Damn ATI!

[AloneInTheDark]

Brand new PC I built 2-3months ago, Quad core Q6600, 8GB RAM... oh the misstake of putting an ATI Radeon 2400 XT HD in it. !"#¤@£$... Running Vista x64, it decides to randomly get a nice blue ( black ) as in total darkness screen and lock the whole machine. Only a hard reboot is the option.

Vista pointed out that this is a specific ATI problem and they don't have any fix for it yet! Eventhough I am running the latest version of the drivers.

I'm pondering of buying an Nvidia and replace this junk, I almost lost a whole night of code! A couple of files just got currupted when the PC locked up, good thing Visual C# does a backup for me.

Damn ATI! Damn them to hell!

[abh!shek]

ATI did the same to my Kubuntu partition. :/

[psychopath]

I was under the impression that the ATI drivers had gotten better. Although I'm thinking the x64 edition might be the source of some of your driver instability. Not saying that's the way it should be, but if you intend to keep that card you might want to consider 32-bit Vista.

At least I hope that's what it is. I plan on getting a 3850 in the next few weeks :/.

[Mario F.]

ATI is not to blame here. That card is Vista certified. That means... the usual suspect.

Frankly, I'm impressed at Vista problems. I think they may have beaten XP launch. And all this for an OS that didn't deliver what was initially promised and is, in essence, just XP with a new look.

[AloneInTheDark]

Originally Posted by psychopath

I was under the impression that the ATI drivers had gotten better. Although I'm thinking the x64 edition might be the source of some of your driver instability. Not saying that's the way it should be, but if you intend to keep that card you might want to consider 32-bit Vista.

At least I hope that's what it is. I plan on getting a 3850 in the next few weeks :/.

I thought NVidia had driver issues, that's why I went with ATI. I'll be putting an Nvidia card as soon my paycheck comes!

regarding 32bit, since I got 8GB RAM I do prefer to stick with 64bit software.

[AloneInTheDark]

Originally Posted by Mario F.

ATI is not to blame here. That card is Vista certified. That means... the usual suspect.

Frankly, I'm impressed at Vista problems. I think they may have beaten XP launch. And all this for an OS that didn't deliver what was initially promised and is, in essence, just XP with a new look.

This is clearly a driver issue, not sure how you point the problem to the OS.

Vista is ABSOLUTELY NOT "XP with a new look"! I suggest you check out channel9.msdn.com and watch some of the videos about Vista. There are many great things in Vista.

[Mario F.]

Originally Posted by AloneInTheDark

This is clearly a driver issue, not sure how you point the problem to the OS.

Absolutely. It's a driver issue. Which keeps proving over and over again Microsoft certification program is all screwed. I'll stand corrected and point instead the problem to both ATI and Microsoft.

Vista is ABSOLUTELY NOT "XP with a new look"! I suggest you check out channel9.msdn.com and watch some of the videos about Vista. There are many great things in Vista.

Most of these things are cosmetic changes. Nevertheless, this was debated to exhaustion already. Here as in many other discussion groups. Some agree, others don't.

[AloneInTheDark]

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Absolutely. It's a driver issue. Which keeps proving over and over again Microsoft certification program is all screwed. I'll stand corrected and point instead the problem to both ATI and Microsoft.

Oh yeah, that's a big joke for sure. Same with PCs certified for Vista with only 512MB RAM. hehhe... Vista needs atleast 2GB to float. My gf had only 1GB and wasn't fun at all until we put another 1GB into it.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Most of these things are cosmetic changes. Nevertheless, this was debated to exhaustion already. Here as in many other discussion groups. Some agree, other's don't.

Well, a lot of the features are unseen to most users but they are definitly not "just" cosmetics, to name a few :

• Graphical Interface is now using GPU.
• DX10.x
• A strong Search functionality.
• IIS7
• Drivers in userspace instead of kernel.
• Hotpatching without reboot ( SP1 )
• UAC ( Almost no need for AV anymore )
• Ability to run as limited user without trouble, being able to elevate to admin upon need.
• ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization).
• DEP
• Function Pointer Obfuscation
• Windows Service Hardening
• A MUCH better firewall
• NX technologies at the Hardware Level
• PatchGuard
• File System and Registry Virtualization
• Internet Explorer Protected Mode
• NTFS junction points
• BitLocker Drive Encryption

Not that I'm a Microsoft fan
( I am ) hehhe...

[zacs7]

Sigh, someone's been sold by the marketing ploy.

[AloneInTheDark]

Originally Posted by zacs7

Sigh, someone's been sold by the marketing ploy.

Well, are you suggesting the above fact is untrue? In that case which one of them?

[CornedBee]

1) GFX using GPU is nice for the candy, but not a real improvement.
2) The only reason DX10 is only available for Vista is a marketing ploy by MS.
3) Most people disable the indexing because it slows down their computer to a crawl.
4) I fail to see how a normal user can see that as an advantage. And Apache is better anyway.
5) Yet they still manage to crash the entire OS. Actually the whole purpose of userspace drivers is that they shouldn't be able to do that.
6) Well, finally!
7) Most Vista users I know disable UAC because it's so annoying.


Anyway, ATI seems to be entirely incapable of producing stable 64-bit drivers. It's the same on my Linux box. I can't upgrade beyond 8.42 because it hangs.

[Mario F.]

Many of the things you meantioned, AloneInTheDark, are typical of a new OS installment. Others are rightful improvements on a new product that however don't really bring much in terms of usefulness. Others yet are simply useless. And others yet are even advised to be avoided.

Windows Vista has been 5 years in development. When they first considered the 2003 code base, they promised the world. And this is where it failed the first time. Technologies promised then included, to name probably the most important, a completely new file system - the now infamous WinFS - and Virtual Folders, which do exist in a way but nothing like it was first envisioned.

WinFS alone sold Vista idea to about anyone. It would probably be the biggest upgrade to a Microsoft OS since Windows 95 replaced 3.11. I was told once Vista new indexing system minimizes the damage. I can't agree with this. WinFS wasn't just about file indexing. For one, most people disable it because, as pointed out, it sends their computers to a crawl. For another, WinFS is first about storage, then about indexing, just like any other database.

What I agree however with the majority of analysts that say Vista new code base provides a strong backbone for further improvements. Not really because I know anything of that, but because they are... well, the majority. I'd thus say we will see Vista get better and better as patches are applied and new stuff included.

What we don't see now, however, is a product that could rival XP, were XP made by a different company. This really means, the biggest rival to Vista is XP in my opinion as many still refuse to upgrade and other even go back to XP after experiencing Vista.

...

As for ATI, I stand by my point of view. Microsoft really has to review their hardware certification scheme. It's losing its credibility.

[AloneInTheDark]

Yepp, the problem with Vista is most of the new changes are technical and can't be seen by the end user in a way that it gives a positive impact on their experience.

I remember when my brother installed Vista, the indexer were trashing the drive like mad and this kind of thing puts people off. Me being a technical guy I allowed it to trash my PC 4 nights since I got almost 2 millions of files and now I have a very great experience using the search. SPECIALLY since I also manually chose which folders I need to be indexing. But again, the end user just hates it when the drive never stops working 1-2 nights.

As you said, I too think Vista is just some sort of half step towards windows7. It's just the backbone of what is to come.

I do undrestand people not wanting to move to Vista from XP but I also hope and think there will be a change of attitude when windows7 comes and I think many many XP users will do the jump and skip Vista allt ogether.

and back to subject... just had another blackscreen, follow up by a bluescreen! *lol* I am going to buy an NVidia card next week ( will have to borrow cash )

To "psychopath", you could wait to buy that 3850 card, I will post the experience from the Nvidia card here if you want and perhaps you change your mind and go Nvidia too. Although, Not sure what OS you are running but if going for Vx64 I wouldn't recommend ATI.

A quick note, my brother has Vx64 with some Nvidia card and he has had zero issues.

[Elysia]

Well, someone seems to love Vista
Vista is nice, has some new interesting things, but nowhere near worth the money for upgrade. Especially due to instability and incompatibility.
Oh and UAC doesn't replace AV software. In fact, UAC screws up about everything, so I actually go as far as recommending to disable it.
And Windows Firewall/Defender is crapware and we know it. It doesn't matter how better than the XP Firewall it is. A 3rd party firewall is to recommend.

[AloneInTheDark]

Originally Posted by Elysia

Well, someone seems to love Vista
Vista is nice, has some new interesting things, but nowhere near worth the money for upgrade. Especially due to instability and incompatibility.
Oh and UAC doesn't replace AV software. In fact, UAC screws up about everything, so I actually go as far as recommending to disable it.
And Windows Firewall/Defender is crapware and we know it. It doesn't matter how better than the XP Firewall it is. A 3rd party firewall is to recommend.

I don't "love" Vista but as someone who has an application used by 7000+ users I do undrestand how hard it is to please everyone that's why I believe Microsoft is doing a good job. It is very very very hard to write a userfriendly application, not to mention an OS.

Then you'll also have to consider that over 80% do use Microsoft softwares specially businesses. So Microsoft can't just do a 180 turn like Apple can and trash everything.

Giving you an example, we got a business app at work which cost $150.000 running off windows servers and clients, yepp that's 4 zeroes! ...You can't just do a 180 turn if you are Microsoft, you will have to do it in "baby" steps.

I'll be moving to windows server 2008 as soon as it's out. Regarding cost, that isn't any issue really. Vista OEM is very cheap.

Regarding UAC, you are very wrong in this case. UAC only pops up if you do admin tasks. Recommending to disable UAC is just wrong specially to an end user. You would be stripping them from controlling what apps should and should not do admin tasks and instead handing them over to AV companies like Norton and such (*I hate norton private edition*) Instead, one should try to push the developers to code better applications without the need of admin rights to function.

The whole reason for UAC is that coders in windows been lazy and never cared about making their applications work as a limited regular user account. They always been messing around with windows / system32 and DLL hell. Not to mention registry nightmare.

Vista Firewall is better than XP yes. That was what I meant. There are always 3rd party software which are much better and more specialized ofcourse. Overall, I think Vista is a good upgrade from XP only and only if you have a newer PC with a lot of RAM.

...but then again, the above is not new. Same was going on when XP came out. My old machine died under the weight of XP until I upgraded with more RAM. ( win2k3 in my case )

Can't wait for win2k8 though! I'm an Action Pack subscriber so I get it all! From Office to MSSQL to windows server every 2-3 months, fun fun!