As happens every year or so, some juicy Microsoft e-mails have surfaced as part of litigation that the software maker is party to. In this case, Microsoft is being sued over a program in 2006 that labeled some PCs as Windows Vista Capable ahead of the operating system’s mainstream release in January 2007. As part of the discovery process, a number of e-mails have emerged with Microsoft executives discussing various problems with Vista as it came to market.
“No one really believed we would ever ship so they didn’t start the work until very late in 2006.”
Despite its many delays, many people thought Vista had been released too early. Maybe they should have waited another year or two.
They could make that a rule: Find a reasonable amount of time that a competent team would need to take to ensure compatibility, then add 1-3 years to deal with corporate higher-ups.
Secondly, he said, major changes to the way Vista handles audio and video caused headaches, particularly for those upgrading from XP. Finally, he said, many Windows XP drivers didn’t really work under Vista.
I was lucky to have bought hardware made by companies on top of it, I guess. The thing about a common architecture is that it suffers fools gladly…
Sinofsky noted that Microsoft executive Orlando Ayala had stuck with XP because there was no Vista driver for his Verizon mobile wireless card.
It hit their execs, too? So at least we know they weren’t ignorant of the problem!
“We are caving to Intel.”
I thought the caving-in went the other way around, but hey.
In the same e-mail, he notes that Microsoft was “really burning HP”
(quietly cheers for gamers being in control of OS development and management)
Sinofsky expressed surprise that Microsoft didn’t get more complaints to its support lines, but said that he did not take that as a sign of satisfaction.
I think what would surprise far more people, of course, is that Microsoft has support lines…
Well said. I’m not all that surprised that even MS’s execs where having issues with Vista. The sheers amount of complaints from everyday people, i.e. none technical savy consumers, appeared staggering at times.
It’s a shame really. I think that Vista could have been much better if more time had been spent ironing out those small but annoying bugs and incompatibilities that, on their own are not so much an issue, but taken together are almost a show stopper.
I also feel for all those software engineers that worked on Vista. To have 5 years worth of your own blood, sweat and tears repeatedly lambasted by both the public and the industry media has got to sting.
Have to admit I agree with your thoughts.
And it must suck for the software engineers as you say. Maybe if Microsoft were to take a step back and rather than trying (it appears) to make a complex piece of software from scratch then remove aspects based on hardware compatibility they produced a fundamentally solid, reliable piece of core software that can run on most platforms with most hardware comfortably then add the bells and whistles things might be better.
The complexity seems to be built in from the get-go.
By doing this they could streamline their code, make things easier for the hardware guys and rather than having a complete re-write every few years, they could lightly modify the core software and add the toys they wish.
My tuppence.
I agree wholeheartedly with the comment about compatibility.
I don’t think common hardware should be a problem for anyone though. If a piece of hardware is going to be deemed “common” then the manufacturers need to release the specifications and relevant informantion for people to write their own drivers.
Intel do this quite successfully with their graphics adapters, and to be honest, I have seen PC’s made with the cheapest motherboards, with Intel integrated graphics, running Ubuntu with all the eye candy turned up full, and they are most impressive compared with machines with ATI and NVidia cards in them using standard drivers.
If the specs for so called common hardware are published, this would allow Microsoft to create 100% compatible drivers for their products instead of depending on some third party company doing it for them.
How many people bought Vista, stuck Aero on and baulked at the slowness of the whole thing as the NVidia / ATI drivers were in essence still beta ?
Edited 2008-02-29 10:09 UTC
Microsoft has had a support line for long, long time. Problem is (at least at one point) – after the first <strong>two</strong> minutes, it cost $95/minute.
Now that may very well have changed, but that is what it cost back when Win95 came out.
Of course, they are probably referring to a support line from companies (e.g. Dell, HP, etc.), not necessarily from individuals.
These e-mails are particularly salient to this court case, in which Microsoft faces a class action suit over the fact that machines labeled as Windows Vista Capable were nonetheless not capable of running many of the operating system’s features.
Seems there is one of two labels that are put on machines sold with Vista.. one being ‘Vista capable’, and one being ‘Vista Premium’, just like games have ‘minimum’ and ‘recommended’ systm requirements ….
So, if MS loses this case, does that mean that if I buy a game to play on a PC that barely meets their minimum requirements, can I sue the game maker if I can’t run it at the highest resolution with all bells and whistles turned on?
Here is a link on Microsoft’s site about this:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade…
Although they don’t go into details, they clearly make mention that ‘Vista capable’ won’t be able to do some things that ‘Vista premium’ will. I’m not sure there is a lot of deception going on here, minus the intel thing, of course
Edited 2008-02-29 02:34 UTC
Perhaps if that game maker provided two separate versions of the game where all the additional features in the “more expensive” version were unable to run on the minimum requirements listed… then you’d have a case apparently…
At least you might if you threw the whole monopoly thing into the mix. Monopolistic practices open you up to all sorts of things you wouldn’t normally get nailed for.
Edit: you updated your post
– yeah, of COURSE their website says that – they got nailed for this months ago, so they probably ran out and updated all their materials ASAP.
Edited 2008-02-29 02:37 UTC
“Edit: you updated your post
– yeah, of COURSE their website says that – they got nailed for this months ago, so they probably ran out and updated all their materials ASAP.”
Actually the website said that from the very beginning. They did not update anything…this time
However, the problem was not in their website marketing information – it was the overall marketing push. What manufacturers were saying, what things meant, etc.
Through the entire ordeal, and as shown by the e-mails, the meaning of “Vista Capable” changed throughout the marketing push – and specifically names one instance of it, for the Intel 915 chipset.
What’s damning for Microsoft is that the e-mails show they knew about the issues, and knew there was a problem in the marketing – that not everyone was getting the message right, or the right message, concerning the “Vista Capable” info.
And due to Microsoft’s Monopoly on the desktop, they can and should be held accountable for the overall marketing effect too.
If the game company markets the minimum requirnments as supporting the same quality of game play and settings that the recommended requirnments support then you are more than free to sue.
In this case MS marketed “Vista compatible” certification as producing the same user experience as the full blown Vista with Aero and everything else enabled.
Maybe, I missed a disclaimer line on the ten foot high posters that lined most of the mall walls around these parts.
I think “Vista capable” is an oxymoron, just like other notable oxymorons such as “military intelligence” or “Microssoft Works”.
“Vista premium” is OK though … you do have to pay premium price for Vista after all.
I’m not sure if I’m more amazed at the fact that MS executives still use email for communication, or if I’m flabbergasted wondering about the communication that doesn’t take place on email.
Right from the original anti-trust suit, through various lawsuits, and the EU claims etc., emails have always been dragged in as evidence. And it must suck, because they are required to archive them. And even when they’re not part of lawsuits, they are often leaked, which isn’t much better.
At any rate, this was more or less brought up in the earlier story about the lawsuit in question, so I’ll state again that as far as I’m concerned, the executive (co-)in-charge of Windows development questioned the marketing strategy. If one of the guys responsible for developing Vista in the first place questions the validity of the marketing strategy, Microsoft has really lost their way.
Microsoft is victim to many frivolous lawsuits, and I consider myself neither an MS-basher or MS-apologist, but this is one that I would like to see follow through. MS used some questionable tactics and played dirty pool with their own partners in order to utilize their branding power to help keep system sales flowing in the absence of Vista. Whether this was truly a deceptive marketing practice is for the courts to decide, I’ve got my opinions, but will be interested to see how it ends up anyways.
“At any rate, this was more or less brought up in the earlier story about the lawsuit in question, so I’ll state again that as far as I’m concerned, the executive (co-)in-charge of Windows development questioned the marketing strategy. If one of the guys responsible for developing Vista in the first place questions the validity of the marketing strategy, Microsoft has really lost their way.”
What you just said is normal in ANY company. Developers and Marketing rarely, if ever, even agree on the direction of the product, let alone strategy. Sad but true.
Once upon a time I was part of a MacroMoney class action law suit.
The verdict was microsoft charged too much for it’s software.
Each person got a $5 or $10 voucher to buy more MS products software or hardware.
I believe the same thing will happen either MS or a computer manufacturer will give coupons on further purchases = more money for MS licenses and hardware sales for manufacturers.
Lets see if Manufacturers give customers the opportunity to trade in the old computer for a new Vista 64bit compatible computer with little or no charge and free shipping.
Vista is a broken product that microsoft shoved it on the market and demanding / extorting huge license fees for the same.
Mac OS which is much better, but cost only $125. Doesnt need any activation crap or some Basic / Home / Premium version marketing ghetto.
Vista is slow, broken, over priced, buggy, drm loaded, costly.
If it wasnt for GNU/Linux people would have just bought this crap and hailed as the second coming of jesus.
Dont you love this ?
“Microsoft makes 3rd class products. They dont bring culture into their products” – Steve Jobs
So far I kind of agree
So far I can’t disagree with all that you say, although some qualification about how OS X is ‘better’ might be helpful – unless you mean it is better because of the things you list – but I think the future may be changing:
http://lowendmac.com/misc/08mr/mac-os-x-drm-linux-bsd.html
Except for DRM, relative truths, I am sure. One could say the same about OS X or ‘x’ OS, depending on who was running it, on what, to what end, etc. Also, refer again to Apple DRM patent application above
Deng!! We have an extrapolation too far, Scottie, can you readjust the Dilithium crystal output? How many XP users are screaming foul compared to users whose primary os is GNU/Linux?
Not really – but you will find even more evident amusement over at:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs
Edited 2008-02-29 12:32 UTC
If it wasnt for GNU/Linux people would have just bought this crap and hailed as the second coming of jesus.
Deng!! We have an extrapolation too far, Scottie, can you readjust the Dilithium crystal output? How many XP users are screaming foul compared to users whose primary os is GNU/Linux?
I disagree, since Vista, I have been getting request after request from workmates, (Tech support), for some info on getting Ubuntu/Linuxmint/Mandriva/DreamLinux downloaded, installed and set up, and questioned about exactly how to maintain compatibility with the peoples existing files.
There is a vast sway of people, (that I have encountered), that said, “enough Microsoft, I am away!”
At work I use Windows XP Pro and at home PCLinuxOS. At work we have to use XP due to the software we run – Solidworks, Cosmosworks, etc. I find XP to be stable and perfectly acceptable as an OS.
We will not, under any circumstances, be upgrading to Vista. From what I have read and heard it would be an absolute liability at this time.
We will not spend the time wrestling with hardware and software issues when we should be doing real work!
Rather than refine their existing OS – plugging holes, cutting bloat, streamlining the code, etc – while retaining compatibility, Microsoft elected to create a new, complex OS that will need time to mature. Eventually Vista will get there – of course it will – but it will take time and in that period a number of people will become very disillusioned with the software and the company that produces it.
Microsoft’s need (as a business) to make money has meant is needs to have a big launch that makes a big splash and creates as much sales as possible – this has caused a large amount of this problem.
What is a better model? Microsoft’s (service packs, complete re-writes, followed by big launches and big upgrade costs) or Apple (more refinements, more often, less cost)? (or linux – continual refinement).
My tuppence
Amen!
Yes, Vista will come around eventually. But to do so, they will likely have to drop some big things – Allow/Deny, DRM, etc. – some of which are out of their control (DRM, due to HD-DVD, HCMI, and Blu-Ray).
They also need to drastically lower the price. Vista Ultimate is really the only good edition of the OS; and it would be more beneficial for customers (business and individual alike) to have just that one edition with the ability to install/uninstall any component they want. (Most businesses already use an install image, so the “business” edition really isn’t necessary – but it also undercuts some media stuff that businesses need since it doesn’t have a lot in the multimedia department per software – so a business that needs to show a DVD for a presentation, or a sound clip, etc. is out of luck.)
True. They need it to out-sell their previous release. Which will only get harder every time, and will eventually become impossible to do since world growth doesn’t grow as fast as Microsoft would need to do so – nor is computer turn-over as fast any more, nor people upgrading systems that fast any more. Perhaps the Vista launch is the first to show the problem of such a dependency. Of course, that would mean that Windows 7 launch, if and when it comes, might be worse.
Ah…the better business model. Actually, the better business model would be that shown by Linux – leave the software building out of it and sell the support services.
Apple’s isn’t too different, but their product is more stable and better featured than Microsoft’s. Of course, Microsoft always aimed for the “just good enough” category, while Apple aimed for the niche markets, and “let’s make them awe” for every launch (at least under Steve Jobs).
The Linux community, for the most part, doesn’t care about the target audience; the distributors do – and they make their money on services, and thus indirectly on the actual product.
Microsoft is attempting this through the SAAS campaign – Software And [Software] Assurance Service. However, that still leaves the susceptible because they are still trying to sell the software, and thus need a big launch (as you mentioned) to be viable. It will fail, and eventually just be the services side; but Microsoft needs time to realize that.