You're making a confusion here, like almost everyone who dislike/hate Vista. Microsoft is NOT responsable to create drivers for products of another company. They are responsable with just releasing the Vista DDK (Driver Development Kit) which is out for years (for those companies). So when you have a driver problem, don't blame Microsoft or Vista for not providing support or full support for other products that they don't control. Is like I'm making a software, I offer you an SDK, but you don't write plugins for my software. And when users need those plugins, they blame me. Is it fair? Please be realistic, Microsoft doesn't have all the specifications for all the hardware products in the world, so Microsoft can't write good accurate drivers for each and every one of them. But hardware companies SHOULD, because they make those products. And when the OS crashes due a BSOD, this is for several reasons: - drivers with bugs - hardware failure Am BSOD is just a protection feature. Is just a function written by Microsoft that starts only when those two problems I mentioned are being triggered. You can see some videos about BSOD and it's protective meaning, from Sysinternals.
i have tried vista but it slow down my speed because its operations are slow thats why its sale is slow
Normal software can 'force' them too - I can BSOD Vista or XP with the proper combinations of openGL or directX by leaving the renderer pointing at a texture, then releasing that texture memory - Creates what SHOULD be a protection fault, but because the fault occurs in the renderer instead of the application, it takes down windows. (you can do the same thing with OpenGL under most any OS - often with uglier results than how windows handles it). I actually think this is why some graphics engines err on the side of leaking, because prematurely releasing texture memory can take you to a very BAD place. Though - my problems under vista were that the OS was neither doing a BSOD, or a protection fault, or even recognizing that an application was 'not responding' - the applications would lock up after a random amount of time, and I'd have to kill them ALL in turn. No error messages, no indications anything was actually wrong in the OS - apart from that all applications were refusing to accept user input, and were 'frozen' using no CPU, yet not being recognized as having crashed by Vista...
No it's halo 2 for vista, trust me search it... But vista is REALLY bad, crashes frequently, even with recommended system settings. In all reality vista doesn't offer much more than a better look than XP.XP IS MORE STABLE AND MUCH FASTER WHEN USING A STANDARD 1GB RAM Microsoft are just trying to make money!
Yeah, and Steve Jobs said nobody would actually spend money on a color display. You have to remember when statements like these were made, 16-32k were the norm. That's like today saying 80gigs of RAM should be enough for anyone.
I've had great luck with Vista Basic. Much more stable than pre-SP2 XP. I wouldn't hesitate to buy Vista on a new computer.
Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) will reportedly debut later this month. http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=59295
Try SimplyMEPIS: * SimplyMEPIS just works! It is pre-configured for simplicity and ease of use, and you will be productive in a matter of minutes, even if this is your first try with Linux * SimplyMEPIS features unique hardware detection and configuration superior to any other Linux versions * SimplyMEPIS allows you to test and try without installation to see if it suits you and your needs * SimplyMEPIS is well supported by an excellent Community Forum, Community Wiki, and User's Manual,