But not to consumers, only to business owners.Originally posted by: josh6079
"Pre-released?" The versions some are using / have been using are released.
The only version released has been to small business owners, not consumers.Originally posted by: josh6079I know you're not sure, so I'll tell you. I'm implying that there are versions of Vista that *have been* released and *have been* sold and *are* being used.
Yes it does matter. Microsoft has differentiated business owner customers, to which Vista is available to, and consumer availability which they clearly state will not be until Jan. 30.Originally posted by: josh6079Yes they are. A person is a consumer, whether they are buying for their business, buying for their home, or both it doesn't matter.
The only intended release of Vista is to business owners. If consumers are able to get around that restriction and purchase that version for themself, it is not nVidia's responsibility to adhere to these individuals. Blame MS for not being strict enough in enforcing their statements that Vista is not available to consumers until Jan. 30.Originally posted by: josh6079It isn't another topic. It *is* legit, especially when both products are bought and paid for through valid sources.
I question your logic if you believe that it is "wrong" for MS to assume their statement of consumers not purcashing Vista until consumer availability on Jan. 30, as MS has clearly stated.Originally posted by: josh6079Exactly. All they did was make an assumption and were wrong. Obviously there are people who have both and are upset and it is nVidia's duty to support what they said they would. Are they trying to do that? Yes. Should they have already been able to do that? By what their own boxes say, Yes.
You are adhering to the few who find work-arounds for standards setup by MS and their product, and then blaming nVidia for not succumbing to this dilema.
Your false advertising claim is a highly speculative one, and doesn't stand much merit if we were talking on legal terms (mostly for the fact that what G80 was ready for had not yet been released to consumers).Originally posted by: josh6079It was a *logical* assumption on their part, but that doesn't mean they didn't engage in false advertising by assuming the best, experiencing the worst.
Furthermore, the hardware is fully ready / capable, and nowhere did nVidia advertise a Vista driver, as there clearly is not one.
You see both logics, yet dismiss them so carelessly.Originally posted by: josh6079Sure, it was "logical". But so was the complaint that someone with Vista and a G80 should be able to use the card that was advertised for that OS. I can see both logics, and I agree that both are easy to understand, but when you factor in how nVidia advertised it's "readiness" for said OS and didn't deliver, that's false advertising plain and simple. Bolstering otherwise displays a lack of understanding of common sense.
Vista is not available to consumers. It's not nVidia's responsibility to take care of those who managed to get around that restriction, just for the heck of it, and complain that their pre-released copy (as in it has yet to be released to consumers), isn't working.
There's a reason MS sets up availability dates, to give other companies timelines / benchmarks to work with. When those timelines are breeched by individuals, for whatever purpose, it should not create an atmosphere where nVidia bends over backwards to attain to their needs, when they couldn't wait to buy the version when it was released on Jan. 30.
Everyone has the right to complain. Whether their complaints contain merit and validity is a different story.Originally posted by: josh6079You yourself have said that the select few who are in this Catch 22 "have the right to complain". Now you're saying that they don't?
The point of that comment was to display the nature in which some of our members go through heck and back to bash and attack a company, when they don't fit in with the group who, based on the circumstances, should be the ones upset.
You yourself have neither Geforce 8800, nor Vista. Obviously you have the right to still complain, but I also have the right to question those complaints when they do not pertain to yourself nor situation.
As I've said all along, nVidia should have Vista drivers when Vista becomes available. If I have stated otherwise in this thread, please elaborate.Originally posted by: josh6079What are your expectations since they change every page?
heh, cherry-picking time.Originally posted by: josh6079Really? do the 97.92's fix the SLi issues? From what Anandtech's own Gary says, SLI for the G80's is still a mess. Even with XP.
I guess it's already known where most of your stances lay, therefore one should not expect anything other than attacks and complaints all day long (it will be interesting to watch you hold this same standard to ATI and R600 )
A normal consumer? Anyone who isn't a business owner using Vista in their business.Originally posted by: josh6079By that logic your accusing certain members on these forums running their Vista of piracy. If people like gerrson are not "normal consumers" then perhaps you should define exactly what a "normal consumer" is.
MS is pretty clear about that, so if you need an explanation, just go check out their statements.
You don't have to be a pirate to be running something that has yet to release (or maybe you are, that's really beside the point). The fact of the matter is that is has not yet been released to consumers, and won't until Jan. 30.
What you're called if you bipass that restriction is beyond me, and irrelevant, nonetheless.
Lol, you're right. Yesterday I staged my protest at nVidia, pleading for a Vista driver, but now I've seen the light.Originally posted by: josh6079The only thing I find "mis-representative" are your flip-flopping comments.
Because if they can't run their OS, they are going to complain.Originally posted by: josh6079You say only certain Vista holders "have the right to complain" but also argue that nVidia didn't false advertise. Why do those people have a right to complain if nVidia *didn't* false advertise?
But really, that's a pretty weak argument when you're making the case that I sympathize with anyone who can't manage to get things working in their life.
Ditto. You have no more credability than he does (if anything, I'd argue you have less).Originally posted by: josh6079Can you please ship me your cell phone with free long distance so I don't get charged? I find it rather redundant to pay for an argument. That and another report is conflicting with yours and the information you're relaying is no where to be found on the sales page nor any page that you are taken through when purchasing the product. I went as far into that site as I could to buy that product until I was one click away from purchasing it and no where did it ever warn me of not shipping immediately. Bad site? Maybe. But I believe that you are concocting false "evidence."
Nelsieus