That’s $250 per OS. This, in the context of hardware development, can be accurately described as “piffling”.
Edit: Cite (open the “Policies for …” document, it’s page 28).
MS should probably do a better job of communicating this to the end users. When I plug in a device that MS doesn’t recognize and can’t locate a driver for it ought to let the person know that the hardware manufacturer decided it wasn’t worth their time to make the hardware as easily installable as possible. As it is, MS gets the grief and the hardware manufactures just get to go about their way with no blame.
Well, they do inasmuch as this is how manufacturers get the “made for Vista” (or whatever) logo on the box. So there’s an added incentive for them to get in the logo program, and if you don’t see the logo you know they haven’t bothered. But I don’t really think MS could put up a dialog box saying, “sorry, we couldn’t find a driver for you because your kit is manufactured by a shitehawk who couldn’t spare 250 bucks to provide it.” 
Classic?
Classic my hind leg! I’m actually running a couple of those, and Windows recognizes them just fine.
Not gonna say which, though. 
Considering I simply downloaded the drivers and installed them manually and it worked fine after that proves that it clearly wasn’t me.
I’m sorry that Windows PnP doesn’t support such outdated hardware as a GTX285 video card.
Win!
It was a top end graphics card? Jesus. Of course you don’t get those drivers via Microsoft; they’re constantly being developed, and as such the manufacturers don’t bother continually retesting them for Windows Update status. Hell, the CDs that ship with the cards themselves are usually at least two versions behind the times. What do you want Microsoft to do; independently develop high performance drivers for other people’s products?
Yes, but almost no one knows what that logo is for, and they don’t know to look for it. I do think Windows ought to say that “your hardware was not registered with the database and you will need to contact the supplier”. As it is, Windows just says “Can’t Find Drivers” which essentially makes it look like Windows gagged on it to most users. If they increase the pressure on suppliers to be proactive about cooperating with the OS people in generally will have less grief with their computers.
This makes no sense. Of course that manufacturer ought to take the time to register every new version with Windows. The fact that it’s a high performance driver makes it all the more imperative. If there are too many version updates to make it practical then they are doing a really shitty job of releasing finished products.
"Dear User. Your driver update failed because the driver is not available. Please understand, that while we have nothing but contempt for you, and we would actually physically spit on you if we were in the same room right now, the fact that the driver isn’t available is because the manufacturer of the hardware you’re trying to install wouldn’t give us $250. We are in no way responsible.
P.S. We really loathe you and everyone you’ve ever met. We even hate your dog. "
-Joe
They could at the very least work with developers to have their driver search function actually work. As for the ‘untested driver update’ argument that’s BS. Windows has always had a ‘This driver isn’t registered’ function. So in that case, I pit GeForce too
Uhm, I have a Geforce 285. And before I switched to Windows 7 RC I too was running Windows vista 64.
That Os installed and ran my Geforce 285 straight from first boot, and then updated the driver soon after.
As others have mentioned, the drivers available straight from Microsoft are usually a few official releases behind Nvidia. But that’s always going to be the case with these high end cards. We’re PC gamers. We don’t stand still for no one. Let the console guys stagnate
Kinthalis: lol, well it was one of the first things I downloaded when I got online.
No, it’s that they’re constantly trying to get more performance out of their cards, and fixing compatibility issues as they arise (which in computer graphics is often). The lead time on logo testing isn’t zero, and if they waited to put out new drivers through Windows Update then the enthusiast crowd (i.e. precisely the people who buy $300 graphics cards) would get annoyed.
As pointed out, you do indeed get a serviceable driver with Windows Update; mswas obviously wasn’t presented with a blank screen. You just don’t get the latest version, because there’s little point repeatedly logo testing something that by the time it gets pushed out will already be out of date. I agree, they could probably try to stay a little more up with the times, but then again, some might prefer the default to be a stabler version; the bleeding edge updates aren’t always as reliable. For example, I think at the moment the Windows Update version of the GeForce drivers is 181.72, while the version you can get direct is 185.85. It’s not exactly a yawning chasm.
And mswas, which exact bit of all this is bullshit? MS have a logo program for pushing drivers out through Windows Update; NVidia are slow to put out the latest versions on it. Even if you think NVidia are stupid to do this, how is it Microsoft’s fault?
Not always true. The Android Development Platform (ADP) driver is required if you want to push and pull apps to your G1 as well as access the device’s terminal shell from your computer. You also need it if you brick your phone and need to repair the firmware to unbrick it from your computer.
Well google released the source for the driver and a 32 bit windows driver. Someone else recompiled the driver source and made a 64 windows driver, but since they didn’t pay the ransom windows goes out of it’s way to disable the driver.
If you boot normally you can’t use the driver, it isn’t signed. You have to reboot and select an unsigned driver boot. there’s no possible way to set it to automatically boot into unsigned driver mode because that would mean M$ doesn’t get their ransom.
Bastards. It’s hard enough finding 64 bit drivers but then these morons go out of their way to make sure there’s even less. Who’s going to produce open source drivers for unsupported hardware when it won’t work for most people without a major fine?
I’d like to find the moron responsible and inject a blend of rubbing alcohol and capsaicin into their reproductive organs. To keep clean the gene pool as well give them the experience of the white hot hate of a thousand suns they deserve.
You don’t think the problem there is Google not releasing a driver for their own product? Last I heard, Google’s annual revenue was about 88 million times the testing fee. And I hear they have a programmer or two working for them. Why haven’t they either released their own 64-bit driver?
If you honestly believe that the $250 for testing a driver represents any meaningful income for Microsoft at all, then you’re out to lunch. To be frank, I’d be surprised if it does any more than cover their costs. The signed driver requirement is a fairly major part of the security drive that went on with Vista, and it’s not really surprising that MS make it hard to circumvent. It’s hardly incumbent upon them to make it easy to break their security model because one of their competitors can’t be bothered to support its own product.
So clearly the user should be punished by having control of their own computer taken away.
That just makes it worse. Those morons think they know better then me how to use my own computer. If I want to use unsigned drivers then fuck the consequences let me use them. Give me a big 32bit style Scary Warning™ if you must but let me use them.
Answer me this. If I want to use a 64 bit unsigned driver on my own computer, the one I paid money for, not M$, then why shouldn’t I be able to?
You can. You just told me how you can. It’s just not as convenient as you’d like.
Yes I can with a lot of hassle. Now answer me this. Linux doesn’t require $250 to make a driver of any version work. Nor does Mac OS X, and BSD.
Have any of those operating systems been plagued by malware?
Instead of intentionally crippling people’s computers maybe M$ should look into how to catch up.
Incompetent morons.
No, but then those operating systems have an established culture of users not running as root. Microsoft have tried to change this in the Windows world, but let’s face it; most people set themselves up as administrators in Vista, because there are too many shittily written apps out there that require it (some of them written by MS, I’m well aware).
Given this, how do they protect their systems against things like the Sony rootkit debacle, and other more malicious bits of code? Well, requiring kernel-mode software to be signed, among other things. You might find this paternalistic, but if you’re running with permanent admin rights (and be honest: you are), then any code you run, or allow to run, can do absolutely anything to your machine. There’s a reason running as root gives Unix types the willies, and that’s because it’s bloody stupid. Indeed, Unix types have frequently pointed and laughed at MS in the past for precisely this reason. So it’s a little ironic to have people turn round and complain at their attempts to catch up in this regard.
You can paint this as some sort of libertarian “my computer, my choice” issue, but the kernel mode protection is a fairly major step forward in the Windows security model, which I’m sure you don’t need reminding has been one of the biggest sticks used to bash MS in the past. Now, as you say, MS could completely compromise this security model in order to cater for companies that can’t be bothered to support their own products; or those companies could support their own products. If you genuinely believe the former is the obvious option, then fine, but I don’t think you’re really thinking it through. Nor is your claim that Microsoft are doing this for profit sensible. Do you honestly think MS are intent on pissing off G1 users while they hold out for 250 bucks? Please.
Okay so Microsoft fucked up he design of windows from the start. Got it. Very old news. The thing about the Sony rootkit exploit you forgot to mention is the biggest cause cited is M$ incredibly stupid decision to run whatever trash you put in the CD drive.
Aka autorun. The Sony attack CDs would never have been able to install if windows XP wasn’t set up to automatically autorun anything in the CD drive. Wtf kind of moron thought that’d be a good idea? Even before a major company turned attacker users traded burned CDs with photos and things. Easy place for malware to hitch a ride.
Now answer me this. What exactly does the Kernel code signing fee buy? Nearest I can find is it buys the ability to sign code for a year. Would Sony have been detoured from releasing infected CDs over a “piffling” $250 fee?
No, quite simply code signing is mainly meant for M$ to be enforce it’s DRM mechanisms. Hardware needs to be DRM enforcement compliant or it’s driver gets revoked rendering it useless. Users who want to use that hardware be damned.
It’s all about money. I dare you tell me otherwise.