Vista are designed for people who can write their own driver.

This is a technical challange that microsoft came up with. Bill gate decide
that if to design an Os to give people some challenge to search for driver
just like RPG game, looking for clue. What a world had turned into..

 

Microsoft is not responsible for the drivers of other
companies hardware!

You should be addressing this type of complaint to the
hardware companies, not Microsoft!

 

Which driver(s) are you looking for?

 

I am desperately looking for conexant 64bit audio driver with ati
southbridge chipset for my gateway 7510gx. Even a driver will only produce
mono sound will be fine by me.... that desperate..

 

Canixs:
You are just one among many needing signed x64 drivers for the
Conexant 20468-31 chipset used on many laptop computers. The only avenue for
us is to continually question the manufacturers to when the drivers will be
available. Have a great day.

 

Bill Gates is getting richer by the second on our problems. No 64-bit
drivers/patches but 64-bit Windows? I wish I had known that before I bought
it. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, Microsoft or the hardware/software
manufacturers . . . it's the little people who have to suck it in. We've
been snookered . . . again.

 

Denise, the trick with major new OS releases is research and no small
amount of skepticism -- before the sale.

With 64 bit Windows there was enough of a history of driver issues --
it is one of the things which very much sidetracked XP64 into a
specialty OS rather than the OS of choice (instead of XP 32).

In the right setting, a 64 bit OS pays off and can be made to do things
that are more difficult in 32 bit. (As a server OS, given the memory
needs of Windows servers in larger settings, the 64 bit OS pays off big
time -- again as long as the hardware driver support exists).

My own view is that Vista 64 will have significantly better driver and
application support than XP 64, and this will result in Vista 64
gaining a larger piece of the Microsoft OS market -- *eventually*.

For now, 'the little people' are most probably better served by Vista
32 -- recognizing that even with Vista 32 there are driver issues that
remain to be solved (and I'd guess with a much shorter resolution time
frame than with Vista 64).

The other thing that folks ought to be aware of, based on well over a
decade of Windows release history, is that the first release of a new
OS is often close to the mark, but not quite on target.

Examples (my opinion here others may differ)

Windows 95 -- cool -- but Windows 95 OSR2 was much better.

Windows 98 -- cool -- but Windows 98 SE was much better

Windows 2000 -- excellent -- *especially once SP3 was out*

Windows ME -- well not all Windows is good windows.

Windows XP -- cool -- but XP2 made a REAL difference.

I'm not an early 'deployer' -- that is I run the new OS on some
systems, but certainly don't push a new OS on my client base. If they
ask, I present my view of the plusses and minuses -- and then when they
make an informed choice, do my best to support that.


By the way, this 'update-itis' is not unique to Microsoft and Windows.

 

Microsoft as much as said "here's an operating system but you won't be able
to do much with it because I'm leaving it up to everyone else to update their
hardware and software." Microsoft didn't do that with 95, 98, ME, 2000 Home,
2000XP. It was a smooth transition from one release to the next. People who
are computer knowledgable might have known of the incompatibility that never
existed before but most people didn't, as demonstrated by the number of angry
posts about the os. I have a new HP All-in-One printer. Before it was
purchased, I contacted HP Tech Support and asked if it would be compatible
with X64. I was told that it was but it isn't. I lost it's faxing
capability and HP obnoxiously and clearly states that on their update
website. My 3-month old all-in-one printer no longer in their product line.
They reduced the price before Christmas to make it very alluring then dropped
it like a hot potatoe because they knew that it wasn't compatible with X64.
Snookered.

Denise

 

hardware and software." Microsoft didn't do that with 95, 98, ME, 2000 Home,

But they did and it wasn't a smooth transition. By the time the
'second cuts' of those OS's were out, driver support was quite good.
About the only exception has been XP 64.

I'm not saying Microsoft is blameless here -- rather it is a collective
accountability, Microsoft, hardware (and software) vendors, AND
consumers.

I support, build and sell systems for my client base. So for me it is
a case of been there done that.

 

I never had a problem with the transition between 95, 98 and 2000 XP Pro. If
it was the second cut, as you said, they must've come out with it pretty
fast. Now all they do is blame the other guy for it, and some people blame
the people who bought the operating system which, I would like to add, came
with no warning that it was incompatible with a lot of hardware and software.
If it was a baby car seat or just about most other products that had
defects, the item would have been recalled at once. Microsoft gets away with
this kind of thing because they have the bucks to back them up and the good
ole USA is looking the other way instead of getting involved.

I guess I can say that I've been there and done that now too.

 

Fair enough, perhaps I was closer to the ongoing support/test side of
things -- I've been involved in personal computer use and support since
the early days (my first work PC was the original IBM 8088 based
system, my first home computer was the Compaq 'Portable'), and I've
doing online support since early days (Borland TeamB on CompuServe --
along with Charlie Russel who does MVP support in this newsgroup
amongst others).

Regarding drivers, there is a limit to what Microsoft can do -- drivers
that are included in Vista (and were included in past OS images) are
those written by the manufacturers themselves, working with Microsoft
as the OS goes thru beta phases. So it is a collective effort.
Microsoft upped the security ante with Vista 64 -- the drivers get
security checked in a way not seen before. That likely slows up the
effort. As it is, on the 64 bit side things have been at least
somewhat problematic since day one (as XP 64 driver issues
demonstrate). On the manufacturer side, they need to allocate
resources to develop code - and they will allocate those resources in a
way which is viewed as 'revenue smart'.

That certainly is one of the things that hurt XP 64 (at least for non-
server hardware). With the concurrent Vista 32 and Vista 64 release, I
think Microsoft is pushing the manufacturers of end user hardware to
develop drivers for the 64 bit OS by increasing the market and thus the
reason for manufacturers to allocate resources for the effort. At the
same time, those manufacturers are pretty much *compelled* by the
market to work on (and optimize) the 32 bit drivers for Vista. The
thing for the manufacturers -- where is the revenue for their efforts.
Certainly Microsoft isn't *paying* them to do this. So they need to
see it as new hardware sales.

Well with Vista 32 that's what is going on. With Vista 64 it is going
on no doubt to a lesser degree. But the thing is, in addition to
driver development for *new* sales, the manufacturers are under end
user pressure for development of drivers for already sold product. And
Microsoft increases this pressure by marketing the upgrade versions to
customers who expect Vista to suddenly make their existing Windows ME,
Windows 2K or Windows XP environment a 'WOW'.

So, I'm not 'angry' at Microsoft, the hardware suppliers, or for that
matter the end users. It is just that the first few months are (as
they actually were -- your perception notwithstanding -- with previous
new Windows releases) the most difficult for all involved -- with only
Microsoft actually seeing the new revenues. Then again, the 5 year
plus development effort cost Microsoft hundreds of millions of dollars
if not in the billion plus range.

 

As if Microsoft couldn't afford to lose a billion or two . . .

Microsoft cares about Microsoft. It has the money to put into the
development of code to help the manufacturers and end users. Too many people
are angry about this and with Microsoft in a way they never have been before.
That in itself speaks volumes. Microsoft should get its a$$ whacked but it
won't even get a sideways glance. I lost the fax capability with my new
printer. Oh well, I guess I can take a couple hundred dollars that I could
use for food, heat, telephone, rent, etc, to buy another printer so that Bill
Gates can buy a luxury liner or his 10th chateau somewhere. No warning that
it's not compatible with a lot of hardware and software is not only shoving
it into our faces but smearing it around also and, the entity that is
supposed to protect us from this type of non-declaration, our federal
government, is letting Microsoft get away with it. No matter how you look at
it, it's wrong. I guess Bush is too glad to be stimulating the US economy
for the fortune 500 by sending our young soldiers to Iraq, away from their
families, spending billions of dollars to do so, to be concerned about
anything else. He's not a lame duck but he's not interested in the welfare
of this country's citizens either.

 

I think you have a very short memory. Win 95 had the exact
same problems with drivers when it first came out. One
difference though was that Win 95 could load a lot of the
16-bit drivers, but that prevented it from booting into the
32-bit mode. There were some hardware that took awhile for
drivers to be published. I had a Sony CD-ROM drive with a
proprietary interface board and the best I remember it was
at least 6 months after Win 95 was released before Win 95
compatible drivers were published. The 16-bit drivers
(MS-DOS) wouldn't work with Win 95.

Also, when Win XP first came out there were a few drivers I
had to wait for. So, it wasn't all rosy with the previous
OS's either!

 

Developers of small useful programs, many free, are just not going to
support Vista64. This is the response I received from one as an example

I know. You send me the $200 for the registration and I will consider it.

 

Fair enough -- I realize at a certain point that instead of a dialog,
discussions of this sort can become a series of monologues -- I suspect
we've reached this point here. I'll respectfully agree to disagree
with your vantage point.

 

Developers of small useful programs, many free, are just not going to

Understood -- for that matter developers of other software can take
that position. Novell elected to NOT develop a client for XP 64. The
downside there was not having a client for the 64 bit server.

Novell is developing a client for Vista (both 32 and 64), but only for
the Novell servers which use pure TCPIP. This cuts off those folks
with Netware 4.2 and older. The reason there -- with Vista, IPX is not
supported by Microsoft and Novell isn't in the business of developing
protocol support -- especially for long discontinued (but still
actively used) versions of NetWare.

 

I think you have a very short memory.

It may be a case of selective memory -- my wife claims I manifest that
myself <smile>.

 

I never had a problem with 95, 98 or 2000 XP.

It's been over 12 months since X64 came out. One year is long enough for
drivers to be developed if Microsoft has a desire to do so. It looks like it
doesn't.

 

My memory is just fine. I'm talking about basic features, such as a printer,
that isn't compatible with X64. I'm not talking any more high tech than
that. It was never a problem to go from 95 to 98 to XP Pro with the same
printer. You're seeing it from an angle that's different than must end
users. We expect at least the basics to work and they don't.

I agree with what John said . . . "I'll respectfully agree to disagree with
your vantage point." But why did you continue to post, John. I'm out of
here.