You can disagree all you want. The error lists prove that the number one culprit for errors are things like the Nvidia drivers (no.1 by a LONG shot) and so forth. If you google it, I think you'll find that the OS itself is ranked much lower in terms of actual faults.
sometimes I don't understand the links you provide believing they make your point when in fact they make the point opposed to your own, the graph you show makes my point not yours, (more below)and I'm surprised you posted it
My previous desktop was over 3 years old and my notebook also is well over 2 years old. My notebook works in a mission critical environment where most of my colleagues run Vista, in a corporate environment where 24/7 stability is required.
so, now you are saying there is no problem with "obsolete hardware" when it comes to vista?
you seem to think that your experience means everyone should have the same experience and I am dumbfounded
you are one of the very small percentage who had two gigs of memory or more and I believe you were running dual core processor as well, you seem to think everyone was running the type of hardware you were
users needed to have what you had to switch to vista, about as much resources as their old hardware would support, most people surely did not have two gigs of memory (ps, as far as I can see this os needs three gigs not two but that's another discussion)
however both agree with this, if a person didn't have the resources they should have never installed vista as a system critical box and those people can blame themselves not vista
I typically use my system to it's full potential. Naturally, if I am able to run a stable system while throwing so much at it and not having issues,
I expect anyone else with half a brain to be able to do the same. I certainly don't think that's unreasonable amigo
I happen to have at least half a brain I believe sazar, my system (which was specifically designed for the vista, it was not obsolete hardware) would not run it, nor could you or anyone else make it run as a stable os...until the distributer rewrote their bios and changed those (microsoft certified) drivers, these drivers ms should have never certified, one of them was the wireless card and that was in addition to the video driver
but what's the difference, these drivers were certified and should not have made it through Microsoft's process, yet they did thanx to whatever excuses you choose to make for ms
did you know that sp1 created a new issue for me worse then the bios, wireless and video issues I had?
closing a file AFTER sp1 would actually crash explorer on my latest box! (not my original box)
judging from your response on this thread, since sp1 didn't cause this issue for it's not an os issue, and since one of my machines didn't have the issue, that means it wasn't an issue for me either
now an important point;
this was one of those issues Microsoft CLAIMED had "unknown" origins, it does not get reported as an "os issue" yet I know as a fact sp1 caused the problem not that "unknown" character
the issue was recently resolved with one of the ms patches, but the cause is still listed as "unknown" (according to ms).
I know SOME people who have had multiple issues
first you responded by saying you didn't know people had issues, then you amended that to say you did, not following your fanboyishness here Sazar
There are still items to be addressed since nothing is perfect but overall, it's pretty polished.
now that they've fixed the issues vista was shipped, I agree
Look up any industry report referring to failures @ time of introduction. Windows XP has numerous issues and there was a massive lack of support for the OS by 3'rd party vendors upon release. Comparatively, Vista had a vastly superior drivers database.
I looked it up, then I looked again, I tried every search term I can think of, I can't find what you are talking about
maybe my search terms are flawed but I can see no similar criticism of xp on release, xp actually SOLVED "driver hell" and had FEWER driver issues then the os it replaced, the biggest complaint I can find is that it did not properly support dos, so please post for me the link, prove to me the error of this feeble memory and my flawed search terminology, post your google results that show users had stability issues when xp was released surpassing the stability of the previous windows os
my entire experience with those switching to the new operating system known as "xp" is exactly what my search turned up;
it was beloved from the start, the only people I knew who complained were those who moved from their professional os, (windows 2000) to xp, which they clearly should not have done till xp stretched it's legs, 2000 was an excellent stable system and unless xp offered a feature they needed then no system critical should have switched operating systems, as then, the same thing holds true for vista.
Given that the number one cause for OS errors thus far have been WHQL drivers from Nvidia, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that other people are having issues caused specifically by shoddy drivers rather than the OS itself.
if the drivers were Microsoft certified then it is in fact an operating system issue, it is also in fact a Microsoft issue, it is obviously ms's certification process, but blaming the vendors after they certified their drivers doesn't fly, the blame does not shift FROM Microsoft since they certified those drivers and shouldn't have, it is in fact an ms issue and an OS issue, NOT a vendor issue
there you have it, your own graph, the Microsoft caused issues are just short of 20 percent...that's one in five
this is what you are defending, one in every five issues using vista are actually caused by the operating system and you think a system operator should switch to this OS.
that one in five figure is bad enough even without the driver issues but we absolutely must add certified drivers to the OS slice of that fault graph
your pie graph wants to separate the two, which is fine for tracking and fixing the problems but never the less, those driver issues are OS issues not vendor
once add those ms certified driver issues we see a much worse then one in five fault rate, about half of the problems were caused by Microsoft and vista, one in two...this thing was less then half complete and that figure doesn't even address that 17 percent "unknown" slice of the graph which is going to add significantly to the OS caused problems as well
what do you suppose "unknown" means?...we don't even know yet if that percentage is OS code, driver code, hardware incompatibility, we have no idea but we do know as a fact at LEAST some of those issues are vista caused problems
you posted this graph as proof of your point, I simply do not get it, even using your reasoning as far as the drivers being the vendors fault, one in five issues were caused by the OS, that's not acceptable to too many people
Microsoft certified drivers? They have an automated process to approve drivers from 3'rd party vendors. See the chart I have included above. Microsoft related faults are below 18%. The remaining driver issues are over 82%. Microsoft is not designing the drivers used by other companies.
even if we accept your "the drivers were written by the vendors" excuse (which I do not, Microsoft certified those drivers), you are trying to make the case that an OS that expects 20 percent of the users to have OS issues is an acceptable product to release, I am saying there is no way a system critical OS should be switched to an OS which will numbers where no less then 20 percent of the issues are the victim of the OS
And again I put it to you that the issues are not so much Microsoft's but the vendors who did a crappy job with the drivers and fanboi's with pirated copies of XP who did not want to switch to Vista.
you continue to excuse Microsoft's performance regarding these drivers and their certification program and I have to remind you, the issue is NOT the vendors fault it's the os's, it's Microsoft's certification process and how the OS handled those certified drivers, it is NOT a vendor issue, if Microsoft handled the certification process as they should have these drivers would have been corrected before they reached market
the vendors had a rush to market CAUSED by Microsoft, they wrote drivers and had them certified, the OS could not run those drivers and you continue to blame the vendor rather then the OS or Microsoft and for the life of me I just don't get your reasoning
And that's what Mojave proves
The vast majority of the issues with the reputation come from people who have no working knowledge of the OS or have experienced issues emanating from 3'rd party products.
that's because of the accurate reputation the operating system earned for itself, that some boxes would be fine, such as yours, some would be horrible such as mine...those were facts not fantasy
Microsoft has to come up with a marketing method that overcomes the reputation vista created for itself
I have no problem with people who took the advice from people like me that they needed to avoid vista until it was fixed, those who do more then play for fun with their OS SHOULD have waited until this thing was more complete and as I said, vista earned the reputation it has, (as your graph clearly demonstrates)
Again I have to correct you and say that Vista did not have a reputation created for itself. It worked out the box and worked just fine. Numerous reports have pr oven this.
so the numerous reports that show users like yourself trump the numerous reports that show issues?
I cannot follow your reasoning, there were issues, we all know about the issues, they were vista issues not vendor issues though you insist otherwise and the OS deserved the reputation it created
I fail to see where Gates says that Microsoft says Vista sucks there. Did you?
of course I did, that's why I posted the link, I'm surprised you didn't see it
You might need to find me a better video of Gates saying Vista Sucks amigo
that's the best one we're gonna find and you can see gates say so himself in the video, he will tell you more about the vista issues when he releases the next OS but he says it loud and clear right there
Sazar, you had an excellent out of the box experience, good for you, I did not and plenty of others did not
your own pie Gray shows about 18 percent of the issues were completely vista caused issues, I'm sorry Sazar, even accepting your argument about the drivers being the vendors fault, (I don't accept that argument) 18 percent completely Microsoft issues means as a fact almost one in five problems are entirely vista's doing...that's simple math and this OS earned the terrible reputation it now owns
I couldn't care less WHY Microsoft certified these drivers they did they shouldn't have, if those drivers were the problems that's an OS issue and a Microsoft issue not a vendor issue, these MICROSOFT CERTIFIED drivers failed, all that matters is that they didn't it doesn't matter not why they did since it is Microsoft who did the certification
they had their drivers certified, THAT'S why they certify drivers in the first place and ms needs to either correct that ridiculous program or get rid of it so a driver issue really will be the vendors fault instead of Microsoft's
the ms vista support board is HUGE with issues and again, the reputation vista has is well deserved, ms and vista brought it on themselves
now that the OS is closer to 100 percent complete, gates has the uphill battle vista created for itself, he needs to change the well deserved bad reputation of vista, (as documented by your graph I might add), gates had no such battle changing the reputation of xp
and again, even though these issues are resolved for the most part, I still think a person is batty to switch to the operating system unless it has a feature you need that xp does not offer
you can have the last word, it's obviously clear we won't agree with each others point of view