Canada isn't the only nation with slack copyright laws. What about, say Romania, which publically declared that they built their country on piracy. Or for example Sweden which hasn't been cracking down on piracy either?
But that is besides the point. This is just yet another attempt by a US lobby to try to use the US government to boss Canada around.
Nvidia and ATI are not the only GPU makers on the market, that is correct. However, with Intel included they make up over 85% of the market and basically have an oligopoly. This is for practically all major segments of the graphics card industry including discrete graphics, mobile graphics and integrated graphics. So yes, this would include corporations. It's a prisoner's dillema with 3 players.
But this is besides the point. It's not Microsoft's initiative to impose DRM on everyone. It's the movie industry and the cable industry. The movie industry is strong arming Microsoft (believe it or not) as well as hardware manufacturers, to implement things like HDCP and AACS in a fashion acceptable to them. If Microsoft, HD-DVD/BluRay manufacturers or video card manufacturers told them to go to hell, then the industry could have refused to allow playback of high def content under Vista. They would do this by not licensing their hardware/software to playback their content and not issuing AACS and HDCP keys. Unfortunately, the entire movie industry was against Microsoft including all supporters of both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Additionally, Cablelabs had it's own requirements for Microsoft to meet before they would allow Vista to be used to view and record premium cable TV such as Discovery or HBO. It's from these outside influences, that microsoft created the trusted computing initiative and decided to implement things like HDCP amongst other things.
The DRM you speak of (HDCP) does not affect video games, but rather HD protected content such as Blu-Ray, HD-DVD or protected content from a cablebox. Since video games are not protected video, they are NOT affected by HDCP, which is what downscales the resolution on non-hdcp compliant hardware.
Even if DRM is at the root of most of the problems you are working on, it has nothing to do with 3D graphics stability, and does not explain the issues people are encountering in the article. Besides, the article writer complains mostly about nvidia hardware and nvidia drivers.
The grandparent makes a good point, despite you calling him retarded. I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or just plain ignorant.
This is one fact that these "psychics" must consider: Correlation does not, by itself, imply causation.
Just because ice cream consumption increases in the summer as does crime, one cannot draw the conclusion that ice cream causes crime (or that crime causes ice cream consumption). Obviously there are other factors that resulted in increased ice cream consumption such as the fact that it's summer so it's hot outside, kids are not in school so have summer jobs and more time to eat ice cream, etc. Crime too has an independant set of factors that result in it's increase during the summer months.
If they can prove that their analysis predicted the outcome of a certain event and cannot be attributed to other factors, then they might be on to something. But right now that is not the case.
I agree, it would be awesome to play DX10 games under XP.
However, while it is possible that that DX10 has some artificial restrictions in it, it seems unlikely that one would be able to run DX10 on XP even if they said restrictions were removed. DX10 is designed to work with the the new windows driver model which is significantly different then the driver model used in XP and 2000. So if Microsoft wanted DX10 to work under XP they would likely have to put in a lot of extra work to make it compatible as would the driver developers for 3D graphics hardware. Not saying it won't happen, but it seems unlikely.
Yes, you are right, it does not tell you everything about the system. I did not mention that the BIOS is likely just ONE of the things that Skype reads from. Skype could also be accessing the PCI config space and the system registry to learn more about the system. After all just because they were only caught accessing the BIOS, it does not mean that is the only system information they collected.
First let me point out that this is just a theory. Second, if you read my entire comment then you would see that I agree that there are potentially other explanations for why they collect this information.
The chances of BIOS data matching up exactly, while not as low as two random numbers of length equal to the BIOS data, are still very low. Imprinted in the BIOS is the image itself, the manufacturer, the model, and other system information. What random persistent data that you speak of can be consistently harvested on all machines after every reboot? The only other information available perhaps is the MAC address.
As for why they would read the BIOS for this. Your BIOS and/or motherboard are not things that you change every day, let alone every 5 minutes. If for example, your account logs 2 or 3 motherboards being used over one month or even one week, not a big deal. But, if your account logs 10-15 different motherboards within the HOUR, then something is likely wrong and they would investigate. Skype would likely check this against other information which it collects from the system.
As for your last point, yes, skype does not lock accounts to a specific PC. In fact, you can be logged into Skype from multiple computers simultaneously. This would allow you to be logged in on your desktop, your laptop, and your windows mobile phone all at the same time and send/answer calls from whichever system is most convenient. However, as I mentioned earlier, if you gave your skype account password to several friends and had 10-15 unique computers connected within the hour, then it could indicate abusive behaviour.
Chances are that this data could be used for other things, which I pointed out in my original post. However, your arguments against this particular theory, do little to refute it.
They could be referring to the time where Skype would only allow 10-way conference calling on dual-core Intel processors. Those running AMD processors could only have 5-way conference calls. At the time they cited the "technical superiority" of Intel processors over AMD ones.
Of course thie gave bad publicity to both Intel and Skype after AMD issued a subpoena against Skype and the fact that it was discovered that the software simply checked the processor ID and enabled the feature based on that. A patched version was also released which bypassed this artificial limitation.
What better unique identifier than the system bios? Ip addresses are becoming less reliable since many people use wireless internet and mobile phones for skype.
Skype is probably just looking for abusive users who sign up for their low margin unlimited calling plan only to share it with their relatives and friends accross the world. If they say detect say 5 different machines calling 5 different people all within a span of 10 minutes, then something is likely wrong.
Of course they could just be collecting system info such as the system manufacturer, processor type, number of processors, sound card, etc. This could be combined with the survey results regarding phone quality they ask you to take after every few calls. In the end it could result in a better product and better service. Of course many other software products already do this (such as firefox, ms windows, ms office) but they are more open about it and at least give you the option of participating.
Treating a patient with chemotherapy, radiation therapy or both for years on end costs anywhere from $100,000-$1,000,000+. These treatments can go on for years on end and usually those effected cannot work while undergoing treatment. This means that they will probably go on welfare or unemployment insurance which costs the government even MORE money. The situation is made worse if the person receiving treatment has a wife and kids which also need to be supported by the government. To make matters even worse, he may die despite the fact that treatment was given.
If he died after receiving millions of dollars in treatment, and I know this sounds harsh, then the government would not get it's return on investment. However, if he survives after receiving minimal treatment, the government has invested less in his health and the patient will likely continue to work and remain a contributor to the economy. Health care costs are reduced, welfare costs are reduced and there is another tax payer, consumer, and working citizen in the economy.
Funny you mention Israel. Just as having a large army makes it more likely to be used, throwing money at one has a similar effect. Israel just happens to receive 6billion in aid per year from the US (most of which is military aid) making it the largest recipient of aid in the world. Of course this is used to maintain their occupied territories and terrorize it's inhabitants. The US talks about peace in the middle east but the issue of cutting off aid to Israel never comes up since that would jeopardize the US-Israel alliance. Another example of American hegomy I thought you might find interesting.
You are being sqeezed just as hard in the US as you are in Canada but are getting significantly less in the US. From my personal experience working/living in the US and Canada I have found the following:
-You are forced to pay for health care in BOTH the US and Canada. In fact, you pay the government MORE in the US than you do in Canada for healthcare:
Medicare: $88US/month.
BC Medical Services Plan (MSP): $54CAN/month
-Despite the fact that you are paying more in the US, US Medicare does not cover you unless you are at least 65 years old(correct me if I am wrong). It covers you in Canada no matter what your age is.
-If you want actual health care coverage in the US until you are 65, you have to be covered by your employer which will charge you some of the premiums or you have to sign up for health insurance. These premiums range from $15(if you're company has a good health plan) to $200+(if you have private insurance and/or existing illnesses which may or may not be covered). In Canada it's covered under your MSP.
-Even if you are unable to pay the MSP fee in Canada, you won't be denied treatment. In the US if you don't pay, your insurance is cancelled. If you don't have insurance, you must pay at least 50%-100% of the cost of treatment up front.
-In the US many plans have a limit on how much your treatment can cost and in some cases a limit on your total lifetime costs even for life threatening diseases like Cancer. In Canada, they don't stop treating you because you cost too much to keep alive or can't afford to pay the premiums.
-In the US if you get an illness, start treatment for it, then switch jobs or healthcare providers, your treatment might not be covered for a certain amount of time or ever again. So if you say, have diabetes, AIDS or Cancer, you are screwed for 9months or more (depending on the state). In Canada, it doesn't matter who you work for, you're covered. You don't have to pick a job based on whether or not their healthcare policy excludes existing conditions.
Yes, you have to wait longer for elective treatments such as orthodontic surgery or shoulder surgery. But if you are dying of a major illness, you will likely be treated quickly and unconditionally. This is based on my personal experiences in BC, Alberta, Ontario and Washington State.
Every medical system has it's downsides. In the US if you lose your job, you no longer have medical insurance and are basically screwed. If you have something major and can't afford to pay 50% or more of the cost up front, you will die.
In Canada, yes there are hug wait lists for some treatments. For example, if you got a knee injury or were waiting for orthotontic surgery, you could be waiting for months if not years. However, this is exagerrated to a great degree. A lot of the wait lists are for elective surgeries and treatments. If you have cancer or AIDS you will likely get treatment right away. I know because a few members in my family had cancer and got treatment almost immediately. (FYI these family members were in BC, Alberta and Ontario). If they were in the US and had lost their jobs, had exceeded their medical allowance or just had a crappy HMO that didn't cover their treatment, they would have gone into bankruptcy and/or died.
You mention that it won't get funding because there is no money in a patentless cure. I beg to differ. At least from a Canadian perspective, where we have socialized medicine, it makes a lot of sense. This is after all a Canadian institution that discovered this.
Cancer is very costly disease which costs the government, and as a result Canadian citizens a lot of money. If there was something that could cure cancer at a very minimal cost, it could save the government millions (possibly billions) in health care dollars every year. Not only that, many other countries which also have socialized medicine, such as all of the EU, would benefit from something like this in a similar way. I can see government funding filling the role that pharmeceutical companies normally play in this simply because it could save them billions.
I think what you're refering to is Socialized medicine. One of the benefits of it is the fact that the hospitals and doctors aren't out there to squeeze every last penny out of you.
You have to consider the fact that there were many elements at play and many things weren't going their way. For example:
1) Fox had been threatening to cancel the show for some time. The motivation to perform must have been low because of this.
2) Fox was screwing the show around. Bumping the show to different time slots, airing it every few weeks, refusing to market it, etc. This again, could have demoralized the team to a great extent.
3) They were probably trying different, and sometimes unpopular things in an attempt to convince fox that the show was worth promoting and airing in the future.
Despite this and other issues they might have encountered, I still thought the last season was great.
Just because you don't have issues with your mid-range graphics card, does not mean that others aren't.
First of all, which version of Vista are you using? I would guess that it is the 32bit version. Nvidia has TERRIBLE support for the 64bit version. If you installed that version its likely you won't even be able to boot the OS and login.
Secondly, as for the "No development planned" list, there are many cards for which there is no development planned. For example, every card that isn't DX9 capable isn't supported. Don't take my word for it, check Nvidia's site.
Thirdly, of course nobody can expect a product to be perfect, but still, Nvidia's drivers are significantly worse than the competition's especially on the 64 bit version, which Nvidia claims support for as well. So then Nvidia does not deliver an advertised feature (vista support) and intentionally ignores customers complaining about the lack of said feature in the product(s) the customers had purchased, Nvidia is not just guilty of false advertising but also of denying service covered under their customer's warranties (to which they are contractually obliged to provide). This certainly is grounds for a lawsuit.
I am pretty sure that AGP devices are still accessed through the PCI Config space. The AGP bus is seperate from the PCI one, but the AGP devices are linked to the host bus using a bridge device. This is commonly identified as a PCI-PCI bridge. I believe that all AGP systems are configured this way.
So, yes, your bridge device shows up as a PCI-PCI bridge but thats perfectly normal. Intel, ATI/AMD and VIA have similar devices on their chipsets which connect the AGP device and identify themselves in a similar fashion.
I agree that Microsoft is partially to blame for rushing the product to market, but in this case I think some hardware vendors responded worse than others. ATI's drivers, in general seem to be much more stable, especially on the x64 version. Even microsoft recommends ATI over Nvidia.
ATI's drivers are the best thats out there, especially for Vista. Don't believe me? Even Microsoft recommends ATI over Nvidia. A quick google search will reveal that ATI's drivers are currently much more stable than Nvidias and offer many more features.
Your experience sounds unfortunate, but it seems like the exception rather than the rule. Of course, the 9600 bluescreens could be caused by the graphics driver OR the AGP driver. The x800 if AGP could be crashing for similar reasons and a driver update could just be exposing them. A lot of AGP hardware has been plagued with these kinds of issues in Vista.
Just because the drivers were released on day one, does not mean they released good drivers. By the way, have you tried running the 64bit version of Vista? Or playing any games? I think your experience will be much different. Also, many of the driver features aren't even enabled even on the latest version.
Your experience seems to be the exception rather than the rule. A quick google search will show that many review sites rank ATI's driver much higher than Nvidias. Even microsoft recommends ATI over Nvidia.
Slashdot Mirror
Canada isn't the only nation with slack copyright laws. What about, say Romania, which publically declared that they built their country on piracy. Or for example Sweden which hasn't been cracking down on piracy either?
But that is besides the point. This is just yet another attempt by a US lobby to try to use the US government to boss Canada around.
Nvidia and ATI are not the only GPU makers on the market, that is correct. However, with Intel included they make up over 85% of the market and basically have an oligopoly. This is for practically all major segments of the graphics card industry including discrete graphics, mobile graphics and integrated graphics. So yes, this would include corporations. It's a prisoner's dillema with 3 players.
But this is besides the point. It's not Microsoft's initiative to impose DRM on everyone. It's the movie industry and the cable industry. The movie industry is strong arming Microsoft (believe it or not) as well as hardware manufacturers, to implement things like HDCP and AACS in a fashion acceptable to them. If Microsoft, HD-DVD/BluRay manufacturers or video card manufacturers told them to go to hell, then the industry could have refused to allow playback of high def content under Vista. They would do this by not licensing their hardware/software to playback their content and not issuing AACS and HDCP keys. Unfortunately, the entire movie industry was against Microsoft including all supporters of both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Additionally, Cablelabs had it's own requirements for Microsoft to meet before they would allow Vista to be used to view and record premium cable TV such as Discovery or HBO. It's from these outside influences, that microsoft created the trusted computing initiative and decided to implement things like HDCP amongst other things.
The DRM you speak of (HDCP) does not affect video games, but rather HD protected content such as Blu-Ray, HD-DVD or protected content from a cablebox. Since video games are not protected video, they are NOT affected by HDCP, which is what downscales the resolution on non-hdcp compliant hardware.
Even if DRM is at the root of most of the problems you are working on, it has nothing to do with 3D graphics stability, and does not explain the issues people are encountering in the article. Besides, the article writer complains mostly about nvidia hardware and nvidia drivers.
The grandparent makes a good point, despite you calling him retarded. I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or just plain ignorant.
This is one fact that these "psychics" must consider: Correlation does not, by itself, imply causation.
Just because ice cream consumption increases in the summer as does crime, one cannot draw the conclusion that ice cream causes crime (or that crime causes ice cream consumption). Obviously there are other factors that resulted in increased ice cream consumption such as the fact that it's summer so it's hot outside, kids are not in school so have summer jobs and more time to eat ice cream, etc. Crime too has an independant set of factors that result in it's increase during the summer months.
If they can prove that their analysis predicted the outcome of a certain event and cannot be attributed to other factors, then they might be on to something. But right now that is not the case.
I agree, it would be awesome to play DX10 games under XP.
However, while it is possible that that DX10 has some artificial restrictions in it, it seems unlikely that one would be able to run DX10 on XP even if they said restrictions were removed. DX10 is designed to work with the the new windows driver model which is significantly different then the driver model used in XP and 2000. So if Microsoft wanted DX10 to work under XP they would likely have to put in a lot of extra work to make it compatible as would the driver developers for 3D graphics hardware. Not saying it won't happen, but it seems unlikely.
Yes, you are right, it does not tell you everything about the system. I did not mention that the BIOS is likely just ONE of the things that Skype reads from. Skype could also be accessing the PCI config space and the system registry to learn more about the system. After all just because they were only caught accessing the BIOS, it does not mean that is the only system information they collected.
First let me point out that this is just a theory. Second, if you read my entire comment then you would see that I agree that there are potentially other explanations for why they collect this information.
The chances of BIOS data matching up exactly, while not as low as two random numbers of length equal to the BIOS data, are still very low. Imprinted in the BIOS is the image itself, the manufacturer, the model, and other system information. What random persistent data that you speak of can be consistently harvested on all machines after every reboot? The only other information available perhaps is the MAC address.
As for why they would read the BIOS for this. Your BIOS and/or motherboard are not things that you change every day, let alone every 5 minutes. If for example, your account logs 2 or 3 motherboards being used over one month or even one week, not a big deal. But, if your account logs 10-15 different motherboards within the HOUR, then something is likely wrong and they would investigate. Skype would likely check this against other information which it collects from the system.
As for your last point, yes, skype does not lock accounts to a specific PC. In fact, you can be logged into Skype from multiple computers simultaneously. This would allow you to be logged in on your desktop, your laptop, and your windows mobile phone all at the same time and send/answer calls from whichever system is most convenient. However, as I mentioned earlier, if you gave your skype account password to several friends and had 10-15 unique computers connected within the hour, then it could indicate abusive behaviour.
Chances are that this data could be used for other things, which I pointed out in my original post. However, your arguments against this particular theory, do little to refute it.
They could be referring to the time where Skype would only allow 10-way conference calling on dual-core Intel processors. Those running AMD processors could only have 5-way conference calls. At the time they cited the "technical superiority" of Intel processors over AMD ones.
Of course thie gave bad publicity to both Intel and Skype after AMD issued a subpoena against Skype and the fact that it was discovered that the software simply checked the processor ID and enabled the feature based on that. A patched version was also released which bypassed this artificial limitation.
What better unique identifier than the system bios? Ip addresses are becoming less reliable since many people use wireless internet and mobile phones for skype.
Skype is probably just looking for abusive users who sign up for their low margin unlimited calling plan only to share it with their relatives and friends accross the world. If they say detect say 5 different machines calling 5 different people all within a span of 10 minutes, then something is likely wrong.
Of course they could just be collecting system info such as the system manufacturer, processor type, number of processors, sound card, etc. This could be combined with the survey results regarding phone quality they ask you to take after every few calls. In the end it could result in a better product and better service. Of course many other software products already do this (such as firefox, ms windows, ms office) but they are more open about it and at least give you the option of participating.
Treating a patient with chemotherapy, radiation therapy or both for years on end costs anywhere from $100,000-$1,000,000+. These treatments can go on for years on end and usually those effected cannot work while undergoing treatment. This means that they will probably go on welfare or unemployment insurance which costs the government even MORE money. The situation is made worse if the person receiving treatment has a wife and kids which also need to be supported by the government. To make matters even worse, he may die despite the fact that treatment was given.
If he died after receiving millions of dollars in treatment, and I know this sounds harsh, then the government would not get it's return on investment. However, if he survives after receiving minimal treatment, the government has invested less in his health and the patient will likely continue to work and remain a contributor to the economy. Health care costs are reduced, welfare costs are reduced and there is another tax payer, consumer, and working citizen in the economy.
Funny you mention Israel. Just as having a large army makes it more likely to be used, throwing money at one has a similar effect. Israel just happens to receive 6billion in aid per year from the US (most of which is military aid) making it the largest recipient of aid in the world. Of course this is used to maintain their occupied territories and terrorize it's inhabitants. The US talks about peace in the middle east but the issue of cutting off aid to Israel never comes up since that would jeopardize the US-Israel alliance. Another example of American hegomy I thought you might find interesting.
Kinda sad though.
You are being sqeezed just as hard in the US as you are in Canada but are getting significantly less in the US. From my personal experience working/living in the US and Canada I have found the following:
-You are forced to pay for health care in BOTH the US and Canada. In fact, you pay the government MORE in the US than you do in Canada for healthcare:
Medicare: $88US/month.
BC Medical Services Plan (MSP): $54CAN/month
-Despite the fact that you are paying more in the US, US Medicare does not cover you unless you are at least 65 years old(correct me if I am wrong). It covers you in Canada no matter what your age is.
-If you want actual health care coverage in the US until you are 65, you have to be covered by your employer which will charge you some of the premiums or you have to sign up for health insurance. These premiums range from $15(if you're company has a good health plan) to $200+(if you have private insurance and/or existing illnesses which may or may not be covered). In Canada it's covered under your MSP.
-Even if you are unable to pay the MSP fee in Canada, you won't be denied treatment. In the US if you don't pay, your insurance is cancelled. If you don't have insurance, you must pay at least 50%-100% of the cost of treatment up front.
-In the US many plans have a limit on how much your treatment can cost and in some cases a limit on your total lifetime costs even for life threatening diseases like Cancer. In Canada, they don't stop treating you because you cost too much to keep alive or can't afford to pay the premiums.
-In the US if you get an illness, start treatment for it, then switch jobs or healthcare providers, your treatment might not be covered for a certain amount of time or ever again. So if you say, have diabetes, AIDS or Cancer, you are screwed for 9months or more (depending on the state). In Canada, it doesn't matter who you work for, you're covered. You don't have to pick a job based on whether or not their healthcare policy excludes existing conditions.
Yes, you have to wait longer for elective treatments such as orthodontic surgery or shoulder surgery. But if you are dying of a major illness, you will likely be treated quickly and unconditionally. This is based on my personal experiences in BC, Alberta, Ontario and Washington State.
Every medical system has it's downsides. In the US if you lose your job, you no longer have medical insurance and are basically screwed. If you have something major and can't afford to pay 50% or more of the cost up front, you will die.
In Canada, yes there are hug wait lists for some treatments. For example, if you got a knee injury or were waiting for orthotontic surgery, you could be waiting for months if not years. However, this is exagerrated to a great degree. A lot of the wait lists are for elective surgeries and treatments. If you have cancer or AIDS you will likely get treatment right away. I know because a few members in my family had cancer and got treatment almost immediately. (FYI these family members were in BC, Alberta and Ontario). If they were in the US and had lost their jobs, had exceeded their medical allowance or just had a crappy HMO that didn't cover their treatment, they would have gone into bankruptcy and/or died.
In Canada we don't have HMOs or for profit healthcare companies, at least not yet. Everything is financed and run (indirectly) by the government.
You mention that it won't get funding because there is no money in a patentless cure. I beg to differ. At least from a Canadian perspective, where we have socialized medicine, it makes a lot of sense. This is after all a Canadian institution that discovered this.
Cancer is very costly disease which costs the government, and as a result Canadian citizens a lot of money. If there was something that could cure cancer at a very minimal cost, it could save the government millions (possibly billions) in health care dollars every year. Not only that, many other countries which also have socialized medicine, such as all of the EU, would benefit from something like this in a similar way. I can see government funding filling the role that pharmeceutical companies normally play in this simply because it could save them billions.
I think what you're refering to is Socialized medicine. One of the benefits of it is the fact that the hospitals and doctors aren't out there to squeeze every last penny out of you.
You have to consider the fact that there were many elements at play and many things weren't going their way. For example:
1) Fox had been threatening to cancel the show for some time. The motivation to perform must have been low because of this.
2) Fox was screwing the show around. Bumping the show to different time slots, airing it every few weeks, refusing to market it, etc. This again, could have demoralized the team to a great extent.
3) They were probably trying different, and sometimes unpopular things in an attempt to convince fox that the show was worth promoting and airing in the future.
Despite this and other issues they might have encountered, I still thought the last season was great.
Just because you don't have issues with your mid-range graphics card, does not mean that others aren't.
First of all, which version of Vista are you using? I would guess that it is the 32bit version. Nvidia has TERRIBLE support for the 64bit version. If you installed that version its likely you won't even be able to boot the OS and login.
Secondly, as for the "No development planned" list, there are many cards for which there is no development planned. For example, every card that isn't DX9 capable isn't supported. Don't take my word for it, check Nvidia's site.
Thirdly, of course nobody can expect a product to be perfect, but still, Nvidia's drivers are significantly worse than the competition's especially on the 64 bit version, which Nvidia claims support for as well. So then Nvidia does not deliver an advertised feature (vista support) and intentionally ignores customers complaining about the lack of said feature in the product(s) the customers had purchased, Nvidia is not just guilty of false advertising but also of denying service covered under their customer's warranties (to which they are contractually obliged to provide). This certainly is grounds for a lawsuit.
I am pretty sure that AGP devices are still accessed through the PCI Config space. The AGP bus is seperate from the PCI one, but the AGP devices are linked to the host bus using a bridge device. This is commonly identified as a PCI-PCI bridge. I believe that all AGP systems are configured this way.
So, yes, your bridge device shows up as a PCI-PCI bridge but thats perfectly normal. Intel, ATI/AMD and VIA have similar devices on their chipsets which connect the AGP device and identify themselves in a similar fashion.
Sweet Lion of Zion
ATI has made incredible strides since XP was released. In fact, Microsoft recommends ATI over Nvidia
Try running the 64 bit version of vista.
I agree that Microsoft is partially to blame for rushing the product to market, but in this case I think some hardware vendors responded worse than others. ATI's drivers, in general seem to be much more stable, especially on the x64 version. Even microsoft recommends ATI over Nvidia.
ATI's drivers are the best thats out there, especially for Vista. Don't believe me? Even Microsoft recommends ATI over Nvidia. A quick google search will reveal that ATI's drivers are currently much more stable than Nvidias and offer many more features.
Your experience sounds unfortunate, but it seems like the exception rather than the rule. Of course, the 9600 bluescreens could be caused by the graphics driver OR the AGP driver. The x800 if AGP could be crashing for similar reasons and a driver update could just be exposing them. A lot of AGP hardware has been plagued with these kinds of issues in Vista.
Just because the drivers were released on day one, does not mean they released good drivers. By the way, have you tried running the 64bit version of Vista? Or playing any games? I think your experience will be much different. Also, many of the driver features aren't even enabled even on the latest version.
Your experience seems to be the exception rather than the rule. A quick google search will show that many review sites rank ATI's driver much higher than Nvidias. Even microsoft recommends ATI over Nvidia.