They Criticized Vista. And They Should Know.

[Adrian Laguna]

They Criticized Vista. And They Should Know.

By RANDALL STROSS
Published: March 9, 2008

ONE year after the birth of Windows Vista, why do so many Windows XP users still decline to “upgrade”?

Microsoft says high prices have been the deterrent. Last month, the company trimmed prices on retail packages of Vista, trying to entice consumers to overcome their reluctance. In the United States, an XP user can now buy Vista Home Premium for $129.95, instead of $159.95.

An alternative theory, however, is that Vista’s reputation precedes it. XP users have heard too many chilling stories from relatives and friends about Vista upgrades that have gone badly. The graphics chip that couldn’t handle Vista’s whizzy special effects. The long delays as it loaded. The applications that ran at slower speeds. The printers, scanners and other hardware peripherals, which work dandily with XP, that lacked the necessary software, the drivers, to work well with Vista.

Can someone tell me again, why is switching XP for Vista an “upgrade”?

Here’s one story of a Vista upgrade early last year that did not go well. Jon, let’s call him, (bear with me — I’ll reveal his full identity later) upgrades two XP machines to Vista. Then he discovers that his printer, regular scanner and film scanner lack Vista drivers. He has to stick with XP on one machine just so he can continue to use the peripherals.

Did Jon simply have bad luck? Apparently not. When another person, Steven, hears about Jon’s woes, he says drivers are missing in every category — “this is the same across the whole ecosystem.”

Then there’s Mike, who buys a laptop that has a reassuring “Windows Vista Capable” logo affixed. He thinks that he will be able to run Vista in all of its glory, as well as favorite Microsoft programs like Movie Maker. His report: “I personally got burned.” His new laptop — logo or no logo — lacks the necessary graphics chip and can run neither his favorite video-editing software nor anything but a hobbled version of Vista. “I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine,” he says.

It turns out that Mike is clearly not a naïf. He’s Mike Nash, a Microsoft vice president who oversees Windows product management. And Jon, who is dismayed to learn that the drivers he needs don’t exist? That’s Jon A. Shirley, a Microsoft board member and former president and chief operating officer. And Steven, who reports that missing drivers are anything but exceptional, is in a good position to know: he’s Steven Sinofsky, the company’s senior vice president responsible for Windows.

Their remarks come from a stream of internal communications at Microsoft in February 2007, after Vista had been released as a supposedly finished product and customers were paying full retail price. Between the nonexistent drivers and PCs mislabeled as being ready for Vista when they really were not, Vista instantly acquired a reputation at birth: Does Not Play Well With Others.

We usually do not have the opportunity to overhear Microsoft’s most senior executives vent their personal frustrations with Windows. But a lawsuit filed against Microsoft in March 2007 in United States District Court in Seattle has pried loose a packet of internal company documents. The plaintiffs, Dianne Kelley and Kenneth Hansen, bought PCs in late 2006, before Vista’s release, and contend that Microsoft’s “Windows Vista Capable” stickers were misleading when affixed to machines that turned out to be incapable of running the versions of Vista that offered the features Microsoft was marketing as distinctive Vista benefits.

Last month, Judge Marsha A. Pechman granted class-action status to the suit, which is scheduled to go to trial in October. (Microsoft last week appealed the certification decision.)

Anyone who bought a PC that Microsoft labeled “Windows Vista Capable” without also declaring “Premium Capable” is now a party in the suit. The judge also unsealed a cache of 200 e-mail messages and internal reports, covering Microsoft’s discussions of how best to market Vista, beginning in 2005 and extending beyond its introduction in January 2007. The documents incidentally include those accounts of frustrated Vista users in Microsoft’s executive suites.

Today, Microsoft boasts that there are twice as many drivers available for Vista as there were at its introduction, but performance and graphics problems remain. (When I tried last week to contact Mr. Shirley and the others about their most recent experiences with Vista, David Bowermaster, a Microsoft spokesman, said that no one named in the e-mail messages could be made available for comment because of the continuing lawsuit.)

The messages were released in a jumble, but when rearranged into chronological order, they show a tragedy in three acts.

Act 1: In 2005, Microsoft plans to say that only PCs that are properly equipped to handle the heavy graphics demands of Vista are “Vista Ready.”

Act 2: In early 2006, Microsoft decides to drop the graphics-related hardware requirement in order to avoid hurting Windows XP sales on low-end machines while Vista is readied. (A customer could reasonably conclude that Microsoft is saying, Buy Now, Upgrade Later.) A semantic adjustment is made: Instead of saying that a PC is “Vista Ready,” which might convey the idea that, well, it is ready to run Vista, a PC will be described as “Vista Capable,” which supposedly signals that no promises are made about which version of Vista will actually work.

The decision to drop the original hardware requirements is accompanied by considerable internal protest. The minimum hardware configuration was set so low that “even a piece of junk will qualify,” Anantha Kancherla, a Microsoft program manager, said in an internal e-mail message among those recently unsealed, adding, “It will be a complete tragedy if we allowed it.”

Act 3: In 2007, Vista is released in multiple versions, including “Home Basic,” which lacks Vista’s distinctive graphics. This placed Microsoft’s partners in an embarrassing position. Dell, which gave Microsoft a postmortem report that was also included among court documents, dryly remarked: “Customers did not understand what ‘Capable’ meant and expected more than could/would be delivered.”

All was foretold. In February 2006, after Microsoft abandoned its plan to reserve the Vista Capable label for only the more powerful PCs, its own staff tried to avert the coming deluge of customer complaints about underpowered machines. “It would be a lot less costly to do the right thing for the customer now,” said Robin Leonard, a Microsoft sales manager, in an e-mail message sent to her superiors, “than to spend dollars on the back end trying to fix the problem.”

Now that Microsoft faces a certified class action, a judge may be the one who oversees the fix. In the meantime, where does Microsoft go to buy back its lost credibility?

Heh, even Microsoft executives are having trouble with it.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Meanwhile, I've been using Vista for the last week or so with barely a hitch.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Then there’s Mike, who buys a laptop that has a reassuring “Windows Vista Capable” logo affixed. He thinks that he will be able to run Vista in all of its glory, as well as favorite Microsoft programs like Movie Maker. His report: “I personally got burned.” His new laptop — logo or no logo — lacks the necessary graphics chip and can run neither his favorite video-editing software nor anything but a hobbled version of Vista. “I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine,” he says.

It turns out that Mike is clearly not a naïf. He’s Mike Nash, a Microsoft vice president who oversees Windows product management.

Ouch .

Isn't there a separate lawsuit against INtel going on about the whole mislabeling thing as well?
ars, among others

[Molyneux]

As much as I personally dislike it, UNIX and its variants are looking more appealing all the damn time...

[RThurmont]

There's nothing wrong with UNIX or its variants at present IMO, depending on what you're trying to do. For that matter, Vista is really suffering due to some poor decisions Microsoft made, but IMO is not really any worse than XP. I prefer Vista to Mac OS X.

[White Haven]

Vista's got exactly the same problems XP had when it came out. The difference is that it's not competing with Windows ME this time.

[Dominus Atheos]

Bunch of fucking retards.

In what magical universe does a sticker saying Designed for Windows XP Vista Capable mean "will do absolutely everything in windows Vista"?

I mean, my computer will meet the min specs for Crysis, but won't play it with the graphics turned all the way up. Anyone want to guess how fast I'd be laughed off of the internet (and out of court) if I tried to start a class action lawsuit against Crytek?

Oh noes, I can't turn the shinies all the way up, I'm going to sue! Like I said, What a bunch of fucking retards.

[Zixinus]

I think that Microsoft is learning the hard way that just releasing a new OS will not automatically mean that people will buy it just because its new. Or the idea that you can shove only so much crap down the costumer's throat.

Yes, Vista has a whole lot of new features. Most of which people don't really need. How many games even use DX10 for example?

[Joviwan]

Yes, Vista has a whole lot of new features. Most of which people don't really need. How many games even use DX10 for example?

Oh, oh, I know! It's up to.. to... it's up to four now, right?

DX10 is probably one of the lamest pieces of "monopoly flex" I've seen. Or, at least, that I can remember. it's hard to think of anything else while I rue the stupidity.

[Lazarus]

What annoys me, as a happy Vista user who has experienced no problems whatsoever, is that I hear people going on about how 'Vista sux!' etc, when they're not really sure why it sucks, just that lots of people are saying it does. Just today, I had someone look at me aghast for being a happy Vista user; apparently they weren't aware that if you have a high-end computer you can in fact experience no problems whatsoever.

[Joviwan]

I've had all sorts of problems with my Vista laptop. I have an ASUS F3JP, with a built in radeon mobility x1700.

ASUS offers in-house drivers for all of their products, exclusively of anyone else, including video, sound, webcam, all these basic things that are built in to the laptop.

For one, the laptop shipped with 1 gig or RAM, with Windows Vista Home Premium, and it was marketed as a gaming laptop. One gig.. I call that failure #1.

Failure #2 is that the video drivers provided by ASUS are basic functionality only, are not anywhere NEAR up to date with ATI standards, and, oh yes, don't provide OpenGL support. On a "gaming laptop." Considering that about 70% of all PC games are based on iD engines, that's sort of inconviencing.

Failure #3 is that ATI cannot provide efficent, up to date drivers for their Mobility GPUs because of contractual obligations with the laptop OEMs. After a while, they were able to produce 'generic' Radeon drivers for their mobility GPUs, but they lacked the features or efficiencies of their normal desktop drivers.

Failure #4 is that these generic GPU drivers aren't compatible with the Mobility Radeon x1700. That specific card was not supported in their Vista edition of the generic drivers.

So basically, I had to download a Driver hacking utility and modify my own goddamn drivers, based on the desktop radeon drivers, so I could play games on my gaming laptop.

For the record, i did try installing Windows XP. After two reformats and installations that both resulted in system failure, I had to go back to Vista. Now that I have Vista working and functional for my everday needs, however, I am actually fairly happy with it. Well, now, at any rate, because I recently turned off Superfetch and upgraded to 2 gigs of ram, which exponentially increased system performance.

[El Moose Monstero]

What annoys me, as a happy Vista user who has experienced no problems whatsoever, is that I hear people going on about how 'Vista sux!' etc, when they're not really sure why it sucks, just that lots of people are saying it does. Just today, I had someone look at me aghast for being a happy Vista user; apparently they weren't aware that if you have a high-end computer you can in fact experience no problems whatsoever.

Erm, "can" being the operative word. I've got a high end system and I'm still not shaking off issues between my nVidia graphics card and vista, even after a new patch and hotfixes. I'm not entirely sure my wireless card is happy either and I have to wonder how much computer power is being used just so it can bump me back to desktop running a game or program that it has decided can't cope with aero (which I know I should just turn off really). Given the chance to start again with my PC, I'd stick with XP. There's nothing on Vista which has actually done me any particular benefit compared to it. Sure, with the exception of the issues above, it's not done me any massive harm either, but that's not really the point.

[Molyneux]

What annoys me, as a happy Vista user who has experienced no problems whatsoever, is that I hear people going on about how 'Vista sux!' etc, when they're not really sure why it sucks, just that lots of people are saying it does. Just today, I had someone look at me aghast for being a happy Vista user; apparently they weren't aware that if you have a high-end computer you can in fact experience no problems whatsoever.

Yes, because everyone wants to shell out the cash for a high-end computer that will lose said title within a matter of weeks.

Many computer games are luxury items, and thus designing them for the top-end systems makes a lot of sense. A fucking operating system is about as far from luxury as you can get.

[apocolypse]

Meh. While I know that there are problems with Vista and people loathe it, I haven't had any issues.

[Ace Pace]

Considering that about 70% of all PC games are based on iD engines, that's sort of inconviencing.

What kind of fantasy world straight of 2003 are you living in?

[General Zod]

What annoys me, as a happy Vista user who has experienced no problems whatsoever, is that I hear people going on about how 'Vista sux!' etc, when they're not really sure why it sucks, just that lots of people are saying it does. Just today, I had someone look at me aghast for being a happy Vista user; apparently they weren't aware that if you have a high-end computer you can in fact experience no problems whatsoever.

Ahem.

Then there’s Mike, who buys a laptop that has a reassuring “Windows Vista Capable” logo affixed. He thinks that he will be able to run Vista in all of its glory, as well as favorite Microsoft programs like Movie Maker. His report: “I personally got burned.” His new laptop — logo or no logo — lacks the necessary graphics chip and can run neither his favorite video-editing software nor anything but a hobbled version of Vista. “I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine,” he says.

Remind me again what kind of low-end laptop goes for $2,100? Unless you're seriously suggesting that people should have to have top of the line hardware to run programs the last generation OS could do with ease on the exact same hardware.

[Joviwan]

Considering that about 70% of all PC games are based on iD engines, that's sort of inconviencing.

What kind of fantasy world straight of 2003 are you living in?

I'm prone to bouts of disgustingly gross amounts of exageration (I prefer the term "hyperbole"), but the fact is, there is a verysignificant portion of PC games running on openGL specific engines. I was just using the iD engines as an example because, until Doom 3, I believe, their 3d engines were pretty much openGL only. Considering the proflic use of the Quake engines (Quake 3, team arena, jedi outcast, jedi academy, call of duties, medals of honor, original halflife, Wolfenstien, etc., so on and so forth) in games that people are still actively playing, I thought it was good catchall that would properly communicate my disdain at not having openGL support.

[Mobius]

What annoys me, as a happy Vista user who has experienced no problems whatsoever, is that I hear people going on about how 'Vista sux!' etc, when they're not really sure why it sucks, just that lots of people are saying it does. Just today, I had someone look at me aghast for being a happy Vista user; apparently they weren't aware that if you have a high-end computer you can in fact experience no problems whatsoever.

Ahem.

Then there’s Mike, who buys a laptop that has a reassuring “Windows Vista Capable” logo affixed. He thinks that he will be able to run Vista in all of its glory, as well as favorite Microsoft programs like Movie Maker. His report: “I personally got burned.” His new laptop — logo or no logo — lacks the necessary graphics chip and can run neither his favorite video-editing software nor anything but a hobbled version of Vista. “I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine,” he says.

Remind me again what kind of low-end laptop goes for $2,100? Unless you're seriously suggesting that people should have to have top of the line hardware to run programs the last generation OS could do with ease on the exact same hardware.

in my personnal case, with my run of tthe mill 18months old Thinkpad (CD 1.83Ghz, X1400) which cost me 1300USD is running Vista nice and doesn't have any problem running BF2142, C&C3 (by no mean resources hog but no minesweeper either)
if it's a ultra-laptop as the price may suggest, there is a fat chance that the IGP sucks, the HDD sucks and even if it worked, i'll bitch about graphics effect sucking the life of the battery.

[Ace Pace]

Considering that about 70% of all PC games are based on iD engines, that's sort of inconviencing.

What kind of fantasy world straight of 2003 are you living in?

I'm prone to bouts of disgustingly gross amounts of exageration (I prefer the term "hyperbole"), but the fact is, there is a verysignificant portion of PC games running on openGL specific engines. I was just using the iD engines as an example because, until Doom 3, I believe, their 3d engines were pretty much openGL only. Considering the proflic use of the Quake engines (Quake 3, team arena, jedi outcast, jedi academy, call of duties, medals of honor, original halflife, Wolfenstien, etc., so on and so forth) in games that people are still actively playing, I thought it was good catchall that would properly communicate my disdain at not having openGL support.

It's also wrong. There are many applications today that use OpenGL outside of games, but inside games it's fast becoming a niche market. The modern MEdal of Honours, CoDs and what not are all based on DirectX.

[Joviwan]

I'll concede market significance, but I'd like to say that niche still has a signficant user base. There are still plenty of people playing those games I mentioned, in addition to a myriad of others from the same technology or time period, and searching for online servers will generally always give you results. I fully expect to be able to play my old games on my PC as I continue to upgrade and replace it with brand new hardware. A new OS that ostensibly asserts itself to be compatible with your existing equipment and software shouldn't need the amount of tweaking and research that my Vista experience neccessitated to give me my previous functionality, though to take it a little easier on microsoft, it was largely ASUS's bass-ackwards hardware support that made it a problem.

[Beowulf]

I've had a Vista install for the past year, with relatively little problems (only two of note are that it won't sleep properly, and until SP1, the nyetwork would randomly fail to communicate with anything that didn't already have a connection open). Every other problem has been relatively inconsequential, and often was the result of third-party drivers, not MS itself. I've also not upgraded the system in a year now (with the exception of a HDD replacement).

The entire "Vista Capable" mess can probably be laid fairly firmly at Intel's feet for wanting 915 chipsets to be labeled such, and MS caving. It was a 2 year old chipset at that point.

[Zixinus]

Aren't drivers and hardware support always a problem for new OSs? Didn't XP had to go with similar shit like this?

[Molyneux]

Aren't drivers and hardware support always a problem for new OSs? Didn't XP had to go with similar shit like this?

Let me spell it out: any system released with the expectation of significant bugs is a bad system.

[Resinence]

Microsofts mistake was leaving Vista too long, during all those years of delays they managed to work almost all kinks out of XP, and still had several years left over during which people become accustomed to an OS with almost zero bugs. Staying with XP forever sounds nice, but XP has been through 2 huge SP's already, once of which completely retrofitted the security stuff. There is only so far you can patch something before it's better to start again. Just look at AHCI and Dual Core support in XP (though most never notice), the patch that "fixes" it just bolts on better timer support, the scheduler still sucks. How far do people expect them to bolt shit on to it? At some stage you need to write a new kernel, millions of lines of code...and people expect it for free in a service pack. To be honest, of all the machines I have put vista on, the only ones that have run worse are more than 4 years old. I find the whole XP Luddite movement hilarious, if MS drops vista and tries to retrofit proper HPET/AHCI/Dual Core/DX10/EFI/WDM/the new vista sound system/UAC support into XP it will introduce hundreds of new bugs into the precious "stable" OS, and they would have to replace so many files it would just become vista anyway (and thats what vista is, really, XP brought up to date for new hardware and with a new kernel to support said hardware).

Upgrading an XP machine is stupid, but at some point your not going to be gaining and performance by running XP due to the hacks and work arounds to get everything working.

Crysis
Gears of War
Lost Planet
Bioshock
Call of Juaraz
Assassins Creed
Hellgate: London
Universe at war
World in Conflict
Company of Heroes
Flight Simulator X
LoTR Online
*Any low/high budget games at all running under UE3*
Eve Online
Frontlines: Fuel of War
Jericho

Not bad for a new standard thats only been out a year, since games take longer than that to develop. I'm not saying DX10 is jesus or whatever, but there is some big releases on that list. "Lol not being used" doesn't fly anymore.

And DX10 is not a nothing number to market vista, it adds support for shader model 4, which allows some nice effects (128 bit HDRRendering...finally). As well as 10.1 adding support for multisampled anti-aliasing under games that use deferred renderer's (UE3 engine, a few others, but you need a 10.1 card, 9 series).

[Enigma]

Isn't Vista just a stop gap for the next Windows OS that is due to come out next year? Or is my info out of date? If it is true I'll probably wait out until next year.

Question. Is Vista an all new OS or just an upgraded OS like ME was to 98?