Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Originally posted by: jasonja
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Originally posted by: jasonja
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Originally posted by: josh6079
Wrong again ... DAAMiT has both ...
And they're the only ones that have both. That's kinda my point.
So do you appear to have some kind of care in your posts. ... i made a *comment* did it need *analysis*?
What does this have to do with your claim that nVidia doesn't have the luxuries ATi has had?
If anything nVidia has more luxuries since their products have already been selling, drivers being reviewed by the masses, and a new line-up of budget cards shortly on their way. I just don't see how ATi's supposed *relations* with MS stated in a previous PR justify an advantage that isn't seen anywhere else. Nor do I see how having Vista available for consumers gives a graphic card industry more of an edge when writing drivers for said hardware, especially when such logical consumers as yourself "don't care about Vista" to begin with.
you seem to have trouble tonight *understanding* what i am saying
I know. That's why I'm asking you questions. Why you're all of the sudden typing in bold and coming off abrasive is beyond me.
Part of the reason why I'm confused is because in one thread you're giving reasons as to why not to upgrade to Vista yet. You feel those reasons to be logical and practical - ones that a good consumer can agree with. Yet in this thread you discuss how having said OS out for retail now gives ATi a month advantage in preparing drivers for it when MS have already given them kudos with it. You've displayed your opinion about ATi having more intimancy with MS's Vista in an earlier thread where their PR stated so. Therefore, I don't see how an official launch of an OS already at ATi's disposal and not worthy of upgrading to is any advantage.
The entire Vista concept was rushed. WinFS was left out. Drivers were not ready. The OS and its native API are not ready. Performance is not up to a par as a result of all these things.
I don't think we can truly blame Nvidia and AMD here. Granted AMD has more time as their DX 10 product is late (Therefore while they still need to write the drivers for their non-DX 10 cards they have extra time before anyone needs to worry about R600 drivers).
Microsoft rushed this release. A product like Vista is right now still belongs in Vista. To put it in perspective, Creative doesn't have anything but crappy (<-A given with Creative) beta drivers either.
I should not have to tell people "Wait for the drivers/API )etc...) to get finished/more mature". That is something you say in a beta product NOT a final product.
If we want to bitch at someone (As much as I respect Bill Gates) it should be Microsoft.
-Kevin
You're blamming MS for other company's driver support? If they waited for everyone else to finish their software they would never be able to ship their product. They work very hard to get driver support in the OS (even in the box) but some hardware companies just don't make the deadlines. Vista was not rushed.. it's been in development for over 4 years (that's like a lifetime in computer years!) and and Vista driver kits have been available for 2.5+ years. MS does not operate in a bubble, they work very actively with hardware companies. Also, hardware company's driver teams don't sit around waiting for hardware to write their drivers. They write the drivers using emulators (both software and FPGA emulators) while hardware development is still on going.
Performance has slumped since XP, but IMO the trade offs are worth it. Of course things like games are going to run slightly slower with the changes to Vista's graphics interface. All video memory is now virtualized and the display driver has moved into user mode. They've added serveral layers of abstraction which costs CPU cycles but at the same time this adds a lot of stability. Now your machine's video card driver can crash and the machine just stops and starts the driver. No more painful BSOD and reboots. Anytime you add more "stuff" it's going to be slower.... it's been like this with every Windows release, but as hardware gets faster you need to push the software along too. MS did their job IMO, they worked very hard to get support from companies... some succeeded while others dropped the ball. If you want to bitch at someone, it should be the company you gave your money to who's product doesn't support Vista, not MS.
I've been running the final Vista Ultimate for over 2 months now and it's working out fine. There's certainly nothing IMO you need to have Vista for just yet (well other than maybe Media Center), but once you use it for a while you really begin to appreciate some things. I hated the new Start Menu at first just because it was different but I've really begun to love it's search feature. I no longer look for things... I just type in a few characters of the app and it appears and I click.
Yes I am blaming them. Like I said, if one or two major companies didn't have stable drivers out then it would be all them. But when NOBODY has stable, good performance drivers out there (and I mean NOBODY) then you have to look at MS and ask why in the world did they do that.
You can't argue Vista wasn't rushed. They cut out WinFS just to meet a certain release date!!
As I said earlier, I should have to tell people who are using Vista "Wait until stable drivers are released", "Wait for this", "Wait for that". In a retail version of a consumer OS- that should be in place and save for a few drivers everything should be running. Those statements are for Beta's NOT for Retail.
-Kevin
Again, MS didn't do this all over night and the slap it out there and say "here you guys go, this is how it works, get it done". They wrote Vista Driver Interface and DX10 spec in heavy collaboration with ATI and Nvidia and Intel who have all had access to Vista alpha, beta, and RC builds and driver kits for YEARS!
Feature creep happens to everything... every software product (game, OS, etc) has had features cut out of it because in reality it's buisness and and some point you have to ship and make money. I'm sure parts of Vista were things they cut from XP. It happens. I can live with NTFS just fine.
Good software shouldn't have to be rewritten from the ground up. Any software company worth a damn should be writing code in a reusable fashion so that portions of the code can be shared between different classes/functions/etc.
Have you even used Vista or are you simply spouting your opinion with no personal experience? My machine performs fine, boots faster than ever and is exremely stable.
Never said that they did it over night.
This isn't about NV or AMD's capacity to write drivers and reuse them. No matter what, because of the lack of a HAL among other things the drivers needed to be rewritten from ground up for Vista.
You are saying, that despite all reviews in Vista, you haven't had a single problem, your computer somehow performs faster than it did previously. How junked up was your last install to cause it to slow down that much?
Yes they have had access to Dev Kits for a few years, but that doesn't mean they can immediately start rewriting code. The performance and bugs everyone is experiencing is evidence of that.
Again, these aren't isolated to NV or AMD. EVERYONE lacks a stable good performing reference driver (I suppose you could use the MS drivers). When every company is having problems with their drivers you then look to the source- MS.
Don't get me wrong, I think Vista is going to be a great OS. But the key words are "Going to be". MS should not have rushed everything just to meet a certain time envelope (ie: You may be fine with NTFS, but that was a major selling point they left out and some people were looking forward to WinFS)
-Kevin
Facebook
Twitter