Forums | MacLife

1. You're wrong.  For example, the cheapest Dell I could find has a gig of RAM and GMA3100 (this is adequate for Vista and Aero).  But this is very much beside the point <SNIP>

EDIT: Nevermind, I've made my point earlier.

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-06-17 6:03 pm)

Mr. T wrote:

1. You're wrong.  For example, the cheapest Dell I could find has a gig of RAM and GMA3100 (this is adequate for Vista and Aero).  But this is very much beside the point <SNIP>

EDIT: Nevermind, I've made my point earlier.

Oh, that's right, Dell is the only company that makes and sells PCs. What was I thinking?

There were a great deal of laptops sold without adequate specifications for Vista that still bore the "Vista ready" label.

EDIT: Since MS was threatened with a class-action lawsuit, its likely they've been more stringent with their requirements.

Last edited by Metacell (2008-06-17 11:43 pm)

Mr. T wrote:

That's true.  There was a whole big stink about it back when Vista was new, and threats of class-actions suits (etc), but frankly said "new PCs."

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=8224470
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=8304655
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=7754613

http://www.notebookcheck.net/VIA-Chrome9-HC.3712.0.html

Sorry, my estimate of many was a bit off. I hadn't checked up on this recently. The problem is that this was widespread when Vista was released which was just last year and it is a valid comparison when you are saying that Macs that are 3 years old should definitely be compatible with a new OS and you are holding up Vista as the marker when there were plenty of incompatible PCs being sold when it was released last year. So you are having trouble seeing the forest for the trees as it pertains to the case you were making.

Bat wrote:

Vista was released nearly 18 months ago.

Yes, but this is what was said:

I don't know what kind of release this is going to be, but the biggest complaint people have had against Vista is compatibility.  People sometimes describe the problem using words such as "travesty," when in fact, Microsoft has far exceeded Apple in this area, both in terms of legacy application support, and legacy hardware support.

The facts are that machines that were brand new when it was released were incompatible. In fact, some still are today, 18 months later. And yet it was held up as exceeding Apple when Snow Leopard MIGHT leave out some machines that are 3 years old when it is released.

That is the point I was making.

Shadowless wrote:

frankly wrote:

Bat wrote:

Vista was released nearly 18 months ago.

Yes, but this is what was said:

I don't know what kind of release this is going to be, but the biggest complaint people have had against Vista is compatibility.  People sometimes describe the problem using words such as "travesty," when in fact, Microsoft has far exceeded Apple in this area, both in terms of legacy application support, and legacy hardware support.

The facts are that machines that were brand new when it was released were incompatible. In fact, some still are today, 18 months later. And yet it was held up as exceeding Apple when Snow Leopard MIGHT leave out some machines that are 3 years old when it is released.

That is the point I was making.

You know, that's a good point.

Except in the Vista case the incompatibles were el cheapo bargain bin PCs while Apple's noncompatible list includes $3500+ Quad G5s and top of the line power books.
Equvelent PCs are perfectly Vista compatible.

frankly wrote:

Bat wrote:

Vista was released nearly 18 months ago.

Yes, but this is what was said:

I don't know what kind of release this is going to be, but the biggest complaint people have had against Vista is compatibility.  People sometimes describe the problem using words such as "travesty," when in fact, Microsoft has far exceeded Apple in this area, both in terms of legacy application support, and legacy hardware support.

The facts are that machines that were brand new when it was released were incompatible. In fact, some still are today, 18 months later. And yet it was held up as exceeding Apple when Snow Leopard MIGHT leave out some machines that are 3 years old when it is released.

That is the point I was making.

Ok. We'll never really lay this to rest, but maybe some of the cobwebs can be cleared away re:Vista.

Metacell wrote:

There were a great deal of laptops sold without adequate specifications for Vista that still bore the "Vista ready" label.

EDIT: Since MS was threatened with a class-action lawsuit, its likely they've been more stringent with their requirements.

Not threatened, it's gone forward, and docs produced thereby make for interesting reading. One article has a link to the 158 page PDF. I'll just throw up a few, if longish, quotes.

Compatibility:

Here's what White figured out: When Mr. Walling bought his new Windows Vista machine, he initially used the installation disc that came with his Dell 942 All in One printer that he had been using with his previous PC. That disc was meant for Windows XP. The problem: Dell's printer driver for Windows XP did install on Windows Vista. But it didn't work. And it couldn't be easily removed.

White explained that the older Dell installation program tried to write files to locations in Windows Vista that Microsoft had locked down as part of its attempt to make the new operating system more secure. So those files were instead directed to different locations in the system, complicating matters for any program attempting to remove them.
...

Basically, it makes perfect sense. These (installation) packages can be very large and complex, and developers in the XP era were able to get away with a lot of stuff because the operating system allowed every user to be an administrator and allowed any installer to muck with files in areas that should have been more secure. The system files themselves were protected from damage, but the environment around them was wide-open.

All of that changed, big time, with Vista, which really seriously locked down a lot of these locations, allowing them to be accessed only by the TrustedInstaller process. The file and folder redirection is going to prevent problems in 98 or 99 out of 100 cases, but this is the 1 or 2 in 100 where it causes problems.

This certainly isn't the only example of this. But it is thankfully rare enough that most people shouldn't see it.

To answer your specific question, this certainly isn't the user's fault. Yes, he should have checked for a Vista-compatible driver and not used the old driver disk, but how is a nontechnical user supposed to know that?

article

...and more, from last February:

From: Steven Sinofsky
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:08 PM
To: Steve Ballmer
Cc: Bill Veghte, Jon DeVaan
Subject: RE: Vista

I think folks are working on this now and we just need time.

Basically I think three things worked against us:

No one really believed we would ever ship so they didn't start the work until very late in 2006. This led to the lack of availability. For example my home multi-function printer did not have drivers until 2/2 and even pulled their 1/30 drivers and re-released them (Brother).

Massive change in the underpinnings for video and audio really led to a poor experience at RTM, especially with respect to Windows Media Center. This change led to incompatibilities. For example, you don't get Aero with an XP driver, but your card might not (ever) have a Vista driver.

A lot of change led to many Windows XP drivers not really working at all -- this is across the board for printers, scanners, wan, accessories (fingerprint readers, smartcards, tv tuners), and so on. This category is due to the fact that many of the associated applets don't run within the constraints of the security model or the new video/audio driver models. For example, OrlandoA [Microsoft executive Orlando Ayala] is not on Vista because there are no drivers for his Verizon card yet. Microsoft's own hardware was missing a lot of support (fingerprint reader, MCE extender, etc.)

People who rely on using all the features of their hardware (like Jon's Nikon scanner) will not see availability for some time, if ever, depending on the mfg. The built-in drivers never have all the features but do work. For example, I could print with [my] Brother printer and use it as a stand-alone fax. But network setup, scanning, print to fax must come from Brother.

The Vista Ready logo program required drivers available on 1/30. I think we had had reasonable coverage, but quality was uneven as I experienced.

Intel has the biggest challenge. Their "945" chipset which is the baseline Vista set "barely" works right now and is very broadly used. The "915" chipset which is not Aero capable is in a huge number of laptops and was tagged as "Vista Capable" but not Vista Premium. I don't know if this was a good call. But these function but will never be great. Even a 945 set has new builds of drivers coming out constantly but hopes are on the next chipset rather than this one.

The point Jim [Allchin, the previous Windows chief] had of declaring a Release Candidate was because he sensed people were not really working under a deadline in the ecosystem. This helped even though we knew we had more work to do on our side.

So far I am surprised at the low call volume in PSS [Product Support Services]. I think we have a lot of new PCs which helps and the hobbyist people who bought FPP/UPG [Full Packaged Product or upgrade] just know what to do and aren't calling, but I know they are struggling.

All of this is why we need much more clarity and focus at events like WinHEC [Windows Hardware Engineering Conference]. We need to be clearer with industry and we need to decide what we will do and do that well and 100% and not just do a little of everything which leaves the IHV [Independent Hardware Vendors] in a confused state.

article w/link

With good drivers, a healthy dollop of RAM (dirt-cheap these days except for high-end DDR3) and a decent videochip, Vista can run well. Its launch was botched, but with current hardware and an OEM paying a little attention to system integration, it works, even well, with some nice features.

And we are operating on speculation as to whether Apple is even going to cut them off or not.

I believe there's a link nearby to confirmation that SL is x86-only.

frankly wrote:

Bat wrote:

And we are operating on speculation as to whether Apple is even going to cut them off or not.

I believe there's a link nearby to confirmation that SL is x86-only.

Is that the release version of Snow Leopard? All we know (from anonymous reports) is that the Developer Release of Snow Leopard is x86-only. No one knows what is going to happen over the next year. That is where the speculation comes in.

Historically early Dev releases have supported a wider range of hardware than the Gold Master to accommodate developers who aren't all that well off.
The DR versions of 10.0 ran on 604 machines for example.

frankly wrote:

Pariah wrote:

frankly wrote:

Is that the release version of Snow Leopard? All we know (from anonymous reports) is that the Developer Release of Snow Leopard is x86-only. No one knows what is going to happen over the next year. That is where the speculation comes in.

Historically early Dev releases have supported a wider range of hardware than the Gold Master to accommodate developers who aren't all that well off.
The DR versions of 10.0 ran on 604 machines for example.

That has no bearing on what we are talking about here. You are comparing a release version being okay to work with an older machine vs. whether or not one will work on a completely different architecture. You are reaching to justify your point now. Besides, you might want to pull an example that doesn't reach back into the previous century.

Reaching to make what point? I wasnt aware I had any particular point going here.

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

That's true.  There was a whole big stink about it back when Vista was new, and threats of class-actions suits (etc), but frankly said "new PCs."

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=8224470
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=8304655
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=7754613

http://www.notebookcheck.net/VIA-Chrome9-HC.3712.0.html

Sorry, my estimate of many was a bit off. I hadn't checked up on this recently. The problem is that this was widespread when Vista was released which was just last year and it is a valid comparison when you are saying that Macs that are 3 years old should definitely be compatible with a new OS and you are holding up Vista as the marker when there were plenty of incompatible PCs being sold when it was released last year. So you are having trouble seeing the forest for the trees as it pertains to the case you were making.

FAILURE!!

This is going to be fun...

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=8224470
--> Linux

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=8304655
--> Linux

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=7754613
--> 1GB RAM and Aero -- CHECK

http://www.notebookcheck.net/VIA-Chrome9-HC.3712.0.html
--> Integrated graphics suck, even when Apple uses them.  To add insult to injury, graphics performance is notoriously bad in OS X (bad implies significantly worse) .  In any case, Integrated graphics are perfectly suitable for Aero/Aqua.

See, it's not so easy, is it? (I might've enjoyed that a bit too much).

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-06-18 7:25 pm)

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

That's true.  There was a whole big stink about it back when Vista was new, and threats of class-actions suits (etc), but frankly said "new PCs."

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=8224470
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=8304655
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=7754613

http://www.notebookcheck.net/VIA-Chrome9-HC.3712.0.html

Sorry, my estimate of many was a bit off. I hadn't checked up on this recently. The problem is that this was widespread when Vista was released which was just last year and it is a valid comparison when you are saying that Macs that are 3 years old should definitely be compatible with a new OS and you are holding up Vista as the marker when there were plenty of incompatible PCs being sold when it was released last year. So you are having trouble seeing the forest for the trees as it pertains to the case you were making.

FAILURE!!

This is going to be fun...

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=8224470
--> Linux

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=8304655
--> Linux

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=7754613
--> 1GB RAM and Aero -- CHECK

http://www.notebookcheck.net/VIA-Chrome9-HC.3712.0.html
--> Integrated graphics suck, even when Apple uses them.  To add insult to injury, graphics performance is notoriously bad in OS X (bad implies significantly worse) .  In any case, Integrated graphics are perfectly suitable for Aero/Aqua.

See, it's not so easy, is it? (I might've enjoyed that a bit too much).

It is so great when someone acts like a putz only to end up being wrong. I know the first two come with linux. I wasn't claiming that they were being sold with Vista, only that they are brand new PCs released 18 months after Vista and they still can't run it. As far as the third, I guess you didn't check the other link. It may come with Vista but the video card it has is not a Vista compatible card. So it will have issues.

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

It is so great when someone acts like a putz only to end up being wrong. I know the first two come with linux. I wasn't claiming that they were being sold with Vista, only that they are brand new PCs released 18 months after Vista and they still can't run it. As far as the third, I guess you didn't check the other link. It may come with Vista but the video card it has is not a Vista compatible card. So it will have issues.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you have butchered your original point so much, that I actually agree with you now.  The bad news, is you've changed it into something completely irrelevant.

If you say so.

Sorry, Meta; don't know.

frankly wrote:

If you say so.

Then let's dispose of it once and for all.

frankly wrote:

You are reaching to justify your point now. Besides, you might want to pull an example that doesn't reach back into the previous century.

If reaching means exaggeration, this is also. Why not say 'millenium?' Technically just as true, but a calmer discussion might see the use of 'decade' instead.

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

...
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. … id=7754613
--> 1GB RAM and Aero -- CHECK

http://www.notebookcheck.net/VIA-Chrome9-HC.3712.0.html
--> Integrated graphics suck, even when Apple uses them.  To add insult to injury, graphics performance is notoriously bad in OS X (bad implies significantly worse) .  In any case, Integrated graphics are perfectly suitable for Aero/Aqua.

See, it's not so easy, is it? (I might've enjoyed that a bit too much).

It is so great when someone acts like a putz only to end up being wrong.

Sometimes. Let's look.

I know the first two come with linux. I wasn't claiming that they were being sold with Vista, only that they are brand new PCs released 18 months after Vista and they still can't run it.

At the extreme low end of the price scale, far below the price of a Mini... closer to an iPhone, in fact, which has been pegged at a BOM of ~$100 ((3G); and

As far as the third, I guess you didn't check the other link. It may come with Vista but the video card it has is not a Vista compatible card. So it will have issues.

Chip. Integrated Graphics usual meaning is 'graphics integrated into the core logic.' Btw, 950> 945> 915, the latter two of which were the cause of the early difficulties... anyway, the notation for the Via chip reads

The performance of VIA Chrome 9 HC IGP is only the halve [sic] of current competitors of integrated graphic cards (Intel GMA 950, AMD XPress 1100) and even is overextended with the DirectX 9.0 functions of the Aero interface (of Windows Vista) (usage possible, but only with motion interruptions).

So, when this was written, performance (including drivers, oftener updated on the Darkside; ask Metacell) is/was insufficient to preclude stuttering. This means the Aero GUI runs/ran, just not smoothly with then-current drivers. Sub-$300,

This value-priced computer is designed to provide ultra-low power consumption, advanced security features and fast performance for both students and mainstream consumers.

...runs

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic

...so its need for Aero performance is non-existent. Vista Basic needs no more graphics prowess than XP (or Linux), as Basic does not run Aero.

That about wraps it for me here.