Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Operating Systems Software Windows IT

Microsoft Concedes Vista Launch Problems 594

Posted by samzenpus
from the who's-to-blame dept.
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)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Concedes Vista Launch Problems

Comments Filter:
  • So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anachragnome (1008495) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @09:50PM (#24956033)

    He blamed everyone but Microsoft?

    Why does that not surprise me?

    • Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jacksinn (1136829) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @09:55PM (#24956083)
      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?
    • Re:So...... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BronsCon (927697) <social@bronstrup.com> on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:06PM (#24956183) Journal

      No, he admitted that UAC was poorly implemented.

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

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

      I can personally attest that everything he said is true. I own an Acer laptop, which ran like bloody hell with the OEM shartware installed. I also own an HP laptop, which ran like bloody hell with the OEM shartware installed. Upon formatting both drives, partitioning them more sanely and reinstalling Vista (Home Premium) on both, using the included Anytime Upgrade (or Reinstall) DVD, Vista ran wonderfully.

      I still installed Kubuntu on both. Windows is nice to have around if you ever need it (BIOS updates on the HP, or calling for tech support on either machine, for example) but really not right for daily use for me.

      The Acer has Intel graphics. All is good and will with Vista there.

      I've had the HP (ok, it was originally a Compaq, which they warranty-replaced with a better HP model when it completely failed -- though both have the same video hardware) for a year and a half, now. For the first 9 months, the nVidia drivers were crashing the damn thing fairly regularly. It wasn't until 9 months ago that they released a driver that didn't crash this laptop.

      I also run a desktop, which I use for music production, running Windows-only software (it runs in winE, but not as a fully functional application). I run Vista Ultimate (free from MS for participating in a "spyware" program, which I installed on a laptop which was used only for YouTube and other cutesy flash crap) on this machine. I've had both ATI and nVidia cards in this machine. The ATI still doesn't have a workable driver. The nVidia, same as with the HP laptop, no good driver until 9mo ago.

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

      Other than that, I actually like Vista Ultimate. Now that I have stable video drivers and the printer actually works, neither of which were Microsoft's fault, it's wonderful. Being a retail install, it never had any OEM shartware installed on it.

      Runs smooth and quick.

      And yes, UAC is poorly implemented. That's Microsoft's fault, all the freaking way.

      $0.02 from a full-time Linux user and fanboi. Vista has its place, even in my home. My HTPC runs Linux, though; the DRM in Vista still scares me.

      • Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by causality (777677) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:26PM (#24956351)

        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.

        • Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:39PM (#24956457)

          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.

          • Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by causality (777677) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @02:55AM (#24958517)

            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.

            No, you misinterpreted what I was saying and that's at least partly my fault. I was referring to the impact on the overall stability of the system. The overall performance of the system is a completely different metric. First I discussed how this applies to third-party drivers, then I said a bit about how this applies to OEM-supplied crapware. I said further that if the crapware doesn't affect the rest of the system, then whether they are shit quality is moot. I was referring to the stability of the rest of the system (i.e. BSODs), not every possible effect that poor-quality software could conceivably have (that'd be quite a lot to cover in only a couple of small paragraphs, don't you think?). You found a possible effect that it could conceivably have, which is that being a resource hog might bog everything down.

            So yeah, a process consuming a large amount of resources (RAM, bandwidth, CPU) will definitely bog down the system. It will reduce performance and slow things down. I really thought that this was so utterly obvious that it went without saying, so my first thought was not that someone would assume, contrary to the focus of every other part of my post, that I was referring to anything other than system stability with those three sentences. This really is the only ambiguous part of my entire post, and your entire response hinges on it:

            That certainly is true, but then, why should so many user applications have the ability to affect the rest of the operating system?

            If I had said "have the ability to affect the stability of the rest of the operating system" you could not have misunderstood me. That much was my fault, I should have more clearly said what I meant. But, you read into that one sentence a meaning that was inconsistent with what I was saying prior to it and this did not make you hesitate for a moment to wonder if I really meant what you thought I meant. The mods followed your example in their own way, and so did several who also responded (apparently I'm a shill now -- more namecalling to follow, I'm sure). Is it really that hard not to knee-jerk? I increasingly feel like I have to idiot-proof my posts against every possible misinterpretation, which is effort better spent expressing ideas, because certainly whenever there are multiple potential interpretations the one that makes the weakest argument for the other guy is the most appealing to you, the one that you just know he had to have meant, right? Isn't that how it works for most of you? I wonder how much time that could be spent in productive debate is wasted guarding against this low-hanging fruit "haha, gotcha!" type of shit.

            The only negativity I feel about this at all is that I honestly expected better from this group. If I were doing a presentation about Windows design vs. Linux design for a national TV news show, I'd have had no such expectations and would feel that the misinterpretation is 100% my fault.

        • Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by bberens (965711) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:43PM (#24956487)
          You had me right up until that last paragraph, then I realized you're just a shill. I mean seriously, 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? Similarly, the reason your linux drivers work so well is that linux hasn't had the ginormous revamp that the win32 kernel just underwent. Hardware vendors needed to make significant changes to their drivers and thought they'd get by with shoddy (probably outsourced) effort.
          • Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Darkness404 (1287218) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @11:08PM (#24956697)
            The difference is, is Firefox hangs on Linux I can usually manage to click on a terminal or switch to a terminal to kill it. On Windows the entire system locks up.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Korin43 (881732)
              My problem with Linux is actually the exact opposite. Usually things crash all the time in Windows, but it almost never takes Windows all the way down. In Ubuntu I frequently get crashes that either lock the system up so badly that I can only control the mouse and everything else is frozen, or everything including the mouse locks up (and trying to switch to another screen never seems to work). I might just be an Ubuntu/Debian/Gnome issue though..
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by jesterzog (189797)

                This doesn't necessarily address the problem as far as usability is concerned and wouldn't be satisfactory for a typical desktop user, but do you know if it's the Linux kernel that's crashing or is it X, or the desktop manager?

                Have you tried Ctrl-Alt-Backspace? (Usually resets X.) Or you could try Ctrl-Alt-F1 to get a text console, and use commands like 'top' to see which process is clogging things up and kill it.... (Ctrl-Alt-F6/F7/something will switch back to X), or just try something like 'sudo /etc/

                • Re:So...... (Score:5, Funny)

                  by Achromatic1978 (916097) <robert@chrBOHRom ... minus physicist> on Thursday September 11, 2008 @01:59AM (#24958191)

                  Have you tried Ctrl-Alt-Backspace? (Usually resets X.) Or you could try Ctrl-Alt-F1 to get a text console, and use commands like 'top' to see which process is clogging things up and kill it.... (Ctrl-Alt-F6/F7/something will switch back to X), or just try something like 'sudo /etc/init.d/gdm restart'. If you're in a position to, you could use another computer to ssh into the machine and do something similar. If you can type a command somewhere within the gui, like an xterm or a konsole, you could try running 'xkill' and then click the mouse on whatever window appears to be causing the problem. (This will kill the process in control of that window.)

                  And yet, despite this power, we wonder why Linux on the desktop has never really taken off ...

                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by jesterzog (189797)

                    Well I'm really just trying to be helpful for someone who's posting on Slashdot and so might actually be able to follow these ideas.

                    I agree with what I think was a sarcastic sentiment. For myself though, I really only care about me having a decent desktop and in my case, Unix-like systems work great because I'm happy to use exactly the methods I just mentioned when things go wrong. I'm still careful about who I recommend it to, but then I don't easily recommend Windows to many people either. It can be at

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by wampus (1932)

              You haven't actually used Windows since around 2000, have you?

            • Re:So...... (Score:4, Informative)

              by Yunzil (181064) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @02:22PM (#24966157) Homepage

              Except this is mostly untrue untrue for Windows and occasionally untrue for Linux.

              There's been very few times on Windows when I couldn't get to the taskmasker to kill something, and there have been times on Linux where I had to power cycle the machine because some combination of make or g++ put it into a catatonic state.

              And why the hell were you modded to +5?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Similarly, the reason your linux drivers work so well is that linux hasn't had the ginormous revamp that the win32 kernel just underwent. Hardware vendors needed to make significant changes to their drivers and thought they'd get by with shoddy (probably outsourced) effort.

            Actually it sort of has, its just that due to the nature of the OSS development stuff like changing the wireless stack and changing writing DRI2 is done gradually and as a result tested more. This is really a feature of the short release cycle of linux, OTOH it also means that some stuff keeps getting left behind because its too big.

            Hardware vendors needed to make significant changes to their drivers and thought they'd get by with shoddy (probably outsourced) effort.

            Goes for both tbh, my friend got a new ati laptop with vista, her laptop strugles with graphics toned down. while another friend has a much older intel laptop that seams to run

          • Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by registrar (1220876) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @01:51AM (#24958139)

            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.

          • Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Simon Rowe (1206316) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @05:06AM (#24959195)

            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.

        • Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by juventasone (517959) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:56PM (#24956595)

          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.

          Any operating system can run resource-intensive or dysfunctional applications!

          Most of this third party software is installed because the OEM gets a small kickback. If the user purchases an activation/subscription/upgrade, the OEM gets a larger kickback. The only thing to blame is falling margins, the dominance of Windows on the desktop, and lack of consumer interest.

          • Re:So...... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by afidel (530433) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @12:30AM (#24957527)
            And this is where the small premium for a business class laptop pays off bigtime. Buy an HP business laptop or a Dell Vostro machine and you get pretty much a clean OS install with working drivers and a minimal (of often helpful) third party apps.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by juventasone (517959)

              And this is where the small premium for a business class laptop pays off bigtime. Buy an HP business laptop or a Dell Vostro machine and you get pretty much a clean OS install with working drivers and a minimal (of often helpful) third party apps.

              This is true. Nevermind the fact that you get higher quality hardware, and a completely different tier of support.

              Unfortunately they're starting a slide a bit too, the latest generation of HP Business Notebooks have Yahoo Toolbar, the fattest Norton/McAfee home product, Office 07 (trial), and SQL Server running.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by vux984 (928602)

          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.

          You know, there is really no reason whatsoever that you can't use an open source driver with windows. The driver API is well published, and there is nothing stopping the community from stepping up and writing its own drivers.

          The biggest reason oss drivers exist for linux is that the vendors couldn't be bothered.

      • Vista has its place, even in my home.

        You must live at the bottom of the ocean, or inside the heart of an active volcano!

      • Re:So...... (Score:5, Informative)

        by JebusIsLord (566856) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:43PM (#24956489) Homepage

        I'm gonna agree, with the additional statement that Vista is wonderful AFTER I upgrade my RAM from 2GB to 4GB. Vista Ultimate (x64) is a pretty decent upgrade from XP, and I wouldn't consider going back.

        (disclaimer: I also have a macbook and a linux server. All have their drawbacks, all have their strengths. I'm just comparing Vista to XP here.)

      • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:57PM (#24956599)
        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jeremyp (130771)

          Would you like to comment on the Linux model in which driver compatibility is not even guaranteed between point releases of the Kernel. That kind of "fuck you" attitude dwarfs Microsoft's, especially as it is a deliberate decision made for ideological reasons rather than on good technical grounds.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          So WDM is "ill conceived" just because it's *different*? You didn't really provide any other evidence, except to imply that MS just launched Vista one January with zero notice. Wake up, everyone who was making money selling hardware for Windows XP knew about Vista and WDM YEARS in advance. The implication that MS should institute OS-wide hacks like NDISWrapper instead of being allowed to change their ABI with years of advanced notice makes no sense at all, esp. since your evidence-free bitchings make me ass

      • Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Belial6 (794905) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:58PM (#24956615)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          The hardware vendors are allowed to sell modified "OEM" Windows disks because MS chooses to let them.

          Not quite true. The hardware vendors are only allowed to sell modified "OEM" Windows disks because that is all MS chooses to allow.

          At least that's the case with the HP lappy I bought here in OZ. When I complained that the OS they gave me didn't have the same features as Windows Vista Home Premium as described on the MS site and demanded remedy, they weren't allowed to ship a full install because their contra

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by spir0 (319821)

        I actually like Vista Ultimate.

        $0.02 from a full-time Linux user and fanboi.

        fulltime means, y'know... *all* of the time. If you've taken the time to use Vista, then at best you're really only a mosttime linux fanboi.

      • Re:So...... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rmcd (53236) * on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @11:13PM (#24956767)

        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.

        Let's start with the fact that Microsoft execs overrode *internal* objections to shipping Vista, and they consciously certified marginal Intel systems as "vista-ready" when they knew they weren't. 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 knew exactly what they were doing, and they made a deliberate decision to push the new OS onto platforms for which it wasn't appropriate, and before the appropriate drivers existed.

        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). This issue simply wasn't on Microsoft's radar screen. It wasn't on their radar screen because the home user is not their target market. 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.

        Microsoft missed several things this time around, including the netbook boom (oops, guess we can't kill XP), the google/apple boom (turns out that home users now value reliability, simplicity, design, and enterprise capabilities, such as synchronized calendars, outside of the enterprise), and the internet's capability to severely punish arrogance and incompetence. They didn't realize that a lousy home experience was going to spill back into the enterprise.

        This is a company that has $18 billion in annual profit on $60 billion in annual sales. They have the resources to get stuff done properly. What they do not have these days is competent management. They are on the way down. They are firmly ensconced in the corporate world, it will take a long time, but the direction is finally clear. I wish they were on the way up and making our computing lives better, but they aren't.

      • Re:So...... (Score:5, Informative)

        by bernywork (57298) * <bstapleton.gmail@com> on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @11:15PM (#24956801) Journal

        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. 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.

        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.

        Microsoft should have been harder in their WHQL driver certification for Vista. 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.

      • Re:So...... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Warbothong (905464) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @11:29PM (#24956955) Homepage

        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.

        Hang on, I thought Microsoft *wanted* OEMs to preinstall Windows?

      • Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sjf (3790) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @11:41PM (#24957093)

        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.

        • Re:So...... (Score:4, Informative)

          by BronsCon (927697) <social@bronstrup.com> on Thursday September 11, 2008 @12:03AM (#24957297) Journal

          I... just... don't know where to begin...

          Microsoft did, in fact, dump their entire driver model and replace it with something better, with support for full user-mode drivers for certain classes of devices (such as printers, eh?). Hardware vendors responded by wrapping their existing drivers in a compatibility layer.

          The same thing could happen on a Mac.

          I will admit that Apple has stricter certification standards. This is a Good Thing(TM).

      • Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by syousef (465911) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @12:15AM (#24957413) Journal

        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).

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

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

        Control no, influence yes. XP succeeded as well as it did largely because good drivers weren't as hard to develop as with 95/98/NT, given the wealth of talent available in the workforce.

        Vista created too much work for driver developers that had seen drivers need only minor updates as service packs came out. Suddenly they need full rebuilds for existing hardware and new hardware needs programmers that are fluent in Vista's needs. Meanwhile, the best programmers have been less interested in Vista than adva

  • by Firethorn (177587) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @09:51PM (#24956045) Homepage Journal

    Where they invite users to 'try' the newest Microsoft OS, before revealing it's Vista.

    Sure, have users play around a bit with a top of the line machine with a Slim Vista install, it's great.

    Go to try to configure stuff, install 3rd party programs, run actual benchmarks, it's not so nice.

    • Where they invite users to 'try' the newest Microsoft OS, before revealing it's Vista.

      I don't get those ads. I could see if the "before" shots were of people saying they'd heard bad things about Vista but had never tried it. However, they went all-out about how Vista is awful and how bad it's reputation is. The very first think you hear is confirmation of the current beliefs.

      I mean, I've never heard a McDonald's ad begin with a crowd talking about how much they hate McDonald's. Is this what passes for clever advertising now?

    • by bondsbw (888959) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:12PM (#24956241)

      Indeed. OS, hardware, software... they all have a significant impact in user experience.

      They should do this study with computers coming straight off the shelves of Circuit City, Best Buy, and from online stores like Dell. Install "Mojave". Give these computers to the average user for a year.

      Now, ask those people about their experiences. I doubt their answers would be anywhere close. The average response would probably be something like this: "I like how it looks better than XP, but I don't think it's any better really... I still can't find what I need, it's slow, and I think I need more memory or something. Fix that stuff, and some of the annoying boxes that pop up, and I'd probably like it better."

    • Top of the line? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ralish (775196)

      The systems they used in the Mojave advertisements were HP Pavilion DV 2000 machines with 2GB of RAM.

      http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/07/31/windows-mojave-advertisements-start-to-appear-in-the-wild [arstechnica.com]

      Not really top of the line...

      • Re:Top of the line? (Score:5, Informative)

        by AndyCR (1091663) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:22PM (#24956325) Homepage
        Perhaps not "top of the line", but they are certainly more powerful than the average $500 laptop sold at CompUSA - and let's face it, when faced with a $500 laptop and a $1000 laptop people will buy the $500 one. If it says it runs Vista, it should run it well - it may not be an excellent machine, but an operating system shouldn't be the most demanding thing people use. Said $500 laptop probably contains 1GB of ram if you're lucky.

        I speak from experience, as someone who owns a DV9000. I ordered it with 1GB of ram to max out the CPU specs, knowing I would upgrade the ram later. Vista ran very very slowly. I upped it to 1.5GB and it runs just fine. Ram makes all the difference with Vista, even though it shouldn't. Say all you want about all the ram usage being pre-caching - if it were just pre-caching, it wouldn't have been slow with twice the ram it "needs", and it wouldn't have sped up dramatically just by adding half a gig more space used only for precaching. If that's their idea of speeding up applicaiton loading with pre-caching, I'd rather go back to the XP way of things.

        The "Mojave Experiment" method is simple: get a person who says Vista is slow (because it is, on their machine), sit them in front of a computer with twice the ram theirs has, and get them to do a recorded double-take at how fast said machine is running Vista. Then they go home filled with excitement ready to prove themselves wrong on how slow Vista is and realize their copy of Vista isn't as fast as the Vista they used and wonder what the heck the testers did (remember, these are the kinds of people who read "Word for Dummies" - any person with a clue about technology would be filtered out in a screening process or have his response never aired).

        I say all this as someone who uses Windows for daily development without much issue. I don't hate Windows. I do, however, hate dishonesty, whether express or implied, as the lawyers would say.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Ralish (775196)

          I entirely agree with you that Vista requires far more system resources than it ought to, and as usual, Microsoft has understated in the official requirements the amount of computing power you really need to run Vista smoothly. This isn't new for Microsoft either, they have a long history of grossly understating minimum requirements, presumably to maximise potential upgrades. I remember the Windows 95 requirements stating that 4MB (8MB? This is a long time ago) was enough to run a fully functional Windows 9

    • by Firehed (942385) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:58PM (#24956605) Homepage

      As someone who primarily works off of a Mac Pro with 10GB of RAM, I'll call BS on that one. With the exception of the completely broken nVidia drivers, Vista runs fine performance-wise on my old faithful desktop with about a fifth of the specs (now those drivers forced the system in question to go back to XP, but they were causing crashes, not slowdowns).

      I'll agree that the ads suck (and I can't imagine why Hulu thinks that I'd switch from OS X to Windows... it just doesn't happen), but not because they're giving the people an unfair representation of Vista.

      The UAC needs improvement; other than that and the above-mentioned driver issue, I'd run it on all of my vaguely-current non-Apple hardware.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @11:09PM (#24956709)

      If you are talking about the Mojave Project commercial, they didn't let you touch the computer. I know, I was one of them. All they did was show some of the basics built in the OS, like how quickly you could navigate through folders full of jpegs. But no 3rd party apps. It looked like bare bones, tweaked install on a top end HP laptop.

      Anyway, I told them my wife has Vista on her HP and she hates it compared to her older Toshiba with XP. So they show me what they originally billed as their new OS in beta, code named Mojave, and asked if it seemed faster than my experience with Vista. I said yes, and I'm sure many others did too, and that's probably what they ran with in their ads.

      What they didn't care to hear from me was that at the end of the demo, after I gave pretty good comments about the demo, they revealed that they demo'd vanilla Vista, not some new OS. So I ripped into them saying that then their installation sucks because my wife's stock computer is much slower and their GUI sucks because she has to relearn everything after getting comfortable with XP. They asked if I would be willing to put Vista on my other PCs and I said possibly, if they gave me free copies, otherwise they'll remain dual boot Ubuntu/XP machines. I don't think they used those comments...

  • Step one: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @09:53PM (#24956053)

    Well, the first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have one. Good for them, I guess.

  • WTF?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @09:53PM (#24956059)

    ...and described User Account Control as poorly implemented but defended it as necessary for the continued health of the Windows platform.

    Continued? What? Continued?? Health? What? Health??

    I'm not sure those words mean what you think you mean.

    • Re:WTF?? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Ancients (626689) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @09:57PM (#24956099) Homepage

      ...and described User Account Control as poorly implemented but defended it as necessary for the continued health of the Windows platform.

      Continued? What? Continued?? Health? What? Health?? I'm not sure those words mean what you think you mean.

      Did he explicitly state good health?

  • by gblackwo (1087063) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @09:55PM (#24956077) Homepage
    They had to scramble to get drivers out the door because microsoft hardly gave them any time to work with the last revisions of Vista.
    • by Idiomatick (976696) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:06PM (#24956181)

      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.

      • by Forkenhoppen (16574) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @11:04PM (#24956659)

        Printer drivers are bloated in part because of the OCR code and reference images that they're forced to include. Seriously; try scanning and printing an American dollar bill, and see what happens.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by seeker_1us (1203072)
        One of the problems is that the "winmodem" mentality leaked over to the printer makers.

        The vast majority of non-professional printers are brain dead USB pieces of shit that require everything to be software rendered and the printer internals to be controlled directly through the usb cable. The drivers are large because they tell the CPU how to run the printer, instead of spending a little bit more for a cpu inside the printer that takes PCL or postscript or something and renders it inside the printer a

    • by figleaf (672550) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:18PM (#24956293) Homepage

      hardly gave them any time

      Manufacturers had more than full year before the release date.
      But some manufacturers (Creative [gizmodo.com] comes to mind) didn't ship proper Vista drivers for an additional eight months after Vista Business Final was released.
       

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      HW design counts too. ATI, particularly, had lots of issues with HDCP and DRM management, and they were one of the big opponents of the PMP during design, but ultimately had no choice because they don't control enough of the market.

  • The RAM error (Score:5, Informative)

    by yelvington (8169) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @09:57PM (#24956103) Homepage

    TFA misses a major misstep. Microsoft allowed Vista to be shipped on hardware that just wasn't up to the task. Vista is unusable with less than a gig of memory, but chain stores were flooded with laptops equipped with "only" 512MB. This gave new users a terrible experience. "First boot" of a new laptop took half an hour. No application, not even Solitaire, would run without freezing.

    Two of my family members had Vista laptops ... for a few hours, anyway, until I installed Ubuntu. Performance problems all went away after that.

    • Re:The RAM error (Score:5, Interesting)

      by religious freak (1005821) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:06PM (#24956187)
      2GB isn't even enough. I bought a Lenovo laptop where 2GB was "suggested". Ran like crap until I updated to 4GB... which is the max the motherboard can handle.

      So much for my theory that paying more will lead to a longer lifespan for my laptop. Vista smells like WinME - maybe it's getting to be like Star Trek movies, you should avoid every other (or in this case every third) release...
    • Re:The RAM error (Score:5, Interesting)

      by digitalhermit (113459) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:46PM (#24956509) Homepage

      It's more than just RAM problems. I'm typing this from a 4G XPS 1530. It's a great machine. Runs Ubunutu 8.04 and XP wonderfully, but the pre-installed Vista is a piece of crap. At this moment I'm connecting via the Gigabit wired connection because wireless is unstable. Wired is SO 2005!!!!!

      Seriously though, the wireless connection drops every couple minutes. Googling informs that it could be a bunch of things and I've tried each one. These include switching to high performance mode (so the wireless card doesn't get turned off to conserve battery) to upgrading the access point so it understands some new power save feature, to disabling IPv6 settings. None work.

      Even with 4G I get those freezes. Googling indicates it could be SuperFetch. It might be the virus scan. It might be my graphics card crashing and silently restarting. Doesn't matter what the culprit is, it's just freaking annoying to be typing something and have the machine pause for 10 to 20 seconds at a time.

      I agree with you that Microsoft shouldn't have OKed 512M configurations, but I think that was probably the least of their problems. At least with a minimum RAM configuration you could upgrade.

  • by caitsith01 (606117) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:06PM (#24956177) Journal

    There's no question Apple is improving its brand.

    However, the reason for Apple's popularity is a massive generalisation:

    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).

    The hardware is slick, but it seems to be getting worse (or being exposed to more scrutiny) as it becomes more and more mainstream. The hardware also has little to do with MS and its products success or failure, in the sense that it is perfectly possible to spend Apple-type dollars on a Windows PC and get a very solid, high performance machine.

    The price is ok - I won't restart that debate but it remains the case that Apple is typically somewhat pricier for the equivalent hardware.

    But the last part really annoys me - I have been an Apple customer from time to time and they annoy the absolute crap out of me. They deny problems, use proprietary software, aggressively attack anyone who attempts to open up their hardware platforms, and generally act in a self-righteous manner.

    What Microsoft needs to realise is not that Apple is gaining on it because it "just works", it is gaining because it works at all, unlike many aspects of Vista.* There are plenty of ways to attack Apple, but unless you have a product that is at least competently made there is no way you can do it.

    A case in point is the revised Zune - it looks like in many ways (other than MS's bullshit DRM/proprietary interface stuff) it is the equal of the equivalent ipod. If MS can do the same with its OS, then suddenly it has a product as good as Apple and 80%+ of the PC market already in its corner.

    * and yes, I do know what I'm talking about, I have done several Vista uninstalls which have dramatically improved stability and performance of new laptops

    • by meta-monkey (321000) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:25PM (#24956343) Journal

      If wishes were horses, beggars would eat, too.

      Fact of the matter is, it's a pain in the ass to get a high-performance, non-bloatware infested Vista machine that doesn't suffer from driver-related crashes and all the rest of the mess they talk about in this article, much of which is STILL going on. And you're actually holding up the Zune, of all things, as a model of success to be emulated?!

      I've bought seven Macs in the last 5 years (I run a small business...graphic design/marketing/photography) and I simply don't have time to deal with Microsoft. I actually just bought two new Mac Pros. It was really easy. I went to the Apple store, said, "I'd like two of those please," they loaded them up in my car, and I was up and running later that day. No bloatware, no weird driver problems, decently usable software already installed...no problems. Could I have gotten something "equivalent" by building it myself for less money? Only if my time is worthless.

      Then again, I'm bothering to write a comment on Slashdot, so clearly my time is not worth that much...

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by PJ1216 (1063738) *
        Its not a pain in the ass to get a high-performance machine. It *can* be a pain to remove bloatware, though some places now offer a 50-100 dollar service for it. In any case, your third 'requirement' of driver-related crashes is virtually non-existent nowadays that its rarely a problem in new machines. I won't say it never happens, but its rare. And normally, the driver-related crashes are due to products that would never *EVER* work on a Mac.

        You can get something "equivalent"... actually *extremely* b
    • The revised zune has taken the mp3 market by storm has it? Taken a chunk out of iPod sales? Oh wait, it hasn't.

      MS worsed enemy isn't Apple or Linux, it is MS. MS wasn't loosing Vista sales to Apple or anyother OS company/provider, it was loosing Vista sales to XP, its own product.

      That is REALLY REALLY scary for a company, after all, yes they COULD copy more of Apple or whatever other product but you can't make a copy of your own product without people wondering, if it is the same, why should I buy a new

  • by Proudrooster (580120) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:08PM (#24956215) Homepage
    The problem with VISTA is that it was launched it BETA. Missing drivers, big footprint hardware requirements, and horrible power management (which drained many a laptop battery) caused the early demise of VISTA. I gave up on VISTA, but I understand that MS is slowly working out the problems. Legacy drivers will always be a problem for VISTA and the TPM/DRM features will continue to make smarter users shun VISTA.

    I am back to the DUAL BOOT Linux/XP on my older hardware and performance is decent. Same hardware with VISTA... forget about it.
    • by wild_quinine (998562) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:39PM (#24956459) Homepage

      The problem with VISTA is that it was launched it BETA.

      This is an exaggeration!

      Missing drivers, big footprint hardware requirements, and horrible power management (which drained many a laptop battery) caused the early demise of VISTA.

      Hm. Alright. It's not much of an exaggeration.

      I gave up on VISTA, but I understand that MS is slowly working out the problems.

      This is true. What I really what to comment on here is the state of the FUD surrounding Vista. There were many negative reviews of Vista at time of release, which were deserved, if a little hyperbolic - I know, because I ran Vista and tested it.

      When SP1 came out the reviews were similarly negative. I didn't test it for several months. Most broken things had not been fixed, the reviews said, and I did not go back for seconds.

      Recently, I did test Vista with SP1. As it happens, I'm still running it. And whilst I'm not ready to recommend Vista yet, I'll say this gladly: most of the problems were fixed. And most of the articles bashing SP1 were just inaccurate FUD.

      It really irritates me when things are reported innaccurately in this way. I don't mind if you have a negative opinion of something, even if it's something I really like. But I can't abhor being LIED to, simply because you're a zealot.

  • by earlymon (1116185) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:17PM (#24956275) Homepage Journal

    An interesting read, but this telling comment was on the last page:

    Yes, the June conversation was dazzlingly candid, and we were looking forward to an equally blunt follow-up meeting--a scheduled late-July on-the-record interview with Erik Lustig, a senior product manager responsible for Windows Fundamentals. But then the universe as we know it returned to normal, and Microsoft became Microsoft again. Our interview with Lustig was overseen by a PR representative and was filled with the type of carefully measured language that we've come to expect from Microsoft when discussing "challenges." A "challenge" is Microsoftese for anything that isn't going according to the company's carefully choreographed plans. In the text that follows, we've combined the information conveyed during the mid-June background conversation with decoded translations of the "on the record" conversation we had in July. The contrast between the two interviews is stunning.

    The part where Microsoft was open to admit mistakes - even if done with back-handed compliments to Apple and slaps to other developers - began to sound like a breath of fresh air.

    But the article itself is highly qualitative and lacks coherence, as if we're missing the director's cut. (Yes, I am comparing a bad movie as superior to this written word - knowingly.)

    Nothing to see here, move along.

  • drivers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Edward Kmett (123105) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:17PM (#24956279) Homepage

    So lets see, the drivers sucked.. maybe thats because, in order to get the WHQL/"Designed for Windows"/Windows Logo Program/whatever-the- marketing-team-decided-to-stick-into-the-name-today stamp of approval needed to be able to be able to supply a signed driver for 64 bit vista they had to run through a 6 month release gauntlet?

    Any software release cycle that gets stuck delaying that long between finding a bug and issuing a fix is going to suck

  • by Unoti (731964) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:18PM (#24956291) Journal

    Apple doesn't annoy its customers (or allow third parties to)

    AT&T. Locked iPhones. Can't do anything not officially blessed with your iPhone unless you unlock it. Can't register your iPhone with anyone other than AT&T. iTunes is loaded with DRM, and QuickTime is pretty annoying... I do love Apple, but seriously, they constantly flirt with annoying their customers far more than most companies.

    • by Tim C (15259) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @07:43AM (#24959923)

      iTunes is loaded with DRM

      On Windows at least, it also installs:

      1) an auto-start AppleMobileDeviceService service
      2) an auto-start iPodService service
      3) an auto-start iTunesHelper application
      4) Bonjour as an auto-start service
      5) MobileMe

      Additionally, it defaults to installing the AppleUpdate service, which - when it finds updates - defaults to installing Safari alongside the updates.

      Just to listen to music?

  • by LM741N (258038) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:22PM (#24956329)

    major ones in some peoples' eyes. First the business version came on my laptop, but since I had plenty of money at the time, I got the Ultimate upgrade. Well thats been a disappointment as my Sony VAIO laptop has two graphics chips in it. A high end NVidia one which makes the graphics scream, but makes the computer hotter than hell, and a then a slow Intel i810. So I always keep it on i810, esp since I'm running FreeBSD which doesn't have very much control over the ACPI, ie it gets hot anyway.

    The second problem was the price for something that wasn't much of a difference from XP as far as I can see, but perhaps I just don't care about the advanced features. The Ultimate updates have really never come, so that upgrade was worthless.

    But as far as the OS itself, I think they did a good job on it. I only ever had a couple blue screens which were caused by the USB subsystem and were patched quickly. I also found that the only programs that don't work on it (that don't need special drivers) are DOS programs that require full screen display. And finally now I even have a driver for my 10 year old printer. So in the end it hasn't worked out so bad.

    But perhaps thats more a reflection on Sony providing all of the needed drivers, updating them, etc, and making a really good laptop. I try to use FreeBSD when ever possible, but I have a couple Windows-only engineering programs so I need the dual boot.

  • Bad drivers? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stm2 (141831) <sbassi@genesdigi[ ]es.com ['tal' in gap]> on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:31PM (#24956397) Homepage Journal

    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?

  • by Alien Being (18488) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @10:55PM (#24956579)

    WTF? Operating systems are supposed to have two interfaces - an API and a DDI. MS fails at both.

    Their technical problems are directly related to their legal problems. They can't be a neutral vendor of systems code while they're competing in the apps market.

    Sure, Linux can be a pain in the ass to support, but usually it's a relatively simple build issue. And part of the pain is overly tight control of source code. With MS, there's simply no insurance that your technology will work with theirs.

    For anyone who hasn't been paying attention for the last two decades, MS IS ROTTEN TO THE CORE.

  • network performance (Score:3, Informative)

    by smash (1351) on Wednesday September 10, 2008 @11:46PM (#24957147) Homepage Journal
    One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned much is that if you have vista and a Windows 2003 R2 or later file server (or another vista box) they can use SMBv2 to communicate/share files with. This has vastly improved performance over WAN links...
  • by houbou (1097327) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @12:02AM (#24957285) Journal

    Saying Vista has problems is like saying George W. Bush is a few fries shy from a happy meal.

    Yes, yes, yes, Vista = problems

    Of course, for Microsoft to admit that, it took what, uh, XP sales still surpassing Vista's? or the fact that most people downgrade from Vista to XP? (I should say Upgrade.. :)

    It's a crappy OS, takes too much resources, let's not even go with all the stupid security windows, etc..

    It is said that we can learn from anything, even failure, well Microsoft, Vista should be a heck of a classroom of a lesson for you, that's for sure!

    I think sometimes that Vista is to Microsoft, what "New Coke" was to Coca Cola.

    A big mistake.

  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @02:41AM (#24958421)
    Reason #8 that Vista sux is that they built it chock-full of internal DRM that simply wastes CPU cycles and memory trying to prevent you from using your hardware as you may wish to use it. This was never Microsoft's job to do, and I find it curious that this design decision doesn't even get passing mention. Makes me doubt how sincere and forthcoming he has actually been about the rest of the issues.
  • Get Windows 7! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by David Gerard (12369) <slashdot AT davidgerard DOT co DOT uk> on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:05AM (#24958577) Homepage

    Windows 7 won't have these problems! [today.com] It'll fix everything!

    But really. Blaming everyone but Microsoft? The drivers, when they deliberately changed the driver model at the last moment so XP drivers wouldn't work? What?

  • pot. kettle (Score:3, Funny)

    by justleavealonemmmkay (1207142) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:38AM (#24958727)

    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

    a.k.a. Windows Vista.

  • by IBBoard (1128019) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @03:41AM (#24958743) Homepage

    I like the bit where he complains about the crapware and payments:

    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.

    I've worked in one of the vendor companies. Why do you think that places like Fujitsu Siemens [fujitsu-siemens.com], Dell [dell.com] and the like have the tag lines that say "[Insert company] recommends Windows Vista® [pick a version]"? It's because Microsoft give them kickbacks and payments for it!

    Where's the difference between saying "Yes, use Windows Vista [version] because we get paid" and saying "Yes, have this 'useful' bit of junk on your machine because we get paid (a proportionally smaller amount, because it's a smaller app)"?

  • by thisispurefud (1061012) on Thursday September 11, 2008 @05:47AM (#24959381) Journal
    UAC is NOT poorly implemented. UAC implementation is much better than Linux's sudo. The programs are poorly implemented assuming administrative privileges for everything!

The person who's taking you to lunch has no intention of paying.

Working...