Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Concedes Vista Launch Problems

notdagreatbrain writes "Maximum PC just posted a lengthy feature looking back at the myriad problems that went into Microsoft's 6 billion dollar failure of the Vista launch. Aside from running benchmarks comparing Vista at launch how its performing now, they also found a Microsoft exec who was willing to speak frankly about Vista. The Microsoft source blamed bad drivers from GPU companies and printer companies for the majority of Vista's early stability problems and described User Account Control as poorly implemented but defended it as necessary for the continued health of the Windows platform. He assailed OEM system builders for including bad, buggy, or just plain useless apps on their machines in exchange for a few bucks on the back end. Finally he conceded that Apple appeals to more and more consumers because the hardware is slick, the price is OK, and Apple doesn't annoy its customers (or allow third parties to)."

13 of 594 comments (clear)

  1. So...... by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He blamed everyone but Microsoft?

    Why does that not surprise me?

    1. Re:So...... by jacksinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh its totally not Microsoft's fault! I mean, doesn't everyone have access to the source so we can learn from it and create better software and drivers?

      --
      Life==Jeopardy. All the answers are right in front us - the hard part is coming up with the correct question.
    2. Re:So...... by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft has no control over the shit quality of drivers released by hardware manufacturers.

      I'm not sure I would go so far as to say they have zero control over that situation. Apple would not be a fair comparison since they control both the hardware and the software. So, I have to compare the Windows approach to the Linux approach since I am most familiar with it.

      With the one exception of the nVidia proprietary driver (which I use over the open-source driver for performance reasons, not stability reasons), every last driver on my machine came with the kernel. I don't need to trust the quality of anything produced by any hardware manufacturer. I can use drivers that I know will work and that I know will be extremely stable. I'm sure someone out there is using some strange hardware combination and this is his cue to pipe up that this was not his experience, but I believe the vast majority of desktop Linux users can say the same thing. The Windows approach is demonstrably inferior in this case, and I just don't believe that Microsoft is the pitiful helpless victim that's powerless to change this.

      They have no control over the shit quality of apps loaded by OEMs.

      That certainly is true, but then, why should so many user applications have the ability to affect the rest of the operating system? Either they don't and whether they are shit quality is moot, or they do and this is rightfully considered a shortcoming in the overall design of Windows. I don't see any third options here.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:So...... by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That certainly is true, but then, why should so many user applications have the ability to affect the rest of the operating system? Either they don't and whether they are shit quality is moot, or they do and this is rightfully considered a shortcoming in the overall design of Windows. I don't see any third options here.

      I call trolling. If I install an app on any OS which integrates itself into the browser, runs as a background task consuming enormous amounts of RAM and network bandwidth and otherwise misbehaves, it's going to make the experience shitty. And no, this isn't a "shortcoming in the overall design." Any app needs to be allowed to do everything I just described (for RAM and CPU, see Photoshop, for network usage, see BitTorrent, etc.). Blaming MS for vendors loading shitty software onto a machine and claiming its a design flaw is bullshit.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    4. Re:So...... by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They have no control over the shit quality of apps loaded by OEMs.

      I disagree. The hardware vendors are allowed to sell modified "OEM" Windows disks because MS chooses to let them. While technically, they might not be able to stop the loading of other software, they certainly could require that a pristine off the shelf copy of windows be included with the system, and all other software come on a different disk instead of encouraging vendors to ship heavily modified versions of their software so that the end consumer has no way of doing a clean install.

    5. Re:So...... by sjf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft has no control over the shit quality of drivers released by hardware manufacturers.

      Then again, TFA admits that Apple does a better job preventing third parties from giving the user a poor experience.

      I think that there is some truth to this. In the case of the kernel, Apple's IOKit uses embedded C++. For ubiquitous drivers, this is an absolute godsend, most of the work of a driver is already done for you. Writing a driver largely consists of just writing the details that are specific to your device. It's Apple's job to build the framework for devices of your class, not yours.

      Secondly, Apple's definition of a real time operating system is subtle, but significant: it's difficult to do things in kernel mode that will degrade user mode (application) experience. It's a pain in the ass sometimes: doing work on a true primary hardware interrupt is hard to achieve, but there are few devices that really need this. The upshot is that a "badly" written driver is unlikely to stop iTunes from playing back media.

      Thirdly, certain classes of driver can be entirely user mode. This is a good thing !

      Apple's approach is not perfect, if you need real time performance in the kernel then it's truly hard work, and there's little documentation to support you. Thankfully, such drivers are not common. (I worked on drivers for broadcast video editing and effects, IOKit doesn't provide a base class to derive such drivers from !)

      My point is not (just) fanboiism. I believe that there is a lot that can be done in architecting an API to encourage well behaved drivers, and other code. Microsoft could do something about it. It would just take dumping an entire driver model and replacing it something better though.

    6. Re:So...... by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft has no control over the shit quality of drivers released by hardware manufacturers.

      Of course this had nothing to do with code maturity and putting yet another burden on hardware manufacturers by changing to a new driver model yet again. (How many times was that in the last 2 decades!? DOS->Win95->Win98->WinXP->Vista).

      I'd argue this man is incompetent because he doesn't understand that the first version of anything isn't going to be rock solid and stable. If you can't take that into account you have no business writing a new OS. Didn't Microsoft have driver certification programs? In fact don't drivers have to be signed? What the fuck happened to that?

      I purchased an HP printer for that desktop system. It literally took me a week to get the damned thing to install.

      Hang on isn't this the same company that has solid and stable XP drivers? Doesn't that say something? Perhaps Vista drivers are harder to write. Perhaps they're just not mature yet. However automatically blaming HP is unfair. It MIGHT be fair it if were just one company or a small group, but MOST companies had trouble. THAT to me suggests the problem IS in fact Vista.

      How about Vista's own networking and file system drivers? Are they someone else's fault too? Because early on you'd be lucky to get a large file transfer not to just hang and estimate the age of the universe as when the file copy will finish.

      Other than that, I actually like Vista Ultimate

      Good for you. Hope you enjoy the bloat, the pretty effects and having your rights restricted left right and center? Oh and the popups. Can't forget the popups.

      Vista has exactly 1 thing that I want in XP, and only if you go 64 bit. That is it allows addressing memory larger than 4GB. I am going to hold out on XP for as long as I can, then I'll probably move to Linux because I'll have lost the one thing I truly can't replace on XP - gaming. Gaming on Vista is shite compared to XP and will be for the forseeable future (with the exception of a handful of really hardware intensive resource hogging DirectX 10 games so encumbered with DRM I won't touch them anyway).

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    7. Re:So...... by registrar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I could write some REALLY shitty software for linux that eats up all your resources unnecessarily and bogs down the system. How is that Canonical's or Redhat's fault?

      Nothing personal, but this thread has gotten ridiculous, based on the premise that Microsoft has no power over third party drivers or applications. The simple fact is that the competition (Redhat, Apple, Canonical, take your pick) does have control, and Microsoft should have it, they suffer rightly for not having it, and they don't suffer enough!

      If Redhat allowed their brand to be associated with your software, then they would deserve what they get. Instead, Redhat tightly controls what can be associated with "Redhat Linux" and they benefit from it.

      The problem is not a technical one. Windows is largely technically excellent software, and it's correct that bad applications will always be able to stuff up good systems. MS exploits user ignorance, confusing the line between "Windows" "MS application" "other application" and "computer." Redhat on the other hand, is very clearly clear about what is and is not their responsibility. Also, I assume Microsoft could exert tighter control over what gets bundled with Windows if they were not a monopoly. Whether the reasons are legal or practical, it just so happens that Windows sucks partly because it is a monopoly---those reasons just don't apply to the competition.

      Another aspect of the problem is partly technical, partly greed: Microsoft cannot and will not proper basic installation disc with each machine. As a result, customers cannot easily bypass the OEM applications. Again, the competition manages to work through the problem.

      Now for the real rant. Slashbots are too focused on technical problems. The problem with Windows is mostly not technical but social. Microsoft is ultimately responsible for the quality of the apps installed by OEMs, and excusing them on technical grounds clarifies nothing. Learn from RMS! He was a technical kind of guy who identified that the technical problems had underlying social causes, and required a social (legal) fix. And it worked.

      Whether your mission in life is to tear down Microsoft, to be a good programmer or helpdesk operator, to cure cancer, or to write insightful comments, you will not get far if you focus on technical fixes to social problems.

    8. Re:So...... by Simon+Rowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Similarly, the reason your linux drivers work so well is that linux hasn't had the ginormous revamp that the win32 kernel just underwent.

      The Linux driver APIs are in a constant state of flux, in fact people that insist on shipping drivers without source are always whining for a fixed binary API. Linux drivers are generally more reliable because they're written and maintained by people who can program rather than thrown together my a h/w engineer as an afterthought.

  2. Re:Don't you dare blame the GPU/Printer companies! by Idiomatick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes blame printer drivers. Crappiest bloated pieces of shit ever to be coded. Print drivers on modern printers should be under 5MB MAXIMUM. Often print drivers on modern 5in1 w/es are in excess of 200MB! holy god, even taking the bullshit ap and ui they needlessly tacked on how could it have gotten that bloated. Even trying to make the program needlessly huge the compiler would probably compress it to less than anything i could code.

  3. Bad drivers? by stm2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So why their certified those faulty drivers?
    Most drivers carry the log "Made for Vista" with digital signature provided by MS. That is supposed to have some QA, isn't it?

    --
    DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
  4. MS did contribute to shit drivers by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    MS should have set up a far better defined driver architecture than they did. Even better they should have provided a backward compatibility mode for existing drivers. If ndiswrapper can support (some) Windows drivers under Linux, then it should have been a simple matter to support XP drivers under Vista.

    No, instead MS adopted their normal "fuck you all" attitude and forced a new, ill conceived driver model onto the IHVs.

    Sure, XP driver support would probably not been a good long term solution, but it would have been a good idea for a year or two: enough time to make the transition slicker.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  5. Not that helpful by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's what the Unix people like to say all the time, but it's not very helpful.

    AFAIK for Desktop users there's very little difference between rebooting and restarting X.

    They lose all their unsaved work - since most of it is still in apps in X. And the last I checked if you restart X, the apps die. I'd love to be proven wrong on this.

    Sure it's not a big problem for people who just use X as an interface to ssh and screen, and for some browsing. But I heard there's this push for "Desktop".

    In the old days Windows 95 ran on MSDOS, if it hung, even if you could get it to exit to dos and then you type win to start it back up, it's still not very helpful to most people.

    --