Even Microsoft’s top execs ‘burned’ by Vista problems

“Private Microsoft emails unearthed during a US court case have revealed that even the software giant’s own executives struggled to get Windows Vista running smoothly,” Asher Moses reports or The Age.

“Early adopters of the operating system, which launched last year, battled with widespread hardware and software compatibility issues. Many PCs initially sold as ‘Vista Capable’ were unable to run some of Vista’s core features, sparking a class action lawsuit against Microsoft,” Moses reports.

“One executive, Mike Nash, complained he was ‘burned’ so badly by compatibility issues he was left with ‘a $2100 email machine,'” Moses reports.

“Steven Sinofsky, the Microsoft executive in charge of Windows, struggled to even get his home printer working with Vista. In an email to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in February last year, Sinofsky outlined reasons why Vista struggled at launch,” Moses reports. “He said hardware and software vendors never ‘really believed we would ever ship [Vista] so they didn’t start the work [on updated drivers] until very late in 2006.'”

“‘People who rely on using all the features of their hardware (like Jon’s Nikon scanner) will not see availability for some time, if ever, depending on the [manufacturer],” Sinofsky wrote,” Moses reports. “Ballmer responded with a terse “Righto.'”

Full article here.

Gregg Keizer reports for Computerworld, “Last-minute changes to Windows Vista broke drivers, forcing key hardware vendors to ‘limp out with issues’ when the operating system launched last year, according to a presentation by Dell Inc. that was made public this week. ‘Late OS code changes broke drivers and applications, forcing key commodities to miss launch or limp out with issues,’ said one slide in a Dell presentation dated March 25, 2007, about two months after Vista’s launch at retail and availability on new PCs.”

“In August 2005, Gretchen Miller, Dell’s director of mobile marketing — responsible for the Texas company’s laptop marketing — gave feedback to Microsoft on its Vista programs,” Keizer reports. “‘[The dual logo] adds another level of complexity to an already complex story, which in turn will create confusion for our customers, both corporate and consumer,’ said Miller in an e-mail. Although Dell advised Microsoft to scale back the logos, the software developer eventually went ahead with its plans for two stickers, one that announced a PC was ‘Vista Capable,’ the other advertising that the system was ‘Vista Premium Ready.'”

Full article here.

Tom Krazit reports for CNET, “As far back as 2005, Microsoft executives knew that confusing hardware requirements for the Windows Vista Capable program might get them in trouble. But they did it anyway–over the objection of PC makers–at the behest of Intel, according to e-mails released as part of a class-action lawsuit pending against Microsoft.”

Krazit reports, “A treasure trove of e-mails has been released as part of that case, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s Todd Bishop has spotlighted a number of e-mails that call into question whether Microsoft was acting, at least in part, on Intel’s behalf when it set the requirements for the Vista Capable marketing program.”

Full article, with links, here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Big Pete” and “Erik” for the heads up.]

MacDailyNews Take: The fact that Apple’s Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger runs on an old indigo iMac G3/400Mhz/192MB RAM circa 2000 with nearly all of the meaningful Aqua graphics intact (we do have to forgo the ripple when dropping Widgets on the Dashboard) while Vista can’t run its derivative, less productive, and obviously massively inefficient Aero graphics even on new PCs neatly highlights Apple’s insurmountable lead.

Of course, all tech leads are insurmountable when those distantly trailing only know how to copy the leader poorly, not innovate on their own.

People sometimes notice that old indigo iMac in the corner of our office and ask why we don’t get rid of it. Why should we? It only gets faster with each successive Mac OS X release.

[UPDATE: 5:35pm EST: Added excerpts from and link to CNET article. Fixed Take to reflect that Tiger is running on that old iMac, not Leopard. The point we are making remains exactly the same as Tiger’s UI easily exceeds that of Windows.]

[UPDATE: 9:12am EST: Removed reference to possible future install of Leopard on the old iMac as Leopard does not support G3 processors.]

57 Comments

  1. @OpJ,

    “So I guess we’ll never see in the MDN take that the numero uno problem at the root of the Vista Capable mess is the pathetic performance of the Intel integrated graphics that Apple’s consumer-level machines have depend upon since the switch.”

    Good point OpJ. The fact that my MacBook graphics run so smoothly under Leopard and an integrated graphics chip is a testament to the efficiency in  code.

  2. Vista sucks camel ass. ‘Nuff said. They are even LOWERING Vista’s price now, that says a LOT. I am SO GLAD I switched 9 years ago. Microsoft sucks massive ass. EVERYONE knows it. I have been spreading the word. Hope YOU are too.

  3. The wow starts now, as in “Wow! Dell is pissed at M$ over Vista.” A lot of the same details and the same players show up in the NYT story.

    Check it out:

    http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_002570DE00740E18002573FE006B7266.html

    M$ always burns their partners. Dell should have made them wear a jimmy hat. If you’re going to get screwed, you should at least practice safe sex.

    Peace.
    Olmecmystic ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />

  4. Leopard also runs fabulously great on my 12-inch, 1.5GHz G4 powerbook (1.25 GB RAM).

    <ib>Leopard’s minimum system requirements (according to Apple):</b>
    PowerPC G4 Processor (867MHz or faster)
    512 MB RAM
    9 GB available disk space

    For best performance, of course, one should install at least 1 GB of RAM on any Mac running OS X.

  5. I installed 10.5 on my revision A 867MHz 12″ Powerbook G4. A machine that just _barely_ edges under Apple’s minimum spec for 10.5, and the performance compared to 10.4 is terrible. —Jim R.

    How much RAM you got in that there powerbook, Jim? Every new version of OS X wants more RAM for optimum performance, and RAM is so dirt-cheap these days that there’s really no excuse for not adding more RAM to your Mac, old or new. No other upgrade gives as much bang for the buck.

  6. MDN-Take: “The fact that Apple’s Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger runs on an old blueberry iMac G3/400Mhz/192MB RAM circa 1999 … (we haven’t gotten around to installing Leopard on it, yet). The point we are making remains exactly the same.]”

    It is remarkable that you, MDN *cough*, are apparantly planning to install Leopard on that old G3 iMac, given that Leopard does not run on G3’s (see Apple’s minimum hardware requirements for Leopard).

    Some point you are making.

    I know, it is a long time ago when blind detestable apologism took over here from fact-based healthy fanboyism, but still. At least try to read up a bit more on Leopard before spouting of this kind of senseless dribble. You always go very aggressive and sometimes even plain hatefull against anyone who has even the tiniest tidbit wrong – in total cowardly anonymous fashion at that – but you yourself do not even know basic information at times.

    Hint: go to the Apple site once in a while, you may learn something. “Good journalism” you know, that lame excuse you always use when harassing othes for your precious ad-hits…

  7. ZuneTang says:

    The Intel integrated graphics on a MAC seriously compromises performance. And MACs have glossy screens. Glossy!

    Yes, sadly, Apple has copied something horrible from the PC side of the computing world. Glossy screens and integrated graphics.

    Along with the abortion of a two button mouse.

    Then comes along “BootCamp” like what the fsck does a Mac user ever need to install Windows for? What’s with the name “BootCamp” anyway? Some hidden meaning?

    Then I think, Apple is turning into a PC vendor.

    If Microsoft Vista was the “sh*t” OS to have, I suspect OS X would have died a quick and horrible death and Apple would have gone on like a Gateway or a Dell and licensed Vista.

    Unfortunatly Microsoft failed miserably with Vista, but Apple was definatly preparing to become a PC vendor.

    I know this for sure. Apple was ready to dump OS X for VIsta. Apple IS A HARDWARE COMPANY.

    If OS X didn’t cut the mustard and Vista did, Apple was prepared to change to stay in business.

    BUT THE FACT IS MICROSOFT DOESN’T HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO BEAT APPLE.

    M$ had a chance, they really did. They just fscked it up.

    Good for us. OS X lives!!!

  8. Mad Mac Maniac:

    I can assure you, as can many others I’m certain, that there was never any intention whatsoever for Apple to become a PC vendor. I think we all would have headed to Cupertino if that had ever occurred.

    Bootcamp, was and is, simply an added strategy to make those that were still a little confused about buying a Mac a little more comfortable with the switch. And it was a brilliant move at that, as there are many more people that have switched as a result, at least in the circles I’m in. It just makes people feel better to know they can also run the worlds worst OS on the same machine as the best OS. Period.

    And Apple is a hardware company, I would say the best there is, but if you can seriously look at their software accomplishments, and the industry standards they have created with them, the integration they have created across all their lines you really don’t know Apple at all. Not at all, my friend…

  9. Vista is bad because Microsoft was working on a thing called Longhorn for “a few” years. Then, when it became apparent that the planned Longhorn project would never get completed, Microsoft started over with the Windows Server 2003 codebase and began working on Vista as we know it today. Unfortunately, Microsoft could not delay it any longer, so it got cobbled together and tested during the last 18 months or so and pushed out the door.

    If Microsoft had worked on Windows XP version 2.0 in the first place, it would have been a much better (and probably earlier) release. It would have been Windows XP SP3 (that is being worked on now) with a few cosmetic changes. Apparently, that’s what long-time Windows suffers want.

  10. @ Mad Mac Maniac.

    OSX is the reason Apple has such a big advantage over every other hardware manufacturer. There aint a chance in hell that Apple would allow Microsoft’s dreadful operating system on it’s machines instead of OSX.

    To even suggest such a thing makes me think you don’t even use computers.

  11. MDN and its sheep…

    Are you stupid or just stoned??? You missed the whole point of MDN’s response stating 1999 Mac’s are still running some of the newest Mac OS when New Vista can’t even run on new PC’s let alone old PC’s. Also the fact that the iMac contains a PPC and not Intel chips, but it still works, amazing. Talk about sheep, you and your MSFT fanboys should open your eyes to what MDN reports and tries the level the field of anti-Apple articles with misinformation that spews from the mouths of those loser MSFT fans. Oh by the way, MDN does not preach that they are right all the time, I am sure you have made some mistakes too you shithead!

  12. Everywhere I go, people are saying,” I know someone who just got their first Mac.”

    It’s like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” One day we’ll wake up, and Vista will be irrelevant.

    I’ve already been snatched. It’s a better life.

  13. Apple! Glossy screens SUC!!!

    I can’t stand it anymore, these reflections from the overhead lights are GIVING ME HEADACHES!!!

    I’m going to thrown this glossy iMac right through the front door of Cupertino itself!!!

    SHITITITITI!!!

  14. @ Mad Mac

    I very much doubt Apple ever considered Windows. OSX was central to Job’s plans from day one in 1997. It has evolved into more than a OS for PCs.

    This bitching about glossy screens is pathetic. If it bothers you so much buy a glare screen.

  15. @ Guest 51… you should NEVER update if you’re going from one major OS release to the next: Tiger to Leopard.

    Yes, you CAN update it, but if you want a trouble-free experience over time, it’s best to:
    Backup
    ERASE and Install,
    Then have the Migration Assistant do it’s magic.

    YES, it takes some extra time, but your Mac… and ultimately YOU… will be happier for the effort.

    If you don’t believe me, check out http://www.macfixit.com for installation suggestions.

  16. Let’s not get too carried away with regards to how backward-compatible Leopard is. Apple eventually cuts off old hardware. It doesn’t much matter, though, since any Mac running any version of OSX can at least talk to any other Mac running OSX, sharing files and so on.

    What’s more significant is your mention of Vista’s inability to run properly even on newer machines. If you can’t even get smooth performance from new hardware, really, you don’t have ANYTHING. Vista clearly is just a major headache, causing many companies to choose simply not to install it at all. By contrast, most of the Mac installed base has by now moved over to some flavor of OSX.

    So, really, there are now 3 major platforms out there: There’s a Mac platform (with all OSX flavors and even System 9 playing nice together), a Windows platform (everything pre-Vista), and then there’s the Vista platform.

    The Windows platform is going to be, by necessity, abandoned by Microsoft. You might as well cite figures for OS9 – they’re just as meaningless. It’s an unsupported, dying or dead platform and it’s not going anywhere. So – the only meaningful platform-size figures now involve installed Vista machines vs. installed OSX (all flavors) machines.

    Using those parameters, it would be interesting to track the size of the OSX vs. Vista base. That’s what the real future of personal computing will look like.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.