INTEL 915 Express Chipset & Windows Vista

When Intel says the 915 drivers support Vista, the Company does not mean Aero Glass. Aero Glass requires a driver that is WDDM consistent. Windows update, for Vista, provides an updated driver for the 915. And, newer ones are available from Intel. However, I would not go beyond what Windows Update supplies although doing so should not produce a problem. As I recall, Dell Downloads also has one or more that are more current that the Windows-Update version.

I think so those WDDM is a microsoft trick to make money.

Then why wont glass come on this chipsets. Big companies like NVidia and ATI together are maknig money.

The WIndow Blinds software which makers areo come ON WINDOWS XP in our chipsets. Then ehy cant vista do it.?

Really we don't know. Besides, how well does WB run on an XP system with full glass effects turned on?

Even supposing that it runs just fine, it still does not tell us why Vista needs more power. MS will claim that Vista needs more graphics power because it does a lot more. What I don't believe is that MS made the hardware requirements higher to make money. Actually, if MS makes it more expensive to run Vista, people will not buy it as much. If MS could get their 150 dollar retail upgrade product to run on older computers, why wouldn't MS release it like that. MS wants to sell bunches of 150 to 400 dollar DVDs. They would sell more if more people could use it. They would sell more if people could put Vista on their five year old computer.

I am sure that ATI and NVidea are happy about the increased video requirements. But that doesn't mean that they are in some sort of collusion with MS. Again, MS makes money if they sell more DVDs or if people buy more computers with Vista installed. People will buy more computers if they are cheaper (meaning lesser hardware requirements,) and will buy more DVDs if installing Vista is cheaper (meaning it can be installed on their older machines.)

Look in any Best Buy and the prominent video cards are all over 150 dollars. They are not selling because of Vista. They are selling because of games. You can get a good Vista experience with a 65 to 75 dollar video card, about the same cost as getting an acceptable Video card six years ago to work with XP, or 11 years ago to work with Win95.

And yes, you need at least a gig of memory, which is now standard with most 800 dollar computers (and many have 2 gigs.) That is a lot, but so was 256 six years ago, and it is about the same price. It is a lot, but so was 16 meg of ram 14 years ago, and a heck of a lot cheaper.

so what vista has the BASIC EDITION FOR EVERYONE

I realize that Vista has a basic interface. But clearly, MS is touting the Aero interface. They aren't going to sell many copies of Vista to users just for the basic interface. I understand that MS might hope that people with older computers will plop down the 200 dollars for Vista, expecting the Aero interface, and be stuck with the basic. After all, MS still has the 200 dollars--and an angry customer. If MS could provide the same customer with Aero (which is on the DVD,) and therefore make him a happy customer, why wouldn't they do that. And I don't mean to imply that MS is filled with angels. They want to make money, maybe too much money. But people who want to make money understand that if you can give the customer a better experience, for the same cost, they you will sell more of their product. And every Windows Vista DVD has the code for Aero. The implication I am seeing is that MS is withholding Aero as a means of getting the customer to send money to ATI and NVidea. I suppose asking some people with older desktops to buy a newer 70 dollar video card is not that much, but users with 950 chipsets on laptops are out of luck. That means that very few people will buy Vista if it will only run the basic. Some will be fooled, but not many, and the ones fooled will be mad. MS wants them to buy the DVD, which gives them the incentive to provide Aero to as many as possible.

I suppose Dell doesn't mind pushing the upgrade on the video card. They make a few extra bucks in profit. But that is nothing to MS. It is in MS's interest to offer Vista to the widest set of hardware specs they can.

It is possible though, that MS did a poor job engineering Vista's interface. Apple gets by with 512 meg ram. But their interface doesn't do as much.

Now, MS does believe they can make more money by selling different levels of Vista. I can understand why they might do that. Few people will want the basic, especially without Aero. If Aero is offered on Basic Vista, people would by that rather than Premium. I think that MS should do that, though, because they would sell many more copies. MS disagrees. If they want to leave certain other features off of basic, like Media Center, that is fine. But MS should provide the same interface for every buyer that has the hardware to handle it. But that is a clear choice. My E1505 with the ATI card runs Vista fine. I get to choose which version to buy. I wish they would offer the Aero with Basic, but they do not. That may be the deciding factor because I am not sure I want to spend 150 dollars for the Premium upgrade. But MS is taking a chance of losing me as a customer on the chance that I will send them an extra fifty dollars for Premium. But that is fifty I send to MS. Why would they take that chance so that I send fifty extra to Dell or ATI? MS wants to sell Vista Premium to as many people as they can. If it can run on older computers or the 950 chipset, it would.

I was not criticizing the OS. I like Vista. The argument seemed to be that Vista, with Aero, should be able to work on older systems, or at least those with 950 chip sets. The reason that Vista required more hardware, as implied in this thread, was not that Vista required a better video card because it did more, for example, but was that MS was part of some insidious plot to bilk us out of money. I believe that is wrong. Hardware manufacturers want us to spend more on hardware. MS makes software. They want us to buy more software and we are more likely to do so when that software is cheaper. Forcing us to buy Vista and more hardware is not cheaper. If Vista could work on lesser hardware, MS would allow it to do so. I believe that Vista needs more hardware because it does more. I am OK with that. I think they have done a decent job with Vista.

Try at your own risk:

http://www.msfn.org/comments.php?shownews=15582

Yes that's why i said

"WHEN NOTHING MAKES SENSE, FOLLOW MONEY"

Benna