Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Blamed Intel For Its Own Bad Surface Drivers (thurrott.com)

Paul Thurrott reveals a new internal Microsoft memo from corporate vice president Panos Panay which acknowledges "some quality issues" with their launch of Surface Book and Surface Pro 4. But an anonymous reader quotes a darker story from Thurrott.com: Multiple senior Microsoft officials told me at the time that the issues were all Intel's fault, and that the microprocessor giant had delivered its buggiest-ever product in the "Skylake" generation chipsets. Microsoft, first out of the gate with Skylake chips, thus got caught up by this unreliability, leading to a falling out with Intel... Since then, however, another trusted source at Microsoft has provided me with a different take on this story. Microsoft, I'm told, fabricated the story about Intel being at fault.

The real problem was Surface-specific custom drivers and settings that the Microsoft hardware team cooked up. The Skylake fiasco came to a head internally when Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella met with Lenovo last year and asked the firm, then the world's biggest maker of PCs, how it was dealing with the Skylake reliability issues. Lenovo was confused. No one was having any issues, he was told. I assume this led to some interesting conversations between the members of the Microsoft senior leadership team. But the net result was that Microsoft had to push out some existing designs quickly to get ahead of the reliability issues.

The Surface Book ultimately had a 17% return rate after its late-2015 launch, while the Surface Pro 4's return rate was 16%. So though Microsoft later pushed to improve subsequent releases, Panay's memo claims that "These improvements were unfortunately not reflected in the results of this [Consumer Reports] survey." The memo also reiterates high customer-satisfaction metrics, which Thurrott says "supports the contention that I made two days ago... Customers who spend more on premium products tend to be more satisfied even when they are unreliable because they need to justify their own decision-making process."

"He also suggests that what Consumer Reports calls a 'failure' is perhaps overly-broad and that some incidents -- like a frozen screen or unresponsive touch -- are not 'failures' but are rather just minor incidents that are easily rectified by the user."

4 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. "Failures" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >like a frozen screen or unresponsive touch
    Had I just bought a device worth a few grand, and the primary interaction interface spontaneously stopped working, I'd bloody well call that a failure.

    Interesting insight into corp culture at microsoft, no surprises really though.

    1. Re:"Failures" by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pity, Microsoft used to make good hardware.

      When was that? Ergo keyboard is fragile. Classic Microsoft mouse likewise. Microsoft talisman failed. Xbox fails. Xbox 360 RROD. Access point garbage. When did Microsoft make good hardware?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:"Failures" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When did Microsoft make good hardware?

      when they paid Logitech to make no frills mice

    3. Re:"Failures" by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Having to "fix" something is a failure, regardless of who performs the fix.
      Having to reboot is not a fix, as the problem is only going to reoccur at some point.

      The hardware and software are sold together as a complete unit, a failure of either is a failure of the purchased product.

      Microsoft have succeeded in lowering peoples expectations to such a degree that these things seem acceptable.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!