NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"

  • Thread starter Thread starter AirRaid
  • Start date Start date
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.


People said the same thing about XP at first.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
Click to expand...

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
shit 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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
No, actually, most people did not. Vista really DOES suck, just like
ME really DID suck.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
1. For gamers, DX10.
Click to expand...

Is DX10 something that inherently needs Vista, or is it something
Microsoft will only develop for Vista? In any case, I don't believe
there are any game releases that require DX10 as of yet.
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.
Click to expand...

That probably has value, but I wonder if anyone perceives the value,
especially if they are using an XP system with a firewall and AV and not
having problems.

In any case... thank you for taking the time to provide a substantive and
intelligible response.

Charlie
 
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?
Click to expand...

I already listed some, but I am hesitant to just iterate through a
feature list because there is quite a few. It depends on what is
important to you. To some, being able to load some of the operating
system onto a flash drive is a very compelling feature, and you can't
do that with XP. To some, having a very cool UI experience and
sidebar widgets on the desktop is an important feature. To some,
having the peace of mind of the security features is enough. To some,
the ability to play DX10 games is enough. To some, Flip3D is enough.
To some, ShadowCopy is enough. To some, the ultra fast
search-as-you-type is enough. To some, IIS7, having the .Net 3
framework without downloading an extra package, and having the Windows
Communication Foundation built in is a compelling reason. It all
depends on one's needs. I cannot begin to presume what is important
to you, so I can't convince you that you should upgrade to Vista right
now. But, if your hardware supports it and you plan to have the same
hardware two years from now, you might as well start using it now
because getting used to it will save you from being behind the
learning curve from the rest of the corporate world.
 
joey said:
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.
Click to expand...

NT 3.5 and 4 loaded things faster than Win 95 or 98, especially if you
threw more RAM at it. XP is slower than 2000. Vista slower still.
 
Is DX10 something that inherently needs Vista, or is it something
Microsoft will only develop for Vista? In any case, I don't believe
there are any game releases that require DX10 as of yet.
Click to expand...

There are important operating system changes that facilitate DX10. I
don't know how much the audience here knows about operating system
design, but it is fair to say it is substantial. To make it brief, I
do not think DX10 is possible on XP without a HUGE service pack that
would effectively replace the operating system kernel (making it a
completely new OS version). Such an effort is extremely costly for
MS, and its unlikely in my opinion that they will ever make such a
dramatic "patch" for XP, because a patch implies they are providing a
huge amount of development dollars (millions) to the general public
for free. Not a smart move for any company -- best to make it a
feature of the next version of the OS which includes some other things
users might be willing to pay for -- and, if they aren't willing to
pay for an upgrade to their current PC, they are sure to get it
installed for them on their next new PC purchase.
That probably has value, but I wonder if anyone perceives the value,
especially if they are using an XP system with a firewall and AV and not
having problems.

In any case... thank you for taking the time to provide a substantive and
intelligible response.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind I'm not implying that everyone should upgrade today. My
primary gaming machine does not run Vista yet, because I am waiting
for drivers to mature and for DX10 titles to make it worth my while. I
just don't like to see users crap all over Vista for uninformed
reasons.
 
NT 3.5 and 4 loaded things faster than Win 95 or 98, especially if you
threw more RAM at it. XP is slower than 2000. Vista slower still.
Click to expand...

And DOS runs faster than any of them on single threaded apps, maybe we
all should downgrade.
 
joey said:
There are important operating system changes that facilitate DX10. I
don't know how much the audience here knows about operating system
design, but it is fair to say it is substantial. To make it brief, I
do not think DX10 is possible on XP without a HUGE service pack that
would effectively replace the operating system kernel (making it a
completely new OS version). Such an effort is extremely costly for
MS, and its unlikely in my opinion that they will ever make such a
dramatic "patch" for XP, because a patch implies they are providing a
huge amount of development dollars (millions) to the general public
for free. Not a smart move for any company -- best to make it a
feature of the next version of the OS which includes some other things
users might be willing to pay for -- and, if they aren't willing to
pay for an upgrade to their current PC, they are sure to get it
installed for them on their next new PC purchase.
Click to expand...

It's still a "lock-in" feature no matter which way you cut it. MS could
get DX10 to work in XP if they wanted to (shit, they MADE DirectX, they
can get it to work wherever they want), but of course their business
model requires people to get forced onto another OS just for one little
feature, otherwise they won't move willingly.
Keep in mind I'm not implying that everyone should upgrade today. My
primary gaming machine does not run Vista yet, because I am waiting
for drivers to mature and for DX10 titles to make it worth my while. I
just don't like to see users crap all over Vista for uninformed
reasons.
Click to expand...

As long as you're willing to accept people disliking Vista for their own
reasons, that's fine. They might not be in line with your own
perspective though (eg. my above perspective on DX10).
 
joey said:
And DOS runs faster than any of them on single threaded apps, maybe we
all should downgrade.
Click to expand...

DOS does not have the functionality that we require though, hence we use
newer operating systems. Convincing people to upgrade from XP to Vista
is tricky if the experience is slower without a SUFFICIENT gain in
functionality.
 
I cannot
begin to presume what is important to you, so I can't convince you that
you should upgrade to Vista right now. But, if your hardware supports
it and you plan to have the same hardware two years from now, you might
as well start using it now because getting used to it will save you from
being behind the learning curve from the rest of the corporate world.
Click to expand...

Vista has nothing I care about enough to accept the license terms under
which it is sold. After more than a decade of buying/using Windows, I
have switched to Linux. Microsoft would have to come up with something
really enticing to lure me back.

Charlie
 
joey said:
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.
Click to expand...

True, when Direct X 10 ships. I believe that is schedule for September
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
shit 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.
Click to expand...

The biggest break of the rules is Microsoft themselves. Almost every
version of Word for Windows rewrote system DLLs and required a reboot to
work. Some versions of Office would also break installed software due
to the system changes.

I remember the days when a new version of DOS would come out and Lotus
1-2-3 would stop working. The saying in those days was "DOS ain't done
till Lotus won't run."
 
FoolsGold said:
DOS does not have the functionality that we require though, hence we use
newer operating systems. Convincing people to upgrade from XP to Vista
is tricky if the experience is slower without a SUFFICIENT gain in
functionality.
Click to expand...


I would go for a separation of the OS from the GUI (more like Linux and
OS/2). Give me a version of Windows that is command line and doesnt'
have all the GUI crap. Let me run my own GUI. At least back in Windows
3.1 and NT 3.5 you could replace the Program Manager. I ran the Norton
Desktop on NT until version 4. I prefer it over anything Microsoft has
ever written.
 
Back
Top