Aero Taskforce

Ensign Joe wrote on October 13, 2008, 1:55pm

-1
Impossible due to missing drivers.

Good_Bytes wrote on October 13, 2008, 4:52pm

Yup, unable to do.
-1

The reason why it is able to do this in a MAC is because they are like 2 models, so they include the drivers for that in the setup. If they do this in Windows, the user will have to wait for the video card to install, hope it work, install Windows, and then wait until the video drivers install again, and if a new video card comes out, clearly it won't have driver, so he won't be able to install the OS....

WAAAAYYYYYY to complicated.

If you are unhappy, use a CRT :D
My 17inch CRT can go up 2048x1536, and still everything is sharp.. flickery (due to the 60Hz refresh rate), but sharp.

Michael Mc wrote on October 13, 2008, 6:02pm

Vista installs in about half an hour anyway so it's only 30 minutes of blurry that you're being asked to put up with :)

Good_Bytes wrote on October 13, 2008, 6:16pm

30min! If you are using a high end computer with a good optical drive expect 20min,. and 8-15min using a high speed USB memory stick or external HDD.

jamesrising wrote on October 13, 2008, 8:09pm

@Good_Bytes:

While what you said is perfectly correct (except for the unable to do part), it doesn't mean it should be that way.

+1

Good_Bytes wrote on October 13, 2008, 8:14pm

Ok so based your theory, it will be like this.
"Welcome to Windows 7 setup, please insert Video card driver Blu-ray disk into your blu-ray drive"
"Detecting hardware...."
"Unable to detect hardware, please manually install using the driver disk provided"
"Driver not found. Please buy an older video card, install Windows, then change back your video card, and install it's proper drivers."

Not to mention that companies will have to do 2 drivers!
One for Windows, and the other especially for Windows Setup.

This is just pathetic. ALL this JUST so that you have pretty text for 20min, which you won't see again for a VERY long time... and now 10min with Windows 7 (apparently)

Also, this is the same reason why your BIOS is 8-16bit color, and at 640x480.

.Chris wrote on October 13, 2008, 9:41pm

Cant do. just get used to it. you only install once so whats the big deal

-1

Grey_Podder wrote on October 13, 2008, 11:28pm

Attention to detail is important, and the install process is the user's first impression of Vista. Even if you only install once, this negative impression lasts. I see many comments asking us to wait for Windows 7 to fix everything. This site is meant to find the quirks in Windows Vista. Either stop apologising for Vista or wait until 7 arrives and Long Zheng creates a taskforce for it. By then I expect to read "Windows 8 will fix that..."

Danielsmi, I fear you gave your submission the "kiss of death" by mentioning OS X here. I have already learned never to do this again. It produces quite a fervent response.

+1

Michael Mc wrote on October 14, 2008, 12:13am

@Grey_Podder: I thought the same thing as you originally, but then I remembered that for the last part of the install (where you select a user tile and password) the resolution increases. It's this part that most end-users will deal with.

Danielsmi wrote on October 16, 2008, 5:49am

Umm this is definitely possible. I'm allowed to adjust the screen resolution of my monitor to 1920x1200 even though I don't have nvidia specific drivers installed. I've done this in XP. Last time I installed XP on my system which has an 8800GT it of course didn't install drivers but it used generic drivers and was able to run my monitor at full resolution before I installed the correct drivers. Now during this time there was some artifacts when moving windows and scrolling but not when looking at still screens but it still looked much better than 800x600 and when do you have to drag windows around during an OS install?

Good_Bytes wrote on October 16, 2008, 6:08am

For the average user, artifacts or green lines on the screen means broken computer. Even thus you show them the drivers (which they will see as patch), it will give a bad experience, and say "that is stupid". However blurry text, doesn't mind the average user. Too many users I saw have they screen resolution under their LCD design resolution, and when I show them the proper resolution, it takes them several minute and multiple comparison for them tho realize that before it was blurry.

nVidia has a unified driver architecture, meaning technically speaking the drivers for a Geforce 2 will work on a Geforce GTX 280, you will get crap (like what you have or worst), and no 3D of course, but it works.

AMD/ATI, Intel, SiS, VIA, and others, sadly don't live in such world.

fowl wrote on October 19, 2008, 2:16am

IIRC setup does run at native resolution. Well at least it did for me. (it's been a while :D)

Most users can't tell the difference sadly though.

Will vote up just in case.

.Chris wrote on October 19, 2008, 2:19am

people complain about the smallest things in life. its a shame. get a life kids

Danielsmi wrote on October 19, 2008, 8:16am

To give another example. I'm currently typing this in Server 2008 which I usually run headless (meaning no KVM) but I'm running it with my old Nvidia 6600Gt installed and I've yet to install the drivers for it and I don't plan too. Yet I'm still running the monitor at the correct resolution of 1280x1024. When I go to device manager under display adapters it says "standard vga graphics adapter". So like I said from the beginning you do NOT have to have specific drivers to run at the correct resolution. It works fine on generic drivers. Also I'll say I'm only having slight issues with screen tearing and no issues when scrolling through text. So this is definitely doable only the uneducated don't think so.

Good_Bytes wrote on October 19, 2008, 9:17am

Danielsmi, the video card is design in a standard way... it is what you expect from a well build video card, sadly perfect world it is not. Also, if you use a CRT, using your configuration you will be stock at 60Hz (that means heavy flicker, and headache), driver are required to set your display refresh rate (for a CRT) to the correct settings (85Hz for me at 1280x1024). I had the SAME video card, I know how it was, in fact I have now (upgraded) a Geforce GTX 260 and it was the same thing.

Doesn't mean it works for YOU that it automatically works for everything with any computer configurations, this is why Windows has bugs that affect only affects only certain people.

If EVERY company did such a great job as nVidia, then yes it would be fine to have such thing... but it is not the case. Heck, for SOOO many years Intel didn't put a real GPU on their video card... it took Vista to force Intel to move their but, and force companies like Dell, HP, and so on, to actually put a video card in. And that took how many years. I recall perfectly about the heavy complaints of XP when it was release, on why the OS doesn't use the GPU to render the UI (like in Vista with Aero) instead of the CPU. But fact are, if they did back then, when the situation was far worst, so few people would be able to run XP with the theme, and only those with gaming video cards could do such a thing.

Danielsmi wrote on October 26, 2008, 11:38pm

Ok so then every computer capable of running vista which is basically every PC made in the past 3 years has this capability. So when Windows 7 comes out and it has the same requirements as Vista why shouldn't it have this capability. Cause if you can't do this then you're PC obviously doesn't meet the requirements to run windows 7.

Good_Bytes wrote on October 27, 2008, 12:57am

The problem is not the past card, it's the future card (newer cards, that gets released after Windows 7 comes out). Again, some cards like nVidia is no problem as they have this unified architecture. , however other video cards like Intel, SiS and others don't.

eikonoklastes2 wrote on November 30, 2008, 10:28am

Something as simple as setting a decent screen resolution should not have to depend on proprietary drivers. Make it so that a generic driver shipped with Windows is able to instruct the card to set the monitor to its native resolution.

I understand this would require a big effort on the part of the card manufacturers, but it wouldn't be the first time that Microsoft would have to set a minimum standard for hardware.

@.Chris - It's 2008 man. Time for a change, don't you think? Grow up and get with the times dude. If you don't like it, there's the door - don't let it hit you on the way out. (This is all in good humor btw - just quoting what you keep saying. Pretty whiny huh?)

.Chris wrote on November 30, 2008, 8:17pm

Actully, I could care less. You responded a month old topic. You only been here a month so YOU shoulnt be talking kid

Michael Mc wrote on November 30, 2008, 8:43pm

Woah, calm down people :)

Anyway, can anyone tell us what the install's like in Windows 7? Is it really 10 mins like Good_Bytes said ages ago before the pre-release?

Good_Bytes wrote on November 30, 2008, 8:51pm

Hey, don't take what I said as a fact... I just said what was reported/claimed at PDC 2008.

Michael Mc wrote on November 30, 2008, 9:13pm

I'm sorry, didn't mean it to come across like that. :p

Just wondered if anyone had installed it themselves and could give us a rough estimate.

.Chris wrote on November 30, 2008, 9:29pm

I took me about 20 min. so glad they removed that dumb "checking system performance" took to much time

Michael Mc wrote on November 30, 2008, 9:34pm

Ah, pretty cool :)

litemininyuszika wrote on January 12, 2009, 4:10pm

+1!
--- YOU FOOLS! PLEASE READ THIS THEN CHANGE VOTE! ---
I think it shouldn't be very problematic.
Install is started with low resolution (it's most likely 800×600).
After last restart (Completing install...), Vista automatically detected my screen resolution (1280×800, it's wide screen!), and set it.

In case of Windows 7, it's only set it to 1024×768, however, it's only beta!

For Vista: only show anything after auto-detecting and setting screen resolution; if this fails, set resolution to 1024×768, then ask for it; let user choose it from a list, and add a choice named "Other", then user can type it. There may be OK and Cancel buttons. (If user cancels it, keep it in 1024×768)

eikonoklastes2 wrote on January 14, 2009, 11:09am

Calling people fools is hardly a good way to get their support.

I do agree with most your post though. Not the part about having the user select the resolution. If Windows cannot load a driver and set the highest resolution by itself, nothing that the user does will improve that situation.