How strange, and most of my Vista crashes (what few there were due to graphics issues) were caused by my ATI Radeon x1650xt. That's why I switched to Nvidia in fact.
My 8800gt Alpha Dog has only crashed once, and that was because it overheated trying to give birth to the ice level in Crysis.
I love it when people who don't know what they are talking about like to get the masses all up in arms. Claiming that XP is superior is just plain wrong. It's faster if you're still using 5 year old apps and 5 year old hardware. Vista run on proper hardware runs flawlessly. In fairness I have 8GB of ram but it handles the resources properly and doesn't hang. Sometimes a program will crap out but that happens all day long on my Mac Pro as well (both Abode and Apple apps)
Vista is like Leopard. You can't expect to run it on older hardware. With up to date hardware they are both very pleasant to use. We have a mini (core duo 1gb) and the leopard experience is terrible just like Vista is on a "vista capable" system with 512mb of ram, shared video memory and a celeron processor. Yea, we actually have one of those at work. I have a P3 500 with 256mb ram I just setup with Xp that runs nearly as fast as that Celeron with Vista.
It is NOT just hardware. I built myself a quad-core with an 8800 Ultra and put Ultimate x64 on it. I was getting so many crashes in games that I almost replaced my memory, sound card (X-Fi), and video card (in that order) - not only do the nVidia drivers crash when the Ultra is put under ANY kind of load (read: only being able to game at 1024x768 on a 1920x1200 display SUCKS), but the X-Fi drivers can not switch between normal line-in mic and "what you hear" recording without rebooting, AND there are severe, documented problems with having an X-Fi and 4GB+ RAM in your system.
Got fed up with it after about 2 weeks of constant problems, installed XP and I have zero reason to go back to Vista (which wouldn't even activate for a couple days after I reformatted!) - Crysis plays at 1920x1200 with the DX10 config hack at 40+ FPS - no real image quality difference, and no problems either.
Vista has REAL driver problems. Oh yeah - I had a 4-year old Dell laptop running Vista Ultimate with no problems other than the fact that it was slow, so it is drivers, not the age of the hardware you are using.
obviously, you suck at building and configuring computers if that is your story. Your story sounds like one of those where the person never ACTUALLY used Vista and is just hopping on the Vista Sucks bandwagon. Are you using XP x64? if not than how can you compare a 64 bit to a 32bit OS, driver issues exist on all x64 systems.
I'm glad to see someone is the voice of reason. If people have nothing better to do than to badmouth an operating system they are giant losers. If it doesn't work for you, then don't use it. People who adopted early on and expected things to work perfectly are out of their minds. I have had no issues and find it to be an overall much better experience than XP (not 100% perfect, but nothing in life is).
Others have said it, but it bears repeating. Whoever wrote this article is obviously a biased fanboi. Maybe instead of jumping on the bandwagon and taking a jab at Vista commenting on Bill Gates signing some petition to save XP why don't you stop for 14 seconds and realize that nVidia has a HUGE customer base and are most likely to see the most problems. You are misleading people in propagating this report without putting a disclaimer that states this.
You forgot to implement market share of nvidia, ati, and intel. If ati has 1/3 the market share of nvidia, that means they have the same failure rate. This also means that intel probably has the lowest failure rate, as they probably have twice as much of their chipsets on the market than nvidia or ati. (One has to remember they make the whole motherboard too, mostly for laptops). Because of that, they would only account for 1/2 of what they currently account for, or however much they have more than nvidia.
@billy bob: XP isn't just faster on 5-year-old hardware, it's faster on all hardware including current stuff. It's designed to work on older hardware, so on new stuff, it's even faster.
@Patuxentbball: I use XP x64 and have never had a single driver issue, so maybe you shouldn't go making sweeping statements like that.
@Cerebrate: even if what you say about Intel producing more graphics chips than ATi or nVidia is true, this is Vista we're talking about - how many people do you think are trying to run it without a proper graphics card?
I haven't had any problems with my ATi vid card crashing Vista; neither the old or new card. I've only had to reinstall the driver when I put in SP1, but there was nothing that could be considered a crash.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Nick Krewson @ Mar 27th 2008 7:45PM
How strange, and most of my Vista crashes (what few there were due to graphics issues) were caused by my ATI Radeon x1650xt. That's why I switched to Nvidia in fact.
My 8800gt Alpha Dog has only crashed once, and that was because it overheated trying to give birth to the ice level in Crysis.
Stupid Crysis.
Rafer @ Mar 27th 2008 7:49PM
I havnt had one in a while but the last 3 blue screens I had was all Nvidia Drivers. Still wouldn't give my 7800GTX for anything. Love that bad boy.
Rafer @ Mar 27th 2008 7:49PM
And yes it plays Crysis.
billy bob thorton @ Mar 27th 2008 8:33PM
I love it when people who don't know what they are talking about like to get the masses all up in arms. Claiming that XP is superior is just plain wrong. It's faster if you're still using 5 year old apps and 5 year old hardware. Vista run on proper hardware runs flawlessly. In fairness I have 8GB of ram but it handles the resources properly and doesn't hang. Sometimes a program will crap out but that happens all day long on my Mac Pro as well (both Abode and Apple apps)
Vista is like Leopard. You can't expect to run it on older hardware. With up to date hardware they are both very pleasant to use. We have a mini (core duo 1gb) and the leopard experience is terrible just like Vista is on a "vista capable" system with 512mb of ram, shared video memory and a celeron processor. Yea, we actually have one of those at work. I have a P3 500 with 256mb ram I just setup with Xp that runs nearly as fast as that Celeron with Vista.
It's about the hardware people.
wickedpheonix @ Mar 27th 2008 9:11PM
@ billy bob thorton
It is NOT just hardware. I built myself a quad-core with an 8800 Ultra and put Ultimate x64 on it. I was getting so many crashes in games that I almost replaced my memory, sound card (X-Fi), and video card (in that order) - not only do the nVidia drivers crash when the Ultra is put under ANY kind of load (read: only being able to game at 1024x768 on a 1920x1200 display SUCKS), but the X-Fi drivers can not switch between normal line-in mic and "what you hear" recording without rebooting, AND there are severe, documented problems with having an X-Fi and 4GB+ RAM in your system.
Got fed up with it after about 2 weeks of constant problems, installed XP and I have zero reason to go back to Vista (which wouldn't even activate for a couple days after I reformatted!) - Crysis plays at 1920x1200 with the DX10 config hack at 40+ FPS - no real image quality difference, and no problems either.
Vista has REAL driver problems. Oh yeah - I had a 4-year old Dell laptop running Vista Ultimate with no problems other than the fact that it was slow, so it is drivers, not the age of the hardware you are using.
Patuxentbball @ Mar 27th 2008 9:20PM
@wicked pheonix
obviously, you suck at building and configuring computers if that is your story. Your story sounds like one of those where the person never ACTUALLY used Vista and is just hopping on the Vista Sucks bandwagon. Are you using XP x64? if not than how can you compare a 64 bit to a 32bit OS, driver issues exist on all x64 systems.
Jeremy @ Mar 27th 2008 9:40PM
@billy bob thorton
I'm glad to see someone is the voice of reason. If people have nothing better to do than to badmouth an operating system they are giant losers. If it doesn't work for you, then don't use it. People who adopted early on and expected things to work perfectly are out of their minds. I have had no issues and find it to be an overall much better experience than XP (not 100% perfect, but nothing in life is).
Others have said it, but it bears repeating. Whoever wrote this article is obviously a biased fanboi. Maybe instead of jumping on the bandwagon and taking a jab at Vista commenting on Bill Gates signing some petition to save XP why don't you stop for 14 seconds and realize that nVidia has a HUGE customer base and are most likely to see the most problems. You are misleading people in propagating this report without putting a disclaimer that states this.
Cerebrate @ Mar 27th 2008 10:19PM
You forgot to implement market share of nvidia, ati, and intel. If ati has 1/3 the market share of nvidia, that means they have the same failure rate. This also means that intel probably has the lowest failure rate, as they probably have twice as much of their chipsets on the market than nvidia or ati. (One has to remember they make the whole motherboard too, mostly for laptops). Because of that, they would only account for 1/2 of what they currently account for, or however much they have more than nvidia.
Iain @ Mar 27th 2008 10:33PM
@billy bob: XP isn't just faster on 5-year-old hardware, it's faster on all hardware including current stuff.
It's designed to work on older hardware, so on new stuff, it's even faster.
@Patuxentbball: I use XP x64 and have never had a single driver issue, so maybe you shouldn't go making sweeping statements like that.
Iain @ Mar 27th 2008 10:45PM
@Cerebrate: even if what you say about Intel producing more graphics chips than ATi or nVidia is true, this is Vista we're talking about - how many people do you think are trying to run it without a proper graphics card?
Garst @ Mar 28th 2008 2:12AM
I haven't had any problems with my ATi vid card crashing Vista; neither the old or new card. I've only had to reinstall the driver when I put in SP1, but there was nothing that could be considered a crash.