NVIDIA drivers responsible for nearly 30% of Vista crashes in 2007


Recommended Posts

This information is useless.

People with black shoes have 50% more chance on getting heart problems.

Note, 90% of all shoes sold are black...

X sells 10.000.000 products and 25% causes crashes = number of crashes = 2.500.000

Y sells 1.000.000 products and 90% causes crashes = number of crashes = 900.000

Which is the better product??

Even if 100% products of Y causes crashes. product Y will never beat the number of crashes caused by product X....

And then one product is not a complex product (no DX10, no HDvideo, no specialstuff), the whole picture changes even more, then you have to take into account how complex a product is compared to the others.

(normal nothing fancy videocard vs. 3D GPU with HDvideo acceleration)

the normal nothing fancy videocard has 3 possible reasons the drivers could crash vista.

the 3D GPU with HDvideo accelerator has 300.000 possible reasons the drivers could crash vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoken by the biggest Microsoft zealot there is.

Frankly you must be completely naive if you think Vista isn't a faulty OS.

In your opinion. How many people here on Neowin have had a good overall user experience with Vista? I'm sure there are plenty. Just because YOU think Vista is a faulty OS doesn't make it so. I could state Leopard is a faulty OS, but since I've never used it, how would I know? Once you use Vista SP1 for more than a couple minutes, let us know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm, I have been using an 8800 GTS with Vista Ultimate since the day it came out. I am always up to date on drivers installing the newest one as it comes out and not a single crash for me. In fact, Vista never crashed on me. a year went by wit no formats :o u would never see that with xp.

Well I've got an XP laptop, used just about every day, that hasn't been formatted for about four years. So yes you can see that with XP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Vista's initial release, the continual "Display driver nvlddmkm stopped responding, but has succesfully recovered" error constantly appeared in the early Vista days. So for me, no surprise there regarding how awful Nvidia's drivers where (are? :) ).

Close to tearing out my hair, I went out and bought an X1950XTX. What a difference. ATI's hardware may be inferior now to Nvidia's, but ATI's drivers are significantly more robust imho. Of course I'm sure many Nvidia users have experienced no problems whatsoever, but for me, that most certainly wasn't the case.

I'll take stability over performance anyday :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betas are for testing purposes only and hopefully aren't counted in this.

If, however, the beta drivers are skewing the results of the crash report data it's still nVidia's fault. Don't want people skewing results with non-release drivers? Keep the betas internal. (or be prepared to roll with the skewed punches)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, never knew there were so many problems with it :o. Been running Vista from the beginning and only had one BSOD in total, and that one was indeed related to NVIDIA, guess I was lucky :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nvidia drivers are good, not perfect though but no drivers are perfect. The latest beta is 174.74 and they work great. Never had issue with my SLI 8800GTX setup under Vista. Not sure what to tell you about graph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've yet to have a single crash due to nVidia drivers with Vista.

I have no problems nowadays, but I did have in early 2007 with my Geforce 8800GTS running on Vista. That was all pretty new stuff back then, and a whole lot seemed to have problems in some way or another. The stuff about "the driver have stopped working and been recovered". Their support boards got pretty flooded with such problems, and I wouldn't be surprised if those early days of Geforce 8's on Vista made a mark in their statistics.

I'd be more interested in statistics not counting the first half year of Vista just to try to minimize the risk of those "child diseases" showing up in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only had teething issues with Vista and they were most likely user error :D

There's a few niggling issues (like unresolved entries in an error log) but nothing even remotely major.

I've been impressed with it so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had more driver crashes with ATi than I have with Nvidia - usually the majority of crashes I had was with spam/spy/virus scanners and blockers and they have drivers that interact with other drivers - it's funny that none of those companies are listed and considering they didnt have compatible drivers for a long time after vista was released and a lot still are not fully compatible - i even remember that the biggest issue that a lot of companies had with Microsoft was they kept the development of the kernal locked so tight that it hendered them from being able to do their own testing and developments to but up to par -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown = Quicktime? Haw.

Since Quicktime is a user-mode application, if it were to cause a BSOD, the root cause would likely be one of the other buckets (video driver, or "Microsoft") since a user-mode app shouldn't be able to cause the system to crash. Then again, there are always exceptions to every rule.

"Unknown" probably means either:

A) Some other driver

B) Something that belongs in one of those buckets (like Nvidia) but wasn't able to be categorized for one reason or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This information is useless.

People with black shoes have 50% more chance on getting heart problems.

Note, 90% of all shoes sold are black...

X sells 10.000.000 products and 25% causes crashes = number of crashes = 2.500.000

Y sells 1.000.000 products and 90% causes crashes = number of crashes = 900.000

Which is the better product??

Even if 100% products of Y causes crashes. product Y will never beat the number of crashes caused by product X....

And then one product is not a complex product (no DX10, no HDvideo, no specialstuff), the whole picture changes even more, then you have to take into account how complex a product is compared to the others.

(normal nothing fancy videocard vs. 3D GPU with HDvideo acceleration)

the normal nothing fancy videocard has 3 possible reasons the drivers could crash vista.

the 3D GPU with HDvideo accelerator has 300.000 possible reasons the drivers could crash vista.

For many of the people that posted here, I think they should read your reply for clarification before they post any more comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, even without hard numbers, we can think in terms of aggregates.

The big attention-getter for me is Intel's low percentage.

Intel holds a dominant market share on chipsets for the dominant platform. More importantly, they crank out a LOT of integrated-video chipsets, so they also are responsible for major video drivers.

Yet they get fewer bug reports than nVidia and ATI, whose product lines are limited to comparatively small slices of the chipset market, and the small discrete-video-card market.

Either Intel is doing something right, or ATI and nVidia users stress their systems very differently than Intel users (possible, if gamers tend to go for aftermarket cards and drivers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hak that's kind of obvious don't you think :p no gamer is going to be using onboard chipset GFX to play modern games and virtually all non low end systems these days come with an ATI or nVidia GFX card even if they have onboard gfx anyway due to the fact that HD today is what drives the multimedia home PC and the nVidia and ATI cards have dedicated video processors which OEM makers can make money off be it on a desktop or Laptop.

It doesn't mean Intel are doing anything wrong or right either, it just means the onboard gfx card userbase is so small it just doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't mean Intel are doing anything wrong or right either, it just means the onboard gfx card userbase is so small it just doesn't matter.

I'm pretty sure Intel has the most marketshare in graphics cards. This article from early 2007 pegs it at almost 40%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Intel has the most marketshare in graphics cards. This article from early 2007 pegs it at almost 40%.

Hush! Gamers are convinced that they are 90% of the market. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.