 9 | March 29th 07 02:15 AM |
Dell, Vista and Sonic's "Record Never" | Ben Myers | Dell Computers | 14 | March 5th 07 04:03 AM |
Acronis 10 and Vista x64: "failed to backup file or folder" "error reading the file" 0x40001 | markm75 | Storage (alternative) | 0 | February 24th 07 04:17 AM |
"Tom's Hardware" review of Vista | RnR | Dell Computers | 2 | January 6th 07 06:20 AM |
Downside of changing "Max frames to render ahead"/"Prerender Limit" to 1/0? | Jeremy Reaban | Nvidia Videocards | 2 | March 31st 06 04:24 AM |