On 6/28/2023 6:00 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 18:48:49 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 21:34:34 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>>
>>> Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> IIRC, Vista also launched before Nvidia's drivers were fully ready, which
>>>> meant that the whole aero interface didn't work properly, video crashes,
>>>> etc. I remember muttering to myself that you don't release without major
>>>> third party vendors ready to go. Microsoft did. Nvidia's fault. MS got
>>>> the blame though.
>>>
>>>> Also, Aero let users enable it whose systems had no business doing so.
>>>
>>> Wow, NVIDIA waited after Vista? When I was working for Symantec, we had
>>> to crunch on getting Norton products ready for it! NVIDIA had a lot of
>>> time to test too! So yeah, they failed.
>>
>> That's not entirely accurate. There were WHQL-certified drivers for
>> nVidia cards available for Vista prior to launch.
>
> Yeah, they were WHQL; so Microsoft's fault too. They certified the mess.
>
> Basically, the whole thing went out half-baked, instead of "it's done
> when it's done." Bad choice. Made by marketers I'm sure. I hope someone
> got fired.
>
Probably some programmers for failing to finish the product before the
deadline they were given because it was released early so the next
quarterly report would get a bump up.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> TL;DR: Vista wasn't as bad as people remember.

I suppose. My only experience was with a slowish Toshiba Portege R500,
somewhen 2007 or 2008. I think the driver issues were sorted by then or
weren't relevant to Intel graphics.

But Vista was easily to heavy for that laptop, a 5400 RPM HD and slow
CPU (Core 2 Duo U7700 2 x 1.3 GHz) and I think 2 GB RAM.

Once I got the internal 3G modem's FW updated in Vista, I upgraded it to
Fedora Linux and was quite happy with it for a few years.

As you said, Windows 7 is much the same as Vista. To me the big
difference to XP was that both have the same heavy disk access need
which bogs them down. OK with a decent HD let alone an SSD but a with
5400 RPM drive... Not fun.

On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 09:23:52 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 08:00:40 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 18:48:49 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 21:34:34 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>> IIRC, Vista also launched before Nvidia's drivers were fully ready, which
>>>>> meant that the whole aero interface didn't work properly, video crashes,
>>>>> etc. I remember muttering to myself that you don't release without major
>>>>> third party vendors ready to go. Microsoft did. Nvidia's fault. MS got
>>>>> the blame though.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, Aero let users enable it whose systems had no business doing so.
>>>>
>>>>Wow, NVIDIA waited after Vista? When I was working for Symantec, we had
>>>>to crunch on getting Norton products ready for it! NVIDIA had a lot of
>>>>time to test too! So yeah, they failed.
>>>
>>>That's not entirely accurate. There were WHQL-certified drivers for
>>>nVidia cards available for Vista prior to launch.
>>
>>Yeah, they were WHQL; so Microsoft's fault too. They certified the mess.
>>
>>Basically, the whole thing went out half-baked, instead of "it's done
>>when it's done." Bad choice. Made by marketers I'm sure. I hope someone
>>got fired.
>>
>>Microsoft did a major overhaul of the video system, removing it from the
>>kernel, and they should have done far more extensive testing. I'm pretty
>>sure they just slapped on the WHQL imprimatur just to release.
>>
>>So again, MS not completely innocent here, but it was good to revert from
>>the days of NT4 when the video was wrapped up in the kernel in the first
>>place. Remember the new OpenGL screensavers?
>
>No. ;-)
>
Well there was the flowerbox, and the maze thing (including rats), and
the pipes, and the 3d text, and (ooh) FLYING OBJECTS. It was all designed
to demonstrate NT4's newfound graphics prowess.

I have them all archived in my "NT stuff" directory if you want to see
them in action. Multi-monitor setups don't throw them. </s>

>But there significant performance gains to running video-drivers in
>the kernel-space, and back when CPUs measured their speed in dozens -
>or even a few hundred - megahertz, you needed to eke out every
>advantage you could. I don't fault Microsoft for allowing ring-0
>drivers; the performance hit would have made Windows unsuitable for
>gaming for close to a decade otherwise.
>
Oh, me neither. Definitely appropriate in the consumer (95/98(SE)/ME)
line. NT4? Meh. But it did lead the way to 2000 and XP. XP was rock solid
compared to 9x.

Blue screens were part and parcel of a 9x installation and were a fine
sacrifice for gaming. Just keep it away from my workstations was my
opinion at the time.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 14:05:51 +0300, Anssi Saari
<anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> TL;DR: Vista wasn't as bad as people remember.
>
>I suppose. My only experience was with a slowish Toshiba Portege R500,
>somewhen 2007 or 2008. I think the driver issues were sorted by then or
>weren't relevant to Intel graphics.
>
>But Vista was easily to heavy for that laptop, a 5400 RPM HD and slow
>CPU (Core 2 Duo U7700 2 x 1.3 GHz) and I think 2 GB RAM.
>
>Once I got the internal 3G modem's FW updated in Vista, I upgraded it to
>Fedora Linux and was quite happy with it for a few years.
>
>As you said, Windows 7 is much the same as Vista. To me the big
>difference to XP was that both have the same heavy disk access need
>which bogs them down. OK with a decent HD let alone an SSD but a with
>5400 RPM drive... Not fun.

I feel you; my first experience with Vista was on a 1GB Netbook with
an Intel Atom CPU. It took me a long time before I started
reconsidering my viewpoint on Vista. Even today, I feel sort of dirty
defending it.

But the fault behind our experiences lies with the OEM, and not the
operating system. Was Vista a great OS? God, no! Even today it's too
constant UAC prompts - however necessary they may have been to get
developers to change their behavior - are extremely annoying. And that
side-bar? It was Microsoft's first step towards the Windows 8 "Metro"
experience.

But the underlying architecture was sound, and on proper hardware and
a few tweaks, it was a viable OS. (Microsoft thought so too, and
that's how we got Windows 7. ;-).

I'm not recommending anyone rush out and reinstall the OS (I mean, if
you do need an OS that runs on 2006 era hardware, just use XP... or
Windows 7 if you must). I just don't think it deserves its reputation
as 'worst of Microsoft's operating systems' when things like MS DOS 4,
Windows ME, Windows 8 or Windows 11 are lurking about. ;-)