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.'"

Comments

Ummm...

[morgan_greywolf]

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?

Re:Ummm...

[V!NCENT]

Considdering the fact that they bought a computer with Vista preloaded, they probabbly have lived in the "I need a computer, but I don't like computers"-cave.

People want cheap computers

[RulerOf]

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.

Re:People want cheap computers

[UnknowingFool]

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).

Vista even the basic version requires a much beefier machine. So if you're an OEM, what do you do? Your basic machine can't handle Vista but MS is getting rid of XP. Really most consumers want a stable, secure OS. That Aero stuff looks cool, but most users can do with out it. In other words, fix XP.

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.

We bash MS because they took 5 years to produce an OS that for most people, isn't an upgrade. Sure there are some nice features, but for the average user, most of the changes were cosmetic. Other changes actually were not beneficial. More DRM. Shifting security to the user by having them approve everything? And MS wasn't very honest about what the real requirements were.

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.

From what I'm seeing Windows 7 isn't that much of a difference from Vista. By 2009, most of the hardware being sold by the OEMs will be able to handle it unlike when Vista was released. Hopefully MS learns from this fiasco and won't publish ridiculous hardware requirements (1GHz to run Vista, come on).

went to a small tech show this week

[jollyreaper]

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.

Re:went to a small tech show this week

[JCSoRocks]

I wouldn't be so sure. Look at Intel... AMD had it on the ground. The P4 was getting its ass handed to it regularly and everyone knew it. Gaming PCs were almost exclusively AMD. It got to the point where people laughed when you said you wanted to build an Intel based machine.
... fast forward a few years and Core 2 has crushed AMD. Intel has not only come back but has completely turned the table. AMD is only just now reaching 3 GHz with their top of the line chips - Intel reached that nearly a year ago. Intel's upcoming i7 chips look to be just as dominant. From what I've seen AMD isn't even going to have a prayer until the end of 2009.

I wouldn't discount Microsoft just yet. They may be be staggering now but I wouldn't be surprised if they made a come back.

Re:Where is Intel in all of this?

[MostAwesomeDude]

To be fair, a large part of why Intel graphics suck on Windows has to do with architectural issues on the Microsoft end of things. If Intel chips were lacking the raw power for Glass, I suppose they wouldn't be able to run Compiz either, but here I am, typing this from an Eee with Compiz Fusion enabled on my Intel i915-based chipset.

At the risk of stating the obvious...

Not to say that Intel's a victim here, but perhaps the raw numbers for "Vista Capable" are just too high.

Re:Yeah, and?

[tlhIngan]

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"

Er, citation needed? Have you ever worked at Microsoft?

Or the fact that Microsoft is composed of little fiefdoms and each major "team" often has a snapshot of code from other teams that doesn't get synced? E.g., Windows teams use a compiler that is older than the dev tools team is creating, Office uses DLL code that's been branched/modified/extended from the WIndows Shell, and is quite incompatible (ditto on dev tools as well). Which is why you can end up with 3 incompatible versions of the same DLL - one that ships with Windows, one that ships with Office, and another one that developers use for their projects (that ships with Visual Studio) - I believe one such DLL is common controls or common dialogs.

Or how about this - Office 2007 introduced the ribbon. A third-party developed a library to emulate the ribbon. Said library was purchased by Microsoft to be provided with Visual Studio? Thus, developers will be using a different ribbon library than what the Office people use, and who knows what horrible merge the Windows team will (eventually) use?

So not only is DLL hell created from different versions of a DLL with the same code lineage, there's also the troubles caused by the same DLL with different code lineages living on the same system.