NVIDIA drivers responsibile for 30% of Windows crashes
engadget.com
engadget.com
I'd always wanted to try Ubuntu, but didn't want to invest the time in setting it up, as I don't want to do anything not related to my start-up. The crashes finally made it related, and i couldn't be happier.
No one can do surveys like that for Linux though, since there is no central authority. Oh well, I suppose we'll have to live without useless statistics. :(
Generally, I suspect badly written drivers or drivers for two components that step on each others' toes are probably the main cause for OS crashes on any OS.
One quibble I have with Linux itself is how it handles out-of-control processes that keep allocating memory. The X session crawls to a halt while the kernel swaps like crazy and you don't get a chance to kill -9 the process. ssh or console logins fail because they time out before you get the password prompt. Linux proceeds to kill off processes one by one, but keeps the amok process alive and tries to satisfy its insatiable hunger for memory... Ok, so it happens to me maybe 1-2 times a year, but when it does, it REALLY pisses me off. Especially as the amok process is usually caused by a bug in my code. :) I think the Flash plugin also had a bug like that a couple years ago.
Just one of those things. Shrug, shudder, and use ATI.
And not to be glib, but if your Vista is crashing, I'd be more inclined to blame a shoddily made OS than graphics drivers. After all, there is something to be said for the fact that the OS is built such that a bad driver can crash it.
Also of note is that the article doesn't say how MS determined that the crashes were nVidia's "fault". If I create an OS that crashes whenever any program writes my competitor's logo to the display buffer, can I blame my competitor's website for "crashing my OS"?
Admittedly, this is based on personal anecdotes and, as the saying goes, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
By the way, I don't use Vista on any of my systems (yet) so I'm just assuming that the reports of instability are accurate.
In Linux for example, time critical parts (eg. ISRs) will typically reside in kernel space. So if your driver has some bug (ie, makes a blocking call), you'll crash.
I guess the point I was getting at (which, on rereading my post didn't really come through at all), is that they seem to be blaiming other software developers without actually defining how they attributed said crashes. Perhaps it's outside the scope of the article, but I'm just a touch dubious of an article in which MS blaims others for their OS crashing. Doubly so when they don't provide much more than a pie chart to back that up.