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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista DriverDevelopment"
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:46:07 -0400, joey wrote: 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. 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. Welcome to the fold brother. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
joey wrote:
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. 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. It is more like there were substantial 3d graphics system changes to facilitate the operating system. 3d rendering is integrated in the operating system so you can have ******** 3d eye candy on your desktop, you can't even play freecell in vista without hardware 3d graphics card support. A different DX10 offering the same performance improvements in games could have been created for XP but a DX10 which integrates with vista won't fit in XP. 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 Again it is more like the next version of the OS includes other things which users are not willing to pay for but if they want DX10 they will be forced to pay for them anyway. And not just not willing to pay for them but not wanting them at all. At the moment I wouldn't install vista if they were giving it away. -- |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:18:41 +0930, FoolsGold wrote:
joey wrote: On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:35:25 GMT, Charlie Wilkes wrote: On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:12:20 -0400, joey wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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 (****, they MADE DirectX, they can get it to work wherever they want), They could, but as I said it would be an entirely new operating system at that point. There is no law regulating at what point a series of "patches" or "addons" becomes large enough to warrant calling it an entirely new operating system, that is completely up to the vendor to set nomenclature and pricing, and it is completely up to the consumer to make the decision to purchase -- to vote for their wallet. Vista has sold far more copies than XP did in its first fiscal sales quarter, so unfortunately for those hoping to avoid the inevitable upgrade, the odds are not in their favor. 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. Their business model only requires them to make money (that's what businesses do) if they want to sustain it. Making money requires offering the consumer something of added value. In the case of gamers, the added value is that DirectX 10 can perform certain operations five to ten times faster than DX 9. Unfortunately DX9 is on its way out, and the games we are playing now are based on that, so many folks don't see the need to upgrade right now -- that's fine, I'm not either on my gaming machine. But I'm not under any delusions that I will still be gaming on XP 2 years from now. Microsoft, in their ongoing quest to remain profitable, will continue to focus support on Vista, while maintaining support for XP for a couple more years. After that point, continuing to run XP is just asking for viruses and security problems. 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. 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. 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. 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). I understand fully why people dislike Vista. They see it as something that won't run their current games any better (even slower in some cases), something that requires them to re-learn how to do some of the things they were already to do without thinking, and potentially cost them more money for what they see as merely cosmetic improvements. I am only pointing out that I've heard this same argument for over 25 years with each new iteration of an operating system, and the root cause is that people resist change unless they see immediate gratification. My thought is that we will all be using Vista two years from now, so the sooner we condition ourselves to adapt to change, the better off we all are. I have no problem with the fact some people will want to run XP until the very end. But the defining moment will come with some application, or game, or a piece of hardware like a Zune or iPod or whatever is only supported on Vista will come along, and every single one of those people who feel righteous in their stand against Vista today will inevitably cave in and switch over. The only way to avoid the continuous upgrade cycle is to live like the unibomber in a cabin in the woods and swear off technology completely. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:54:08 +0100, nospam
wrote: joey wrote: 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. 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. It is more like there were substantial 3d graphics system changes to facilitate the operating system. 3d rendering is integrated in the operating system so you can have ******** 3d eye candy on your desktop, you can't even play freecell in vista without hardware 3d graphics card support. A different DX10 offering the same performance improvements in games could have been created for XP but a DX10 which integrates with vista won't fit in XP. 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 Again it is more like the next version of the OS includes other things which users are not willing to pay for but if they want DX10 they will be forced to pay for them anyway. And not just not willing to pay for them but not wanting them at all. At the moment I wouldn't install vista if they were giving it away. At the moment, sure... but this too shall pass.. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
"FoolsGold" wrote in message ... joey wrote: On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:51:48 -0400, No One wrote: joey wrote: 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. 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. And DOS runs faster than any of them on single threaded apps, maybe we all should downgrade. 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. You will need it to play DirectX-10 games. Could be some years till they arrive though. Matthias |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:58:54 -0400, No One
wrote: joey wrote: 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. True, when Direct X 10 ships. I believe that is schedule for September I think you're confused. The Direct X 10 API and infrastructure shipped with Vista. Now, your schedule mght be correct regard GAMES THAT USE DX10, and drivers from various vendors that use it. But 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. 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. You are confusing system DLLs with parts of the kernel -- they are not necessarily the same thing. And besides, as long as any OS "system DLLs", kernel code or otherwise, are updated by the vendor of the system, I have no problem with incremental updates to them, because at least the OS vendor has motiviation and obligation to fix any future applications that they provide that might get broken by future patches to the kernel. The problem comes when third party vendors overwrite system DLLs (kernel code or otherwise). They have nothing motivating them to thoroughly test the effects of their system DLL changes with every other application out there. And even if they did, its unlikely they would have the budget to do so. There is no excuse for any third party vendor to be patching the OS itself. This kind of practice occurs in the Linux world and is one reason gaming is dead on Linux - there are a gazillion different versions / distros of the OS out there, and because of all the kernel *******izations, unless your app is written in Java which is dog-slow (and not suitable for high performance game development), you pretty much have to recompile your application for every stinking *******ization of the OS out there. 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." Yes, but Microsoft has always made it very easy for other vendors to work closely with them in the evolution of their OS, such that Lotus never really had any excuse for not being right on top of upcoming breaking changes to the new version of DOS. I know, this conversation is headed towards discussion of Microsoft as the evil monopoly, and why we should usurp the power out from under the 800lb gorilla and put the power of OS ownership into the hands of the people, yada yada yada. And I would personally like to see more competition for Microsoft out there, but the reality of the "OS owned by the community" results in the Linux problem I mentioned above. Dethroning OS ownership from Microsoft has been tried before and has never succeeded, because overall they've done not too bad a job in their overall strategy to keep their OS and applicatons on everyones desktop. Nobody here reading this now is playing most of their favorite games on Linux, OS/2, Mac, etc. We are on Windows for a reason. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:09:10 -0400, No One
wrote: FoolsGold wrote: joey wrote: On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:51:48 -0400, No One wrote: joey wrote: 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. 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. And DOS runs faster than any of them on single threaded apps, maybe we all should downgrade. 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 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. Then why are you using XP right now? Think about it. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
snip
Yes, but Microsoft has always made it very easy for other vendors to work closely with them in the evolution of their OS, such that Lotus never really had any excuse for not being right on top of upcoming breaking changes to the new version of DOS. I know, this conversation is headed towards discussion of Microsoft as the evil monopoly, and why we should usurp the power out from under the 800lb gorilla and put the power of OS ownership into the hands of the people, yada yada yada. And I would personally like to see more competition for Microsoft out there, but the reality of the "OS owned by the community" results in the Linux problem I mentioned above. Dethroning OS ownership from Microsoft has been tried before and has never succeeded, because overall they've done not too bad a job in their overall strategy to keep their OS and applicatons on everyones desktop. Nobody here reading this now is playing most of their favorite games on Linux, OS/2, Mac, etc. We are on Windows for a reason. True. For PC games, Windows is still the best platform. And, with the current development of DirectX-10 games which promise next-gen realism and graphics, this will stay like this for the next couple of years. Game consoles offer a (cheaper) alternative but some games (MMORPG, RTS, adventures, ...) simply work better on PC's. Matthias |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista DriverDevelopment"
joey writes:
This kind of practice occurs in the Linux world and is one reason gaming is dead on Linux - there are a gazillion different versions / distros of the OS out there, and because of all the kernel *******izations, unless your app is written in Java which is dog-slow (and not suitable for high performance game development), you pretty much have to recompile your application for every stinking *******ization of the OS out there. This seems very odd to me. I'm not sure if you meant games when you wrote "app". However, I run commercial software on Linux on a daily basis. I even maintain a couple of Linux boxes that run commercial software, for electronics design. Now sure, vendors usually have a (short) list of Linuxes they support, but that in no way means that the software wouldn't work on other distributions. I also don't get what these "kernel *******izations" have to do with application software? I really thought applications talk to an API usually. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista Driver Development"
"AirRaid" wrote in message
ups.com... Nvidia Names Stability as Top Priority for Windows Vista Drivers [ 04/12/2007 | 10:42 PM ] An official from Nvidia, a leading designer of system chipsets and graphics processors, admitted that the company had underestimated resources it needed to develop proper drivers for Windows Vista, but said the issues would be shortly resolved. Besides, the company has outlined its priorities when developing drivers for the new operating system (OS). *snip* I'll never buy an Nvidia card again. I bought a GeForce 6800 GT AGP card 2 years ago. For the first year the driver support was good, but for the last year is has absolutely stunk. Nvidia has abandoned support of the GeForce 6 series (at least on Windows XP) for the last 6 months while they devote all their resources to the 8 series cards and Vista. My system (3.4 GHz Socket 478 Prescott Pentium 4, Abit IS7 Motherboard, the 6800 GT, and 2 Gigs of Corsair XMS PC3200 DDR) would still be plenty capable of running current games like WoW, Lord of the Rings Online, FEAR, Battlefield 2142, etc., except that games (particularly WoW and LotRO) keep crashing every 20 minutes due to the crap 6-month old drivers. |
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 |