After my previous short first impressions 'review' of Windows Vista Build 6000, the final build, I promised you a full review which would look a bit deeper into the system, focussing on less obvious matters than appearance alone. Since there are so many new features in Windows Vista, it is very easy to lose track of them. Hence, this review will follow (where possible) a much linked-to page on Wikipedia: Features new to Windows Vista.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-11
Member since:2005-11-13
Why should bad drivers bring down an entire OS? And wasn't this one of the much-touted improvements of Vista, the fact that the entired driver stack had been re-written from graphic to sound card drivers?
So maybe it's not a graphic or sound card driver? Honestly, I don't know of any OS that can stand up to shitty drivers. Sure, the entire OS might not go down in all cases, but generally, it has some sort of unpleasent side effects. For example, if the entire screen goes blank and I have to kill the desktop envrioment, that's not a whole lot better than an OS crash, especially when it takes longer to boot back into the DE than it does to reboot the Windows OS.
And for those who are complaining about the price, the problem isn't that it's too expensive - the problem is you can't afford it 
Member since:2006-04-11
Technically, a Microkernel-based operating system should not crash if one server goes down.
However, "Technically" and what actually tends to happen aren't always the same thing.
If you're going to bash the new Windows, bash it. Don't gripe about little things that ALWAYS crop up on a new OS.
Member since:2006-01-28
So maybe it's not a graphic or sound card driver? Honestly, I don't know of any OS that can stand up to shitty drivers. Sure, the entire OS might not go down in all cases, but generally, it has some sort of unpleasent side effects. For example, if the entire screen goes blank and I have to kill the desktop envrioment, that's not a whole lot better than an OS crash, especially when it takes longer to boot back into the DE than it does to reboot the Windows OS.
Most operating systems do not crash because of poor drivers. A bad driver may mean loss of internet connectivity or no sound or no graphical server, but never a complete lock-up. Claiming that a hard crash where you may lose your data to a corrupted file system or due to unsaved work is in the same ballpark is a very large stretch.
Most people that use a Unix or Linux know that they can restart their session quicly by doing Ctrl+Alt+Backspace or that they can type startx at the screen to get back to a graphical environment. Both of these options take seconds.
If your driver is buggy, you can always turn to Vesa, which is good enough for everything except gaming, which means that you can have a stable operating system while you wait for a better driver.
Please stop making excuses for things that are inexcusable. An operating system should not crash in the XXI century.
Member since:
2006-01-28
Why should bad drivers bring down an entire OS? And wasn't this one of the much-touted improvements of Vista, the fact that the entired driver stack had been re-written from graphic to sound card drivers?
I honestly find it amusing the kinds of excuses some of you can come up for the lack of quality assurance and proper design principles in Microsoft products.