digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at downloadsquad.com

29% of Windows Vista crashes caused by NVIDIA drivers

downloadsquad.com — There's a class action suit working its way through the courts to determine whether Microsoft changed the definition of "capable" to help Intel sell computers. But some of the documents released in the case are interesting in their own right. For example, Microsoft has a chart that lists identified causes of Windows Vista crashes

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • markbrown, on 03/28/2008, -144/+20http://www.apple.com/getamac
    • hamGrenade, on 03/28/2008, -4/+44HEY! the internet is serious business. don't come in here making jokes and *****. that'll get you shot.
    • saxreturns, on 03/28/2008, -7/+60Bad fanboy! That's a very bad fanboy! No! NO!
    • dcollins, on 03/28/2008, -3/+41Its people like who ou give mac users a bad name. I don't go around telling people to get a mac anymore than i go around telling people to buy a mazda because its what i drive.
      • markbrown, on 03/28/2008, -33/+4I don't go around telling people to "get a Mac" because it's what I use. I go around telling people to "get a Mac" because I ran Windows for 8 years, I have a Mac laptop, and a PC desktop -- and I'm in the position to actually know which is better.

        Kay, thanks.
        • saxreturns, on 03/28/2008, -2/+19Firstly, you can't define which OS is 'better' - that's incredibly vague, there are so many different factors that determine which OS is right or more useful for each individual user that you can't broadly define one OS as 'the best'.

          Secondly, your opinion is just that - one opinion. You shouldn't claim to know what's best for everyone, because if you do, either in real life or on digg, you'll get flamed for acting stupid and arrogant.
        • CAPITALLETTERS, on 03/28/2008, -3/+8But macs were made for emo 10 year olds, this mac ad said so:
          http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/me ...
        • dcollins, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Yea well I used Windows for about 6 years too, then switched to mac, but I still don't claim that macs are the best for everyone. I just personally like it better.
      • santaliqueur, on 03/28/2008, -2/+8You drive a Mazda? GET A VOLKSWAGEN!
        • DarkShroud, on 03/28/2008, -4/+6Volkswagens have too many flaws and spend a lot of time in the shop.
      • slippiefist, on 03/28/2008, -1/+14"actually know which is better"

        In your opinion.
    • LightSpeed4, on 03/28/2008, -5/+11get a life
    • CAPITALLETTERS, on 03/28/2008, -15/+6Macs are *****.
    • asspants, on 03/28/2008, -8/+23
      http://digg.com/security/PWN2OWN_Mac_OS_X_First_to ...
    • markbrown, on 03/28/2008, -26/+6I'm just saying, don't bitch about the fact that Windows is crashing ... you're running Windows. That's like crying about the fact you're an alcoholic at the same time you're drinking alcohol.
      • slippiefist, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11I must've got lucky, because Vista has never crashed for me. And I have an NVIDIA graphics card as well. No problems here.
        • BOFH2, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4I have Vista and XP - both have nvidia cards. No crashes.
      • insertAliasHere, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8Have you ever even heard of a kernel panic? Probably not, because apple doesn't think you're smart enough to interpret their error messages. They just give you a grey screen telling you to reboot in a few languages:
        http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c319/oiw/106227_ ...
        I know about it. I've gotten it a few times (actually more times than a bluescreen on my vista laptop, which is none). I have a newer intel Mac. I really like it, but I don't fool myself into thinking that it's perfect.
        • MacParrot, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3Macs AREN'T perfect and anyone saying so is wasting their's and everyone elses time. I started using OS X when 10.2 came out (I thought 10.0 and 10.1 were crap and stuck with OS9). I got kernel panics about once a week (usually when pushing the machine pretty hard). With 10.3 It happened much less often and with 10.4 (once 10.4.5 came out) it was almost unheard of.
          I haven't yet had one with 10.5, though I have noticed that WiFi won't work at all with my kids G5 iMac so that machine I downgraded to 10.4.
          Moral of the story is: Stop believing hype. No OS is perfect.
          • DarkShroud, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Macentologists always proclaim OSX as being superior to Windows. Whenever there is a thread about Windows they come in and spam non-stop. I have nothing against Macs. I just know they aren't right for me.
      • saxreturns, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7That's a terrible analogy. Windows is an OS that has to be able to run on an unbelievably large range of computer hardware. Thus, there will almost always be driver issues with some devices in the massive range of PC components available today. Yes, Windows also has issues that will make it crash besides hardware, but then so does every other OS.

        OS X, on the other hand, is designed only to run on a small range of proprietary hardware that is assembled and extensively tested by the same company that makes it. Of course it will have far fewer hardware issues, but it's more than capable of crashing once in a while, as I mentioned previously.
    • Tahiri, on 03/28/2008, -6/+15partially unstable yet usable Windows box > unusable OSX box
      • MacParrot, on 03/28/2008, -11/+1Those kinds of statements make you just as bad as the most feverent Mac user.
    • Azio, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4When I run vista on my macbook pro, the few problems I encounter are always caused by Apple Boot Camp drivers
    • markbrown, on 03/28/2008, -24/+2It would be interesting to see which of you Windows users that are digging me down have actually USED a Mac -- you know, for more than twenty minutes; whereas the majority of Mac users have actually used Windows for many years. Don't talk ***** about an operating system you've never even touched.
      • insertAliasHere, on 03/28/2008, -3/+14I'm digging you down, and I've own a mac (C2D Mac Mini) since last june. I love it; I use it as my desktop at home. It's NOT PERFECT!!! I use a Dell Vista laptop as well, and I like them both a lot. Get over yourself, and stop thinking that your OS choice is a religion.
      • CAPITALLETTERS, on 03/28/2008, -5/+5OSX costs a minimum of $599 to use, if you want anything close to decent hardware you're going to need to pay $1000+.

        I'll stick to my free Linux and BSD.
      • saxreturns, on 03/28/2008, -0/+9I'm burying you on a MacBook Pro I've been using solidly for a year. People who are burying you aren't even necessarily 'talking *****' about it - you're just assuming that because you're being arrogant.

        I love having a Mac; I hate the fact that some people lump me in with idiotic Mac users like you just for having one.
      • fjc8, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5I dugg your comment down on an iMac running Windows Vista....
        ...with an ATI GPU that crashed at least once a week in OS X. (Windows does the whole "GPU recovery" thing so I can keep going.)
      • slippiefist, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3You made the statement that "I'm in the position to actually know which is better". actually, you don't _know_ a damn thing, you have an opinion like everyone else, but you think anyone with a differing opinion must be an idiot. Your kids probably hate you.
  • Dokument, on 03/28/2008, -15/+5: (
  • fatfreddyscat, on 03/28/2008, -23/+7Nelson Muntz: HA HA!
  • Ajnag, on 03/28/2008, -40/+14Funny, I thought Vista crashes were caused by Microsoft requiring you to upgrade to Vista...
    • Ajnag, on 03/28/2008, -8/+5...because if you didn't have Vista installed, there would be no Vista crashes. Digg me down more, but my logic is correct.
    • mroboy, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4by your logic then I should never have learned to walk because by walking I could fall down vs. crawling.
      • Ajnag, on 03/28/2008, -5/+4Terrible analogy. Microsoft shouldn't be "learning to walk" with their premier OS, Vista. They should already know how to "run, fly, and swim", so to speak.
  • Shadowgamers, on 03/28/2008, -5/+19Did they just condense what Ars wrote? :o
    • turpenine, on 03/28/2008, -1/+27yes.
    • hrlaser, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Hi.. okay here's the deal.. i bought a brand new Acer Aspire 5520 15.4" laptop in early January, 2008.. Vista Home Premium, 2gb RAM, 160gb drive, all the usual bells and whistles.. CPU is an AMD Turion 64 x2.. Video is an NVidia GEforce 7000m.. now be gentle, kids.. this sucker is on 24 / 7 on AC power and is my main computer..

      i'm not so much having "crashes" but what happens is after three or four days, something is eating up graphics memory.. windows refuse to open with a "not enough memory" error message.. i'm running Winblows Mail (again.. i know.. it sucks.. be gentle).. because it let me import over 50,000 emails from my three year old Compaq Presario which blew its hard drive.. but i had everything backed up on an external drive.. so i just imported ALL my OE mail folders into Winblows mail and voila, everything was back the way it was.. then the tedious task of re-installing software, looking for registration unlock codes in emails and so on..

      i am NOT using this Acer for gaming.. okay, maybe the occasional online casino Flash-driven game, rarely, and not for money, just free play..

      i don't think i have anything *evil* on the machine.. Norton Security Sweep is running on it 24 / 7, constantly updated virus definitions.. all settings are correct.. i honestly don't think the machine has a virus, trojan, worm, or anything else.. grc.com gives me a 100% green light totally stealthed rating..

      when i first bought the machine and set it up, i could go literally a full week before things got "hinky" and i had to reboot.. sometimes ten days.. now it's down to every three or four days.. as i said, pull down menus stop working, Winblows Mail gets weird, i get "not enough memory" when i try to open another Browser window (i usually have three or four open all the time).. something is sucking up graphics memory and not giving it back.. programs running all the time include Trillian, Winamp Remote (Orb), Norton, Winblows Mail, Acer "Empowering Technlology" if you know what that is, Vista sidebar with three gadgets in it, when i play music it's almost always with the latest WinAmp.. sometimes the latest Winblows Media Player.. for .mp4s i use VLC..i've got a Slingbox and the latest Slingplayer, but i only use that later in the day for a couple hours..

      i've got the Aero stuff turned on.. haven't tried turning it off (yet)..

      so i'm pushing this machine pretty hard, but the sidebar cpu / RAM gadget normally shows between 3% and 15% CPU usage, and the RAM dial normally shows 54% usage.. maybe peaks at 67% usage..

      i could upgrade the machine to four gb of RAM max.. it came with two gb installed..

      i have NOT "upgraded" Vista to SP1..

      so what's going on here?.. why, after three or four days, does video memory seem to get eaten up and not given back.. like i said, no BSODs.. no "crashes".. the machine just gets slower and slower over time and then menus get funky and won't pull down, new windows won't open.. like it's running out of graphics memory..

      is this the NVidia chip and / or its driver?.. is it 2gb of main memory versus the 4gb this sucker can hold?.. is it something else?..

      i've applied EVERY Winblows update except the full SP1..

      someone give me a clue.. and like i said twice.. be gentle.. i'm just trying to solve this riddle of why restarts are beocming more necessary over time on a six month-old machine.. not start a flame war..

      Thanks
  • LightSpeed4, on 03/28/2008, -25/+14vista is the best OS right now. I've had no problems whatsoever with it.
    • MacTyler, on 03/28/2008, -7/+14Its ok, we all make ignorant comments.
      • Tishiablo, on 03/29/2008, -3/+2I bet you've never even used Vista.
        • Amiga500, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2He doesn't even have a computer. He rode the bus down to the public library.
      • timmyrich, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1FLN (First Laugh of the Night---for me anyway, been browsing comments for over an hour)
    • Rizmaster, on 03/28/2008, -21/+3Mac OS is the best OS right now. There's really no way to argue that. And I'm a linux user, but linux isn't for everyone.
      • Shadowgamers, on 03/28/2008, -4/+8This Windows 3.0 is the best OS right now. It does everything I want it to do and at lightning speeds.
      • MacTyler, on 03/28/2008, -9/+2Mac OS Leopard is the best OS in terms of application support, drivers and overall usability. But strictly in core OS terms, linux has it beat.
        • santaliqueur, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Core OS terms? Explain what that means.
        • specialK16, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9"application support, drivers"

          What the efff????
          How much apps do work on Mac? Please tell me? And drivers? You don't even have to worry about drivers since the hardware is locked in anyways, if you think about it, even Vista has better driver support than OS X, since it supports a whole lot of different hardware while OSX supports only, well, Apple hardware.
          • MacTyler, on 03/28/2008, -8/+2First of all Mac OS has better drivers, although less, you don't need more than one set because it is all the same hardware. I didn't say it supported more devices I simply said it had better drivers for the hardware that it has. And second about Application support, Mac OS does have very major companies developing for it, you may have heard of Microsoft Office, Propellerheads Reason, and Adobe CS3 to name a few. Linux does not have any major corporations developing for it that is why it does not have any major application support. And please don't bring up Wine, that is not my definition of application support. And in response to the other guy, by Core OS terms I simply meant the overall stability, kernel, and security of the operating system disregarding drivers and application support.
            Thanks
        • sh0elace, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1The only reason application support might be able to be called better is because Apple makes all the most used software in a Mac environment. Mac and Adobe. I might be going out on a limb but I feel safe saying that no one who is interested in using their computer to the fullest extent makes use of Mac OS.
    • turpenine, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1next to any unix based os...
      • amnesiac096, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html
        Mac OSX is based on Unix
        • fjc8, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1OS X includes substantial parts of BSD, but the parts of OS X that makes it different are not Unixlike at all.

          The kernel is a mix of Mach and BSD code. It has a driver model unlike that of Unix or Windows - drivers are object oriented (using Embedded C++ IIRC).

          The Cocoa API (Objective-C) descends from NeXTstep. I believe OpenStep was an implementation of this API ported to many platforms (including Windows NT). The Carbon API is based on the Mac OS Classic API.

          If you took the GUI out of OS X, you wouldn't have a whole lot left worth using in comparison Solaris, BSD, and Linux are around.
      • DarkShroud, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Vista has Unix built in as well.
    • saxreturns, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11No OS is ever the 'best', it's a question of what works for you, based on personal preference and what you want to use your computer for.
      • MacParrot, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1dugg you up
      • Matt2k, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Your non-commital wishy-washy subjective opinion has shown me of the errors of my ways
    • wendelgee2, on 03/28/2008, -6/+3Oh god. Are you kidding? It's a nightmare. It's got this deadspot after booting where nothing will open or function for several minutes.
      • K31TH3R, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1lol yeah i get that too, but only on select bootups. sometimes it boots up super fast, sometimes it takes 2 minutes or so to get its ass moving.
    • falafelkiosken, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1have you tried any OSes which aren't made by microsoft?
  • shdwsclan, on 03/28/2008, -30/+6I guess its time to upgrade to XP...

    Also, if you have a mac, your REALLY dont need a graphics card that POWERFUL.
    • sourceholder, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2I upgraded to XP before Vista even came out.
    • saxreturns, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4A lot of new Macs come with Nvidia cards as standard.
      • MioTheGreat, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Not the nice new ones, mind you.

        It'll be months before Apple users get GeForce 9 cards.
        • colincornaby, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4I'm not sure GeForce 9 will be as big a deal. The cards themselves are really just an SLI'd GeForce 8800. Faster, sure. But it's not like there will be a new version of pixel shaders or anything. (Besides, SLI doesn't offer a 2x benefit, the benefit declines the more cards you add)
      • Amiga500, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3Each one gets a top of the line GeForce 4 MX!
    • colincornaby, on 03/28/2008, -4/+1Why? a) Some of us Mac users are known to do graphics work from time to time, which (GASP) uses the graphics card. (God forbid anyone use the graphics card for things besides games) and b) Some of us play games on our Macs, or run Windows on our Macs and play games under Windows. (Note: I have a Mac with a GeForce 8800, and I definitely need the 8800)
      • santaliqueur, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3What graphics program uses your GPU? If you say Photoshop, surrender your geek card at once.
        • colincornaby, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Pixelmator, Final Cut Pro, any 3D rendering software, or the graphics software I'm coding are all good examples.
  • tsalti, on 03/28/2008, -25/+86My Vista has never crashed and I have an nvidia card.
    • sourceholder, on 03/28/2008, -30/+4Nice try Bill, but Vista is scared. Period.
      • Shadowgamers, on 03/28/2008, -3/+9Does that make Mac's those dudes at the party who try to be cool but end up getting drunk and making an ass out of themselves?
        • ligyron, on 03/28/2008, -1/+10No, Mac "dudes" don't go to parties. They stay at home and write programs and paint pictures with their Mac
          • Shadowgamers, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8Don't forget blogging about how Microsoft is a big fat ugly bastard who nobody should be friends with
          • sgtpppr, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8And writing in their livejournals about cutting.
    • Tahiri, on 03/28/2008, -4/+5I'm with you tsalti

      Though I'd like custom resolution support like XP had...
    • diakonos, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3I have Windows Vista Ultimate on my laptop with an nVidia GeForce Go 7900 GS and have never had a crash "just because" in the nearly one year I've had the machine. However, I can say that trying to resume from either "sleep" or 'hibernate" modes can and HAVE caused consistent BSOD errors. I think I've got the hibernate resume error fixed (*knock on wood*) but I still don't try sleep mode. I've tried to track down and fix the problem numerous times with techs without success. It was usually attributed to "Vista can't resume communications with your video card" causing either a computer hang or BSOD. I'm waiting with crossed fingers for the SP1 update to see if the problem is solved. Otherwise, it's shutdown/restart every time I need to transport the lappie.
    • iet2004, on 03/28/2008, -10/+4Wait, let's go back: your PC running Vista has never crashed? I'm perplexed. Cuz I can't get mine to work UNTIL it's crashed.....
    • bwdd, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4I only get crashes while I play assassin's creed. And yes, the video driver crashes.
      But I think that's because it's a leaked copy.
      • ZaZ2137, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Same :( and I don't want to dick around with the jerusalem patch either which sucks because I'm really curious what happens next.....so i run around towns ***** around with guards and bullies and creating streets littered with bodies :D
    • DeadlyAlpaca, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1"Display Drive had stopped responding and needed to be restart" is way too common of an error for me. Fraking NVIDIA.
    • Po0py, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5I got vista 64bit home premium. And a Nvidia 8800gts always with the latest drivers.
      Never crashed. Not once.
    • Arkanjal, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I think the NVidia GPU drivers are fine, i wish it told you what drivers were causing crashes. Im currently running an 8800GTS with no issues.....but when I was using my NVidia motherboard, the system crashed regularly. I switched to a cheap Intel board, and nothing has gone wrong since.
    • andycr512, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4Vista crashed very often for me, and it was always an nVidia driver crash - a few bluescreens and frequent other issues. It always listed the nVidia driver as the problem. XP didn't have the issue and neither did Linux. I assume it's immature Vista drivers (they're laptop drivers, not a desktop card).
      • Amiga500, on 03/29/2008, -4/+3Of course you had a problem. This is windows we are talking about, and you are a known Linux troll.
        • andycr512, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2I was very careful to point out that it was the fault of the drivers and not Vista. I have never even -brought up- Linux in a Windows topic unless it was mentioned by someone else and thus on-topic. I am -very- careful not to troll, as I despise trolls. You, on the other hand, are constantly making off-topic troll posts in Linux topics, and anyone who can view your comment history will quickly discover that.

          The topic is nVidia drivers causing Vista to crash, and that is exactly what I talked about. If you have a problem with such a post, I suggest you refresh your memory about the subject of the story in question.
    • jabberwolf, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Seeing as where the source came from I think its safe to say that it was old nvidia drivers used for XP.
    • fuzzynyanko, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3"Never crash"... Now that's amazing. I've crashed Windows, Linux, Solaris, and Mac OSX before and I love it when a company uses "never"
  • joeyslack, on 03/28/2008, -13/+30What a terribly flawed article. NVIDIA happens to be the leading manufacturer of stand-alone graphics card units, who happens to release drivers at the greatest frequency. This pace matched with the unknown stability of Vista is sure to cause a great amount of crashes. Duh?
    • renegadeafk, on 03/28/2008, -2/+8ati releases drivers every month...
      • orph3us, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4its not about driver releases, its about how many people have nvidia cards vs ati cards. I haven't checked the numbers, but from what I hear its much higher for Nvidia. So maybe 28% run nvidia and 9% run ati cards. If thats the case then the crashes would be equal on both. It would be nice if someone were able to compile those numbers and make a new chart based upon the amount of people that have what hardware.......
        • fgsfds, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8Nividia has 62.14% of the market, while ATI has 30.92%. (Source: http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html )
          That means that Nvidia has just over twice ATI's share, but has more than three times ATI's share in the crashes. That suggests that nVidia's drivers were an average of 50% more prone to crashes than ATI's drivers.
          It's kinda funny, considering that ATI's drivers used to be the worst in the industry and nVidia's used to be the best.
          • grumpyrain, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3Thank you
            /someone who actually understands statistics
    • carl25, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5so ? they also release the most graphics cards. Just because they release the most drivers doesn't mean the drivers they release are any good.

      Regardless, i use a 8800gt and haven't had vista crash on me.
      • agaudet, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1The notebook card drivers are terrible
        This is why
        The XP driverrs are wonderfull, but nvidia released ***** ass vista drivers and still I dont have a good one for a 7900 gs go
        so linux is a better replacement, not one crash :)
      • SatansSpatula, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I think maybe you didn't get his point about the statistics of it...
    • Rikkochet, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8So in other words you agree with the implications that nVIDIA has poor driver QA and dumps beta drivers into the marketplace.
      Vista can be the worst OS in the history of the universe - the impetus still falls on nVIDIA to properly test and confirm that what they are offering actually WORKS in the way they offer it.
      I develop Palm software. Palm Hotsync is dreadful. Palm Desktop is dreadful. Has been since 3Com sold off their code. Is that my problem? Yes, because when my customers can't use my product, it's because my product doesn't work. They don't give a ***** if it's because some component that I tap into was broken after a major revision change - MY product isn't working up to their expectations and it's my problem (and my fault if I didn't test that it worked).
      It's not ideal, and not really fair, but it's the way the world works. Sorry, nVIDIA. Hire more QA and put the damn brakes on your release schedule.
      • SatansSpatula, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1There will *always* be bugs that slip through. As the #1 graphics card provider, they will likely be the #1 crash producer.
        Will more QA help? If they're good enough. It would be more interesting to know their current QA staff numbers versus other hardware manufacturers, and compare that with sales and market penetration.
    • heiroglyph, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6Don't forget that they make motherboard chipsets too.

      In every Vista BSOD I've had, it was caused by the Nvidia chipset driver, not the Nvidia video card driver.
    • fwertz, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2You get points for being semi-right. I'd like to first thank you for sticking up for NVIDIA here, but one part of your logic is flawed itself. You mention that NVIDIA releases their drivers at great frequency so there is probably a large
      • fwertz, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1...chance that the drivers need to be tested and (likely) have bugs. Which in combination with the myriad of windows machines out there, it makes the situation far worse. Whereas if you're using an integrated video chip, that's one less component/compatibility problem to sort out.

        Not sure why my first half of the comment automatically posted. Sorry about the mixup.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7Crashing nVidia drivers don't cause a system halt. Vista recovers the driver on the fly.
      • bpoteat, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1unless you happen to be a graphics programmed and every time it crashes you lose openGL context - and everything you might have been working on at the time. No, not a system halt, but not far from it. The question is WHY is this happening in Vista on the same cards but they didn't happen in XP?
        • BlackKnight6, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6Uuuuhhhhh Vista has a very different driver model?
      • giid, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Yes, Vista recovers, but I've noticed that after the first crash, they keep on crashing again and again--enough that it's sometimes difficult to hit ESC and move the mouse to "Exit". It basically means you need to quit everything your doing, and reboot immediately.
      • andycr512, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1It recovered once for me, but the rest of the nVidia crashes caused either a hard freeze or a bluescreen.
    • spinemangler, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Well, you have to also remember that nVidia is one of the top chipset providers as well. I had a few issues right after launch with my copy of Vista, and it ended up being related to the chipset drivers provided by nvidia. I rolled back to the ones provided by MS, and it solved my problem.

      I would imagine that part of this finding is a little screwed is because nvidia has so many cards on the market, and also so many motherboard chipsets.
    • estvir, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2That does change it took about year since Vista's launch for Nvidia to have remotely decent drivers out.
  • mycatsboots, on 03/28/2008, -11/+7For what its worth, I did not read the article because I'm at work, but I imagine the headline sums it up.

    I tried to objectivly use Windows Vista, and all of my blue screens and crashes where some how related to the Video Card. I used many drivers and cleaning tools, but none of them really solved my issues. I am now back on SP2 and everything is working fine. I can't say Vista is awful, but there certainly was no reason or benefit for me to use it. I am not sure if that is Microsoft's Fault or nVidia's.
  • darkism, on 03/28/2008, -21/+7Notice how a large portion of the other crashes were caused by Microsoft - aka the operating system just plain sucking.
    Now to wait patiently for the Vista/MS fanboys (I have one particular in mind) to come in here and start the spiral of denial.
    • asspants, on 03/28/2008, -8/+6I waited and waited and waited to switch to vista. This is week two, and I really don't miss XP.
      Vista is just fine, you're a *****.
      • K31TH3R, on 03/28/2008, -5/+3Sorry friend it's not, I've been using it since RC1. In a lot of cases it's worse than Linux in the point that you have to trick some of your programs into working right. After about every 3 months or so you should notice your vista install really take a ***** on itself.
        I've stood behind this OS and defended it long enough, my nvlddmkm.sys driver has crashed ever since RC1, and it still does it to this day.
        I'm 99% sure that the fault is Microsofts and not nVidias, Microsoft has put the WHQL stamp on the drivers, when they clearly do not deserve it. Of course I still use Vista X64 for my every day computing, which it's excellent for, it's exactly how windows should be. But fire up any intensive 3D games that use the DX10 API or any advanced shaders with an 8800 GPU for a few hours, and nvlddmkm.sys is bound to crash.
        • asspants, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4ever consider the possibility that there is something physically wrong with your hardware?
  • num3thod, on 03/28/2008, -5/+138In other news: 29% of Linux crashes caused by ATI drivers
    • kahrytan, on 03/28/2008, -1/+29It's funny because it's true. 99% of Linux users recommend NVIDIA over ATI.
      • PhireN, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1NVIDIA drives still crash linux, Just not as often as ATI Drivers.
        And by crash, I mean complete lock up. Not even Magic SysRq keys works.
    • dagnome1984, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4I would have to agree with that statement. Not only are the ATI drivers a pain to get working properly on a Linux box they also tend to be buggy.
    • chamberlanderic, on 03/28/2008, -2/+14Am I reading this right : linux can crash ? OMG !
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Usually it is the result of a direct hardware failure or the application crashes. To have the OS stop responding entirely is a rare event.
        • ZaZ2137, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3ctrl+alt+backspace ftw why can't windows steal...er I mean innovate that *****?
          • andycr512, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1In Vista they have something somewhat similar. If it detects a graphics driver crash, it tries to restart the driver in place. It's done that once for me, though - the rest of the time it's just bluescreened or frozen. Not sure why.
      • andycr512, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2I've never had a crash due to anything other than a graphics driver, but yes, it has "crashed" (read: dumped me back to the "please login" screen, not hard rebooted) about 20 times total in 6 years due to graphics drivers.
      • frontporsche, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3more like "OMG, Vista can crash?" Try evening mentioning that you got a blue screen here under "All>Technology>Microsoft" and the response is something like "That's the biggest lie I've heard all day".
    • shawnanigans, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3In other news what the ***** video card manufacturers, make proper Linux drivers or open-source your current ones so someone else can. Nvidia better than ATI is like a punch in the arm is better than a punch in the nuts.
      • defska42, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3A punch in the arm is always better.
      • TheWindBlows, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1punch in the nuts...
        as long as im doing the punching that is.
      • JrGhoull, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1didnt ATI release a bunch of data a while back that allows programmers to make a driver for any previously released ati card?
    • DestroyFascism, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Hasn't the AMD purchase of ATI changed all that? From what I understand the newer cards fully support Linux...
  • RyeBrye, on 03/28/2008, -4/+5I take it this means the people on the top of the stack trace? I.e. if an app caused an assertion in the nvidia driver to fail (down the stacktrace) the crash would not be reported as an nvidia crash, right?

    But then again - how could that be the case - since how could NVidia's driver possibly be at the top of that many stack traces?
    • Xplodzion, on 03/28/2008, -4/+7digg me down.
    • sathishcj, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1The main thing to note that it is not only graphics driver crashes - it could also be motherboard crashes. The statistics include crashes from motherboard and graphics card. Since motherboard drivers control a lot of calls as well, the percentage is high.
  • Rotzooi, on 03/28/2008, -14/+10O no, they've got a chart!
  • OJdidntdoIT, on 03/28/2008, -16/+4I have Vista Ultimate and it's a piece of *****. Once I find all the drivers for my notebook, that ***** is gone.

  • DiggOrNotToDigg, on 03/28/2008, -36/+104Vista is a very good operating. I don't know why people bash it so much.
    • poidh, on 03/28/2008, -5/+19My Vista is far, far better than my XP. The only problem I had was at the begining when I had nVidia nTune installed. As soon as I got rid of that = no crash in a year.
      • tuholmes, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2My only issue is that games do have some problems with Vista still.

        That is not Vista's problem though.
    • xsquirrel378x, on 03/28/2008, -14/+4clever to leave off SYSTEM lol
    • TheG2, on 03/28/2008, -1/+13I run Vista as well, and minus the ATI driver problems, its incredibly stable and solid. The FUD is just that.
    • slaystench, on 03/28/2008, -3/+16Because the people bashing it hate Microsoft or have old computers? =p
    • PueSi, on 03/28/2008, -4/+22Because they hate Microsoft, everything Microsoft does no matter how good/bad it is it's gonna be bashed.
      The Zune and Vista are examples of products that have been treated unfairly.
      • KMartSheriff, on 03/28/2008, -7/+2The Zune actually does suck though.

        /agree with you on Vista though
        //much better than XP
      • TheG2, on 03/28/2008, -1/+9Thats funny, because my Zune is great and beats the hell out of the iPod.
    • phybere, on 03/28/2008, -4/+8My main complaint is memory usage: I've shut down a load of services and startup programs, and with only my browser open I'm using 1.22GB.
      When I had 1GB of RAM before I upgraded to 3gb, with only my browser open it used ~800MB. Is it really using 400MB more of RAM, just because it's there? (an no, it's not cache)
      • antich, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8"Is it really using 400MB more of RAM, just because it's there?"
        Pretty much. Vista is designed to aggressively use all the RAM available. The more you pop in, the more it uses.
        • tnoy, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Its really annoying when my computer actually uses all the RAM I install.
      • BlackKnight6, on 03/28/2008, -0/+12Here is a tip, disable superfetch, it preloads programs you run alot. That way when you boot up, you have a bunch of RAM doing nothing and then you can run your programs and have to wait while they get put on the RAM........or just realize that superfetch is a great feature and quit looking at the amount of free RAM. When you are running so many programs that they needs that "superfetched" RAM, Vista will release it nearly instantly.
      • bxblox, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6If you only had the browser open and the browser was the previous version of firefox that might explain some of it.
      • slaystench, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4This has been stated MANY times before BUT I guess I needs to be said again. Vista does not manage RAM the same way XP does. It doesn't mean it's performing poorly.
    • shawnanigans, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7I know why people hate it. Because Microsoft made it. It's sad but its true, yes it has errors but so does every operating system, even Linux and OSX.
    • Darph.Bobo, on 03/29/2008, -3/+1You can serve some people ***** and call it steak and they'll believe you. I guess I know which one you are.
    • agaudet, on 03/29/2008, -4/+1Why do I hate Vista??? because its bad, it uses a lot of ram and cpu
      even on a new computer
      I dunno, Im tired of bloated Windows
      Ill use xp and then Linux, no more windows after xp
      no more spyware, worms, rootkits
      IE thank god no more IE
  • Xplodzion, on 03/28/2008, -11/+20"nVidia drivers are so much more better than ATI's" - nVidia fanboy.
    • l0k0, on 03/28/2008, -2/+10As biased as that is it really does apply to Linux. ATI's support for Linux is incredibly lazy.
      • Uchikoma, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5That would be true if we were talking about prior years. However, such is no longer the case (or is in the process of being no longer the case). The drivers are more functional and while still lacking in some of the more newer features, at least less people are reporting complains and are instead reporting success.

        That and they're releasing documentation so we can go out and create an OSS driver for their cards (including the latest ones). See RadeonHD.
    • 1randomguyO8, on 03/28/2008, -8/+2Nvidia graphics cards are so much more better then ATI's.
      • Xplodzion, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1A single Radeon X3870X2 beats a single 8800 Ultra in quite a few tests. Currently, ATi's latest cards have DX10.1 and SM4.1 while nVidia's, even the 9 series are still on DX10.0 and SM4.0. ATi's cards are the best choice for people who not only want a card that will last a long time, but who don't like burning holes in their wallet just for a 10% performance increase.

        nVidia rip people off big time, still makes me snigger when someone buys a 'cheap' version of the 8600 when they could have got a more advanced and much more powerful X3850 for half the price.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2I like nVidia cards and the drivers more than ATI's, but it's very close.
      They are both excellent, and it's just a matter of familiarity for me.
      Right now nVidia Vista drivers are really unstable.

      It's why I switched back to XP after 7 months of Vista on my Windows PC. Custom DirectX software I was writing was causing the nVIdia driver to repeatedly crash and recover every 30 secs. It was happening somewhere beyond the API, in the driver.

      The good thing about Vista is despite these video driver crashes, Vista automatically recovers on the fly. In XP they would be blue screens.

      So while this does reveal problems in Vista drivers it also reveals how resistant Vista is to crashing versus earlier, and competing operating systems.
      • 1randomguyO8, on 03/28/2008, -4/+0ATi has been so behind NVIDIA for a very long time now, thats why they have been losing market share. ATI for so long had no reply to nvidias 8800 series.
        According to this survey.
        http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html
        62% percent of gamers are using Nvidia drivers compared to ATI's 30.7%
    • mphree, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Because of problems with ATI drivers on both XP and Vista, I most likely wont buy an ATI card for my new machine. But, it doesnt sound like I'm getting an nVidia card either. Hmm... this could be a problem.
  • 9bpm9, on 03/28/2008, -12/+64Haven't experienced a single crash on Vista. Intel processor and an Nvidia graphics card.
    • BlackKnight6, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Neither have I, Nvidia is great but just because they are great in the past doesn't mean they are going to deal PERFECTLY with a new driver model in vista which made big changes like no kernel access. Maybe I have lucked out. My 8800GTX is coming today to replace my 7900GTX, maybe I will see a crash now, doubt it...
      • tcpip4lyfe, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2You're going to ***** bricks when you play on the 8800. I love mine.
        • BlackKnight6, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Not to be a raging gamer......but I can't wait till I am off work. Yes, that's right, I am on Digg at work, get over it.
          • tcpip4lyfe, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I am too. It's Friday and the network is running smooth = no work to do.
    • TnTBass, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1All depends on your usage of the system. Mine only crashes when I play games, at high settings, with certain driver versions.
      • BlackKnight6, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Just to point out, when you heighten game settings that are GPU related, that puts more on your video card as the bottle neck. If you don't have a power supply that can give enough power to the vid card, that could be an issue, I had the same sort of odd crashes back with XP and later had my PSU die. I am just giving a suggestion to help, might not be driver related for you.
        • TnTBass, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Agreed, but power isn't the issue. I've tested my power supply and it's fine, plus it is more than powerful enough to run dual 7950 GX2 cards, whereas now I'm only running one. (Ran two back when I used XP)
          I've gone with many different driver versions and some are much more stable than others. I wish I could say it's hardware (easy fix compared with waiting for a better driver), but its not.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2When video drivers crash on vista all you get is a little bubble at the bottom of the screen informing you there was a problem. Not a blue screen like in XP.
      So I think people misunderstand the meaning of "crash" from the article, thinking it's a complete system halt.
      • TnTBass, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I love actually getting that message. At least with that message I can check on any msn messages, etc before I reboot. Most of the time I get a full out BSOD though.
  • ohplease, on 03/28/2008, -2/+41One of the major problems with XP/2003 was the permission for hardware vendors to write kernel mode drivers. To quiet complaints of BSODs from users and administrators alike, Microsoft has moved drivers out of kernel mode, starting with Vista. This has lead to device vendors having to rewrite their drivers, which some of them have done a very poor job at doing. People will still blame MS though, because it's easier to be 3dgy than to know what you're talking about.
    • TnTBass, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1While you are correct, I would have thought Microsoft would have worked hard with these companies to help them improve their drivers for Microsoft's OS. In reality, I doubt that was even possible with the rush job Microsoft did with Vista. When you can't even work with one of the major video card manufacturers to come up with good software for your new OS, there is a problem. Blame the manufacturers if you want, but the root cause of the problem is still with Microsoft.
      For the sake of argument, if Microsoft did work with nVidia to create their drivers, and this is the outcome of that partnership, how is it that the drivers failed that many times? Surely Microsoft would have been able to show nVidia how to program drivers for their OS, I mean, provided they knew how to themselves.
      • DarkShroud, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4These companies had years to modify their drivers. Vista was delayed many times, MS only released Vista when it did due to pressure from other parties. I upgraded to Vista when it launched and I love it. When I had to replace my video card a few months later I went with the ATI x1950 (Best ATI had at the time) just because nVidia's drivers were non existent. A large number of people did this to the point that nVidia started releasing stable drivers because they were actually loosing market share.
        • TnTBass, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Just because Vista was delayed for years, doesn't mean they gave the hardware vendors that same amount of time. Microsoft delayed the OS many times because they kept changing it. Who knows, nVidia may have the initial version of the document to follow, but not the revision 5.6.8.21 that they actually needed to follow.

          I have been tempted to switch to AMD myself because of that too, but the funds do not allow it.
    • grozny, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1FYI, there's still a kernel-mode component in all video drivers for Vista. D3D was moved out of the Ring0 (kernel) to the userland (Ring3) and that's it.
  • buddypriefert, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7While, not the greatest fan of NVIDIA, is it possible that this high % is due to the fact that video drivers are among the most critical to an OS, and then NVIDIA is among the most popular video cards (I know NVIDA is more than just video).

    Nonetheless, almost 1/3 is pretty darn high..
    • JQP123, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2The worst problems I've personally seen have all involved nVidia drivers. For whatever reason, nVidia never took Vista seriously and just wasn't ready when it shipped. But this seems to have changed in the last few months; the most recent drivers appear to solve most problems.

      My best advice --- upgrade to the absolute latest nVida driver *before* you install Vista SP1.
  • inputusername, on 03/28/2008, -4/+11This makes sense. I have always wondered why people constantly complain about Vista stability issues. I have been using Vista x64 for months and was even using a beta SP1 and I haven't had a single crash...except for during the overclocking process. Of course, I have an ATI HD3850 and not an Nvidia card.
    • mystafreaze, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3dugg for having a 10 lbs video card like me
  • l0k0, on 03/28/2008, -17/+11100% of Windows Vista crashes caused by user stupidity.
  • RespectableGuy, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6a week after i buy a nvidia card, and get vista.
    • clickwir, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Don't take this as bad news. You could look at this as just the vast majority of people use Nvidia cards. The percentage of people using nvidia cards and having a problem is probably a lot less.
    • MarkKezner, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Actually, I envy you for your nvidia card. The drivers on open source systems are supposed to be better than ATI's, which is what I have.
      • PhireN, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1At the moment, but ATI's open source driver effort should pass Nvidia's closed source driver.
        At which point I will envoy ATI users.
  • Manthem, on 03/28/2008, -7/+8I thought I was going crazy when I noticed Vista slow down considerably and start crashing more often after I installed the latest NVIDIA drivers. It was taking upwards of 2 minutes to boot up on a brand new quad core/4 gig ram build. Good to know it's not just me.

    Totally unacceptable.
  • MacTyler, on 03/28/2008, -11/+3So whose fault is it? I hate to use this analogy, but I think I am being fair. Apple computers all use Nvidia and how many times do the Mac Nvidia drivers crash? So on windows is it the Nvidia people or microsofts unstable operating system that is causing the drivers to crash? That's the only point I want to ask
    • DiggOrNotToDigg, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6Vista runs on wide variety of hardware. Nvidia's video cards are made by so many vendors too. They all use different settings. Its not like Mac which is taylored to only one settings. You cannot just blame Microsoft or Nvidia for that.
      • init100, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Then why does their Windows XP drivers work so well? Windows XP runs on a wide variety of x86 hardware too.
        • MioTheGreat, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Because the XDDM model is the same as it was when Windows 2000 was released. nVidia has had 8 years to get those drivers right (And they still crash XP pretty often!)

          WDDM, on the other hand, wasn't 'finished' until the later Vista builds.
    • BlackKnight6, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4As many have pointed out, a big change to driver models came with Vista, one regarding no more kernel access, not only new API like DX10. OS X only has OpenGL to deal with while Vista has OpenGl, DX9/10 as well, alot more stuff to deal with on the driver side. I would expect Nvidia to have issues, why I have never been affected, I don't know.
    • MacParrot, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3@MacTyler
      Not exactly true. The iMacs and the low end Mac Pro use ATI cards
  • webefools, on 03/28/2008, -9/+40% of *insert anything but windows operating system here* crashes caused by NVIDIA drivers...
    • chillypacman, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2citation needed

      Also when you can play the latest games on a non windows os get back to me.
  • mrroarke, on 03/28/2008, -3/+83And the remaining 71% is caused by the trifecta of ***** that is Quicktime, Acrobat Reader and Norton Antivirus.
    • jmbillings, on 03/28/2008, -0/+15dugg for "trifecta".
      I do love when people ask me to help with their pc being crap and tell me all proud-like "I've got Norton though".
    • adderx99, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7i will never install those three programs. what do i use? VLC in place of quicktime, Foxit in place of acrobat, AVG for antivirus. i couldn't be happier, and my system is twice as fast as it would be with that trifecta suckfest.
      • ortucis, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Foxit sucks. New Acrobat reader is faster and has way better features and layout.
        • agaudet, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1new acrobat reader suck. new sumatra pdf is 10x faster and way better
          ***** acrobat
    • Anthop, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1... Learned a new word today :).
  • Sqlawl, on 03/28/2008, -13/+3I guess Vista doesn't like the best GPU's... Maybe Microsoft is trying to make people lose support so they buy Microsoft GPU's. A great evil scheme.
  • fuzed, on 03/28/2008, -13/+64My 8600GTS with Windows Vista x64 has yet to crash - and my box has been up 24x7 for months - no reboot. Dugg down for more anti-Vista propaganda drivel
    • Phocion55, on 03/28/2008, -1/+10Your system is clearly running on witchcraft.
      • ZaZ2137, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3No its clearly running on god and win, he also clearly deleted system32.
    • TnTBass, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3My 7950 GX2 on Windows Vista x64 has been a constant source of headache for me. I'm glad your card works for you, and I've actually suspected that they only really care for the latest versions of their video cards and Vista, but it is by no means Anti-Vista propaganda. You are just one of the lucky ones.
    • aelias, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Vista Ultimate SP1, 8600GT, Runs flawlessly. I managed to get it to hang but it took me doing several things that aren't recommended, and using some homebrew software in the process.

      Remember kids, Pro-Tools doesn't play nice with others.
    • SniperZ, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Im on the same boat, I have yet to experience any of the vista "problems" that every one whines about...
    • el_taco, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Ok, Why don't all these people that say they aren't having any problems let everyone else know the driver version they're using. Maybe it'll help the others out.
    • MrViklund, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1fuzed. I agree with you on not liking the Anti-Vista articles that do surface on Digg from time to time but this article isn't Anti Vista. This us true and it's Anti Nvidia with all right. I have had allot of problems with Vista in combination with Nvidia Chipset and Display drivers. Vista on the other hand is rock solid. And that Nvidia can't get real working drivers out even a year after Vistas launch is beyond my understanding. I don't think they care about their costumers.

      So this is not ANTI VISTA. It's ANTI NVIDIA. So I have to give you -1 for this one :)
    • selkie, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Out of curiosity, you've had it up for months with 'no reboot'... do you *never* patch this system? What about:

      KB905866
      KB917607
      KB925528
      KB925902
      KB927084
      KB928089
      KB928439
      KB929123
      KB929399
      KB929427
      KB929451
      KB929547
      KB929615
      KB929685
      KB929735
      KB929761
      KB929762
      KB929763
      KB929777
      KB929824
      KB929916
      KB930163
      KB930178
      KB930194
      KB930585
      KB930627
      KB930857
      KB930955
      KB931099
      KB931174
      KB931213
      KB931573
      KB931621
      KB931671
      KB931768
      KB931836
      KB932246
      KB932385
      KB932390
      KB932394
      KB932406
      KB932590
      KB932596
      KB932634
      KB932635
      KB932636
      KB932637
      KB932638
      KB932649
      KB932818
      KB932988
      KB933228
      KB933360
      KB933566
      KB933579
      KB933612
      KB933729
      KB933824
      KB933860
      KB933872
      KB933590
      KB933928
      KB935280
      KB935551
      KB935552
      KB935652
      KB935759
      KB935807
      KB935855
      KB935878
      KB936004
      KB936021
      KB936150
      KB936315
      KB936316
      KB936357
      KB936710
      KB936782
      KB936824
      KB936825
      KB937077
      KB937123
      KB937143
      KB938123
      KB938126
      KB938127
      KB938194
      KB938232
      KB938637
      KB938660
      KB938929
      KB938952
      KB938979
      KB939130
      KB939159
      KB939165
      KB939207
      KB939210
      KB939653
      KB939778
      KB939786
      KB940069
      KB940105
      KB940199
      KB940646
      KB940716
      KB941090
      KB941202
      KB941229
      KB941282
      KB941542
      KB941568
      KB941569
      KB941600
      KB941644
      KB941649
      KB942089
      KB942615
      KB942624
      KB942763
      KB942813
      KB942903
      KB943078
      KB943302
      KB943544
      KB943899
      KB944023
      KB944652
      KB945007
      KB945145
      KB945149
      KB945435
      KB947506
    • RealHyperX, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I have had no crashes either, but I rebooted a few times. X64 is by far the best Vista to run.
  • Rustymetal, on 03/28/2008, -10/+4nice graph, useless information on the real problem of vista
    • Phocion55, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Judging from the comments here, I can conclude:

      There are no problems with Vista. This data is made up by an underground coalition of Linux and Mac fanboys hellbent on undermining Vista. Vista has never experienced a single crash by anyone, anywhere. Period. If someone has claimed they experienced a crash on Vista, they are lying and have never actually used it before. People have Vista uptimes since it was first released to the public.

      I hope this comment summarization clears everything up for you.
    • MrViklund, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Rustymetal's. That's the problem right there. Nvidia drivers. Vista is rock solid.
  • lukas88, on 03/28/2008, -4/+41I have never had vista crash, but I have had my display drivers crash (nvidia).

    The amazing thing? Even after the display drivers crash, windows doesn't crash. The screen just shuts off for 5 seconds and comes back on with the message "Your display drivers stopped working and were reloaded." This only happened a couple times with a particular game.

    Honestly, I can't remember being more impressed with the stability of an OS.
    • xsquirrel378x, on 03/28/2008, -11/+1do you know what a crash is?
      • lukas88, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5I always took it to mean that the OS stops working either temporarily (needs to be rebooted) or permanently. Am I wrong?

        I guess if I don't know what it is, I suppose that would mean I have been using the right OS.
      • BlackKnight6, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3The display driver failed, the OS didn't crash. The whole article is on Vista crashes and the casues , not display drivers failing stats.
    • dracflamloc, on 03/28/2008, -9/+2Not being a jerk, but just so you know, unix-like OSes have done that for many many years.
      • lukas88, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6I didn't mean to insinuate that it was the best OS, only that I found it particularly stable.

        I have used several distros of linux and found them to be much more fragile, actually. Linux is built for your average nerd, since the learning curve is much higher, it is naturally going to be less stable for people who don't know what they are doing.
      • MioTheGreat, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5That depends on the driver. Video drivers under *nix are certainly capable of bringing the system down if they go down badly enough.
        • specialK16, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Well I've only seen a kernel panic once or twice, and they were not caused by video drivers. Video drivers do crashed on me a lot on my overclocked geforce mx 4000 back in the day though, but it was as simple as killing the X server and starting over again, no reboot needed.
    • BlackKnight6, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7I had the SAME thing happen to me. I was running the Crysis demo with my 7900GTX, and I kept minimizing Crysis and going to RivaTuner and kept overclocking my video card and going back to the game, well I went to far, screen went black, thought I was *****. Then my screen was on again, back to desktop, windows message along the same lines that the display drivers stopped working and were restored. I was even able to go back to crysis which was still running, I thought that was awesome....
    • TheG2, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Don't feel bad, ATI drivers do this all the time too, heres something you might try, go into your power settings and change from balanced to performance. It dramatically reduced my driver crash problems.
      The fact that the system recovers and the game continues to run after a driver crash is pretty impressive in my opinion also.
    • JorgeGT, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1I have this subtle problem, but only after I installed modded drivers not issued specifically for my video card (8600GT M, Dell laptop)
    • MrViklund, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Yea that's impressive. But I have had more BSODs with Vista in a few months then with XP over the years thanks to bad drivers for Vista. In my case it was the NVstor32.sys something that made the system BSOD all the time.
    • Anthop, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Same. My nVidia 8800GT crashes occasionally while playing a game, but Vista just takes it all in stride. Vista really is a better OS than XP. (I won't compare it to non-Windows OSes because I don't have the time or energy to defend my statements :P.)
      BTW, I think Microsoft has been working on a new Framework API to help 3rd parties more easily write better drivers for Vista. Hopefully that'll come out and help things a bit.
  • poidh, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9One thing I found out - never install nTune.
    • MrViklund, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Doesn't that void your warranty? It probably does if the maker of the card doesn't approve it. You should have really good cooling if you want to run nTunes to be on the secure site.
  • nitroburn, on 03/28/2008, -4/+10I crash at least once a day and the BSOD always mentions the same nVidia driver... It realy sucks :(
    • TheG2, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2Funny, Vista won't BSOD, it'll just kill and restart the driver...
      • MrViklund, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Not true. I had a huge problem with the Nvidia Chipset driver before. It is fixed now but I have probably had like 30 BSOD in Vista because of that. More then XP have given me over the YEARS. Vista rox but the Nvidia drivers stink.
    • TnTBass, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Try turning down your settings. I had to switch from "High" for a lot of video settings down to "Medium" to eliminate a lot of the crashes. Not all of them, but enough to get through a game now.
    • poonaka, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1upgrade the driver
  • VinceNoir, on 03/28/2008, -9/+3I'll bet those crashes would stop if NVIDIA stopped making a Linux driver. Just sayin'...
  • pameste, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3I'm pleasantly surprised by the comments at the bottom of the article. They don't seem to be irrational flames.
  • K31TH3R, on 03/28/2008, -2/+22NVLDDMKM.sys has stopped working. The display driver has stopped responding and has recovered successfully (OH GUESS NOT HUGE BSOD AND CRASH ANYWAY)
    • BlackKnight6, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5Well the OS didn't crash, the display driver failed. Seems more driver related than OS wouldn't you say.
      • K31TH3R, on 03/28/2008, -6/+2Vista = not windows millenium. (although it's close) You can't just hit any button to get rid of your BSOD and return to your unstable OS, you have to reboot the computer or continue to drool and stare at the pretty shade of blue and white.
        That sounds pretty OS crash-like to me. lol.
        Do a search for nvlddmkm.sys in your windows folder, if you do not have more than 1 copy that's probably why you haven't been affected. However if you've installed multiple releases of drivers, you'll have more than 1 copy of nvlddmkm.sys, the OS will try to use the older version of the file, and present a crash. However, even after deleting all of the nvlddmkm.sys files and reinstalling the drivers, the first time the nvlddmkm.sys driver crashes the file can become corrupted and the OS will continue to crash whenever it accesses the file.
        I can't tell you if it's the display driver or the OS or a big ***** mixture of the two. Either way, Microsoft has WHQL certified nVidia drivers, which is generally supposed to mean "this isn't going to crash your OS."
      • BlackKnight6, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Oh see I thought you got the error the same way (when I say same way. I mean in receiving the error message, not the cause of the error) I did when I kept overclocking my card while playing Crysis. My screen went black, about 5-10 seconds later, I was back at the desktop and a bubble on the bottom right from the tray said "The display driver has stopped responding and has recovered successfully" or something along those lines. I didn't need to reboot or press any buttons, I was back within seconds of killing my video card. I thought you were saying you got that kind of error like mine.
        • K31TH3R, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Close, i do get that error. But immediately after the error my system will either freeze up and BSOD with the nvlddmkm.sys as the culprit, or my mouse will stop responding and the PC will reboot itself.
          Once every few times it WILL make it back into the OS after the driver stopped responding, but when it does that no games will work after it happens, so the OS still needs to be rebooted.
          google "nVidia TDR" and that gives a good explanation of what's going on.
          nVidia are still WTFing over it.
  • SocialPoison, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4"Unknown" and "All Others" account for 35.5% of all the crashes...
    • BlackKnight6, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4All other is other vendors not listed. AMD, Creative, etc.
  • galleryfront, on 03/28/2008, -8/+2AND, 10% of my gnome failures are caused by my NVIDIA 'restricted driver'. While I refuse to use vista, maybe the problem isn't the OS.... alright, yeah, it is.....
  • TnTBass, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I would agree. I have worked very long and hard finding an nVidia driver for my x64 Vista Ultimate that did NOT crash after 5 minutes of using it. I'm working off a 11/17/07 version 7.15.11.6912 right now that seems to be the most stable. It still crashed once in a while though, but I can generally get away with playing a game if I turn down some of the detail settings and anti-aliasing. (7950 GX2 vid card).
    Anyone else find anything more stable?
  • galleryfront, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6"Mac OS Leopard is the best OS in terms of application support, drivers..."
    What?! That's not what Apple is known for. While I dig macs, I can guarantee you that the usb wireless network card i use on my set-top box absolutely won't work in osx out of the box. It worked flawlessly on my linux box w/o my needing to do anything.
  • garryw, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Sins of a Solar Empire crashes like Old Faithfull. I have the 8800M card with Vista. They blame it on nVidia. Otherwise Vista pleases me.
    • RWVolkl158, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Strangely that's the *only* thing I've had crash my Nvidia card on Vista. According to Stardock the next driver update should hopefully fix the issue...
    • s1mph0ny, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1SoaSE is unplayable anyway. Either the pirates kill you, you run out of resources, or the enemy overdevelops you.
  • erydan, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Damn you NVLDDMKM.sys Although, replacing faulty RAM cured this problem up
  • rebelrogue995, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Jeez, couldn't they make the different sections of the pie chart different colours?
  • juliehardman, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Yep thats why I removed vista and put xp back on. Nvidia drivers, duo monitors, locked up my machine about every two hours. My next video card will not be nvidia.
    • MrViklund, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Complain to Nvidia for not caring about their costumers. Vista itself is rock solid.
  • 4DFX, on 03/28/2008, -10/+6And the other 71% is because of Vista itself.
    • MrViklund, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2That's actually not true at all. I have been running Vista for 8 months now and I can tell you that except the problems with Nvidia drivers had have Vista is rock solid. Nvidia probably got deep access to the system with their drivers so they can cause allot of problems if they are bad.
  • FZero68, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6Go to the nvidia forums http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showforum=33 and do a search for nvlddmkm, you get hundreds if not thousands of pages with millions of thread views, its been going on for probably a year and half and no one has done ***** about it.
  • flarn2006, on 03/28/2008, -2/+129%? But even per minute, that's OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • DeFex, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5Just because windows reports NVxxx.dll caused the crash maybe its telling a fib.
  • digitallysick, on 03/28/2008, -2/+2I tried vista with a XFX Nvidia 6800GT card, and constantly got the blue screen of death, wouldn't matter which driver i updated, or downgraded to . I blame MS for not doing enough to work with hardware vendors before pushing vista out the door.
  • AppleMacStud, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1Passing the buck are we? No excuses. Don't blame NVIDIA for the fact that Vista is bloated shiny crapware that businesses are resisting like the bubonic plaque! Vista is D.O.A. but the Macintosh is what you are looking for. 
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.