Slashdot Mirror
Internal Emails Released In Vista Capable Debacle
An anonymous reader writes "As previously discussed, Microsoft's attempt to shield itself from further discovery over the Windows Vista Capable debacle has failed and more internal emails have been released. Although Microsoft has successfully kept CEO Steve Ballmer away from the witness stand on grounds the he 'has no unique knowledge of the facts in this case,' emails suggest otherwise. An email was released in which Intel CEO Paul Otellini thanks Ballmer for listening and making changes to the program allowing their 915 chipset to pass the grade: 'I know you did it.'"
Those witness stand chairs are bolted down right?
'I know you did it.'
The witness then took the stand and threw it violently at the prosecutor.
The link appears to be broken, it goes to a Google News search and not to the actual leaked emails.
I was hoping to read about another MS Exec bitching about buying a $3000 email machine since Vista sucked so bad...
Did anyone doubt that Microsoft and Intel are in cahoots? I mean, seriously, what cave have these people been hiding in for the last 20 years?
My blog
Link to the email conversation in question: http://media.techflash.com/documents/intelvictory.pdf (pdf)
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Cool, now I can run Vista on my Thinkpad X41? I'm gonna ... ... wait!
No, thx, I think I'm gonna pass that one and stay with Debian. Mind you.
That was close.
(the hd on the X41 is a 1.8, not a 2.5, my hdparm -t gives me 18.29 MB/sec, imagine Vista on that baby)
I wonder how long it will be before this headline hits Slashdot only with "Vista" replaced by "Windows 7"
I still remember reading that guys mail that said "I feel that I got burned..."
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
'I know you did it.'
Giggling: Com'on, big boy, I know you did it! Tell me! Tell me everything!
Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.
Come on! There must be a bazillion emails from Intel kissing up to Steve Ballmer. This is not evidence that Ballmer knew Vista was crap.
People want cheap computers with the latest and greatest technology, and OEM's want to maintain as high of a margin as possible. These fundamental conflicts of interest cause these kinds of problems.
Shattered expectations aren't limited to computers either. Ever bought something that you should have spent more money on? I have a snowblower at home that's so underpowered that shoveling takes less time.
My personal belief is that this problem is to blame on hardware manufacturers and OEM's trying, and horribly failing, to deliver what consumers desire (fast computers with brand new technology) and maintain their profit margins (which can't be done for a fast computer at $399 in a retail store).
And what do we do about it? We bash Microsoft. In fact, we bash them so well that everyone, including people who have never used it and those who currently use it (without major issue) that Vista is not a viable choice for them.
Fast forward to December, 2009. Windows 7, which is almost entirely based on the now very stable (dare I say mature) Vista codebase. Not only will it improve perception of Windows due to its excellent compatibility and well honed kernel, it'll force me to shell out cash (unless I can get a Microsoft handout, which is how I got Vista) for the latest Microsoft OS, and prematurely outdate every single Windows License companies have bought in the meantime.
Want Windows Vista SP4...err, I mean Windows 7? $299 please.
We have no one to blame but ourselves.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
It's common knowledge by now even amongst the general public that Vista exploded on the launch pad. At this point, the only thing this line of inquiry has to offer is to help Microsoft prevent a repeat of the last performance. If you ask me, Windows 7 will suffer many of the same problems -- namely because they are still using the monkey-horde development technique, which is get a bunch of third-world programmers in a room and churn out very lackluster code, and then keep redeveloping it until it works "good enough". Microsoft still hasn't learned that great programmers have a lot of experience outside programming, and to make the best code you need to give them the freedom to try different solutions and then listen to their feedback. From what I've seen, Microsoft is a hugely divided organization where hundreds of small teams compete to produce the most lines of code and nobody knows quite what everybody else is doing. Management constantly changes direction during the development process, to the point that a lot of work is wasted in duplication of effort and things being thrown away due to changing priorities.
Windows has reached a level of complexity that these kinds of organizational mistakes can no longer be tolerated, but Microsoft is too large and entrenched to be capable of streamlining their development process. Maybe they get rid of UAC, and the DRM, and rewrite the driver infrastructure so it sucks less; And those are all fine goals to have, but it doesn't fix the real problem -- which is that the organization made these decisions in the first place when I know their developers were screaming at them "For the love of all things good and holy in the world don't do it!"
Microsoft isn't the first to deal with this. One Mr. Richard Feynman noted similar organizational problems that led to the Challenger disaster at NASA. NASA has been trying to squelch this addendum for some time and you won't find a link to it on their main report anymore, but you can find it here http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I can see his defense now - "I said it was Mojave compatible, not Vista"
That's why people don't like Vista. It had a bad sticker. That explains everything.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Another reason I don't want to be a consumer of an OS.
about how windows certification for hardware doesnt always guarantee it works, and clippy is actually more annoying than helpful.
Good people go to bed earlier.
It listed Vista in three catagories: Good / Better / Best.
Good said "Great for... Booting the Operating System, without running applications or games"
Apparently good has another meaning for some people/companies.
Stickers that changed from "Vista Capable" to "Designed for XP" on the day Vista shipped are sleazy, but the larger issue is worse: M$ KILLED INTEL'S GRAPHICS MARKET. What the hell was wrong with Vista that it could not do translucency on Intel chip sets? E16 has been doing translucency in 2D land for a decade, so Vista should have gracefully dealt with the few missing pieces in Intel's chip sets. I know that 3D gaming works well enough on the previous generation of Intel under GNU/Linux, and suspect that's the rub. M$ killed Intel's ambitious drive to produce graphics chipsets because Intel had released the drivers as free software. HP moved away before Vista shipped, but that was not enough to keep Vista from sucking on HP anyway. For daring once to do for free software what they routinely do for M$, Intel has been driven out of the graphics market. The "favor" of letting Intel sell a bunch of hardware for an OS that would never use it should be judged in this light.
The motion for summary judgement makes it pretty clear that Microsoft was in the wrong, but so was Intel.
It's pretty clear that Intel couldn't get it's shit together and kept foisting its shitty 915 graphics on HP, Dell, etc., for use in high-margin notebooks. The OEMs were screwed because Intel was the source for chipsets that made the value proposition of low-end notebooks work.
Microsoft is the one getting sued, but Intel is at least as culpable and incompetent, IMHO.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
It was hosted by a local IT shop looking to introduce new technologies to potential clients. There was a Microsoft guy there talking about Server 08. He used one of the talking points that really annoys me: "Yeah, I used to work in open source, played with Linux and stuff. But then I decided I actually wanted to make money." Huh? Ok, that argument might have held water years and years back but it doesn't even make sense these days. Yes, Vista was a failure but Microsoft is still here and even the most pessimistic of realistic assessments doesn't have them going away anytime soon. They may be the 600lb gorilla instead of the 800lb gorilla but that's still a whole lotta gorilla. But to dismiss open source so, well, dismissively?
If watching the tech industry has taught me anything it's that nobody's indomitable and it pays not to get cocky. And the bigger a company gets, the more entrenched the bureaucracy, the more potent the kool-aid, the less likely it becomes to pull out of a tailspin. A company becomes functionally incapable of not fucking up. There's no way to turn the company around apart from firing every manager and starting over but those managers are exactly the ones who will fire everyone else in the company until they are the last ones left in the bunker. We're seeing this play out with the American automotive manufacturers right now, the Japanese are proving it's possible to make cars and make money at the same time while the Americans are busy proving it can't be done. Hell, our whole country is going through this same kind of dysfunctional malaise right now.
My prediction is that Microsoft will, over the next fifteen years, shrink in preeminence until it is a 400lb gorilla, dominant in certain niches but more comparable in size and power to the other big name IT companies rather than the world-shaker it was at its prime.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
It's unclear if the revelations will advance the plaintiffs' central claim in the class-action lawsuit -- that Microsoft artificially increased demand by allowing PCs that could run only the most basic versions of the Windows Vista operating system to be called Vista Capable.
That is where it will all fall apart for them IMHO. I can't see how you can argue that it increased demand. People that were looking for the Vista Capable logo were at least considering getting Vista if not planning on getting it. If you weren't planning on getting Vista than the Vista Logo wasn't a deciding factor in your purchase decision, so again MS can't be blamed.
At best people could argue that they thought that they bought a premium version of Vista and didn't find out until they were trying to install it that they wouldn't get the Aero Interface, and other candy. But they still are able to run a version of Vista so it is still Vista Capable IMHO. Also, I'm not sure if it was the same everywhere, but at least were I'm from there was always a footnote saying that it would run Vista Home Basic on any advertisements that used the Vista Capable logo.
If Ballmer *didn't* know that Vista was crap, then he is incompetent. If he *did*, then he's a crook. Pick one.
On second thought, pick both - incompetent crook is SO reminiscent of the "Old Microsoft".
Just look at what Microsoft's biggest selling point for Windows 7 boils down to - "It isn't Vista."
Actually, Sweaty B was telling people, "Advertisers, advertisers, advertisers, baby!", but it's not fair to shift blame outside of the company. They alone made the decisions, which drove Intel out of the graphics market, removed XP driver compatibilty at the last moment and loaded Vista with enough anti-features to insure it's complete failure.
No calls now, I'm
I mean, come on, just because someone slaps a sticker on a machine and says it's "Vista Ready", do you expect that to work?
For a very long time when Microsoft lists the "minimum system requirements" for a machine to run their stuff, if you only ever had the minimum you're going to have a slow, unusable piece of junk. Windows has simply never really been usable on a "minimum" platform.
I remember back in the day of the 486 people buying machines with 4 MB of RAM, because they were told you could run Windows with that. Technically, you could, but an application like Word would drag the whole machine to a crawl and it would page itself to death.
And, for those of us who remember the whole 'Winmodem' things from the early 90's know that Microsoft has always tried to get us to buy crippled hardware on the basis that if Windows says it supports it, then it must be good. Or at least, have vendors sell something specific to Windows and let the consumer deal with the fallout.
I think this isn't even about incompetence -- it's about collusion and deceiving customers. This isn't a case where they thought it would work, this is a case where they outright asked that the program be changed to allow stuff they already knew wouldn't work well enough to be sold as if it did.
I think you can only argue incompetence if you didn't do something which you damned well knew to be false. The fact that Microsoft may have had some internal misgivings doesn't change the fact that they still allowed it to happen.
I'll be curious to see how this plays out.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Looks like they are afraid of the issue. Standing up for Intel and free software is not flamebait.
why is this insightful comment modded -1?
Were these ridiculous hardware requirements not brought on by Vista being a bloated slow piece of shit OS?
I mean, it's not as if the hardware manufacturers and OEM's make hardware slower just because Vista was made available, was it.
Vista was ALWAYS that slow. IT required those hardware requirements. And they WERE ridiculous.
is that Microsoft has, in the past, successfully navigated this kind of situation before. In fact, they were the beneficiary.
Remember OS/2? Highly regarded for its technical quality, however it required a princely amount of RAM. Ideally you needed something like 8MB of RAM, back in the day when this added over $500 in current era dollars to the price of the system. Add this to the cost of the OS itself, and you didn't have high adoption.
Microsoft did a classic market segmentation move: they had Windows 3.1, which ran in 2MB of RAM, and NT 3.x, which ran in 8MB, and provided easy upgrade paths between the two products.
What seems really ... odd to me today is the way Microsoft is trying to segment and position its markets. All this Vista Home/Professional/Ultimate business. You may think Windows 3 was a POS, but it addressed a legitimate market segment: people who didn't wanted to do basic computing tasks without dropping the better part of a thousand dollars more for a more powerful system. There may have been all kinds of good reasons for them to go with a better system, but they had other uses for the money.
I look at a box of Windows Vista Super-Duper Ultimate, festooned with bullets, sitting next to Vista Business, Vista Home Premium and Vista Home Basic, and I'm supposed to sort myself into the appropriate market segment by studying the bullets festooning each package. What in the world were they thinking? Don't they study their own history?
Going by their own history, they should release Windows Basic and Windows Advanced. Windows Basic would be XP stripped down to nothing and capable of running in 512MB of RAM on any chipset manufactured in the last five years. Windows Advanced would be Vista with all the bells and whistles and need the latest and greatest chipsets.
I'd make Windows Basic really cheap, but make network login and sharing an add-on, so that corporations who wanted to use it would pay something between the cost of Windows Basic and Windows Advanced, and feel like they're getting a deal. Even the UAC business would have been less of fiasco here. People who wanted to take their chances could go with Windows Basic. IT Departments choosing Windows Advanced could piously tell their users that they were being protected from harm.
Microsoft failed with Vista because they wanted to drag the world onto a product it wasn't ready for, and tried to segment the market in totally meaningless ways.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
They should have had an Aero capable sticker.
This tread is back to considering the downsides of the M$ monopoly and is as out of your control as the dump of M$FT's at less than $20. Care to comment on any of that?
It does not really matter what you say because the market has made up it's mind. OEMs, retailers and customers are leaving M$. There's more money and less trouble with the competition. You can't hide the truth for more than a few minutes at a time these days.
When I say "market forces," I am implying, among other things, corporate greed.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But it is all moot. Vista is just not capable; so a lump of dirt is just as capable as the most well suited desktop imaginable. If I worked for Microsoft I would have been willing to issue employees' dead pets Vista capable certifications.
Julie
--
Microsoft Subnet the independent voice of Microsoft customers
I'll save time and post this now, rather than waiting half a month:
The links in the original post are dead. They were around for a few weeks, but since they pointed to wire feeds and, worse, a Google search, they're gone. If they had been linked to directly, we'd have a chance, we'd at least know the date they were available and the site hosting. In which case we could have tracked down archived copies, in worst case, offline.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
The entire Anti-Vista movement was spurned by he-said-she-said drivel.
Indeed. Most of the parrots roost here on Slashdot.
WOW!!! I'm guessing you've never really worked on many corporate back end systems... there are literally hundreds of examples that can be given showing that JUST THE OPPOSITE is true.
the corporate world
"omg, Dude on slashdot knows a guy who knows a guy who worked for MS and has bad things to say! And he referenced the Challenger?! Where's my mod points!?"
I work for MS.
which is get a bunch of third-world programmers in a room and churn out very lackluster code, and then keep redeveloping it until it works "good enough".
This is wrong. There are many foreigners here but they are all smart. I started fresh out of college, and had my own office on day one.
From what I've seen, Microsoft is a hugely divided organization where hundreds of small teams compete to produce the most lines of code and nobody knows quite what everybody else is doing.
This is wrong. No one competes to produce the most lines of code. We are not monkeys - we know this is stupid. Yes there are a lot of teams and yes, sometimes it's hard to know what the other guy is doing, but among the entire company these issues are few and far between, and find me a large org that doesn't run into this issue from time to time.
but Microsoft is too large and entrenched to be capable of streamlining their development process.
You make the assertion that the company is too broken up into small, independent teams and then that the company is too large and entrenched in it's old ways. This criticism isn't even internally consistent, not too mention that neither of the points stand independently. This is not true and I've seen the fruit of it.
the organization made these decisions in the first place when I know their developers were screaming at them "For the love of all things good and holy in the world don't do it!"
This happens from time to time in any large shop. It is the exception, not the rule.
In conclusion, I eagerly await more of the subtly racist and completely ignorant commentary that apparently passes as informative here.
This is not a tech industry lawsuit, it's a customer lawsuit. It's true that Intel, HP and Dell were pissed off, but they did not launch this thing. See the fine PDF for more. Industry lawsuits will come later as shareholders for CompUSA, Circuit City, Best Buy and many others sue M$ for the Vista Failure channel stuffing that put them out of business.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
I don't even understand why MS would want to label these systems as being "Vista-ready" if it runs like garbage on them. Wouldn't that cause the consumers to be extremely disappointed with Vista when they see how slow and unresponsive it is?
And Microsoft's Rajesh Srinivasan calculated how much money Intel was set to lose, noting that "potential costs could get into billions."
Eventually, Microsoft dropped the requirements.
And now they have a significant perception (or real) problem about Vista. It is a hog and slow, etc. People are gravitating to Macs or staying with older versions of Windows. Geeks are staying with Linux.
So who cares about this now? It is not an answer to a pressing problem, it is an interesting explanation of what happened to Microsoft and Windows. The decided to risk future market and reputation for current opportunity and a strategic relationship. Hopefully they (and we) learned from it. It's a little like the goose and golden egg: now vs. later.
no comment
Sorry, but that is at least 1/2 wrong. The term WinModem did to an extent lock you into Windows because instead of adding certain functional points to the hardware, they wrote it into the software driver, and the driver they wrote was for Windows. This lowered the cost of a modem. You could get a 14400 WinModem for $80-$120, and a comparable hardware modem (aka Hayes) for quite a bit more. But since the majority of users were on Windows, and the cost was significant, it made sense to buy a WinModem.
The Manufacturers were not going after the Linux crowd, most people had never heard of it when WinModems were sold.
If somebody else wanted to write a driver for a WinModem I suspect it would have worked fine. No different than today's Linux support for software modems in most laptops.
So you are 1/2 right, it did lock people in, but nobody much cared and they were happy to save $, a trend that continues today.
no comment
Those weren't modems, they didn't do squat except give you a place to plug in your phone cords, all the 'work' of a modem was done by their drivers that you loaded up, making your CPU the modem.
Julie
--
Microsoft Subnet the independent voice of Microsoft customers
...that what with all this DRM and security stuff Microsoft is supposed to be so good at, all these incriminating emails leaking left and right would be a thing of the past.
Have gnu, will travel.
What do you mean he doesn't have standing in the case? He DOES have standing. After all, a man who throws and breaks his chair has nothing to sit on anymore, so he stands.
I've worked for many companies and most of them use a mix of Windows and *nix. For the most part, Windows servers only exist because the company had Windows desktops and Microsoft software. For things like Outlook and Windows networks, they used a Windows server. For all other functions, webservers, databases, etc, they predominantly used *nix boxes. It's funny how the OP describes *nix admins as "un-evolved engineers". For the most part the *nix admins did 9 to 5 hours and only once in a while had to deal with a crisis. Patching was routine but scheduled and most crises involved hardware failures. The MS admins were always busy, working long hours. If there was a new Worm or Virus or Vulnerability of the month, they were running around crazy trying to test emergency patches before deploying. Patch Tuesdays were rough.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Just because he pasted three links to the twitter journal and linked to a comment posted by a known sockpuppet and this account itself is a known sockpuppet and two replies below this thread are done with two known sockpuppet accounts doesn't mean "inTheLoo" is twitter!
C'mon now, how paranoid can you be? Jeez!
More like victims.
Co-operation beats competition
Nix machines and the like are novelties for un-evolved engineers.
I'd rather be an unevolved engineer with capability for more self-improvement, than a fully evolved marketing mouthbreather such as yourself who has nowhere left to go but extinct.
Should read this before voting this troll up.
Linux != user friendly.
There, fixed that for you.
OTOH, you may want to consider:
Linux is user friendly. It's just picky about who its friends are
I'd like to point out that most of the hardware problems are in fact manufactured by none other than M$ (Mods:read that sentence twice before downmodding. M$ makes the problems, not the hardware.).
$ make available
The problem isn't that automotive manufacturers have been unable to keep up with consumer demand for new ideas and more power. Look at the horsepower or torque available in a modern engine and compare it to those from a car a decade ago. They've actually gotten much better output per liter of displacement, and inside there's things like nav systems, if you haven't noticed.
The problem lies in the safety and comfort features we're adding to the chassis. Safety cage reinforcement, a whole slew of airbags to protect from impacts in any direction, sound deadining material, and power everything, it's so big and bloated it just looks like the powertrains haven't gotten any better. Over 200 horsepower to run a grocery getter with the same performance numbers and fuel economy as a car with about 100 horsepower from 20 years ago? Do we need all these things in a car to get from point A to point B? Actually, it's absolutely unnecessary.
The reason we bash Detroit is because we're no longer brainwashed into thinking their cars are the only game in town. We've all used buses, trains, motorcycles, scooters, mopeds, and bicycles. We all know they're viable transportation systems that do what cars do. In many cases, they can actually do it better. Are cars a viable choice? Sure. But are cars the best choice? That depends on who you are, what your goals are, and what your mindset is.
And on a side note, buying a "value" Vista computer is akin to buying the "value" Cadillac of the 1980s. The J-body chassis, although ok if not decent for a Cavalier or Sunbird (think of a good cheap computer running XP), just didn't stand up to the requirements and demands of the Cimarron concept (Vista of course). In other words, it lead to market failure and all around disappointment. Cadillac now actually builds some decent cars based on what its particular market segment demands of it. Maybe Microsoft can learn how that works and not try to put poser "value" computers in a market segment which their OS is not compatable with. In other words don't build a loaded (bloated?) OS and expect it to work or sell effectively on economy hardware.
A: Because it destroys the flow of conversation
Q: Why is top posting dumb?
Nix machines and the like are novelties for un-evolved engineers.
Is the term 'un-evolved' code for "people who work on systems that generate revenue" or something?
I'd think if anything MS's Vista Capable program helped low end computer lines/manufactures not MS, even then it might be debatable. After all if your low end box didn't say Vista Capable but your high end did, costumers might go for your higher end model. I still don't get how having a Vista Capable sticker "makes" you want Vista. You can slap a "Photoshop capable" sticker on my computer it won't make me want Photoshop, but if I'm a person that is considering getting Photoshop I might go for your hardware because I know it is supposed to work.
Anyways, I think that at worst MS confused people into buying underpowered systems. Is it a crime to miss direct someone around another companies product line? Since the logo IMHO wouldn't have enticed people that didn't want Vista already, I don't see how MS benefited. They turned a whole bunch of potential Vista Premium customers into Vista Home Basic customers. Not my idea of a sound marketing strategy.
Just boot the hardware with a Linux live CD, and if the graphical interface comes up, then it can run X.
You seem blisfully unaware that the number one selling game console of all time
The Playstation 2? Yeah, if you were willing to pay some $200 for the "Linux Kit", you could run a crippled version of Linux, to which you didn't have all the source, and weren't allowed to redistribute the binary blobs -- and which used a hard drive format incompatible with that used by PS2 games, so you'd have to buy yet another PS2 hard drive if you wanted to play Final Fantasy XI.
When you actually play a game, it's not running Linux at all.
Are you honestly suggesting that a significant number of games were sold for the PS2 because people bought it to run Linux on?
and it's healthy decendent both ran GNU/Linux.
The Playstation 3? Requires partitioning, in a few limited ways, in order to share the hard disk between Linux and games. Runs in a hypervisor -- basically, a virtual machine -- so that the PS3 can prevent you from accessing the video hardware directly, meaning that 3D performance is severely limited -- you get a 2D framebuffer.
So, while you can run a completely open source operating system, you're running it in an environment more restrictive than PS2 Linux, which would at least let you develop 3D games. I doubt GNU would be proud.
And, again, when you are actually running games, Linux is nowhere to be found. What's more, the Xbox 360 has shipped quite a few more units than the Playstation 3, and as far as I know, there isn't even an unauthorized (and likely illegal) way of running Linux on the 360 yet.
Windows has got .... Zune .... Xbox .... Windows all of it is the same broken suck because Ballmer's got his greedy palms on it.
Ballmer's greedy palms didn't stop the Halo series from being incredible enough that people buy the console for it. I still frequently push the "eject" button on an Xbox (or a 360) and find some Halo game in there -- people think of it as the Halo Machine.
Nor did those palms stop Xbox Live from delivering well ahead what the PC experience has been. Ubiquitous voice chat, automatic matchmaking combined with global ranking, achievements... The closest thing to it is Steam (which runs on -- guess what -- Windows), which has been following Xbox Live more and more lately, rather than the other way around.
I'm certainly not an MS zealot. You read my other post, and I'm typing this from an Ubuntu laptop. I don't have to touch Windows all day -- my co-workers all use Macs, and the software I develop runs on Amazon EC2 Linux instances.
Can you guess when I have to boot Windows?
When I want to play a game.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
This wouldn't be a problem if the typical computer user wasn't a self-absorbed twit who demands fancy graphics and pictures of themselves doing what they deem "cool" on their desktops.
If Microsoft and Intel are to be held responsible, then equally responsible are these command-line bigots who are too ineducable to learn vim or edlin.
This is why computers should be subjected to the same controls as handguns.