Slashdot Mirror
158 Pages of Microsoft's Dirty Laundry
KrispyRasher writes "Even internally, Microsoft couldn't agree on what the base requirements to run Vista were, but that didn't stop it from inaccurately promoting the OS as running on some hardware. 158 pages of Microsoft internal emails reveal scandalous truths about the squabbles that took place in the lead up to Vista's launch."
A VP in Microsoft buys a Sony laptop with 915 graphics and a Brother multifunction printer? I've suggested elsewhere on these pages that Microsoft management may not always be of the same high quality as their scientific and engineering staff, but two such misjudgements from one exec is worrying. Especially as one assumes that the guy didn't do it for lack of cash.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Of course the truth was stretched by M$. I like the part where they favor their buddies at Intel and say Vista runs well on low end chips, just to help an investor report.
The larger problem is even if you have the next thing to a super computer, Vista is still Vista. Doing mysterious DRM checks while copying files at a rate that would embarrass a TRS-80 Model 1, and all of the other issues of driver incomparability.
Vista is still prone to viruses and Trojans in no small part because M$ still lets it run as root and not need physical password entry to install or run a program.
Before any of the M$ fanbois out here start modding this down, go download the latest Ubuntu, install it on your "Vista Capable Machine" , try using it for a while, then honestly look and see if it isn't superior for desktop use than Vista.
I think you will be surprised.
Or, for those that think you have to pay for software in order for it to work, go over to an Apple store and try OS X.
After doing either of those 2 things, then see if you can come up with some reason, other than monopolistic domination and pre-installation as a reason that anyone would want Vista.
I am glad to say that Vista really is the new Edsel.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
A lot of things are going wrong for Microsoft right now...
- "Vista Ready" is starting to mean a huge liability
- The EU seems determined to make Microsoft stick to the rules
- MS's OOXML effort is running into real resistance
- Apple keeps taking more and more of the desktop and laptop market
- The EEE PC has finally turned Linux into a mainstream "feature"
- Trying to buy Yahoo has made MS look really weak in Internet services
- Its "we'll sue Linux for patent infringement" FUD is convincing no-one
- It's being sued persistently by patent trolls in the USA
I'm just wondering if 2008 will be the year that sees Microsoft humbled by the market and its own inability to deliver products people actually *want* to use.
A whole lot of people are going to sing and dance in the streets if things do go badly wrong for Microsoft. They don't have a lot of friends left, unless they're willing to buy them.
My blog
What Microsoft feared most about Google has become true now: The application stack has shifted up, and now the web browser has become the new OS. No one cares about Vista because no one needs a new OS anymore. All they care about is getting their news and email, IM'ing and watching youtube. Flash and AJAX have completely supplanted the OS.
The only reason why you need a new OS is for new features, but frankly, no one needs them. The only reason why people use an OS these days is to interact with local files, but the vast majority of people only care about 2 types of files: MP3s and digital photos. Even Word documents are becoming marginalized now. So what's the point of a desktop search for newer kids these days, when they stick everything online now?
Because of the lack of importance of new OS features, that's why other OSes like Mac OS are gaining steam, because Windows isn't as essential as it was 10 years ago. It's a perfect storm of good for Apple, they are becoming ever-increasingly "cooler", and the need for Windows is diminishing, so people can still get their email and watch youtube and still get the same experience. This is also why everyone is still using XP, a 7 year old OS, without any complaints. No one cares, and it scares Microsoft to death.
They shit the bed in their attempt to make Vista relevant and they lost their one-and-only chance. I'm sure Vista will be adopted eventually, but it will probably take another 5 years because it is as popular as XP is now.
I'm shocked. Headline says 185, summary says 158. At first I thought "stupid /. editors", but then I went to see the article (yes, I'm new here) and they have both numbers, too! So, for once, the headline/summary is actually right.
Although we still don't know what the actual number is.
I'm sure Vista will be adopted eventually, but it will probably take another 5 years because it (Vista) is as popular as XP is now.
I would wager that XP is about 10 times as popular as Vista now... at the very least. Application (in)compatibility is the single biggest problem for corporates, while for home users... as you said, Vista brings nothing new since a browser and Flash is all that home users need. I think Vista will take much more than 5 years to get adopted... by which time its successor should hopefully mkae it ME-II.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
As much as I want to believe how this "cloud computing" has supplanted the local one, it's not the case. Online services are in their infancy.
Okay, maybe email, but most of the stuff that deals with productivity is very much a client-side affair. Have you tried editing a picture in an ajax-y environment? It's a mess. The bandwidth isn't there and the browsers are retrofitted to perform functions no one really anticipated.
Audio/Video editing, image manipulation, or tasks with large files will keep the local computing relevant for a long time.
Contrary to popular belief, people don't love XP. It's just Vista was such a terrible upgrade that many came to appreciate their old OS.
Microsoft's problem was ambition. They looked at Apple innovations and kept moving the goalposts with every OSX release until they had a monster of an OS that beat the shit out of OSX... on paper. When it came time to implement it, Microsoft scrapped most good features (WinFS, etc) to make the release.
They let the perfect become the enemy of the good. As a web developer I am confronted with this with every project - should I upload a moderately buggy product and then make incremental changes or get stuck in first draft hell for the sake of having a perfect product from day one? The former is a more productive approach and results in a better overall output.
There was talk of some magical OS Microsoft was going to release back in 2003, named XP Reloaded. I don't know whether this was real or not, but they should have done this and refined the OS instead of sitting on their asses for half a decade.
"Upgrade" implies that the new version is significantly better.
Vista is
-worse in performance
-maybe better in security (UAC is a nice try, but reportedly many people just switch it off because it is too annoying)
-has DX10 (whatever you think about it...)
-has more eyecandy if Aero is available
By pushing a version without Aero at all, Microsoft have thrown away (for that version) one of the two things thing that would immediately signal "Hey, I am new and shiny". That sort of mistake is quite untypical for them. It would not be the first time that Microsoft sells something that looks good and later turns out to be an unreliable POS. But selling something without "bells and whistles" factor is new for them.
C - the footgun of programming languages
The thread on this subject the other day had an good comment from a former MS employee. Vista works well if you do the following
1. Turn of Aero
2. Switch to Classic mode/view whatever it is called (makes it look like Windows 2000)
3. Go into System properties and set to optimize for best performance.
A friend tried it on two systems (one is a new quad-core) and is much happier now. So where does that get you? Basically, system that looks like Windows 2000, performs like XP, and has the underneath the cover features of Vista like "enhanced" security, searching, etc.
I haven't tried Vista yet because of the lackluster performance and no compelling reasons to run it. Knowing it can be setup to run faster is nice but I still can't see anyone spending money on Vista just to turn off all of the eye candy.
I'll stick with XP at work and Ubuntu & XP at home for now.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Perhaps if Bill Gates was fully in command at Microsoft this would not have happnened. It seems that Apple floundered when Steve Jobs was absent, and his return helped to restore Apple. Maybe Microsoft needs Bill back and doing what he did best, act as a totalitarian dictator to keep warring factions on track.
The class action lawsuit is from people who bought a new PC (hence the "Vista Capable" claim) with Vista. What they wanted was a new PC, not Vista in particular. Vista was probably given very little consideration other than "the newest version of Windows? Sure, sounds good".
Then they got it home and found how bad it runs. Much worse than their last, less powerful PC.
So it's not really so much about them caring that Vista runs like crap, it's them caring that their PC that they just bought runs like crap.
Really, Vista is the biggest "meh" in computer history.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
An old saying from the Army, which definitely applies to software development:
"There is never enough time to do it right, but always time to do it again."
"Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
You (and many others) are assuming that "microsoft exec" means someone involved with the engineering side of the business. Any large (or even medium sized company) software company has lots of positions that are completely non-technical: HR, legal, facilities. Furthermore, software development is only one of many lines of business Microsoft is in. Would you expect someone who manages graphic artists to know (or even care about) the inner workings of an operating system?
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I got a new HP desktop as a gift, 3 GB ram, AMD dual core 6000 and "powered by nvidia" runs Vista fine and ran Vista exclusivly for two weeks then started dual-booting arch linux. Vista didn't have any noticeable performance or stability problems, I think Linux does run faster but not hugely so it could be I'm more comfortable in Linux. Some friends of mine have HP laptops with Vista, loaded up a bunch of games from Best Buy and the machines are sluggish feeling and very unstable. All told I wouldn't recommend Installing Vista yourself, let an OEM go through the pain and suffering with drivers and definitely get a high-end machine for Vista, it's a very YMMV thing. The reported "noiseness" of the warning seem exagerated to me and installing software as a LUA is much easier and more rational than the hoops you have to jump through in XP are.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
let me guess....
the percentages correspond with Nvidia and ATIs market share?
I almost never moderate, but I'm fanatical about metamoderating, because abusive moderation happens all the time.