Slashdot Mirror


Dell Documents Reveal Microsoft's Pre-launch Vista Errors

twitter writes "The New York Times has a piercing analysis of documents from the Vista capable lawsuit. The documents show that Microsoft seems to have put a wrench in Vista's driver situation only at the last minute. 'Late OS code changes broke drivers and applications, forcing key commodities to miss launch or limp out with issues,' said one slide in a Dell presentation dated March 25, 2007, about two months after Vista's launch at retail and availability on new PCs.' We have all heard the lazy vendors don't believe Vista will launch excuses but few of us have heard Steven Sinofsky, chief of Windows development, second and third opinions. 'Massive changes in the underpinnings for video and audio really led to a poor experience at RTM,' he said. 'This change led to incompatibilities. For example, you don't get Aero with an XP driver, but your card might not (ever) have a Vista driver.' Finally, said Sinofsky, other changes in Vista blocked Windows XP drivers altogether. 'This is across the board for printers, scanners, WAN, accessories and so on. Many of the associated applets don't run within the constraints of the security model or the new video/audio driver models.'

29 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. But why? by microbee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am wondering what went wrong to force Microsoft to change kernel and break drivers at the last minute. Because of a design flaw that compromised security? Or DRM?

    1. Re:But why? by ushering05401 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Purely second-hand, but...

      My father does a lot of video work, and any time he tries to access or move a video file he has crazy wait times while Vista chews on something.

      What the hell changed between XP, which he has since gone back to using, and Vista that so radically changed the handling of video files? From his reading on various websites (none of which I can vouch for) the OS is checking for some sort of signatures in the files to figure out if he has permission to perform the selected task.

      I have no idea if this is true or not, but either way, he had to ditch Vista and return to XP in order to do things like edit the video he shoots of conferences and events.

      So the DRM issue has at least some anecdotal evidence in its favor. Either that or Vista is completely incapable of handling files over a certain size with any sort of grace.

    2. Re:But why? by wampus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Turn off thumbnail generation. The DRM is only used for playback of protected files.

    3. Re:But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Could we please stop trolling about this? The copy protection on Vista is about the same as XP. Yes, can we please stop trolling and claiming that the Vista DRM is "just like XP"? Because it is not and anyone who has used the OS knows that.

      First off, it's well known that the redone video and audio drivers were required for the new DRM. That right there is a change: pre-Vista, the OS wasn't designed explicitly for DRM. Now it is.

      Secondly, the new designs shave a good 10%-50% off performance. Audio acceleration is gone. EAX effects are no longer possible. Recording the audio output of programs is no longer possible. All in the name of DRM.

      ALL layers are now encrypted. This, not surprisingly, slows down the OS. By a lot. It also greatly reduces battery life. Where before, playing a music file might involve a single decryption step to send the data to the audio player, it now must be re-encrypted before being sent to the card, then re-decrypted before being converted to analog. All because an enterprising user might otherwise snoop on the bus to "steal" the audio data.

      In short, Vista is 10%-50% slower solely to allow for DRM. The kernel was redesigned with DRM in mind, not user experience. Battery life was halved in extreme cases - again, solely for DRM.

      It's not trolling, there are simple facts that have been exposed time and time again. Look it up on Google. Vista is much, much, much worse than XP when it comes to DRM.
    4. Re:But why? by mickwd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "So, why then is Vista so much slower then XP even with all the extra eye-candy and features turned off?"

      Not sure, but I found the following, from Microsoft themselves, astounding:

      From the Visual Studio 2005 Service Pack 1 Release Notes:

      Installation Issues - Windows Vista

      Setup dialog box fails to appear:
      The verification that occurs under User Account Control (UAC) with all installations delays the appearance of the initial setup dialog box. Delays of more than one hour have been reported.

    5. Re:But why? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001058.html

      While it goes into details about a lot of other stuff, there's the explanation of Vista's (apparent) slow disk performance.

    6. Re:But why? by rhdaly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The support for existing DRM-protected media is the same if not better; that does NOT force DRM on you, just allows you to use media that some video bigwig thought needs the protection - if it weren't supported at all because MS tried to take a stance against it, then we'd just be complaining about the lack of support.

      You've got it backwards. If Microsoft never supported the DRM, the RIAA and MPAA wouldn't have put it on the disks, because of the lack of support. It's not the customers that would be complaining, it's the "media partners." And those bastards? They can have some cheese with their whine.

      --
      0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, take 1 down, pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall.
    7. Re:But why? by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 5, Funny

      Delays of over an hour are no problem for me. I come in to work in the morning, 9:00 AM to be specific. According to my company's rules, I must be on time every day or else risk having my pay cut by a significant amount. So I'm at my desk on time every day, at 9:00 AM, and I push the power button on the computer. It begins to load, and the disk crunches, crunches, crunches, and crunches some more. By about 4:59 PM, it finishes loading and the various spinning wheels and hourglasses stop. Finally, the computer is ready to perform the next operation. At this point, I click "Start," followed by "Shut down" and leave the office. I think it finishes shutting down sometime around 8:55 AM. Vista. Where do you want to avoid going today?

  2. Security by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many of the associated applets don't run within the constraints of the security model or the new video/audio driver models.

    When rebuilding a system from the ground up for security, these issues need to be hashed out first. The fact that the security and driver models were changing significantly shortly before launch is a sign of bad design. Or at the very least horrible project management. If Vista was in the works for over 5 years, and it was designed properly from the start, 3rd parties should have had plenty of time (years) to conform to new models.

    1. Re:Security by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We're not talking about the odd video card or printer. We're talking about shutting out a lot of older hardware, and then, rather than admitting a fuck up, basically blaming the manufacturers (though I'm sure there's plenty of blame to heap there).

      The fact of the matter, and this is only getting driven home ever more with these revelations, is that Vista was released prematurely, before adequate time to test and correct various issues could be taken. Microsoft and the manufacturers needed to get this beta operating system to market to try to force new computer purchases. The unholy OEM alliance between the big manufacturers and Microsoft is coming home to roost.

      Not only that, but it's a gas to watch the chaos that surrounded the final months before Vista's premature birth.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Security by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh for fuck sake, how many of the XP targeting virii that you've heard of lately have been due to holes in the video and audio driver model? This isn't about improving security for the customer, this is about locking down content through poorly implemented DRM. We could have kept our existing driver model instead of changing it YET AGAIN. How many changes in the last 20 odd years have we had? DOS drivers, Win 3.11 drivers, 95 drivers, 98 drivers, 2000/XP drivers, and now Vista drivers. What a waste of goddamn effort. Bad design is an understatement. Get it right and move on for fuck sake. We don't need a dozen incompatible driver models by the time I'm old.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Security by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Progress is bumbling along from one model to another, wiping out compatibility for tons of hardware along the way, only to alter course in five or six years. That isn't progress, that's just chaos. Surely Microsoft's engineers are just as capable of picking up hardware industry rags as anyone else and getting a decent idea of how things are going to look over the next six or seven years, get a feel for the kinds of processors, components, hardware and interfaces that are going to come down the pike and develop a tenable, efficient and extensible driver model.

      This is why monopolies are so damned bad. There's nobody for them to reasonably compete against, so they have their own market ecosphere which doesn't have to make any damned sense at all save from the marketers and bean counters point of views. Everyone keeps telling me how the best and brightest end up in Redmond, and yet over and over and over again we keep seeing the same bad architectual decisions that keep biting everyone in the ass in the same way. We see the absolute lack of forward thinking, of at least trying to create a development model that can accomodate security, utility and extensibility.

      I don't think anyone expects five year old hardware to run the latest MS operating system (although, ironically, you can often do that with Linux and FreeBSD), but there have been hardware problems with stuff that was a couple of years old when Vista was released. Yes, the manufacturers deserve a lot of the blame, but Microsoft has handed the perfect excuse for engineered obsolescence. The manufacturers are only reflecting Microsoft's own disdain for doing right by the customer.

      Yes, they've got the average consumer by the balls, but the average consumer isn't the big profit center. It's all those corporate installs, with their hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of licenses for XP and Office. They're the ones that don't want to have to partake in massive upgrade or replacement programs for two year old computers, replace three year old printers, and then go through the retraining and administration unknowns that come along with this new operating system.

      I work for a smaller company, but we've put off any consideration of upgrading from XP until 2010, by which point it's possible that Windows 7 will be out. By that point, supporting old hardware won't be much of an issue, and retraining won't be, because all those poor suckers who bought their Vista machine at a big box store will hopefully have learned the basics.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. Vastly Different Models by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The driver models for audio and video in Vista are drastically different than they were in XP. Microsoft is trying to push towards a more microkernel-ish model where these drivers are intended to exist in user-mode. The entire Vista audio stack is user-mode and the video stack is divided into two portions where a good 90% exists in user mode and the rest remains in kernel mode for performance reasons. Microsoft is also trying to force hardware scheduling to prevent a single accelerated application from hosing an accelerated desktop, which is currently a problem in all accelerated desktops, Compiz and OSX included.

    The driver situation wasn't any better when XP was launched. If anything it was much worse because all of a sudden consumer-grade hardware vendors had to jump to supporting the NT kernel rather than the 9x kernel, which finally locked down the memory isolation so that a user-mode app could not access kernel resources. It took years for the big companies like Creative Labs, nVidia or ATI to get half-decent drivers out for XP. The situation for Vista is already much better than it was for XP.

  4. More reason to avoid release dates. by oahazmatt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All the more reason to avoid release dates. Whether it's completely arbitrary, or it's an estimate given by a developer, release dates only result in two things: Making people rush, and making products late or not as advertised.

    I can understand a statement such as "We hope for our product to be ready by [date]" or "We're aiming for a possible launch window of [date]", but to say "Our product will be available on this date" only puts pressure on those lower down the totem pole, and can result in a lot of lost features or quality assurance.

    Conversely, this should not be used to infer the Duke Nukem Forever will be an awesome game if it is ever released.

    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
    1. Re:More reason to avoid release dates. by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are only two kinds of software: released too early and never released at all.

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    2. Re:More reason to avoid release dates. by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When coordinating with the CD presses and the OEM's, distributors, and other companies (like NVidia or ATI) that rely on the release date, that's just not possible. For smaller projects, you can pull stuff like that. For one of the most widely used pieces of software in the world, you need to plan ahead.

    3. Re:More reason to avoid release dates. by iluvcapra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember, though, MS had sold all those software upgrade contracts with the stated timeline of having the new version out before they expired, this is why Vista was released to business before the user version was available.

      Delivering an item on time and not "when it's ready" can be worth gobs more money to people who like to be able to contain risk. Look at how poorly Apple fares in the business market, for many reasons, but a big one is that they're pretty secretive about their development roadmap and you can't make million-dollar decisions based on Apple's stated trajectory (notice the recent deafening silence over the Xserve RAID EOL and iPhone SDK delay).

      Not to say secrecy doesn't pay dividends in consumer segment, but consumers have always been the barnacle on the MS ship.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  5. Not forced, no technical reason by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You can always provide some sort of compatability environment for drivers. There is no reason why they did not provide an XP driver support mechanism.

    If ndiswrapper can run XP drivers in Linux, then surely MS could have run XP drivers with no problems at all.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Not forced, no technical reason by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand it either. Why not build a wrapper and sandbox it? If there are security concerns, that ought to solve it. Sure, it might rob some performance, but on a bloated monster like Vista with its processor and RAM hunger, I can't imagine that this would have wrecked the experience that much.

      You know, everyone goes around saying "open source only copies, never innovates" and yet you have an (admittedly kludgy) solution to the problem of driver availability that have been forced by uncooperative hardware vendors that does work and does allow older hardware to function. Microsoft has all the kernel sources at their disposal and doesn't have to reverse engineer to get something like ndiswrapper running, and yet instead they shut out a lot of older hardware in one fell swoop.

      There just doesn't seem to be much logic to what Redmond does. I can understand the vampiric murderous monopoly that wants to destroy any and all competition, but the design choices they make are bizarre. It's not as if Windows is some elegant masterpiece that they don't want to clutter kludges to keep older things running. Christ, the operating system has been like that since Windows 95.

      The really sad thing is that it is closed source, so no one will ever be able to create that sort of an environment to get this hardware working.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Microsoft... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps, one day, when competition re-emerges in the OS marketplace, microsoft will have to clean up their act. Until that day, and as long as people keep giving microsoft their money, nothing will change.

    It is too bad that so many people who would benefit from reading /. are the people who laugh at those who do ...

  7. Summary completely misleading by Keeper · · Score: 4, Informative

    The quotes in the summary explain why Windows XP drivers would not work; they do not state that driver model changes were made right before RTM.

  8. Or... by Squarewav · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dell and the like could just keep shipping systems that they know can't run aero with windows XP and don't use the Vista capable stickers on them?

    This is the part that bugs me about this. It might be true that MS considers vista without aero to be fine when they shouldn't. However no one is forcing dell to use the stickers, Dell and the like used them on computers they knew couldn't run vista fully. They do it because they knew people would buy the computer thinking it would run vista.

    When it turned out vista was crippled on the machine insted of Dell going "Ooops sorry, heres some store credit" (or whatever) they went "Don't look at us, MS made us do it! blame them!" As if MS was the one who built the computer.

    1. Re:Or... by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However no one is forcing dell to use the stickers Do you know that for a fact, or are you just assuming?

      The reason I ask is because it's possible that Dell's contracts with Microsoft did, in fact, obligate them to promote Vista by the stickers on computers. For instance their bulk discounts are tied to various deals, such as having "Dell recommends Windows Vista" on their website.

      Also worth noting is that many OEMs were shipping systems with "Vista Ready" stickers long before Vista was finalized. They had no way of knowing how well Vista would ultimately run on the machines, other than what Microsoft was telling them. Still, the OEMs share the blame to the extent that it was irresponsible of them to trust Microsoft and put stickers on systems without being sure that their claims were correct.
  9. 2 minute Vista install by ed1park · · Score: 4, Funny

    This user had a particularly clever way handling the driver compatibility issues of his "Vista ready" system.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=FVbf9tOGwno

  10. Re:My Postmortem on Vista by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's pretty fucking sad that barely a year into Vista, and Microsoft is already demurring to Windows 7. It's a tacit admission so far as I can tell that Vista has been an absolute disaster.

    Sure it'll sell just like Windows ME did, purely because of OEM licenses. They'll use that to inflate sales figures, even where people are downgrading back to XP, but we now know just how fucked up things were in 2006.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Re:My Postmortem on Vista by realmolo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wouldn't say Vista is a *disaster*, but it's obviously a work in progress. There are so many obvious improvements to be made, and so many little bugs to be fixed.

    Much like Windows 2000 was what NT4 should've been, I expect "Windows 7" to be what Vista should've been. Of course, an argument could be made that even what Vista "should've been" isn't what we actually WANT. Personally, I think MS should bite-the-bullet and just abandon backwards compatibility as part of the "base" operating system. Just run everything in a VM, much like Apple did with the Classic MacOS.

  12. Deja Vu by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Informative

    Late OS code changes broke drivers...

    This reminds me of the painful driver development from NT4 to Windows 2000. A few years before release MS was pushing us to port NT4 drivers to Win2K. We jumped on it quickly and had working drivers, but as the years rolled by changes would be made that broke the earlier work. This rinse and repeat continued to the *very* end. Years of wasted time and resources for no reason.

    What I learned from that is to start looking at new Windows driver documentation a few months before release and then wait until the actual release before changing or writing any code. You just don't know what fundamental changes will occur until the discs are on retail shelves.

    You sure as hell can't trust what MS tells you as a developer about interface changes and release dates.

  13. Re:-1 Overrated?? Moderation Abuse by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This comment is -1 Overrated?? It's a direct, ontopic factual response to a wrong claim.

    No it's not. It's just more Microsoft marketing-speak. For example:

    The new video and audio drivers have nothing to do with DRM.

    Reasons include moving as much software out of kernel mode as possible thereby minimizing bug checks (in layman's terms "BSODs"), developing an architecture to make debugging audio problems in applications easier, and supporting a whole new generation of Digital Rights Management (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx) Vista is not 10%-50% slower.

    Of course, none of this bodes well for Vista, which is now more than 2x slower than the most current builds of its older sibling. Either Microsoft supports it, or Microsoft can kiss all high-def media good-bye.

    No, if Microsoft doesn't support it, we can ALL kiss DRM'd high-def media good-bye, and good riddance. Microsoft had been a key supporter and booster of computer DRM despite their customers' distaste for it. Don't try to pretend they are anything but complicit partners with the studios in this.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  14. Re:Pot and Kettle by NullProg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Microsoft hashed the release of Vista, but the Linux community of all people has no right to talk about new releases making drivers incompatible. Backwards compatibility doesn't exist in the linux world.

    Examples please. All my devices work the same or better under SuSE or Ubuntu.
    All my purchased Linux (Loki) games still work.

    I can't say that for my $300 Microsoft Office 6.0 purchase under Windows. I can't say that either for the Windows games I've purchased over the years.

    Enjoy,

    --
    It's just the normal noises in here.