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)."
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).
Yeah, and the Nazis were pretty popular too!
How we know is more important than what we know.
The hell Microsoft doesn't have control over this. This is Microsoft's fault and it is rewriting history and denying the obvious to say otherwise.
I never said they had no fault or no control at all. Address individual points in my post and point out where they have control where I say they don't.
Let's start with the fact that Microsoft execs overrode *internal* objections to shipping Vista,
Stock prices were slipping. Unfortunately, they had to release to protect their own asses from prosecution by stockholders. Right? Certainly not. Side effect of being a publicly traded corporation? Unfortunately, yes.
and they consciously certified marginal Intel systems as "vista-ready" when they knew they weren't.
Troll much? What about marginal AMD systems? I'm an AMD guy, myself, the Intel-base laptop my fiancée uses, though similarly spec'd, simply can not keep up with my AMD-based laptop. That said, the same thing happened with AMD systems.
There's no reason they couldn't have made more of a push to have drivers ready, and they could have publicly identified the hardware that was incompatible.
They did push. Further, how do you propose, so they can do so in the future, that they let their customers know that hardware vendors are lying when they put the Vista Compatible logo on their boxes? Technically, if there is a driver that will load into Vista and operate the device, no matter how poorly written or unstable, the hardware is Vista Compatible.
They knew exactly what they were doing,
One would certainly fucking hope so!
and they made a deliberate decision to push the new OS onto platforms for which it wasn't appropriate,
It's perfectly appropriate for the x86 platform, for which it was released.
and before the appropriate drivers existed.
Because it's so easy to write and test drivers for a nonexistent OS
What about the systems loaded with crapola? Microsoft has been bullying systems manufacturers for years. Microsoft could have required that in order to get the cheap wholesale price, the systems makers had to distribute their malware some other way (e.g., a rebate coupon if you run a CD and install all the crap).
Yes, and watch no OEM adopt their program. That would do wonders for market share and stock price.
This issue simply wasn't on Microsoft's radar screen.
Nor should it be. It's an issue between end users and OEMs.
It wasn't on their radar screen because the home user is not their target market.
No, it wasn't on their radar screen because it's not their issue. If end users don't like the crapware, they should make note, return the computer and buy another brand. They all have crapware? There are a lot of mom and pop shops that don't, with competitive pricing, nonetheless.
They care about 2000+ seat enterprise installations, and those folks buy machines that are built to order and precertified, and don't have the garbage software and buggy drivers.
Except that those installations simply don't exist for Vista. The garbage software is left off the systems because a large number of them come with blank disks. Kind of hard to install crap software when the OS isn't installed yet. These installations typically come with a box full of licenses and a set of CDs or DVDs with a system image to be loaded onto them, which is tailored to the client's specifications, or created by the client themselves. Had the large, thousands-of-seats clients jumped to Vista right away, they would have dealt with the same driver issues we all have. I'm sure, though, that hardware vendors would have fixed them sooner were this the case. Again, without Microsoft having anything to do with it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I am not usually one for hacking into MS, I have worked with a number of businesses that have been quite successful using their software. On this occasion though, I have to call bullshit.
Good for you. Call Penn & Teller and see if they want to cover the issue, as well.
The fact of the matter remains that a number of these drivers did pass WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Labs) testing. The fact that MS *SIGNED* the steaming brown stuff de-values the program considerably.
No, it does not. The program does what it is intended to do. It certifies that the driver will install on the OS, load and execute on the OS and allow the hardware it is written for to operate with the OS. Nowhere is it claimed that stability, security or code quality is audited before signing. If these things are important to you (and yes, they should be), it is your duty to make this known to hardware vendors.
Going back to NT4 and previous versions, there was MAJOR issues with quality of drivers, I know certain Xircom cards which would only work with very specific driver configurations as we found out places where the driver was hard coded to use specific ports and IRQs. This all changed with Windows 2000 and signed drivers.
And signed drivers will operate the hardware they were tested with for signing on Vista. Signed and certified drivers are intended to do just that; no mention of stability, security or code quality is made.
Microsoft should have been harder in their WHQL driver certification for Vista.
Agreed. They should test every piece of hardware in a system with every other piece of hardware to make sure no two drivers interfere with each other. They should spend months probing every part of the driver to make sure there are no security vulnerabilities. They should have a system with every possible configuration, to ensure that the drivers are stable no matter what. Windows should cost tens of thousands of dollars to pay for it all, too. Right.
I know Microsoft only has a finite amount of resources, but they should have known that people were having trouble getting drivers signed and my outsider (un-informed) view is that they should have made more of an effort to work with the OEMs for drivers to work on day 1.
They did. Most hardware vendors, however, did the bare minimum to get the drivers to work in Vista (mostly wrapping the existing code in a Vista-compatible layer), with the mindset of "we'll fix it later." Not Microsoft's fault. If hardware vendors want to release a shoddy product, let them, to their own demise.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You have to install more memory than Windows is able to address before it works properly?
I also have a macbook and a linux server. All have their drawbacks, all have their strengths.
Yeah, they are all the same.
With Windows you are enslaved to Bill Gates, helping him make his billions.
With MacOSX you are enslaved to Steve Jobs, helping him make his billions.
And with GNU/Linux, you are enslaved to Linus Torvalds and RMS, helping them make their, um, their um, helping them make everyone free.
Yep, they are all the same.
I am anarch of all I survey.