Print 130 comment(s) - last by FaceMaster.. on Jul 2 at 12:13 PM

Microsoft is looking to learn from its past difficulties and is pushing hardware partners to adopt a more proactive approach

Last week, after months of tight-lipped silence, Microsoft debuted Windows 7 to the press in a keynote at the Californian D6 conference.  The new operating system was clearly explained not to be a new architecture from Windows Vista, but rather an iterative improvement on Windows Server 2008 and Vista code.

The new OS will heavily tout "multi-touch" capabilities, similar to the iPhone.  In its current design, it also features an OS X-like dock, which marks a departure from the standard Windows start bar.  Other changes seemed mainly cosmetic, but Windows is promising even with the rushed product delivery cycle, when Windows 7 is released in 2009, it will provide many new useful services.

As Microsoft's top leaders, Chairman and founder Bill Gates and Chief Executive Steve Ballmer, have publicly committed to moving the release date up from 2010 to 2009, Microsoft has begun an early drive to urge hardware manufacturers to begin developing their drivers and testing them on upcoming beta versions of the OS.

By testing the beta versions of the OS, Microsoft hopes to avoid one of the major problems that plagued Windows Vista's early days, particularly those of the 64-bit version -- driver incompatibility.  Microsoft is adopting a carrot and stick approach for driver testing.  Hardware manufacturers who fail to heed Microsoft's bidding won't qualify for Microsoft's Windows Logo certified compatibility program for Windows 7 or Vista.  In a bulletin (PDF) Microsoft states, "Beginning with the first beta of Windows 7 all Windows Vista submissions must include a complete CPK with tests logs from Windows 7."

When Microsoft mentions CPK, they are talking about the electronics testing process. 

While the exact release date of the first beta has not been announced to the public, it is likely to land within a few months.  This would allow hardware manufacturers forewarning to prepare to do Microsoft's bidding.

While Microsoft’s new stance on hardware may seem a bit harsh or dictatorial, it does promise to help ensure less compatibility issues.  To date, issues persist in Vista.  DailyTech previous reported how certain chipsets are incompatible with Windows Vista Service Pack 1, preventing users from receiving valuable security patches and bugfixes.

It seems clear, though, that while Microsoft doesn't want to toss out the Windows Vista base code, it has learned from some of Vista's most salient mistakes.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 10:02:38 AM , Rating: 3
At least you can't claim MS doesn't listen to their customers. They're taking the long xp to vista gap seriously for sure, though to be honest starting with 2000 I was hoping to see longer gaps between windows releases. It seems like an OS can stay relivent longer these days, heck as much as I like vista you'd have to be a fool to say XP isn't at all relivent in today's world.

I hope that with Windows 7 we see further refinements to the UAC system... Specifically I want to see installers not auto-prompt, I want to see installers run at the users account level and for users to be forced to manually elevate permissions if it is required.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 10:19:02 AM , Rating: 4
If UAC didn't prompt for installers then it would allow malicious programs to install without a prompt. Personally UAC doesn't bother me enough to warrant turning it off. I'd rather have the protection there and not need it, than need it and not have it.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 10:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
Ummmmm.... Ok... But since it prompts it *WILL* allow malicious software to be in with administrator credentials! If it didn't prompt malware couldn't install with any better credentials than what the user runs at. This is a simple change I made to my families old Windows 2000 machine and it went from getting over run with malware with in 3 mo of a reinstall to surviving 3 years with out a single hiccup.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 11:02:48 AM , Rating: 4
It will only install if people hit continue. Then it is a user error, not an OS error. Do not blame the ignorance of the consumer on Microsoft.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 11:21:22 AM , Rating: 4
UAC prompts often enough that users will hit continue with out thinking about it, reducing UAC to a security blanket.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By VashHT on 6/3/2008 1:50:13 PM , Rating: 3
That's a big exaggeration, the only time UAC pops up for me on a daily basis is when I run something set to run in admin mode (pickuplistchecker). Other than that it never comes up with daily use.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 1:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
It depends on your habbits, my computing needs nessesitate a UCA prompt at least once daily since I'm a software developer. Yes I realize that not everyone is a software developers and in many cases users will not run into UAC prompts that often, but still, it's too easy for end users to install malware on to vista. Keeping UAC but having the behaviour match a more traditional elevation scheme would go along way towards making vista more secure (irl) and push for better 3rd party software products.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By kkwst2 on 6/3/2008 3:41:00 PM , Rating: 3
It's still not clear to me what you're suggesting. Are you just saying that UAC prompts for too many things? For me, it only promps for programs I have to run with administrator access, or on installations.

What specific situations are you suggesting that UAC prompts inappropriately. While I agree that it's annoying, I'm not sure I see that it's prompting excessively.

I also agree that many people (my wife, teenager) will likely just accept all the prompts without thinking/reading. That's why I keep a separate box for myself. I haven't released my Vista box into the wild yet.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 3:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what isn't clear about what I'm posting but I'll simplify...

There should be no automatic prompting for program installation, this includes the installation of ActiveX components. If such a task requires greater permissions than what your user account offers the installation rutine should FAIL! If a user desires to install an application which requires greater than permissions than what they have access to, they should beforced to run the installer as administrator via right click "Run as administrator" command.

Due to their nature this won't work for activex on the web, there for in this case there should be a "allow UAC prompting" under security which would activate UAC prompts in MSIE allowing activex components which require greater than standard user permissions (like flash) to be installed. But default this security setting should be set to off (which would encourage adobe to rewrite flash).

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 5:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
1. As I said elsewhere, it's obvious you have little awareness or regard for "usability."

2. WTF should Adobe re-write Flash? And what technology, prey tell, would be better than ActiveX? ActiveX is perfect for plug-ins like Flash.

ActiveX is needly maligned by people like you who dream of some alternative implementation that is as small and efficient. So what if ActiveX requires Windows - that's the OS we're all running anyway!

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By daInvincibleGama on 6/3/2008 10:12:27 PM , Rating: 1
Flash doesn't use ActiveX. ActiveX is the most shittily executed design for a web interaction platform that was ever made. There is also an alternative. It's called Java.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 11:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

1. The Flash player, i.e., "Shockwave Flash Object" is implemented as an ActiveX control (Flash9f.ocx) when used with Internet Explorer.

2. ActiveX was not designed as a "web interaction platform." It was designed as an integration method for Windows software. Later on it was recognized that it could be effectively leveraged by Windows-based machines to deliver a rich interactive experience within web browsers. There are tons of ActiveX controls, and Flash in particular, which is implemented in ActiveX, delivers obviously a very high level of inteactivity and animation. Actually, this is the very reason Flash is so popular, and that wouldn't ever have happened without ActiveX. In fact, nearly all higly interactive web content besides AJAX uses ActiveX.

3. Java. Sorry, Java for web inteactivity, while very feasible, has never been as successful as Flash+ActiveX. In fact, interactive functionality implemented in Java is going the way of the dinosaur on the web. Most computers don't even have a JRE loaded any more. (Javascript is obviously a different story, but that's not the same as Java, as I'm sure you know.)

By Locutus465 on 6/4/2008 12:57:00 AM , Rating: 2
1). You have no concept of security nor usability, UAC as is was more designed to annoy (per microsoft) than anything else. If you're willing to accept a security blanket in the name of not on rare occation having to right click an installer and choose "run as administrator" then you're just plain silly.

2). Options = silverlight, java....

3). WTF are you talking about??? What pray tell are people like me? I happen to be a huge microsoft and in fact Vista supporter!!! I've defended vista and microsoft to the hilt in these forums! The fact is I'm not wearing blindres like some of you, I'm willing to accept that while Windows Vista is an excellent peice of code as a whole that there are, in fact portions of it which could use some refinement. UAC is one of those area's, the basic implementation is solid, but some design aspects need to be tweaked.

Want to know another area of Vista that could use improvement? The DRM system & Media Center. When I performed my motherboard upgrade a while ago these two systems were unable to recover (unlike the rest of the OS). I got DRM working again but not MC... Oh well, in the real world I accept that nothing is absolutly perfect and make my judgments accordingly.

Vista is great, but it's not perfect. Adjusting UAC to be a real security measure would make it better than it is now, but it still wouldn't be absolutly perfect, why? Because nothing in this world is 100% absolutly perfect!!!

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Lerianis on 6/4/2008 12:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, being a self-proclaimed Microsoft 'fanboy'.... I have to agree.

UAC prompts WAY too much sometimes. When a person has specifically ran a program that requires elevation once before, UAC should remember that and automatically run it, as long as it is in the same location on the drive.
If it isn't, then it should prompt again.

I see this all the time with running CCleaner and Tweaknow Registry Cleaner Professional, where I see UAC boxes every single time I run them.... sometimes, I want to SLAP myself or beat my head on the desk where my computer is because of that.

By inighthawki on 6/5/2008 5:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
Just remembering the location of it is not enough. It would have to 'at least' monitor the modification of the file as well, since anyone or any program can go in and replace the executable with a malicious copy at any time. If the malicious code was good enough it would easily be able to run enough code to modify the exe into its own malicious code through normal behavior (not setting off uac, ex web code) or be able to detect these settings from a dual boot OS without protection and in turn take over that as well.

i don't know what u guys are complaining about anyway. Doing many things that require admin privileges, i only see the prompt several times at most, all of which take all of 1-2 seconds to click continue, assuming you're not mentally handicapped...(notice to those who havent figured it out yet, with the execption of starting applications through the run command, the security box always appears right in the middle and you can move your cursor there to click continue as it takes the .01 seconds to load the box.)

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Elementalism on 6/3/2008 11:12:20 AM , Rating: 2
btw you can already do what you want by running with a user level account. It will prompt for administrator credentials instead of the popup asking to continue.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 11:20:34 AM , Rating: 3
Except it will still automatically prompt for an installation... This isn't what I want, I want it not to prompt at all and run the installer as your user level. C:\Program Files should not be a protected dir, MS should move system critical software out of this directory and leave it mainly as a "3rd party" applications directory.

By Lerianis on 6/4/2008 12:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
C:\Program Files should not be a protected dir, MS should move system critical software out of this directory and leave it mainly as a "3rd party" applications directory.

THANK YOU, someone has a brain here. I never thought about that before you said it, but you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. They should just leave C:\Program Files as a 3rd party and non-system critical software directory.

Though, according to something I saw from Microsoft, the only reason why C:\Program Files on Vista is protected: because Windows Mail is in there and the 'common files' directory is in there.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By TomZ on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 11:18:04 AM , Rating: 2
Where did I say writing to C:\Windows and to the registry shouldn't require elevation? Learn to read, I specifically stated that the user should be forced to *MANUALLY* elevate if required, i.e. if the developer of app for some reason decides they need to write data to a protected OS resource like the OS installation dir or system registry. Otherwise the installer runs at user levels and only has access to directories a user would normally have access to...

C:\Program Files shouldn't be protected, MS should install system software in a directory other than this (for example MSIE should not be there) if they want it to be protected.

This would have 2 effects, firstly it would be a real security enhanment rather than really just being a security blanket. Secondly it would discourage 3rd party developers from messing around in the Windows Sys dir and sys registry when they really don't need to be.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 11:25:12 AM , Rating: 1
OK, so you basically agree with how Vista's UAC is implemented, since it works almost exactly as you describe. So I guess I don't understand the point you are trying to make...

Also, apps should never write to C:\Program Files - I disagree with you there. Only installers should do that. Apps should write their data to proper locations.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 11:35:20 AM , Rating: 2
Apps should be writing to C:\ProgramData, and no I don't agree with how UAC is currently implemented.... As implemented you *CAN NOT* run an installer, or even install an MSIE plugin with out being prompted for an privileges elevation. If you click continue, you're officially consenting to allow whatever is trying to install to be installed in administrative mode. There's no way around this as implemented, you must install everything in vista with administrative privileges.

I disagree with this, everything by default should be getting installed in vista *WITH OUT* administrative privileges. If an application requires admin to install, then the installation should fail unless the user takes the time to manually run the installer as administrator.

As far as MSIE plugins go, there should be an Internet option to allow or not allow UAC prompts, the vast majority of plugins should be able to install with non-admin privs just fine, for the few that do the user should have to make a contious choice to allow prompting.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Laitainion on 6/3/2008 2:23:24 PM , Rating: 4
I can't disagree with you more!

MSIE extensions should require admin to install because a plugin can open up security holes in IE and worse throw IE out of its sandbox (Flash for example). In fact, because of this Flash is becoming a security problem, there have been 2 flaws discovered in the last 2 weeks alone.

As annoying as it can be to require admin for installing every program, I tend to agree that there should be some check. Maybe it should do what .net programs do, which is tell the framework what permissions they need to run. If the profile allows this, it gets them. That way a prompt could be given to give the installer only (for instance) access to the registry, or whatever. That way an installer isn't just running as a user, or as an admin but in some middle ground albeit by making the situation even more complicated for the majority of end users.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 2:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
Like I said, most plugin's should *not* require admin privs. If a plugin is going to require access to some feature of IE that would in some way compramise the browsing expreince Windows/IE should deny installation of the plugin unless the user specifically allows for prompts.

By auto prompting all plugins you abstract the real danger from the users. It's just another yes dialoge.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 3:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree completely. Normal browsing will not cause plug-ins to be installed. It is only when the user does certain things, like go to the Adobe site to install Flash for example, that they expect and want plug-ins to get installed. Therefore, I don't think the prompt in that case is too much of a burden.

On the other hand, browser plug-ins are powerful enough that they can and have been used to completely take control of the computer for nefarious purposes. So when I'm browsing a site where I don't expect a plug-in to get installed, I sure as heck DO want a prompt.

The options you seem to advocate - silently accept or silently reject/fail browser plug-ins - are bad from security and usability perspectives, respectively. Both are unacceptable approaches from the past, and we (most of us) know better now.

You also seem to imply another alternative which is that "good" plug-ins automatically install and "bad" plug-in automatically fail. Unfortunately, we're just not there yet in terms of being able to make a yes/no decision for every plug-in in all circumstances for all users.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 3:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
If you beleive this then you shouldn't be disturbed by the idea that plugin installation would then be running as a normal user account.

I'm curious what you beleive I'm trying to say... Are you some how under the impression I'm suggesting microsoft get rid of UAC? If so you're 1000% wrong (yes, 1000). I'm suggesting UAC be rewritten to make permissions elevation less automatic and more deliberate on the part of the user.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By TomZ on 6/3/08, Rating: 0
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 3:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's my opionion that your wrong about this... For starters part of my changes would include making program files not protected, or in otherwords access to this directory would no longer require elevation. This means that as long as an application doesn't need to access a critical system resource, there would not be the need for prompting in the first place.

The major difference my change would make is that those applciations that absolutly require registry access or access to the windows dir would need to include a short blurbe about usage of the right click run as administrator function. Since most publishers will want to avoid this, it would encourage them to consider writing their application in such a way that doesn't encourage microsoft to make design deceissions which put Windows as a whole at risk.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By kkwst2 on 6/3/2008 3:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
Should have read further. Now I get what you're saying.

However, aren't most programs still expected to modify the registry? I thought that most of the copy protection schemes, etc. were still tied to the registry to some extent. I'm not sure you're going to get developers to buy into the idea of not changing the registry.

Furthermore, users are going to be pissed if they can't just insert the CD and install the program they just bought. Users who can't find the "Any" key are likey not going to figure out manually elevating to administrative access.

I get your point and agree that UAC is probably less effective than we (or Microsoft) would like to think.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 4:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
Actually quite the oppisite, microsoft is now trying to discourage the use of the system registry (while at the same time encouraging the use of .Net over MFC). As far as copy protection goes in the past registry keys were used for this purpose but frankely it's a fairly ineffective security measure, any user with some knowlege of windows can figure out how to comb the registry for copy protection schemes and delete the associated program keys which works 99% of the time.

Probably a better method for copy protection would be to extend the vista DRM system to include application DRM, this would help greatly in many application classes like video games for instance (just think, bioshock might not have needed spyware!!).

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 5:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually quite the oppisite, microsoft is now trying to discourage the use of the system registry

That's a myth... I challenge you to find a Microsoft document that makes that statement. I've pretty steeped in Microsoft technology, and I've never seen that guidance.

In fact, as you probably well know, .NET has comprehensive support for applications reading and writing the registry. Such functions are not depreciated. For example, here is a link to the RegistryKey class in .NET 3.5, and you'll see no guidance to not use this functionality:

It is fair to say, however, that Microsoft has provided an alternate mechanism for storing application settings. But they have not said that developers should use this instead of the registry for new applications.

RE: A bit soon for my tastes but...
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 3:13:07 PM , Rating: 4
You do realize that nearly every program in Windows modifies the registry upon install right? Which by your definition should be done in administrator mode. So every installer has to run in administrator mode.

UAC exists because in XP, you can have something get installed without even knowing it. Now, you know. Nothing can be installed without you knowing. If you choose to be an ignorant dimwit who just clicks continue without reading what is happening, that's your fault. But the feature has a purpose.

And besides, how often do you install things? And the vast majority of programs don't require a prompt when starting either. Sure Visual Studio 2005 does but I can live with it. Vista isn't really designed for advanced users. It's designed for people like my dad who should work doing real world testing of anti-virus and anti-spam software because they're the people who really, really need it.

By Locutus465 on 6/3/2008 3:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
Which is a bad programming habbit which should end... In fact it's yet another thing microsoft is working towards if you keep up with all the latest interviews done with their OS team.

By mars777 on 6/3/2008 4:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that nearly every program in Windows modifies the registry upon install right? Which by your definition should be done in administrator mode. So every installer has to run in administrator mode.

Read and write to the registry is permitted without administrator rights as long as you write only to the HKCU branch, thus installation of such software is only for the current user.

There is a catch though, you have to install the software to a place that the current normal user permission allow (ie User folder, or other folder defined in user rights).

This is a linux way of doing, and is perhaps more secure.

But linux uses libraries wich get installed by the admin and programs use them (and share) from the ground up. In windows for this scenario there is no such thing so this is not acceptable because programs would clutter disk space in a brutal way by installing the same dlls many times or would actually require admin right to put them in a system folder (negating the whole discussion).

Think of this scenario:

I (as admin) install linux, and choose to install the transcode libraries giving the system full support for video encoding.

Now any user of the machine can install one of the many apps (frontends) which use transcode. And each one of them can video encode in his own way.

Try to replicate this on windows? Impossible. Every video encoding app will install its own dll's because each one of them has copyrights and trademarks, only the most common dlls will be installed as shared but the installation will still require admin rights to write to the Program Files folder or the HKLM branch of the registry :)

By eye smite on 6/4/2008 12:12:09 PM , Rating: 1
I'll agree they're listening to a degree, but MS has done the same thing with Vista that they've done in the past, tried to force what people don't want down their throats, and they're just re-learning the same thing they learned before. Also, why do they always have to put pictures of Balmer in these articles. I'd probably keep from losing my lunch if they'd just use the windows logo and let Steve be the troll he is somewhere else.

By jconan on 6/9/2008 8:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
hopefully the vista base code isn't all DRM trodden... wonder what could that be?

Blame the Manufacturers
By Cobra Commander on 6/3/2008 10:02:02 AM , Rating: 4
Vista had an unprecedented Beta process. The manufacturers were given the most time to work on their drivers for any Windows release. I find it difficult to pin responsibility on Microsoft for 3rd party mistakes.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By DEVGRU on 6/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By Elementalism on 6/3/2008 11:15:44 AM , Rating: 5
Microsoft provides the manufacturers with documentation but they still failed. Manufacturers are at fault for not being able to write drivers for their devices. And many of the devices were softeware like AV scanners. These manufactuers have been expoliting the security model in 2k\xp for years and were allowed to be lazy. Now Vista closes these gaps and they cry foul. This should have been fixed 8 years ago with Windows 2000.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 11:18:22 AM , Rating: 5
Pure FUD that is. Microsoft did change the Video device driver model, and they made some improvements in the sound stack, but other than that, the driver model is the same, i.e., unchanged for the vast majority of drivers.

Don't get me wrong - companies making Video cards did have a lot of work to do in order to update and/or re-write their drivers for Vista. But these are (a) large companies with large revenue streams from these products, and (b) Microsoft bent over backwards to help them out.

And it's also interesting that some companies seem to have no problem writing drivers that work well in Vista, while others appear to struggle. I think it shows a different level of commitment personally. Microsoft has in general done a really good job supporting developers on its platform, and that includes device drivers.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By jvillaro on 6/3/2008 12:18:24 PM , Rating: 4
Exatly... Creative anyone??? They didn't want to make new drivers so all the customers got skrewed. They wanted to sell us new "vista compatible" cards. Good thing the people are letting them know what they think.

Personaly I think vista went in the wrong direccion, windows 7 will be an evolution but only posible because of the changes vista is imposing.
Maybe you believe it or not, but thanks to this we're going to get better minimum level (integrated) grafics and sound. Also all those new driver models aim to correct one of the most complicated for the windows PCs, standarize and stabilize all hardware. You now that one of the "advantages" on Mac is that it's a closed platform and it controls every thing that goes into there machines, thats ensures stability by using controlled drivers.
So hopefully it will payof and if third party smart up and comply with atleast the minimum requirements of the vista/windows7 driver models whe will end up with better and more stable components.

By the way I'm using vista 64 and have no issues, only 2 pieces of hardware (usb soundcard and usb bluetooth adapter) don't work but it's because the companys are not commited to make the the drivers the last time I checked.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 12:46:54 PM , Rating: 5
LOL I love the spin from MS. Like its hardware companies fault for the crappy API they released for Vista ?

What are you talking about when you speak of the "crappy API they released for Vista"? ...or is that just FUD?
Somehow these same hardware manufactures did a fine job, in most cases, on ever other OS coming down the pike. With most of them providing hardware for all three major OS's. But I guess on Vista they just decided to slack off ? Uhhh no, I don't think so.

Yeah, right... you mean like when XP came out and seemingly every multimedia device vendor had to release new driver and even product versions for XP because their Win9x and Win2K stuff wouldn't work in XP? I think you have a short memory.

For example, I had a nice ATI AIW card that worked great on Win2K, but it never worked in XP, and ATI promised for a long time they would support it, but then they never did. Sound familiar?

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 1:38:45 PM , Rating: 4
Microsoft decided to re invent the wheel for no reason and the burden of work was placed on Creatives lap. You realize they are running a business right ?

What do you mean for no reason...?

Let's turn that around. Microsoft is running a business. Do you think they would invest all that money in re-writing the sound stack for no reason at all? Think about it... Better yet, read up on the new stack...

And if you read about it, you'll realize one of the problems that Creative has with the Vista sound stack, which is that it moves a lot of functionality off of Creative's card and puts it right into the OS, in software, for "free." That makes it a lot harder for Creative to justify the value of "high-end" sound cards.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 2:15:30 PM , Rating: 4
I don't know. Last time I checked Creative virtually stands alone on top of the sound card market. So does Windows in the OS market. But how are their Vista sales looking ?

Sounds like "my daddy can beat up your daddy," and I can't understand the logic behind that argument.
Oh of course. The anti capitalists conspiracy theory. Which probably has some truth to it, but could it be possible the project was larger and more complex to be finalized in the given time ?

Although I was not involved personally, I can just about guarantee that the folks who worked on that code had a lot more features and optimizations they wanted to include, but there was limited time and budget. This is COMPLETELY NORMAL for software development, engineering, and many other human endeavors. We all have great ideas that we don't have the resources to realize them to completion.
Actually I tried. Do you have a link ?

Just use Google and add "MSDN" into your search,as as in "msdn audio vista." That pulls up a lot of non-sh!t information. :o)

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2008 6:56:40 PM , Rating: 1
Sounds like "my daddy can beat up your daddy," and I can't understand the logic behind that argument.

Ah I can see how that came out that way. My apologies. I meant to illustrate the point that the whole " Creative sucks " crowd is a small minority of Vista users who expected the world to revolve around them. Did anyone honestly expect a seamless transition to a completely different audio environment and driver model ? Apparently some did...

Although I was not involved personally, I can just about guarantee that the folks who worked on that code had a lot more features and optimizations they wanted to include, but there was limited time and budget. This is COMPLETELY NORMAL for software development, engineering, and many other human endeavors. We all have great ideas that we don't have the resources to realize them to completion.

Its equally COMPLETELY NORMAL for developers to go over budget, deadlines, and make a product with bugs and mistakes. Whats your point ?

Again, this wasn't a product Creative was working on. This was something they HAD to do because Microsoft decided to completely tear down and rebuild how sound devices integrated with the OS. I know the end user wants it to " just work " and not have to deal with the realities and difficulties of software/hardware development. Obviously if you read my quote from Creative you would realize that what you or I would call " plenty of time " to get things done doesn't mean thats the case.

Just like people in these threads on DT who rampantly support every OS from now on only supporting 64bit and damn the consequences because it won't effect them personally. Apathy can go both ways.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By Etsp on 6/9/2008 4:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
I meant to illustrate the point that the whole " Creative sucks " crowd is a small minority of Vista users


People have been bitching about shitty Creative and their shitty bloatware drivers for far longer than Vista has been out, or even in beta. Fact is Creative had gotten complacent about its drivers because of its dominant position in the marketplace. However that position is changing, and it's about damn time too.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By jvillaro on 6/3/2008 5:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes did not want to make them. Microsoft gave them all the info they needed long time before release and all most every other manufacturer did their homework. Creative did not. If you read DailyTech and other tech sites you would have read many news related to this and most recently about the hacker that made his custom drivers that made it work and also unblocked features that Creative left without use in their drivers.

And for the other post you made above... To this date their are still companies making bad and buggy drivers for Windows XP (not even ATI or NVIDIA have made perfect drivers after all this time). Another mayor hardware manufacturer, Logitech, hasn't made correct drivers for MAC so you can't get all functions of some mouses, just to mention one when you say that all is perfect and 3rd party have been able to make good drivers for the three platforms.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2008 7:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
Jvillaro I totally agree. I said before Creative made a really bad call blocking 3'rd parties from making solid drivers for their products.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By Tuor on 6/3/2008 6:44:30 PM , Rating: 4
Microsoft held a meeting where they invited 3rd party companies to show up and talk about driver support. Microsoft told them that they would have their Windows engineers there to help them out and answer any questions they may have.

Only one company sent anyone: Google. Everyone else blew it off.

The issues with drivers are not, IMO, primarily Microsoft's fault. If we want the OSes MS makes to evolve, they will have to make changes, including changes to how drivers work. They tried to bring the companies involved in to make it as painless as possible. Most driver creation/support is the responsibility of the company that makes the driver, not MS.

So, I don't see how people can go and blame Microsoft for what happened with Vista. Myself: I blame the companies that failed to do their due dilligence and then dishonestly tried to turn around and point the finger at Microsoft.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By AssBall on 6/3/2008 7:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
In XP you barely EVER had to get a third party driver. In Vista you always have to use one.

Eh??! My experience has been contradictory to this statement. Plug and play on Vista has worked much more reliably than all other MS OS's so far for me.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2008 7:34:21 PM , Rating: 1
Eh??! My experience has been contradictory to this statement. Plug and play on Vista has worked much more reliably than all other MS OS's so far for me.

Lucky you. Your experience seems to be better than most ppl's.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 8:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
If software developers had to get on a plane every time OS developers changed something, nothing would ever get done. Why didn't they show up ? Because thats not how its done in the real world. You release a good API, and the development gets done.

LOL, sounds like you speak from a wealth of experience there - NOT.

In a world of perfect APIs, perfect implementation of those APIs, and perfect documentation, then what you say is right. But in reality, things fall short depite everyone's best efforts, and some hand-holding/help/Q&A/assisted debug sessions are needed.
I love how all you guys bashing the hardware manufacturer's driver support and leaving out the fact that plug n play driver support for Vista just plain sucked.

Again, with statements like that it's clear you don't know WTF you are talking about. Sorry.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2008 8:54:41 PM , Rating: 1
In a world of perfect APIs, perfect implementation of those APIs, and perfect documentation, then what you say is right. But in reality, things fall short depite everyone's best efforts, and some hand-holding/help/Q&A/assisted debug sessions are needed.

100% agree. Thats why this whole " Its all the manufacturers fault " for Vista problems is a big pile of FUD.

LOL, sounds like you speak from a wealth of experience there - NOT.

Oh and you are ? Please enlighten me. Being a fanboi doesn't make you an expert either.

RE: Blame the Manufacturers
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 8:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
See my other post. Hint: PNP is not broken in Vista.

Thank You
By lifeblood on 6/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Thank You
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 10:20:03 AM , Rating: 2
Really this is no different than Vista though. Hardware manufacturers were given Vista's driver model over a year in advance to release. What did they do? Nothing.

RE: Thank You
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2008 7:12:52 PM , Rating: 1
I'm still ticked at Creative for the webcam I bought three months before Vista was released that doesn't have Vista drivers. Last Creative product I buy.

That is 100% Vistas fault. Ticked at Creative ?

I run XP and I bought a Creative webcam last year. Guess what ? I took it out of the box, plugged it in, and BINGO. Device detected. Installing driver. Its called Plug and Play !

Don't blame Creative if Plug and Play is broken in Vista.

RE: Thank You
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 8:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
Don't blame Creative if Plug and Play is broken in Vista.

OK, FUD-dude, what are you talking about? PNP broken in Vista?!?

RE: Thank You
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2008 8:43:54 PM , Rating: 1
OK, FUD-dude, what are you talking about? PNP broken in Vista?!?

Its pretty clear what I'm talking about. A USB webcam should work out of the box in Windows. I have gone through three webcams in XP, and I have never had a problem with plug and play installing a driver that worked.

Thats the entire point of PNP. The vast majority of hardware you buy is supposed to work out of the box.

Is there some FUD being said here ? I don't think so.

RE: Thank You
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 8:57:10 PM , Rating: 4
Well, you'd be wrong then. Just because a webcam doesn't work "out of the box" (without loading any manufacturer drivers) doesn't mean PNP is broken. It just means that Microsoft doesn't provide a default driver for it. There are lots of webcams (and other devices) in that category.

Also, point of fact, Vista includes support for far more devices than XP "out of the box."

Finally, any experienced computer user will tell you that you should generally use the manufacturer-supplied device drivers instead of the "plain vanilla" Microsoft drivers anyway. The manufacturer drivers typically include more functionality and/or performance enhancements.

RE: Thank You
By lifeblood on 6/10/2008 9:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
PnP is not broken. I plug in the camera, Vista detects it and asks for the driver. I go to the Creative website to get the driver and find a note saying no Vista driver will be released for this product. How is that Vista's fault? And I can understand that except that the product was still being sold after Vista was released.

Vista has it's problems but not every problem is Vista's fault. Hardware manufacturers must take their share of blame.

Is it just me...?
By elgueroloco on 6/4/2008 6:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
It seems ever time I see Steve Ballmer anywhere he looks like a complete doofus. I never seem to read anything good about him either. So, is it just me, or is Steve Ballmer a big doofus/puppet who has risen to and clings to success only by Bill Gates' coattails? This could very well be a misperception on my part, I am aware. What do you guys think? Am I way off?

RE: Is it just me...?
By TomZ on 6/4/2008 7:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're just the victim of sensationalist web sites. Obviously the "sweaty" picture is Photoshopped. Sadly there is sometimes little sense of journalistic professionalism when photos are chosen.

RE: Is it just me...?
By sprockkets on 6/5/2008 2:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you were not around for 1995 when it happened. This is the movie combining two different Balmer sessions. I'm sure if you see the surrounding videos you can see the originals.

Back in the day, this was distributed via quicktime mov file. Now, everyone today can enjoy with Adobe Flash on YouTube!

RE: Is it just me...?
By elgueroloco on 6/6/2008 3:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that photo is a still from his "developers" cheer video. It's real.

After watching some videos of him, he seems more like he's just a goofy guy, not so much a doofus or a retard. He's said some dorky things, but I think overall he just has a goofy personality, but knows what he's doing.

His comments laughing at the iPhone were dead on. The iPhone is laughable, as are all the ppl who paid so much money for it when there are way better phones such as the Nokia N95. He said it would probably do well in the consumer market, but would be a bomb with business customers. I believe he turned out to be totally correct.

Honestly, if I were that rich, I'd be goofy too because I could get away with it. He really needs to pick better intro music though. Gloria Estefan? Come on, man.

Egg Head
By Newspapercrane on 6/3/2008 9:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
"DailyTech High Score on"

Things like this, are the reason why I love you guys.

heil mein f├╝hrer
By Coca Cola on 6/3/2008 11:50:55 AM , Rating: 2
well it's good to read that MS is giving
hardware manufacturers forewarning to prepare to do Microsoft's bidding
that quote put a smile on my face...can't wait to see how it all turns out

By thomasxstewart on 6/3/2008 4:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
In Vista Ultimate testing One weakest Point was Media Center. At least for Most systems. Now certain Pundits insist on Fiji, How can media Center O/S operate without Media Center thats really Strong?

Reason its weak is weak Hardware, Controllers that just wasn't ever made for such Huge codebase. microsoft would Do well to Await OEM retail Warrented Vista Ultimate package or How could Windows Seven Even be tested, let alone NOT end up diverging greatly from whats actually needed for NT6?

Public is Pressuring wrong People, Good software on BAD Machines is still BAD. Period.

Once again Public is being decieved by intentionally misrepresentive Press.


Whats up Doc?
By Belard on 6/4/2008 5:09:13 AM , Rating: 2
A MAC OS X type Doc on the bottom?

So.. are they really saying.. we could kind of get Windows7 now by buying a Macintosh Today? WOW

There are a lot of things in Vista to be fixed... I'd like to see all the DRM crap ripped out. It needs to run just as fast as XP on the same hardware, that is not to much to ask for.

Leave Microsoft Alone!
By jonmcc33 on 6/4/2008 11:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
No, I won't make a YouTube video with some nutty emo in it.

Really though, Jason Mick, do you have a hard on for Microsoft or what? Don't pull a Vista? Maybe you should get that giant Apple out of your ass and stop the slandering already?

By Jynx980 on 6/7/2008 12:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
That pic of Steve Ballmer makes me think he might make more as a spokesperson of prescription deodorant.

By gochichi on 6/27/2008 1:12:50 AM , Rating: 2
Everytime I see that guy, I am reminded that money can't buy it all.

xp was just an update too
By sotti on 6/3/2008 9:57:56 AM , Rating: 1
just like xp was only windows 2000 relabled

By nosfe on 6/3/08, Rating: 0
Better Marketting?
By christojojo on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Better Marketting?
By jbizzler on 6/3/2008 9:57:38 AM , Rating: 5
Not Vista relabled. Vista with a bunch of new features. Just like XP was to 2000. Vista was a bigger jump than needed to be made.

Why is adding features and relabeling a bad thing? Isn't this what Mac OS X and most GNU/Linux distributions have been doing?

RE: Better Marketting?
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 10:15:00 AM , Rating: 5
Why is adding features and relabeling a bad thing? Isn't this what Mac OS X and most GNU/Linux distributions have been doing?

Yes but its ok for them to do it because they're not Microsoft. Microsoft is evil in all its endeavors.

Seriously though, hardware manufacturers were the biggest problem with Vista's release, not the OS itself. They dropped the ball, or just completely ignored it, on driver development and as such, Microsoft took the blame.

Drivers though are all the more reason to use the 64-bit version of Vista and I'm sure Windows 7. Microsoft has much stricter requirements for certifying drivers on the 64-bit platform.

RE: Better Marketting?
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 10:35:53 AM , Rating: 1
I'm not sure the requirements for 64-bit are any stricter - both 32- and 64-bit drivers must pass testing to get digitally signed.

But the difference (and maybe what you are thinking of) is that 64-bit Vista won't load unsigned drivers as a security measure. That forces hardware manufacturers into the validation process and decreases the probability of having a rogue driver loaded.

RE: Better Marketting?
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 10:54:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I'm not able to use ATITool in Vista x64 because of the signed driver requirement.

That must have been what I thought of.

RE: Better Marketting?
By killerb255 on 6/3/2008 11:06:15 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, you can.

Just press F8 on POST and boot in unsigned driver mode. Install ATITool.

RE: Better Marketting?
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 11:07:44 AM , Rating: 2
Thought they took that out. Its not a big deal. Ntune works just as well.

RE: Better Marketting?
By Spivonious on 6/3/2008 11:17:39 AM , Rating: 2
I thought they took that out after the betas?

RE: Better Marketting?
By Mitch101 on 6/3/2008 11:01:23 AM , Rating: 3
I would like to see Microsoft add some sort of Driver VM ability to support legacy products like scanners, tuners, etc in an XP driver compatibility mode.

I'm would be really ticked if my HDTV tuner isn't supported again because the manufacturer decides I need to buy their new HDTV tuner or scanner based on the same chip as their old one because they see a new OS as an opportunity to just sell refreshed hardware. Its has the same Darm chip on it your previous card had and other companies support Vista with that chip why do I need to buy your newer tuner card?

This more or less makes me keep one machine running XP is that its not in my budget to purchase 3 TV tuners and a new scanner I barely use.

I really like Vista and this whole driver problem leaves a bitter taste with the manufacturers not with Microsoft.

RE: Better Marketting?
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 11:06:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yes that would be nice.

RE: Better Marketting?
By eman7613 on 6/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Better Marketting?
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 3:31:32 PM , Rating: 2
I can install Vista on a computer bought last year and watch it come to a crippling slow crawl and seemingly random software, especially older stuff that i still use, no longer work at all, let alone on the 64bit version.

Yes if you bought a piece of crap machine with 512MB RAM, Vista won't run well. If you bought a machine with 1GB of RAM, it will run ok. 2GB+, it runs great.

And sorry, older applications are going to lose support. It's a fact. Get over it. I understand that engineers need legacy support, but thats why XP is still there.

And Leopard won't run on a Mac from 3 years ago because 3 years ago they were still using PowerPC processors. And I have a 1GHz iBook with 256MB of RAM and Tiger on it. It's not an experience I enjoy. No, even XP doesn't run well with 256MB of RAM. But with 4GB of OCZ memory recently costing me $70, I really don't care if Vista needs 2GB to really run well. At least its using it more efficiently than XP did.

RE: Better Marketting?
By Pirks on 6/3/2008 4:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
Leopard won't run on a Mac from 3 years ago because 3 years ago they were still using PowerPC processors
You look like a very dumb person when saying that.

Don't tell anyone that you don't know that Leopard supports two hardware architectures - PowerPC and Intel, or they will laugh at you.

RE: Better Marketting?
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 8:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
Or they'll think, "He didn't know cause he doesn't give a shit about Macs."

RE: Better Marketting?
By Pirks on 6/4/2008 1:39:38 PM , Rating: 3
Then why are you even TRYING to talk about things you don't know $hit about? ;-)

RE: Better Marketting?
By sprockkets on 6/5/2008 3:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it is ok, but not always. I say that because I'll be sticking with KDE 3.x for now, as 4.x has big wacky changes, less features (such as the cool Konqueror File size view feature), crashes easily and flat out looks weird. Sure, it will get better, but change in this case, for now, sucks.

That's Linux's problem. It changes so much for the better, and it changes for the worse. Pulse audio is nice. But, that's another sound daemon, means updating plugins for audio players, desktop applets, and so forth. The way compiz starts changes every so often. Now there are two ways to configure it. Now you can use AGLIX instead of XGL, but that requires you to change your video plugin from xv to xshim. Again, so much f*ing change!

There is something to be said for consistency. I guess if I want that, I'll triple boot XP, Vista and OpenSuSE 11. And that list, respectively, represents stabilty/consistency vs. cutting edge features/change.

RE: Better Marketting?
By christojojo on 6/3/2008 10:15:10 AM , Rating: 3
I never said it was a bad thing. If they are to survive, MS must start a positive spin now and make sure it (Vista upgraded) is ready for primetime.

I have said before that Microsoft should have only released a 64 bit version of Vista and leave 32 bit to Xp. The initial adoption would have been slow but when drivers matured and 32 becomes less desirable the success of Vista would have been assured.

I imagined someone saying on a forum, "lol you have Xp that is sooo ooollddd. Vista rulz 64 pwns 32" (Sorry I did not pass my fanboi forum certification yet)

I guess I tried to say in the OP that Vista go a new coat of paint. My hope is that MS wont upgrade the OS by changing the shape of the car and forget to fix the flats.

RE: Better Marketting?
By TomZ on 6/3/2008 10:45:54 AM , Rating: 1
There's no way that Vista could have been 64-bit only. One major problem is that there are still a lot of hardware devices that are lacking 64-bit drivers. It just takes one device like that...

In addition, there is still not a strong motivation for most users to upgrade to 64-bit. Unless you have a need for 4GB or more of RAM, or you really need the higher level of security, 64-bit isn't a compelling technology for most people. In other words, 64-bit is a "need" for servers today, but not for desktops and laptops.

A lot of the "cool factor" for 64-bit is just marketing BS, started mainly by AMD and later joined by Intel.

RE: Better Marketting?
By Spivonious on 6/3/2008 11:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe it's all in my head, but I've used both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista on the same machine, and 64-bit just feels faster when using 64-bit software. 2GB of RAM, so it's not an addressing issue.

RE: Better Marketting?
By JosefTor on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Better Marketting?
By EntreHoras on 6/3/2008 10:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
unlike XP, you need to purchase one per computer. If you own a laptop and a computer you can not install it on both

???? This is new!!

Are you sure you have a legal copy of XP?
Because, as Vista, XP is one license per machine.

RE: Better Marketting?
By killerb255 on 6/3/2008 11:07:22 AM , Rating: 2
He's probably confusing Windows XP with Office XP.

RE: Better Marketting?
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 11:00:11 AM , Rating: 2
A retail or OEM XP license is also only valid for one machine.

RE: Better Marketting?
By ninjaquick on 6/3/2008 11:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
Umm XP is one license per system, you can do one of two diferent systems, but they cant have internet at the same time, since that will prolly kill the license.

RE: Better Marketting?
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 11:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
That's incorrect. Both will run at the same time. It's just not technically legal.

RE: Better Marketting?
By eman7613 on 6/3/2008 11:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
Your all half wrong n' right, from M$

"Installation of the product on more computers than the EULA allows is a violation of the EULA. Technically, MPA does not limit the number of computers where the product can be installed. For example, you could install Windows XP on 100 computers, but activation would not be successful on 99 of those computers. If you installed Office XP on 100 computers, activation would not be successful on 98 of those computers. This limits the usefulness of the installations that are in violation of the EULA. Outside MPA, Microsoft does not know how many computers have Windows XP or Office XP family products installed. "

You can legally install XP on as many computers as you wish, it may only be ACTIVATED on one.

RE: Better Marketting?
By Elementalism on 6/3/2008 11:09:27 AM , Rating: 2
lmao where did you get the impression XP allows you to run 1 license on two computers?

RE: Better Marketting?
By ninjaquick on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Better Marketting?
By Spivonious on 6/3/2008 11:23:21 AM , Rating: 2
If I have 2GB of RAM, why would I only want 200MB of it used? I love how Vista preloads my commonly used apps into RAM. That way they start up almost instantaneously.

Windows 2000 Server was a server OS, but not Windows 2000 Client. Similar to how Windows Server 2003 is a server OS and Windows XP is a consumer OS. And just like Windows Server 2008 is a server OS, Windows Vista Second Edition a.k.a. Windows 7 is a consumer OS.

Oh oh...
By PICBoy on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Oh oh...
By RjBass on 6/3/2008 10:04:28 AM , Rating: 5
I think they learned, but are in a bit of a pickle right now. While Vista has improved greatly over the last year and a half and has developed into a rather nice OS, it still has a large stigma about it that makes it a bad OS to the general end user who doesn't know any better. Vistas bad press continues to this day despite it's vast improvements and is most likely something that Microsoft will never be able to shake. That being the case Microsoft needs to get the next new product out there as soon as possible to get the Vista woes behind them.

Even if Windows 7 is nothing more then Vista with a face lift it should still prove to be 10 times better then when Vista first launched back in Jan of 07.

RE: Oh oh...
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 10:16:31 AM , Rating: 5
I vote for a Window's 7 commercial where a new "PC Guy" walks up in an old western outfit and shoots the Mac guy. Then says, "Theres a new sheriff in town."

RE: Oh oh...
By kileil on 6/3/2008 10:39:14 AM , Rating: 5
Windows 7: Git 'er Done.

RE: Oh oh...
By killerb255 on 6/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Oh oh...
By EntreHoras on 6/3/2008 10:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
The thing with this commercials is that Apple can throw cheap shots to PCs, but there isn't a single PC front to reply to them.

RE: Oh oh...
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2008 11:05:05 AM , Rating: 5
I don't care what they are. They're untrue and annoying as shit. Nor do they call into account the myriad of problems people have had with Leopard.

RE: Oh oh...
By tdawg on 6/3/2008 12:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
There was one that I found amusing (the PCs that had viruses), but now all these commercials are aggravating, especially when they tout their perfect OS and slam Vista for having a ton of problems.

I've personally been using Vista since the beta with no problems and thoroughly recommend it to anyone that asks. I have Vista Ultimate 64-bit on my desktop, Vista Home Premium 32-bit on my laptop and my parents are using Vista basic on their dell; no problems anywhere (knock on wood).

RE: Oh oh...
By sprockkets on 6/5/2008 3:12:32 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. My Shuttle SG31G2S runs Vista so fast it spends no time after the initial jingle but goes straight to the desktop.

Yeah, Apple, don't ever bring up the fact that move operations could cause data loss either.

Hey Mac Dude, can you explain to me why all XP and Vista and even Linux laptops all without any drivers or any necessary software, by default, allow me to tap click on the touchpad and scroll via the right side, and your laptops don't? Maybe because you think we still use one button mice?

No issues at all. Well, I cannot hibernate or hybrid sleep due to Linux being there. Sorta annoying actually, because XP didn't mind.

What happens is that you have to now install Vista to the same partition to the one that is active, or it will not let you. Of course, only the online KB article tells you why; the installer doesn't. You can still later mark another partition active and use Linux's boot loader just fine.

I guess the reason is, Vista expects to be able to modify the bootloader to properly come back up if told to hybrid sleep or hibernate.

Of course, spending hrs looking on Google never brought up this scenario, and the event log never gave any help either. It never logged it because it never actually did go to sleep; it just went black for 1 sec and came back.

Not a Microsoft bug, but still, annoying.

Note to Microsoft: Don't copy Apple, they will just take that as flattery. ONE UP THEM!

RE: Oh oh...
By Polynikes on 6/3/2008 12:07:01 PM , Rating: 4
There isn't? What about gaming?

RE: Oh oh...
By imperator3733 on 6/3/2008 3:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft really should make a series of commercials on the fact that there are actually games on PCs.

RE: Oh oh...
By Pirks on 6/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Oh oh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2008 12:37:06 PM , Rating: 4
The thing with this commercials is that Apple can throw cheap shots to PCs, but there isn't a single PC front to reply to them.

Thats because PC users can do something Mac users can't ; shut the F up. :D

RE: Oh oh...
By RedStar on 6/3/2008 12:52:04 PM , Rating: 5
bah, Mac has tripled its PC share. why? Windows dual boot


(the bigger question is why mac users want to pay more for hardware and have to use two O/S')

RE: Oh oh...
By Pirks on 6/3/2008 3:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
why mac users want to pay more for hardware
'cause it's better hardware (in the sense of ergonomics, not FPS in 3D gaming)

RE: Oh oh...
By Mitch101 on 6/3/2008 11:05:55 AM , Rating: 4
Here you go FITCamaro

Mac vs. PC - Halo Style

RE: Oh oh...
By christojojo on 6/3/2008 10:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
I still have problems with the blasted UAC on other peoples pc's (mine is disabled. The headache of someone calling you weekly to tell you a warning pops up (the red x shield by the clock) or they click it and reactivate UAC and the problems recur, Arrrrgggg. Of course, an upgrade in hearing aid for mom and in laws would be helpful. :)

Vista has been getting easier to use without headaches this last month or so.

RE: Oh oh...
By Pottervilla on 6/3/2008 11:13:54 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't had too many problems with vista, and those I do have are solved by my triple boot system. (I use vista for Areo; I'm hooked on the eye candy :)

If you go to the windows security center, over on the left side click 'change the way Security Center alerts me' and you can turn off the notification and even turn off the icon. The only possible problem would be if you use windows firewall or defender. I'm not sure if those use the security center interface.

As for the hearing problems--I think that remote desktop is still implemented in vista. ;)

RE: Oh oh...
By Mitch101 on 6/3/2008 11:15:29 AM , Rating: 2

I've been running Vista Ultimate 64 bit for a few months now and I haven't seen a UAC popup in a long time. The only time I saw UAC popups was when I installed an application and approved it and maybe the first time it ran. haven't had them pop up since but I'm glad they did initially I learned a bit more about the applications that I didn't think would have talked to something on the internet.

Even Mac no longer runs those commercials. Its like saying Windows Blue Screens all the time when all the people I know have seen maybe one blue screen in 5 years and its usually some server who has a bad stick of ram.

RE: Oh oh...
By phatboye on 6/3/2008 1:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the OP, hold back on Windows 7 till it's done, don't rush it out and risk pulling another Windows Vista.

RE: Oh oh...
By imperator3733 on 6/3/2008 3:15:32 PM , Rating: 1
I think they're talking about late 2009 for Windows 7's release. That would be 3 years since Vista was released.

There were a bit less than 2 years between XP and XP SP2 (which was almost released as XP Release 2) and a bit less than 2.5 years between XP SP2 and Vista. So, there's already going to be more time between Vista and 7 than XP SP2 and Vista.

RE: Oh oh...
By FaceMaster on 7/2/2008 12:13:34 PM , Rating: 1
I fucked your Mum so badly last night!

what is windows 7 for 500
By vapore0n on 6/3/08, Rating: -1
"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki