Want to know how bad Vista was when it first shipped? Ask Microsoft

[Adam Albright]

Oh they didn't want to, but they were forced in open court.

Earlier this year a federal judge, Marsha Pechman granted class-action
status to a lawsuit alleging that Microsoft unjustly enriched itself
by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even when they could only
run a bare-bones version of the operating system, called "Vista Home
Basic." The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the 2006 holiday
shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft to maintain sales
of Windows XP computers after the launch of Windows Vista was delayed.

The judge ordered internal Microsoft e-mails unsealed that have been
used to support the plaintiffs' case. They were read aloud in court
and reveal how worried Microsoft executives were about Vista's
compatibility problems AFTER the product was launched.

Hey Frank, you sitting down buddy? You better take a chill pill before
reading further.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer got a email from Microsoft board member
Jon Shirley, who explained that he upgraded one of his computers to
Windows Vista only to find it was experiencing compatibility problems
with two of Microsoft's own MSN applications.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/library/vistaone3046.pdf

Also note the email from Mike Nash, who's bitching that he just bought
a Sony laptop with his personal money and surprise, surprise, it
carried the Vista Logo and was disappointed that it wouldn't run any
of the Glass (Aero features), but more concerning was it crashed Movie
Maker with him going on to complain he now had what amounted to a
$2100 email machine.

Note further nearly all the evidence from Discovery prior to the trial
are marked CONFIDENTIALL. Also seems concerns about UAC were already
well known at the highest levels of Microsoft and worried about, but
old Stevie shipped Vista anyway knowing it would cause a lot of user
grief.

Also not at all surprising is the admission that Vista shipped without
many drivers for popular hardware knowing full well that XP drivers
would not run under Vista due to the new security model (UAC) or if
they did run were crippled not supporting all hardware features which
was quite common with printers and scanners, causing lots of noise
from their hardware partners.

In another email from Jon Shirley to Steve Ballmer he informs him that
he's getting lot of static about scanners and printers admitting that
any generic drivers included with Vista often only supports basic
features and doesn't come close to supporting all of the hardware's
features as drivers did under XP, hoping at some point the partners
provide them. Of course none of this is told to customers, yet the
products carry the logo saying they're ready for Vista. Ready in this
case mean barely runs... if you're lucky.

Anybody really surprised?

 

[Nogginsaked]

Preference for Vista over XP is not a rational decision based on any
objective criterion.
Vista is the computer equivalent of "new Coke."
What was Microsoft thinking?
Although they will not listen to me I would recommend Microsoft continue
with one Vista SKU as well as XP.
Microsoft will have to continue to support/develop XP for the indefinite
future because XP is the most widely used OS on the planet in places where
people will never be able to replace the OS. All of those computers,
particularly in the third world, remain subject to attack that can spread to
the rest of the internet world and Microsoft will be held accountable if it
does not continue to patch XP.

 

[C.B.]

Preference for Vista over XP is not a rational decision based on any
objective criterion.

No, your statement is based upon your assumption only and millions of
people disagree with your assumption. You are, in fact, stating that anyone
who chooses to use and prefer Vista over XP is ignorant.

Vista is the computer equivalent of "new Coke."

That's your personal opinion, of which you are entitled. I disagree.

What was Microsoft thinking?

It's called advancement.

Although they will not listen to me I would recommend Microsoft continue
with one Vista SKU as well as XP.

They should listen to you, considering you have convinced yourself of
your superior knowledge and logic.

Microsoft will have to continue to support/develop XP for the indefinite
future because XP is the most widely used OS on the planet in places where
people will never be able to replace the OS. All of those computers,
particularly in the third world, remain subject to attack that can spread
to the rest of the internet world and Microsoft will be held accountable
if it does not continue to patch XP.

Microsoft, like any company, will do as it chooses. The company's
success or failure will be based upon its choices. I don't care one way or
the other. Safe and intelligent browsing, along with knowledgeable use of a
computer, will eliminate the majority of attacks.

 

[Canuck57]

It's called advancement.

A couple of links come to mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

The above will explain the markets reaction to New Coke, it is a parallel to
Vista.

Next we have:

http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/WESAYSO

The parallel of Microsoft telling the users what is best as opposed to
choice driven aproach, pricesless.

I fail to see how discontinuation of XP against users wishes develop
customer confidence in Microsoft.

 

[Charlie Tame]

I guess MS should have continued to sell/update Windows 3.1, Windows 95
and Windows 98 as well? Heck, might as well have continued with Windows
2000. I mean, so many users wanted to keep using those as well. They
should have NEVER developed new OSes after those because people were
using those for so long and didn't want to change. Thing is, no one
forces anyone to change OSes after development stops.

Its really simple, people can use XP for years to come, heck you could
still use Windows 98 if you wanted, or 95, or 2000. Just don't expect it
to support the latest hardware and such. Its not like MS ceasing
development/updating XP will cause all existing copies of XP to stop
working.

How many of your customers can find their OEM or original retail CDs
when their machine gets virused or otherwise hosed? What do you tell
them? What if new XP vulnerabilities come to light rendering many
machines unusable for secure work? Are you going to tell them they must
buy a new machine and Vista or tell them they can continue to do their
work using a free system?

The fact is that competing systems are becoming as "Usable" as Windows,
in some cases more usable although that is not the major point. It is
critical IMHO for MS to produce very high quality software, to fix some
long standing bugs and to offer more sensible packaging so that (For
example) an IT pro can begin with a reliable solid "Core" and give his
users what they need and limit the risk from crap they do not need.

I realize this is a tough demand, but the more there is the more there
is to go wrong, and frankly I find the packaging confusing and so do
others. For example, and I think this is correct but do not know for
sure, Small Business Server lacks some capabilities that the more
powerful version has. My understanding is that this cannot be upgraded
easily by simply buying a download from MS. Instead one would have to
redo the whole installation. This is a lot of work for IT and risks
"Missing" some security issue that has already been fixed but forgotten
about. Seems to me that too many lawyers and accountants have created
too many rules.

I think some of us are trying to anticipate possible problems while
others simply think the juggernaut can simply forge ahead whatever.

Again this is not criticism of MS or their software, it is merely a
comment on where I personally see some dangers.

 

[Bogey Man]

How many of your customers can find their OEM or original retail CDs when
their machine gets virused or otherwise hosed? What do you tell them? What
if new XP vulnerabilities come to light rendering many machines unusable
for secure work? Are you going to tell them they must buy a new machine
and Vista or tell them they can continue to do their work using a free
system?

These are probably the same people that scream like bloody hell when their
machines hit the dust and they don't have backups. Just what do they do with
their disks of critical importance that they can't find them?

The fact is that competing systems are becoming as "Usable" as Windows, in
some cases more usable although that is not the major point. It is
critical IMHO for MS to produce very high quality software, to fix some
long standing bugs and to offer more sensible packaging so that (For
example) an IT pro can begin with a reliable solid "Core" and give his
users what they need and limit the risk from crap they do not need.

You would have to have a very tight definition of what "core" really means
as there are millions of different hardware installations and the
installation of the main elements of the operating system is installed
according to these make-up of the hardware combinations.

I realize this is a tough demand, but the more there is the more there is
to go wrong, and frankly I find the packaging confusing and so do others.
For example, and I think this is correct but do not know for sure, Small
Business Server lacks some capabilities that the more powerful version
has. My understanding is that this cannot be upgraded easily by simply
buying a download from MS. Instead one would have to redo the whole
installation. This is a lot of work for IT and risks "Missing" some
security issue that has already been fixed but forgotten about. Seems to
me that too many lawyers and accountants have created too many rules.

Some basic research should find the answers required in order to make the
purchase of the correct software. If not satisfied with the information
found by your own research a simple call to Microsoft explaining that you
need assistance in choosing the correct software for your needs will most
likely result in your finding the information that you are looking for if
you are able to formulate the correct questions.

Your statements about upgrading are interesting. Would you think that if you
bought a small pickup truck for your business when you really needed a 5 ton
van that there would be an easy upgrade solution other than trading in your
pickup truck and buying a big van? I don't think so.

IT departments exist to assess the needs of the company and then to evaluate
what is available in the market place to meet those needs. If they are not
doing this then you might just as well have the cleaning staff do it.