Windows 7 "Sins"

Wow, Timecube had less crap on it's site O.O

win7clutz said:

...causing people to require new computers to run the updated OS.

This is factual, I built 17 new machines to get one compatible with Windows 7.

Ya just gotta love this BS.

agree. this is exactly what ms did. microsoft tried to bump hardware sales. i will give them credit for making up for that with 7 being able to run on older hardware than vista.

IanFarewell said:

UrbanBounca said:

How can I contact them? I have a question that will throw them for a loop.

im intrigued by this statement,

what's the question if you don't mind me asking lol

If open-source is the way to go, how do I go about doing a citation in Open Office? I've searched, and searched, and have yet to find a decent answer.

MS didn't do anything specifically to boost hardware sales.

They were trying to bring the aging XP into the future. The plans for Vista were truly monumental intitially. They had to cut way back due to time and hardware constraints as it was.

It was a huge juggling job to balance features with what they /expected/ the current state of hardware to be at release.

The main issues with working with partners had nothing to do with escalating hardware seales, it was trying to get the hardware vendors to produce drivers and machines that would work with several new driver architectures in Vista which in order to /take advantange/ of the latest hardware available.

It was nothing more than a miscalculation about how far /backwards/ the OS would be able to function with al lthe new stuff turned on.

Frankly, I'd rather have an OS designed for current and future hardware rather than to a target 5 years behind the times... there's notheing wrong with waiting till you /want/ to upgrade to pick up the newest OS rather than trying to wedge it on to old crap.

microsoft setup vista so it would have a hard time running any hardware that did not have a digitally signed driver. in doing this they caused most systems at the time to have problems with vista. luckily they fix this with sp1. the problem was microsoft wanted digitally signed drivers form the hardware manufactures, but chose to bring the manufactures into the loop after they released vista.

HookerForEver said:

microsoft setup vista so it would have a hard time running any hardware that did not have a digitally signed driver. in doing this they caused most systems at the time to have problems with vista. luckily they fix this with sp1. the problem was microsoft wanted digitally signed drivers form the hardware manufactures, but chose to bring the manufactures into the loop after they released vista.

That was for 64 bit only and was the same for XP-64 and the 64 bit server software. It's one of thise "nice ideas in theory" but yes, all it really does is make it even harder to actually move to 64 bit.

32 bit has never required signed drivers. The main problem were the vast changes in the audio and video driver models that a lot of hardware vendors were some what loath to have to keep up with, and in some cases very slow about it. THere were a LOT of smaller tweaks that required minimal effort to fix from HW/SW people but most o fthem didn;t bother to even look at it till after vista was released.

MS worked with manufacturers for at least 18 months BEFORE the release of Vista but many of them still chose to wait till Vista was released to really do much work. Then suddenly it was all a-panic.

You could really see the dividing lines between those companies that were on the ball and ready to take advantage of the new release (because/they/ wanted to sell new hardware) and those that really didn't seem to care at all. One such duality was MOTU vs M-Audio. MOTU had crack drivers even during beta, M-Audio took MONTHS to get drivers out for the bulk of their hardware (they are finally almost fully complient... finally). Then there was Soundblaster whining up a storm instead of coding :P They were the worst, just whining and whining about how it was too hard and blah blah, while smaller companies jumped on it and got the job done.

So the moral of the story is: Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by laziness. :)

fseal said:

HookerForEver said:

microsoft setup vista so it would have a hard time running any hardware that did not have a digitally signed driver. in doing this they caused most systems at the time to have problems with vista. luckily they fix this with sp1. the problem was microsoft wanted digitally signed drivers form the hardware manufactures, but chose to bring the manufactures into the loop after they released vista.

That was for 64 bit only and was the same for XP-64 and the 64 bit server software. It's one of thise "nice ideas in theory" but yes, all it really does is make it even harder to actually move to 64 bit.

32 bit has never required signed drivers. The main problem were the vast changes in the audio and video driver models that a lot of hardware vendors were some what loath to have to keep up with, and in some cases very slow about it. THere were a LOT of smaller tweaks that required minimal effort to fix from HW/SW people but most o fthem didn;t bother to even look at it till after vista was released.

MS worked with manufacturers for at least 18 months BEFORE the release of Vista but many of them still chose to wait till Vista was released to really do much work. Then suddenly it was all a-panic.

You could really see the dividing lines between those companies that were on the ball and ready to take advantage of the new release (because/they/ wanted to sell new hardware) and those that really didn't seem to care at all. One such duality was MOTU vs M-Audio. MOTU had crack drivers even during beta, M-Audio took MONTHS to get drivers out for the bulk of their hardware (they are finally almost fully complient... finally). Then there was Soundblaster whining up a storm instead of coding :P They were the worst, just whining and whining about how it was too hard and blah blah, while smaller companies jumped on it and got the job done.

So the moral of the story is: Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by laziness. :)

that was for vista in general. rather you want to believe it or not it did have to do with exactly what i stated above. microsoft could have waited 6 months to a year after vista came out to force digitally signed drivers, but they chose not to. they also chose not to bring the hardware manufactures on board until almost a year after they released vista.

32 bit has no requirement for digitally signed drivers.

64 bit has always had a requirement for digitally signed drivers.

Vista was nothing special there. Maybe it should have been but that really had nothing to do with anything that happened. Lack of drivers for Vista had nothing to do with signing at all.

"WAT" the He. .