The Register makes a solid list of reasons to upgrade to Windows Vista

[EastCoasthandle]

No, what I am saying is perfectly true. And, that's a terrible analogy. The driver model for Vista may have changed compared to XP, but the fact that real problems don't arise until you install 3rd party drivers, speaks volumes about those drivers. I personally have only had issues with 7.3 Catalysts. People complain about Creative's XiFi drivers, but how many complain about Audigy drivers? I haven't had a single issue with Audigy drivers in 4 different versions of Vista. So why do Audigy's work fine, but not XiFi's?

So what, you want them to continue to use the same driver framework in their new OS, just because companies already know it inside out? Microsoft suddenly isn't allowed to make changes in the core of their OSes?

So, YES, it is the fault of nVidia, ATI, Creative, HP, Logitech, etc., etc.

Like I said before. All the manufacturers had the final version of Vista available to them for months before we did. Plenty of time to make at least a stable driver.

The analogy is spot on and, blaming other manufactures is only an excuse for why 3rd party manufactures are having problems with vista.
Blaming every manufacture who are trying to figure out how to combat Vista's short comings is not the answer here. Specially when XP has no problems, regardless of the reasons why.

 

[Mad-Matt]

Its not the fault of any of the 3rd parties, maybe not even ms's fault either but defifnaly down to user arragance.

apart from maybe the gf8, very little if any of your purchased hardware claims any support for vista which means these companied are under no obligation to support them . any support you do get should be seen as a gesture to keep you wanting to purchase 100% supported hardware later when it is ready. its an much ms's fault that your current hardware isnt 100% compatable with vista.

So what can you do . you stick with Xp and enjoy 100% working support or you upgrade for the hell of it to vista just because its their and you take what works and dont moan that its not being supported. Its down to you and you alone if you choose vista or not, dont blame the 3rd parties.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Its not the fault of any of the 3rd parties, maybe not even ms's fault either but defifnaly down to user arragance.

apart from maybe the gf8, very little if any of your purchased hardware claims any support for vista which means these companied are under no obligation to support them . any support you do get should be seen as a gesture to keep you wanting to purchase 100% supported hardware later when it is ready. its an much ms's fault that your current hardware isnt 100% compatable with vista.

So what can you do . you stick with Xp and enjoy 100% working support or you upgrade for the hell of it to vista just because its their and you take what works and dont moan that its not being supported. Its down to you and you alone if you choose vista or not, dont blame the 3rd parties.

Good points, couldn't have said it better.

 

[WarEagleAU]

I believe Vista has huge potential. However, if what was reported here on TPU and also, reported by Ketxxx, Vista wont last as long before MS brings out their next OS. I think its either next year or the following. Its like admitting failure.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

I believe Vista has huge potential. However, if what was reported here on TPU and also, reported by Ketxxx, Vista wont last as long before MS brings out their next OS. I think its either next year or the following. Its like admitting failure.

It's admitting Vienna

 

[kureng]

this is another Microsoft's propaganda to increase the sales of Vista... since too few tech websites fully support Vista...

 

[russianboy]

Since I didn't pay for it I can say that I enjoy Vista.

 

[Helmi]

Let's see and go through these "arguments" one by one...

• UAC- It really makes the OS more secure, and despite how annoyed you may get with it, you have to admit it's a step in the right direction.

Yes, annoying to the point that it gets switched off.
Granted, it's not really MS' problem that application programmers can't seem to makew their software run under a non-Admin account.
Or maybe it is had they enforced it earlier so it didn't become that common...

• Windows Aero- It's pretty and easy. Enough said.

Pretty easy, huh?
How is the look an argument to switch?
Firstly, I can achieve a quite similar look under XP and secondly I am still running the Classic Theme.

• It comes with better bundled software- All the programs that come pre-loaded with Windows are either old favorites, or very new programs with great features.

As there were?
The Calculator still does an ok job (it lacks any graphical output, though).
The rest of the stuff got replaced by (mostly Open Source) third party ones.

• Vista Live = Xbox Live for the PC. Really.

I don't care. Really.

• Halo 2- What Halo fans have been waiting for over the years is finally coming to the PC. And it looks better than most of us imagined.

Ditto.

• DirectX10 API- All new games/ graphics cards will eventually be exclusively for DX10 and Vista, so we better get used to it.

Get used to it because MS forces us to it and offers no alternative?
As a true fanboi would!
Also, I doubt that the GFX cards won't be backwards compatible...

• Windows Vista search functions- Windows indexing the everything really helps when you misplace something.

Ok, maybe. They still dropped WinFS :/

• Windows Firewall- It's pretty good this time around, if you need a firewall.

I don't.

• Lots of pretty hardware/laptops are coming out that are designed just for Vista.

Hurray, HW that is specifically designed for just one OS is certainly a must-buy factor.
I'd rather spend my money on HW that is allround compatible and adatps to common standards.

• Microsoft is pushing for a complete move to Windows Vista, hence, they'll drop support for everything older just like they did for Windows 9x and ME.

Great, once again forcing us to.
How is this going to willingly switch over, huh?

I'm not saying I will never switch.
But you got to admit, these "arguments" are laughable at best.
They got to try harder to convince me.
As it looks, the best choice is to continue using XP and wait for Vienna to come around, then do the switch (and finally to 64bit while you're at it).

 

[russianboy]

All I can say: WAREZ FTW!

 

[tony929292]

The analogy is spot on and, blaming other manufactures is only an excuse for why 3rd party manufactures are having problems with vista.
Blaming every manufacture who are trying to figure out how to combat Vista's short comings is not the answer here. Specially when XP has no problems, regardless of the reasons why.

regerdless of this reason too
when xp came out or even before sp2 run there r atleast a 100 important upadtes ms recommends that took 5 years to complete
how many people use xp with sp2 = none cause to much changes
1 could make the argument that window 2000 has no problems too

and helmi
^the firewall on vista is just as good as xp^ i do mess my nvidia firewall that i used under xp

off topic gut this reminds me off this whole site saying amd the best and i will never use a intel lets my prediction is the same will happen with this

 

[Helmi]

and helmi
^the firewall on vista is just as good as xp^ i do mess my nvidia firewall that i used under xp

I have actually nothing to say against the XP FW.

My comment was the answer on whether I needed one and I don't.
Hardware FW (router) FTW.

 

[tony929292]

My comment was the answer on whether I needed one and I don't.
Hardware FW (router) FTW.

i know
but you said you dont know about the firewall just passing on the info you didnt know

 

[russianboy]

Paradox BIOS, the answer to all of your Vista woes.

 

[Helmi]

i know
but you said you dont know about the firewall just passing on the info you didnt know

Well, thanks for the info, but I don't remember having said that I didn't know

 

[Wile E]

Its not the fault of any of the 3rd parties, maybe not even ms's fault either but defifnaly down to user arragance.

apart from maybe the gf8, very little if any of your purchased hardware claims any support for vista which means these companied are under no obligation to support them . any support you do get should be seen as a gesture to keep you wanting to purchase 100% supported hardware later when it is ready. its an much ms's fault that your current hardware isnt 100% compatable with vista.

So what can you do . you stick with Xp and enjoy 100% working support or you upgrade for the hell of it to vista just because its their and you take what works and dont moan that its not being supported. Its down to you and you alone if you choose vista or not, dont blame the 3rd parties.

I don't know if this was targeted towards me or not, but I'm gonna respond anyway. I never said my hardware wasn't supported by Vista, My hardware is supported by Vista. The only driver I had an issue with was ATI 7.3s, but 7.1 and 7.2 work without issue. I fail to see how it's Vista's fault, as many people like to suggest it is. If a manufacturer says their hardware is supported, or Vista ready, but the drivers crash or cause blue screens, that's a legitimate gripe against the hardware manufacturer. It isn't, however, a legitimate gripe against Vista itself. The OS is not at fault for poor driver coding, PERIOD.

 

[Mad-Matt]

I don't know if this was targeted towards me or not, but I'm gonna respond anyway. I never said my hardware wasn't supported by Vista, My hardware is supported by Vista. The only driver I had an issue with was ATI 7.3s, but 7.1 and 7.2 work without issue. I fail to see how it's Vista's fault, as many people like to suggest it is. If a manufacturer says their hardware is supported, or Vista ready, but the drivers crash or cause blue screens, that's a legitimate gripe against the hardware manufacturer. It isn't, however, a legitimate gripe against Vista itself. The OS is not at fault for poor driver coding, PERIOD.

It was not targeted, just my opinion. but in responce to the above post id just like to add its very much a fault of vista os when microsoft themselvs have passed these drivers through WHQL certification.

so with the drivers still being faulty, i can only sumise that the MS seal of approval doesnt mean shit .

 

[EastCoasthandle]

I guess it's easy to lay down a API and tell somebody else to write drivers for it

 

[Wile E]

so with the drivers still being faulty, i can only sumise that the MS seal of approval doesnt mean shit .

That I can agree with. It really doesn't mean squat. You pay a fee, and they give you the seal, simple as that. That is MS's fault. But it still doesn't put Vista at fault, it puts MS management at fault, in combination with poor driver coding from manufacturers.

I guess it's easy to lay down a API and tell somebody else to write drivers for it

Apparently it is. Again, manufacturers had the final API available to them months ahead of time. Plenty of time to make something stable.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

That I can agree with. It really doesn't mean squat. You pay a fee, and they give you the seal, simple as that. That is MS's fault. But it still doesn't put Vista at fault, it puts MS management at fault, in combination with poor driver coding from manufacturers.

Apparently it is. Again, manufacturers had the final API available to them months ahead of time. Plenty of time to make something stable.

Manufactures are not responsible for someone else's API. In all honesty (even if it appears unintended) only shows that 3rd party manufactures are not as dependant to Vista as everyone claims them to be. Therefore, it's apparent that the success of Vista is in the hands of the manufactures.

 

[russianboy]

Interesting view, however I am running Vista w/o any drives (save a few) because Vista finds all the stuff automatically, perhaps one day the need to download/install drivers will be eliminated?

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Interesting view, however I am running Vista w/o any drives (save a few) because Vista finds all the stuff automatically, perhaps one day the need to download/install drivers will be eliminated?

That's what I would think. Why buy a new OS and blame 3rd party manufactures for not supplying driver support for someone else's API?
ATI
Nvidia
Sound Blaster
Logitech
HP
etc
Are all having problems for one reason or another. It's a hypocritical view IMO to blame them for not figuring out someone's API when MS could supply their own. Now that it's clear you are doing just that, why is everyone else blaming 3rd party manufactures? Why not do what russianboy did and just live with it? I am not reading post "If MS can do it why can't ..." Why don't the moaners and complainers just settle for what MS has to offer? I mean it is their own API and they would know how to make a driver work! If that's the case then the whole concept of "blame the manufactures" has been discredited.

Sidenote:
When I upgraded from Win2k to XP I used the same drivers I had from Win2k without any problems

 

[ex_reven]

it would have been interesting if microsoft employed a proper security company to design their windows defences (firewall, etc) - for the highest bidder

Exclusive rights to design security for vista would have driven some of those companies crazy

 

[Wile E]

That's what I would think. Why buy a new OS and blame 3rd party manufactures for not supplying driver support for someone else's API?
ATI
Nvidia
Sound Blaster
Logitech
HP
etc
Are all having problems for one reason or another. It's a hypocritical view IMO to blame them for not figuring out someone's API when MS could supply their own. Now that it's clear you are doing just that, why is everyone else blaming 3rd party manufactures? Why not do what russianboy did and just live with it? I am not reading post "If MS can do it why can't ..." Why don't the moaners and complainers just settle for what MS has to offer? I mean it is their own API and they would know how to make a driver work! If that's the case then the whole concept of "blame the manufactures" has been discredited.

Sidenote:
When I upgraded from Win2k to XP I used the same drivers I had from Win2k without any problems

You're completely missing my point. Vista has a new API, but that isn't a fault. Driver stability issues from 3rd party manufacturers CANNOT BE BLAMED ON VISTA! It's the same exact thing as trying to blame a bum driver for XP on XP itself.

You point out that you migrated from 2000 to XP with the same drivers. What does that have to do with Vista? Is MS supposed to never change their APIs because manufacturer's are used to it? What about when we went from NT4 based systems to 2000 and up? Did the driver transition go as smooth as your 2000-XP experience? I don't believe for a second that the concept of "blame the manufacturers" has been discredited.

And fyi, the MS drivers that apply to my hardware work fine, they're just not fully featured. So it's suddenly the responsibility of MS to provide us with fully featured drivers for all possible hardware? When did that happen? And why doesn't that train of thought apply to XP? When somebody gets a bad driver for XP, I don't hear them blaming XP, so why, then, do people blame Vista for a bad driver?

Last time stating this, the manufacturers of our hardware had the API available for testing many months before the OS released. Why are some drivers nice and stable, while other aren't? And if one driver works flawlessly, but another doesn't, how, again, is this Vista's fault?

 

[ex_reven]

Last time stating this, the manufacturers of our hardware had the API available for testing many months before the OS released. Why are some drivers nice and stable, while other aren't? And if one driver works flawlessly, but another doesn't, how, again, is this Vista's fault?

Thats the difference between good hardware companies and shit ones

 

[Easy Rhino]

some of you are saying MS will be out with a new OS in a couple years??????