[Sekani]

So I started working with this computer repair company this week, and I've noticed an alarming trend.

Four separate times over the last week I've come across software or hardware that say "Works with Windows Vista" or "Vista compatible" right on the box, and yet they either require a massive level of tweaking that's unreasonable for all but the most advanced users, or they simply don't work at all.

I demand to know who is responsible for this madness so that I may publicly flog them with a spiked chain.

[Randomness]

Corporations of course, acting as usual on greed.

After all, if it can be MADE to work with massive amounts of tweaking, they can TECHNICALLY say its works with Vista.

[KodiaX987]

For the same reason the "minimum specs" make a game run at an abysmally low framerate. They want people to think it's compatible with their rig. If there's any way it'll work even to a degree, they'll claim it's compatible.

[Sekani]

Let me explain what I mean by "massive level of tweaking"....

On a DVD drive install, I had to do a registry edit before Vista would recognize it.

A publishing program fresh out of the box had an update for Vista you could download from the company's website, but it had to be installed under Windows XP.

A PCI wireless card has Vista-compatible drivers on its company's website which quite simply do not work at all.

There's really no excuse for this.

[rogue_robot]

As far as I can tell, it's mostly Microsoft's fault. A friend of mine had to wait several months for nVidia, a normally reliable company, to produce drivers for one of their DX-10 compatible graphics cards designed specifically for Vista to work at all.

Opening anything, be it a game, Windows Media Player, or sometimes even MS Word would earn him an instant BSoD.



EDIT: I believe it's just something to do with the massive internal changes Microsoft made between XP and Vista. Everyone's just having a lot of trouble adjusting to the new framework, and Microsoft isn't doing a very good job of spreading helpful information.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: rogue_robot on 2008-02-17 12:22 ]</font>

[Nitro Vordex]

I'll stay with my XP, thank you. Until all or most of the bugs in Vista are ironed/hammered out, I will not get Vista.

I don't think my poor computer could handle it right now anyway.

[Randomness]

On 2008-02-17 12:35, Nitro_Vordex wrote:
I'll stay with my XP, thank you. Until all or most of the bugs in Vista are ironed/hammered out, I will not get Vista.

I don't think my poor computer could handle it right now anyway.

Sadly, all the new comps are Vista...

[Shiro_Ryuu]

I use Vista, it runs PSU fine, although I'm sure I might be getting more out of my laptop if I downgraded to XP. A friend of mine did that and it's working just fine with him.

[Broodstar1337]

Your pre-packaged computers that were advertised as "Vista Compatible"... they don't work with Vista. They were built to handle XP and thus shouldn't really use much else besides XP (Now if you're gonna use dual-boot with stuff like Ubuntu, that's your business).

What I'm trying to get at is the hardware has to go with the software. Vista works fine if you got a strong computer.

[rogue_robot]

Ubuntu/XP dual-booter myself, Broodstar. Each O/S brand (Linux/Windows/Mac) is useful for certain tasks. It just so happens that none of the tasks for which Macs are suited are anything I do on a regular basis.

As a CS student, though, Linux is invaluable to me - just about all my CS homework is performed on Linux machines.



...Vista, however, is useful for nothing; as much as "computer" people complain about earlier Windows, MS sure did a damn good job proving they can, in fact, make an O/S even worse. 0.5 gigabytes of RAM used for what? Nothing?!? Yeah, that's Vista for you. (And yeah, it really does chew up an extra 512 MB for absolutely nothing. It was originally intended to be pre-allocated for memory-intense apps like games, but a critical bug in the system causes it to just sit there unused.)