Vista Isn't Bad

[Mefistofeles]

I just built a new computer for office using VISTA.  Aside from a corruption issue that occured with a user profile for the most part I'm quite impressed.  Aero is certainly fast and snappy.

However this computer is quite expensive fairly well decked out, especially for an office machine with 4 GB of RAM and Q6600 processor.  Also I am using a G33 chipset.

Software wise I was actually able to use office 2000, with the exception of Outlook.  Everything seems to be running fairly smoothly.  Although I did do quite a bit of research on the apps before I commited to getting Vista Business 32.

I also found out the hard way you have to manually set restore points.  

I really feel like Vista is the future and that Microsoft has done a good job with execution.  Also the audio.  I plugged my headphones into the integrated audio and it really did sound like true high fidelity audio.   It was comparable to stuff that I had heard costing thousands of dollars.  

Although I can't say the install was 100% trouble free, I had a DLL for a user profile go bad while installing Acrobat 8, I feel that overall my first impressions of Vista have been good rather than bad.  That's not to say I won't be ranting and complaining to no end later but for now I think Vista has done a good job.

[hugh]

i've been saying it since release but noone listens

it genuinely is a rather nice OS and i would NEVER go back to XP again unless forced too. i also pointed out as you do, that onboard audio is REALLY good under vista the majority of the time

and i've never used system restore in my life

[Mefistofeles]

i’ve been saying it since release but noone listens

I agree in fact I and would go so far as to say there is a disgusting amount of misinformation about Vista.  Before building the Vista machine someone at work told me a coworker told him that her husband "knew" that it wouldn't support Office XP, because he was a computer guy.  Well I installed Office 2000 and works,except for Outlook.

I'm not saying Vista doesn't have problems because I've run into two so far on my own personal Vista machine.  But what operating system installs perfectly?   How many of us have had a clean install were NOTHING goes wrong?  In fact in all honesty the hardware nuisances and pecularities were giving me more headaches than the Vista.

[Reflex]

Its nice that you noticed the audio.  In my opinion, that and User Mode Driver Framework(ie: audio/video drivers are no longer kernel mode and can no longer crash the system).  Universal Audio Architecture, despite being derided by Creative, really does make the audio that most people use sound great(ie: on board audio).  Everything becomes a 24/96 solution, and the only limiting factor is the DAC's on the motherboard.  Bit step towards bringing great sound to the masses....

[hydran]

-

[spc_75]

onboard audio is REALLY good under vista the majority of the time

So your saying the audio on vista works 85-100% (you said really good, not excellent) for 50%+1 of the time.... Hardly a selling point :-P

[VorLonUK]

Well I'm hoping Vista Premium 64 bit will like my onboard Realtek AL889A chipset. I purposefully went without a soundcard after having creative products (forever) after a games Developer at GPG suggested all Creative cards were taken out any PC's they had. Sounded a bit of a strange move seeing that Creative cards do have a percentage of the market, but he was adament they caused nothing but trouble. In fact it was Microsofts newer codec XACT that was having problems with the Creative cards.
This will be my first gaming machine without a sound card in favour of onboard sound - I hope it's not a disapointment.

[Ashtefere]

Ok, this is what pisses me off when people talk about vista. For example:

"Vista is nice and fast and great! i built a pc that is so fast I couldnt really build anything faster JUST do to office work! great OS!"
NO. NO IT IS NOT. Vista is NOT fast and it is NOT snappy. To get it to run anywhere near the performance of windows XP, you need to max out the entire pc's capabilities. Like you have done, meph.
The OS is bloated to hell. It has created so much throwaway machines it isnt even funny.
Every day at work, we see at least one struggly family come into our custom pc store with the same old story "I bought this cheap (insert name brand here) pc with vista on it, and it is soooo slow! it is slower than our old computer! can you fix it?" and we tell them just how much it will cost to make their piece of shit run vista at a decent speed and they nearly cry.
If you need to buy the best pc you can just to run the OS and office, then no. It is not a good OS. It is an inefficient, bloated OS. People all say "its a step in the right direction! its the way of the future!"
Vista has the worst user interface of any windows OS. Not just because of the many more clicks required to do anything, but the sheer inconsistency of the placement of everything. Going from xp to vista, it is a nightmare trying to find all those settings pages and control panels and the like you are used to.
It is SO bad (and I know a bit about user interfaces... if you use litestep, then you will know what I mean) that microsoft must not have even tried to make vista's ui useable at all. To me, it seems they just went straight for the eye candy.
And on the topic of eye candy...
Why does vista take so many resources just for the gui? yes, its a compositing manager... but so is compiz! Microsoft had billions of dollars and, what, seven years or more to work on their comp manager, and they give us AERO? The open source community, a bunch of drunk college students were able to make a BETTER comp manager in LESS time that uses FAR less resources for FREE.
What the fuck were microsoft doing? piggy back rides?

When you compare Vista's UI to the other major OS's (OSX, Linux, XP) it LOSES by a big margin.
When you compare Vista's UI to the other compositing managers (quartz and compiz) it isnt even a contest.
When you compare Vista's resource usage to other OS's (OSX, Linux, XP) it loses, again, by a huge margin.
When you compare Vista's security to the other OS's, it only beats XP.

There really isnt any other elements that make up an OS.
I just cannot understand, in a logical fashion, why people would use Vista, when Windows 7 is so close (2009). Why go through all that crap (about 2 years of screwing around) just to get some small amount of useability that will only last (once everything works) for a year or so (and im not talking about "ZOMG! it works good for ME!"... im talking about working for everyone)
It seems like microsoft learned from their biggest mistake (vista) and is going in the right direction with windows 7 (minimization) with their "win-min" system.
Microsoft need to learn one thing about OS design.
The OS is about the FUCKING APPS! not the OS!

They fooled everyone, everyone bought it, everyone convinced themselves it was the right thing to do, because no one likes to admit they spent that much time and money on a mistake.
They got away with it, and your money.
Just take a step back and check out the alternatives, and what the alternatives are doing. Why do people put up with vista? I just cant understand it!
I mean, the british government have just recently said they will NOT use Vista EVER on ANY of their government machines or school machines... now the brit government aint a bunch of retards, they would have done their homework (as I have) and it is plain as day... the only way I can describe vista as - is a failure, yet they still convinced (forced) everyone to buy it.
I have tried running vista for a month at a time, 3 times on PC's at work, and it just was a useability nightmare. No, anyone that likes Vista is fooling themself about a great many things, and need to wake up. No offence, but it is true. There is no reason to go to vista, but there are plenty of reasons not to.
-Ash

[Reflex]

Gee, why don't you tell us how you really feel there, Ash?  

[Ashtefere]

Haha, sure, why not.

-Ash

[VorLonUK]

I was told once by MS, that "If it wasn't included with the OS then it wasn't needed" - I see they have continued that tradition with Vista.

XP is quicker, more responsive feeling on my older PC's yet I had Vista pre-installed by Dell (laptop) and with a new build gaming PC I was forced to go with Visat if I wanted to dabble with DX10. MS has everyone by the gaming balls!

[AlienDS7]

When you compare Vista's security to the other OS's, it only beats XP.

Well of course this would make sense.  Vista is newer than XP, which is the Windows OS that the majority of people would be using to this point yet.  So naturally there would be more people out there trying to create apps that break through XP's security flaws.

As for other major OS's (OSX and Linux), again since the Windows OS's are running on the majority of systems out there, why would someone spend so much time creating security threats for a minority OS?  Not sure about you, but if I was going to try to create a program to break the security of a system for some specific purpose, I would design it for Windows as well, since it's what most people use.  I'd be willing to bet that as Mac OS's and Linux becomes more widely used, their security would be tested more, as Windows OS's have.

[Babar]

(ie: audio/video drivers are no longer kernel mode and can no longer crash the system)

RONG RONG!

The nVidia driver continually crashes my system. Like, BSODs it. Other times the video just crashes and the system can never restart it, so I have to press the restart button.

I wish that the new driver model was really as good as they said it was. But noooo. A poorly written nVidia driver still brings the system down. Ack.

Edit: Other than this, I love Vista. Light years ahead of XP.

[VorLonUK]

Light years ahead of XP

I see Babar, you mean the Aero part

[Intuit]

......... Every day at work, we see at least one struggly family come into our custom pc store with the same old story "I bought this cheap (insert name brand here) pc with vista on it, and it is soooo slow! it is slower than our old computer! can you fix it?" and we tell them just how much it will cost to make their piece of shit run vista at a decent speed and they nearly cry. ..............

Yeah I've seen used PC retailers stick Vista on 2k and XP era PCs and then blame Microsoft when it runs like crap.  This is tantamount to people voluntarily installing malware on their PCs then blaming Microsoft for their security problems.  I'm sorry but stupid is, as stupid does.  I've worked on a tiny little Dell dual-core 1GB machine that handled Vista32 perfectly.  Basically you need a RECENT PC with SATA.  Single core and XP-era unless tweaked-out (like mine) won't cut it.

If you need to buy the best pc you can just to run the OS and office, then no. It is not a good OS. It is an inefficient, bloated OS. People all say "its a step in the right direction! its the way of the future!"

But we do agree that Vista (for now) isn't any more productive than XP.  Depending upon the PC it can be less productive.  Until software begins to test the limits of hardware and max the new features of the new O/S, most people will only like the fact that it's prettier and different.  Though there are a lot of handy little gadgets that come with the Premium versions.  Such gadgets with equivalent functions I've collected for years on XP, it's nice to see some of that functionality ported to Vista by default.

Vista has the worst user interface of any windows OS. Not just because of the many more clicks required to do anything, but the sheer inconsistency of the placement of everything. Going from xp to vista, it is a nightmare trying to find all those settings pages and control panels and the like you are used to.

Initially I hated the fact that there were 99 different ways to get to the same things with Windows XP.  It just seemed like clutter and bloat.  Later though, I realized that this actually helps novice users *tremendously*.  The Apple OS X 10.5 (leopard) for the most part lacks this and as a result it can be difficult to locate certain system related settings.  The ambiguity for most people I believe is a good thing.

It is SO bad (and I know a bit about user interfaces... if you use litestep, then you will know what I mean) that microsoft must not have even tried to make vista's ui useable at all.

Much of the OS is search-based to such a degree that it's almost command-line.  Those that already know Windows XP will only pause on the fact that there are no icons associated with the familiar "My COmputer", "Control Panel", etcetera in the StartMenu.  However, "All Programs" and all that is still there.  Personally having great familiarity with the Console (DOS) comandline interface, for many tasks I actually prefer a commandline interface.  The StartMenu search, if you haven't noticed, almost doubles as a commandline.  Whether you type "CMD" or "Command Prompt" you'll get to the right place.  You can also type mspaint or paint, word, etcetera.  It's a really nice compromise between a full GUI (Apple) and a full "CLI" (DOS).  Both novices and "experts" find it quick and productive.

To me, it seems they just went straight for the eye candy. And on the topic of eye candy...

Well it's actually all about perception and marketing.  From that standpoint it's *VERY* necessary especially if you want to continue to compete with the likes of Linux (free) & Apple (refined and proprietary Linux).  As the now antiquated example of BetaMax vs VHS has proven, often it isn't enough just to have a technically superior product.  That was largely about price but this is more psychological.  There are other aspects to the game.  Users have to feel comfortable using that particular product.

I've found that my Brother seems to prefer the new OS X 10.5 over the old (but quick & productive) Windows 5.12 for several basic reasons, one of the more major reasons being eye-candy.  THe new recently purchased $1700 2GB 320GB dual-core computer with all proprietary largely non-upgradeable hardware, runs slower, has less features, compatibility, more problems with less solutions than the old, stable, faster and more productive XP computer, yet he prefers the PC with a larger screen and more eye-candy.  Since there aren't several different ways to reach specific applets I found myself using the help and search functions to find out how to do something as simple as change the desktop background.  The Leopard GUI is largely non-configurable and doing something as simple as swithing to a black color-scheme with light text on dark background is impossible.

[Intuit]

When you compare Vista's UI to the other major OS's (OSX, Linux, XP) it LOSES by a big margin.
When you compare Vista's UI to the other compositing managers (quartz and compiz) it isnt even a contest.
When you compare Vista's resource usage to other OS's (OSX, Linux, XP) it loses, again, by a huge margin.
When you compare Vista's security to the other OS's, it only beats XP.

I agree.  Vista's UI, as explained earlier has aspects that are superior to Apple's version of Linux.  In Apple's Linux, if you close an application it often doesn't close.  It stays running.  The already slow OS only gets slower over time because you have so many different apps stealing cycles and RAM.  You won't find a slow apple computer simply because they're sold on proprietary Apple hardware.  How many proprietary Microsoft computers do you see ?  Microsoft sells only the O/S and what other people do with it is literally their own business.  All Microsoft can do is provide minimum recommendations and encourage the use of certain specs for given applications.  Just to save a buck most OEMs don't even provide a Microsoft install disc anymore and they always skimped on one or more particular aspects of the hardware. Dell used to be notorious for this.   Apple sells both the hardware and the O/S at an EXTREME premium.  Getting a slow Apple would be like getting a slow DVR.  The OS has been specifically taylored to the hardware and both are sold together.

In relation to security, have you ever bothered to wonder how and why Opera, has less known exploits than Safari?  For the most part it basically boils down to popularity.  More people use Safari, more people use FireFox, way more people use IE, than Opera.  Firefox used to be "more secure" than IE until Google started pushing it and it's popularity exponentialized.  Numerous expoits have been discovered in Linux and Apple software including Safari & QuickTime.  Even popular 3rd-party apps such as Adobe Reader, Macromedia Flash, Sun's JAVA, etcetera have been exploited.  Microsoft actually included updates for some 3rd-party apps in their O/S even though they had nothing to do with them.  While many exploits are realized or stumbled upon it takes a lot of time and expertise to actively seek out exploits, such as the buffer overflow exploits.  In addition the people who write them, often target them toward business and ecommerce.  Since apple is virtually non-existant on that plane, they're never targetted.  Linux relies on a trust network of programmers that by numbers, even Microsoft couldn't hire.

There really isnt any other elements that make up an OS.

I couldn't possibly disagree more.  I can't even begin to scratch the surface of all the "invisible" technologies and sub-components to Windows we take for granted.  There's a reason it took a rotating army of top-paid engineers some five years to remake xp in the form of Vista, and it's shear, complexity.

I just cannot understand, in a logical fashion, why people would use Vista, when Windows 7 is so close (2009). Why go through all that crap (about 2 years of screwing around) just to get some small amount of useability .............. the british government have just recently said they will NOT use Vista EVER on ANY of their government machines or school machines...

I'm not so sure why they'd be releasing a major update of the core O/S at only two years apart either, but I suspect it probably has to do with changes in hardware technology.  Quad-core Phenom is here with talk of a sextuple-core from Intel already.

I have tried running vista for a month at a time, 3 times on PC's at work, and it just was a useability nightmare. .......... there are plenty of reasons not to.

Generally if a PC was purchased with XP, it was designed for and will run best with an operating system for that era.  True, there are definitely plenty of reasons not to like any and every computer operating system and I have no problems with anyone voicing their caveats as I certainly do on occassion, but let's try to be accurate with what is just pure preference and what is actually better.  In the beginning I stripped Windows XP down to mostly just the functionality I used.  As time went on, I found myself gradually adding all that functionality back and for the most part, if I were to reinstall, I'd reinstall it with nearly all functionality intact... especially given the fact that many of the interdependencies (such as Task Scheduler & Prefetch) are unpredictable to those who didn't actually design the softwar

[Reflex]

(ie: audio/video drivers are no longer kernel mode and can no longer crash the system)

RONG RONG!

The nVidia driver continually crashes my system. Like, BSODs it. Other times the video just crashes and the system can never restart it, so I have to press the restart button.

I wish that the new driver model was really as good as they said it was. But noooo. A poorly written nVidia driver still brings the system down. Ack.

Edit: Other than this, I love Vista. Light years ahead of XP.

Perhaps I should break this down just a bit.  Basically all audio and video drivers are now in two pieces, a kernel mode portion and a user mode portion.  The kernel mode portion rarely chanes, and that is the part that can bring down the OS if there is a problem.  The user mode portion is the part that can be restarted by the OS, rather than causing a blue screen.

The fact that your seeing a ton of bluescreens with your driver is highly suspicious, and I almost wonder if something is defective about your card.  I have been using a 6800GT on my desktop and a 8600GT on my laptop since Vista was released(the laptop since November) and not since the first three months has the OS crashed due to the video driver, since then crashes have always been caught by the user mode portion(ie: the kernel mode portion is now solid, the user mode one has issues).

Just putting it out there, nV has gotten very solid with thier drivers for Vista, and the kernel mode portion is nearly bulletproof from what I understand(and thats the only portion that can bring down the OS)...

[VorLonUK]

I think the major difference with Vista over XP, is that in general New Pc's around XP's launch worked quite well ie hardware balanced the OS. That's always noticiable with the big Manufacturers like Dell & Hp etc and how the take up is. Whereas Dell after much feedback reintroduced Windows XP after customers were requesting it over Vista.
I've experienced exactly the same too, where Vista Doesn't MATCH the current hardware AS WELL as XP did to the hardware of it's launch era - and that's where MS has messed up.

I was surprised to find my Dell laptop with a T2080 dual core Cpu (running Vista Premium) that does have a higher CPU benchmark than my old gaming 3.4C Northwood (running Windows XP home) is much slower. Both have 1GB of memory, the laptop being DDR2 PC4200 over the old gaming Pc's DDR PC4000.

Plus the real Givaway is a new OS (which should be efficient) has a feature such as "Ready Boost". What a waste of time that is. I've tried the feature with and without the option and it makes no obvious difference. But regardless, why would you add such a feature to a new OS. I can't see such a feature was on the design table from the outset, rather than an afterthought added to give the marketing department an added selling bonus for all those who's PC's were running like dogs on recommended minimum memory setups.

This is just more dross from MS who has no native windows competition and just a product to give their software engineers something to do. How good it is doesn't matter and the only Yardstick for comparison is earlier versions of Windows. Now if we had something like Symantec Windows, or Acme Windows or whatever and MS had to get their fingers out and compete, i have no doubt they would design something far better and far cheaper.
This is no different to say Ford being the only car manufacturer and a handful of models being available. Comparing Cars against Vans and trucks , is no different to Comparing Windows to Linux and other OS's as Windows is in a unique massive league of it's own.
Ironically it comes from the "Land of the Free", where any hint of competition jumped on. At the end of the day non of us know how good windows could be, or even how much more we could get out of our PC's if Windows was improved upon.

No Competition is bad for technical advancement and all the time Windows has 95% (or thereabouts) of the Desktop market, I doubt we'll be going anywhere that fast.

[Reflex]

I think the major difference with Vista over XP, is that in general New Pc's around XP's launch worked quite well ie hardware balanced the OS. That's always noticiable with the big Manufacturers like Dell & Hp etc and how the take up is. Whereas Dell after much feedback reintroduced Windows XP after customers were requesting it over Vista.

Dell and other OEM's did the same thing with Win2k/Win9x when XP launched.  I remember the articles back then, its like Deja vu.

I've experienced exactly the same too, where Vista Doesn't MATCH the current hardware AS WELL as XP did to the hardware of it's launch era - and that's where MS has messed up.

I remember all the 'XP Ready' computers that came out back in 2001 with 64-128MB of memory and the inevitable complaints that followed.  This really is no different.

Plus the real Givaway is a new OS (which should be efficient) has a feature such as "Ready Boost". What a waste of time that is. I've tried the feature with and without the option and it makes no obvious difference. But regardless, why would you add such a feature to a new OS. I can't see such a feature was on the design table from the outset, rather than an afterthought added to give the marketing department an added selling bonus for all those who's PC's were running like dogs on recommended minimum memory setups.

ReadyBoost has been benchmarked by several reputable websites(such as Anandtech).  It does NOT help in all situations, but in some scenerios it can be very useful.  Usually low memory situations(ie: it had a dramatic effect at 512MB of mem, but no effect at 2GB of mem).

[Ashtefere]

See thats the thing. Marketshare. Or rather, the "ignorance factor". Let me explain.
I like to think of the public as a great big dumb bull with many many brains.
There are a few of those brains that are quite smart and worthy of using PC's. For the subject of this topic, I will qualify these "smart" brains as people that have used OSX to a large extent (home or work pc for at least 6 months) and Linux to a large extent (at least three distros, one of which as a work or home pc for 6 months) and can unibiasedly give their opinion of the quality of their OS.
These people are the ones who primarily do not use windows. There are not many of these people.
Now, I am not saying windows users are stupid. Not at all. In fact, windows users have to put up with a lot more crap than OSX users or even Linux users with a gui oriented distro (sabayon, ubuntu, etc).
I am saying these "smart brains" are smart because they realise that, in comparison to windows, Linux/OSX is a better OPERATING SYSTEM (for many, many, many factors) and even though they have no where near the support or app compatibility (OSX the exception) they strive on, because they know it is better.
There there are the not smart brains. I suppose this is not the correct term. The term should be "ignorant".
Not of their own choosing, they just havent had the time to try the alternatives seriously, or have not been introduced to the alternatives. Every time I show one of my tech savy customers a linux live cd with compiz enabled they go "wow, why isnt vista like that?" and they love it.
But they dont use it.
Not because it is inferior -quite the opposite- but they want to run "ms word" and "crysis", and so have to use windows.
They then very quickly forget about the alternatives. This causes them to remain "ignorant".
This happens all the time, and so the few "smart brains" do not really grow in number.
If, however, for some reason they decided to try the alternative and not be "ignorant" then the marketshare would grow, and microsoft would be forced to make a competitive product. But not only this, developers would make apps for all OS's and marketshare for the alternatives would grow even more. The smart brains would increase in number.
What is holding back the removal of this ignorance though? Oh, that one is quite simple.
Arrogance. Ignorance's evil twin. Think of arrogance like the testicles of this bull.
You see, the people in charge of the "alternatives" are arrogant. Apple, for example, will not help game devs. They (by they i mean steve jobs, as his underlings are too scared to tell him he is wrong) believe that gaming should not be a part of apple's strategy. This arrogance on apple's part causes ignorance to prosper. No growth of smart brains.
If apple were to embrace gaming AND allow osx to run on PC's legitimately, microsoft would have a lot to worry about.
This wont happen though, because arrogance is in charge of those ignorant brains, and we all know what happens when brain tries to fight balls.
Not gonna happen.
Now, what about linux?
The people in charge of linux are like a sac filled with many gargantuan hyperactive testicals. Also, they are all different kinds of testicals. They fight each other and each believes they are on the right track.
For example, ubuntu is a nice, stable distro, but they believe in freeware only and thus it is not realistic to use for the masses.
Novel Suse has a free version, but also only includes the freeware stuff - you have to pay to play mp3's, dvd's, etc. Not good for the masses.
Sabayon Linux is great, they use whatever works best and it means the OS tends to do a whole lot more.... but their devs are forgetful and sometimes dont put in important packages, and there arent enough people working on the project.
All the people in charge of all of these 'tuxes are arrogant. They will not work together.
Do you know what would happen if all those gargantuan testicals worked together to (and make a single, working, unarrogant linux) to tell those ignorant brains what to do?
No brain can fight many giant testicals. No brain.
But, this giant bull trudges along unknowingly, and some of the ignorant brains tell the other ignorant brains they "know all about the alternatives" and "they are crap"... and ignorant brains are more willing to listen to other ignorant brains than smart brains.
But one day... and I look forward to that day... those balls are going to stop being arrogant, and that bull is going to listen to his balls.
-Ash

[Reflex]

So how do you explain those of us who are tech saavy, intelligent and know our shit, but still find Windows to be a better OS for general purpose use?  Or do we just overestimate our own intelligence for not seeing things like you do?

[Ashtefere]

No, not at all. You are correct in saying windows is better for general purpose. It is.
But if you ignore the apps for all systems and just focus on the OS... it is not.
The ignorance causes the low marketshare, causing the low developer effort, causing the lack of apps, causing the ignorance.... ad infinitum.
-Ash

[Mefistofeles]

No, not at all. You are correct in saying windows is better for general purpose. It is.
But if you ignore the apps for all systems and just focus on the OS… it is not.
The ignorance causes the low marketshare, causing the low developer effort, causing the lack of apps, causing the ignorance.... ad infinitum.
-Ash

I'm going to have to side with Reflex on this one.  There are alot of things create problems for Windows that have nothing to do with Microsoft that a small company, such as Apple can control.

For example Apple has subcontractors build its computers.  Therefore they can figure out what works best in a Mac and can even test and run all the components together.  

Granted there is alot of stuff that does go wrong with Windows, been there a few times myself.  But there are a near infinite number of permuatations and  configurations that Microsoft simply can't test for.  I have seen the weirdest things go wrong.  I had one computer that hated APC's Powerchute program.  It took me alot of trouble shooting to figure this out but there are too many hardware combinations possible in the Wintel world.

Also think of all the people making hardware for Windows based machines.  The ecosystem is HUGE.  Even though Microsoft is probably a much larger
company its vendor base probably far outweighs its manpower.  So therefore its probably easier for someone developing stuff for Apple to get stuff done versus contacting someone in the "Evil Empire".  This occured because Power Chute didn't like my particular AMD KT800 based computer.  Would this have occured with Apple.  Probably not they can prevent people who use OS X from buying a VIA chipset and putting their own Whitebox together.

Although I have never put together a Linux machine I would imagine that anyone who puts together a Linux machine probably does ALOT of research before they start mixing and matching parts.  I would imagine its probably important whether or not you can get drivers in Linux and to make sure they are interoperable with the various hardware systems and insure that they work.    I did the same thing with my APPS for Vista.  I carefully research whether or not all the APPS I had would work.

Now imagine your typical Windows user.  They have a computer and buy whatever part they want.  They expect it to work perfectly with whatever chipset or videocard they have.  

The first time I worked with Core 2 I ran into this problem.  I bought what I thought was the coolest memory Crucial and just expected to work with my genuine Intel MB.  After quite a bit of work boy was I wrong.

This stuff just wouldn't happen in the Mac World and I'm sure the Linux guys are probably up to date on memory,chipsets and drivers.

Windows is ubiquitous and expected to work with everything and this creates incredible expectations for the OS that sometimes just can't be satisfied.

[Ashtefere]

Generally on a live dvd mef, linux should have every driver there is for just about all the hardware a home pc (or whatever pc the distro is targeted at) could possibly have.
The only thing that I KNOW isnt supported is legacy geforce stuff (4mx, 3 and under) and most ati stuff (cos they are arrogant ).
Not much reasearch is required on parts compatibility for linux. You can do such a test yourself. Grab any live dvd of any home distro off the web and throw it in, reboot, and see what hardware works.
You would be surprised.
-Ash

[hugh]

i've used leopard, linux distro's etc, and while those two are pretty, linux was useless for my needs, i plain disliked mac and vista does everything i possibly want my computer to do and such.

i don't myself need a page long rant and such to know what is best for me