Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dell Documents Reveal Microsoft's Pre-launch Vista Errors

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the don't-change-horses-midstream dept.

Microsoft 220

twitter writes "The New York Times has a piercing analysis of documents from the Vista capable lawsuit. The documents show that Microsoft seems to have put a wrench in Vista's driver situation only at the last minute. '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.' We have all heard the lazy vendors don't believe Vista will launch excuses but few of us have heard Steven Sinofsky, chief of Windows development, second and third opinions. 'Massive changes in the underpinnings for video and audio really led to a poor experience at RTM,' he said. 'This change led to incompatibilities. For example, you don't get Aero with an XP driver, but your card might not (ever) have a Vista driver.' Finally, said Sinofsky, other changes in Vista blocked Windows XP drivers altogether. 'This is across the board for printers, scanners, WAN, accessories and so on. Many of the associated applets don't run within the constraints of the security model or the new video/audio driver models.'

cancel ×

220 comments

Hasn't MS always done things like this? (1, Informative)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628204)

Par for the course for Microsoft I think. If my memory serves me well.

Re:Hasn't MS always done things like this? (0, Offtopic)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628338)

That this is at least the second dupe of this story might be why it's so fresh in your memory...

Yes, this is a new example of old behavior. (3, Informative)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628866)

The NYT coverage and their analysis are both news from the Vista capable dissaster. With a jerk around like that, it's no wonder that the whole industry has revolted [slashdot.org] and it's nice to see the word getting out to a wider audience via papers like the NYT. Their analysis is also interesting, though I'd love to see where "Otter" beat them to the punch. Didn't happen did it?

Here are some older examples of the same kinds of behavior:

  • Apple and Lotus 123 [slashdot.org]
  • The DRDOS Case, 1991 [kickassgear.com] . Court proved malice and PR lies to cover it.
  • Backup software. There's a reason it's hard to back up M$ systems.
  • OS/2 [essential.org] , software they helped make and then killed because it was better than what they owned.
  • Netscape, 1995. Court proved malice and lies to cover it. People still claim Mozilla suffers from "memory leaks".
  • Word Perfect. Another victim of the DOS/Win3.1
  • Audio players, software [slashdot.org] and hardware [theregister.co.uk]

The list goes on and on. On the chopping block today are ODF, Linux distros, AV makers and a host of competitors that just won't die like iPod, Play Station and Mozilla. The only way out is to avoid Windows and stay away from M$ and other non free software vendors. The further away you are, the better off you are.

Re:Hasn't MS always done things like this? (2, Informative)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629184)

actually it's not. The previous version was from internal Microsoft memo's. This one is from Dell.

This means even the vendors putting Vista ?Ready sticker son computers knew those computes wouldn't run Vista all that well.

But why? (5, Interesting)

microbee (682094) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628244)

I am wondering what went wrong to force Microsoft to change kernel and break drivers at the last minute. Because of a design flaw that compromised security? Or DRM?

Re:But why? (2, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628276)

I wouldn't be surprised if holes were found in the DRM and had to be patched up at the last minute.

Re:But why? (3, Informative)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628446)

Could we please stop trolling about this? The copy protection on Vista is about the same as XP. The support for existing DRM-protected media is the same if not better; that does NOT force DRM on you, just allows you to use media that some video bigwig thought needs the protection - if it weren't supported at all because MS tried to take a stance against it, then we'd just be complaining about the lack of support. DRM is not magically added to your existing media, though I expect the stupid default behavior dating back to WMP9 if not earlier to add copy protection to ripped CDs remains (as I use neither XP nor Vista, I can't comment for sure).

If you're going to complain about Microsoft and DRM, do it with the 360, which apparently was patched to require HDCP over HDMI for games - absolutely senseless in every sense of the word, and entirely their fault. Vista is no different from XP in the fact that the OS has its own relatively ineffective copy protection, and is compatible with DRM-laden media.

Re:But why? (4, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628654)

Purely second-hand, but...

My father does a lot of video work, and any time he tries to access or move a video file he has crazy wait times while Vista chews on something.

What the hell changed between XP, which he has since gone back to using, and Vista that so radically changed the handling of video files? From his reading on various websites (none of which I can vouch for) the OS is checking for some sort of signatures in the files to figure out if he has permission to perform the selected task.

I have no idea if this is true or not, but either way, he had to ditch Vista and return to XP in order to do things like edit the video he shoots of conferences and events.

So the DRM issue has at least some anecdotal evidence in its favor. Either that or Vista is completely incapable of handling files over a certain size with any sort of grace.

Re:But why? (5, Informative)

wampus (1932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628674)

Turn off thumbnail generation. The DRM is only used for playback of protected files.

Re:But why? (2, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628826)

We've seen numerous problems with file handling in Vista, and nothing to suggest they were DRM-related. Very large files and large quantities have both proven problematic. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest it's related to the intended use and then removal of WinFS, but I don't have anything to back that.

Anyways, signatures don't give you permission to deal with files, they just state their origins. No different than in real life - stuff with my signature on it passed by me. Embedded metadata, of sorts. With DRM, you've got an encrypted version of the file wrapped with a few bytes that provide enough information to decrypt the data with the right credentials. A lock and locker, basically (except the locker is made of hardened semen from Zeus and the lock is a hundred-rotation, thousand number jobbie so brute forcing it would take an unfathomably long time).

So again, let's not attempt to blame everything on DRM. Most of Vista's faults result from standard Redmond incompetence.

Re:But why? (1)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628716)

So, why then is Vista so much slower then XP even with all the extra eye-candy and features turned off? Either MS can't program a decent OS which could be true, or there is some hidden thing going on such as DRM or WGA. So there are two logical choices, MS can't program so don't use Vista or MS is using DRM so don't use Vista either way, Vista is a failure of an OS and you must agree with that.

As for lack of support, where else are the media companies going to go if MS says no to DRM? People aren't going to take "No support for PCs" as an answer with Blu-Ray boasting a 50 gig capacity for storage. It isn't like the media companies are going to abandon MS for Apple, as it seems to be the perpetual underdog (and honestly I don't think Apple would be doing too well if it wasn't) and as for Linux it would be cracked in a matter of minutes, so the answer would be little to no DRM. Even if it was a third-party application that was required to view movies, at least MS would support its customers in saying no to it.

Re:But why? (5, Interesting)

mickwd (196449) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628858)

"So, why then is Vista so much slower then XP even with all the extra eye-candy and features turned off?"

Not sure, but I found the following, from Microsoft themselves, astounding:

From the Visual Studio 2005 Service Pack 1 Release Notes [microsoft.com] :

Installation Issues - Windows Vista

Setup dialog box fails to appear:
The verification that occurs under User Account Control (UAC) with all installations delays the appearance of the initial setup dialog box. Delays of more than one hour have been reported.

Re:But why? (2, Interesting)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629050)

There's actually a pretty good reason for that. The sevice pack is not a typical service pack. It's a patch. It patches existing files, rather than replacing them. It can take upwards of an hour because it has to verify that all files are patchable before it begins the process, then it backs up your files, does transactioning so that if something goes wrong it can rollback and not leave a semi-functioning installation.. all that is very intensive, particularly because VS2005 is several Gigabytes in size for everything.

They could have made it a lot faster, but it wouldn't have been as robust in failure conditions.

Re:But why? (3, Insightful)

void* (20133) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629288)

It may have to verify all the files are patchable, but it most certainly does not have to do that before it displays the dialog box. Normally something like that would be done with a progress bar inside a dialog box.

There is no good reason to not give the user an indication of what is going on. If the system design requires that, then the system design is faulty. Faulty system design is not a 'good reason'.

Re:But why? (2, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628990)

As for lack of support, where else are the media companies going to go if MS says no to DRM? People aren't going to take "No support for PCs" as an answer with Blu-Ray boasting a 50 gig capacity for storage.

That's my whole point. If MS blocked all DRM from existing in Vista, they would only be harming themselves. Media companies would take the "fuck you, we still have standalone players" (and lots of them) approach, and would-be customers would whine continually that they can't play back tons of media. As it was, the media companies made certain demands, and you can't reasonably blame MS for not wanting to kill off their entire media center thing, especially with the install base of the 360 and its functionality as a media center extender. Take your pick. Everyone at Slashdot is all too busy compiling the latest Linux kernel to be bothered with MS software anyways, and is only posting to kill some time :)

The storage aspect is irrelevant. DRM is on movies, not the discs themselves. It's not like I'm adding CSS protection to my DVD backups. Why on earth would Blu-Ray change that?

Re:But why? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628738)

Could we please stop trolling about this? The copy protection on Vista is about the same as XP.
Yes, can we please stop trolling and claiming that the Vista DRM is "just like XP"? Because it is not and anyone who has used the OS knows that.

First off, it's well known that the redone video and audio drivers were required for the new DRM. That right there is a change: pre-Vista, the OS wasn't designed explicitly for DRM. Now it is.

Secondly, the new designs shave a good 10%-50% off performance. Audio acceleration is gone. EAX effects are no longer possible. Recording the audio output of programs is no longer possible. All in the name of DRM.

ALL layers are now encrypted. This, not surprisingly, slows down the OS. By a lot. It also greatly reduces battery life. Where before, playing a music file might involve a single decryption step to send the data to the audio player, it now must be re-encrypted before being sent to the card, then re-decrypted before being converted to analog. All because an enterprising user might otherwise snoop on the bus to "steal" the audio data.

In short, Vista is 10%-50% slower solely to allow for DRM. The kernel was redesigned with DRM in mind, not user experience. Battery life was halved in extreme cases - again, solely for DRM.

It's not trolling, there are simple facts that have been exposed time and time again. Look it up on Google. Vista is much, much, much worse than XP when it comes to DRM.

Re:But why? MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22629036)

Fuck micro$oft and all their moderation drones here!

Re:But why? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22629370)

The new video and audio drivers have nothing to do with DRM. The new driver stacks are both moved to user-space from kernel-space so that a failure will not bring down the OS. Audio acceleration is gone because audio drivers are not permitted to access kernel resources directly, which prevents EAX, but also prevents them from causing a BSOD.

No layers are encrypted. The only encryption/decryption applies to protected media, which is already encrypted and requires decryption. If the media is not protected there are NO encryption or decryption steps. The system works exactly as it did in XP.

Vista is not 10%-50% slower. The kernel wasn't redesigned at all, let alone for DRM. Vista uses largely the same kernel that David Cutler took five years to design 15 years ago. Microsoft doesn't rip out and rewrite kernels for shits and giggles.

Battery life is decreased due to Aero, not DRM. More intensive usage of the GPU drains power resourcs. When not playing protected WMV, HD-DVD or BluRay, DRM isn't in use at all. This DRM is required to display HD-DVD or BluRay on a computer; no OS is immune, legally. Either Microsoft supports it, or Microsoft can kiss all high-def media good-bye.

It is trolling because your "simple facts" are not facts at all, regardless of how many times shit-eating fucktards like yourself keep posting it to forums so that they become Google hits. Repeat it as often as you want it does not become true.

Re:But why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628764)

The support for existing DRM-protected media is the same if not better; that does NOT force DRM on you,
They are forcing future DRM on you. Your being misleading.

Microsoft will provide technology in the core architecture of Windows Vista to secure "premium content flow," said John Paddleford, a lead program manager in the Windows Digital Media Division of Microsoft, in an interview Wednesday. This type of content is from sources such as cable and high-definition DVD (HDVD).

This secure technology will reside in the Protected Media Path (PMP), which will enable high-definition media to flow securely from its origination point through the operating system to whatever an end point, such as a high-definition TV screen or other media output device, Paddleford said.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/08/31/HNmsvideo_1.html [infoworld.com]

Re:But why? (2, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628808)

The support for existing DRM-protected media is the same if not better; that does NOT force DRM on you, just allows you to use media that some video bigwig thought needs the protection - if it weren't supported at all because MS tried to take a stance against it, then we'd just be complaining about the lack of support. DRM is not magically added to your existing media, though I expect the stupid default behavior dating back to WMP9 if not earlier to add copy protection to ripped CDs remains (as I use neither XP nor Vista, I can't comment for sure).


What is the point of this statement? It is completely unrelated to this discussion. A strawman.

The assertion here is that backwards compatibility support for XP drivers was broken in order to eliminate a DRM exploit. In other words, they're not saying that DRM is forced on you, or unsupported. They're saying *drivers* are unsupported in order to have better DRM support. They may have preferentially chosen to break support for their customer's hardware to pander to the media distribution industry.

Re:But why? (2, Insightful)

tomthegeek (1145233) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628824)

if it weren't supported at all because MS tried to take a stance against it, then we'd just be complaining about the lack of support.

I'm sure that if MS dropped DRM support there would be an uprising the likes of which have not been seen since /. deleted the Scientology post.

Are you serious?

Re:But why? (2, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629008)

Yes, I mean Jesus Christ, can you imagine how mad I would be if playing back an simple audio file didn't eat up 15% of my CPU (up from 0.5% in XP)? I know I might lose the ability to play back HD movies that I can't play back anyway because media companies still don't trust me.

Re:But why? (4, Insightful)

rhdaly (1072244) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629098)

The support for existing DRM-protected media is the same if not better; that does NOT force DRM on you, just allows you to use media that some video bigwig thought needs the protection - if it weren't supported at all because MS tried to take a stance against it, then we'd just be complaining about the lack of support.

You've got it backwards. If Microsoft never supported the DRM, the RIAA and MPAA wouldn't have put it on the disks, because of the lack of support. It's not the customers that would be complaining, it's the "media partners." And those bastards? They can have some cheese with their whine.

Re:But why? (1)

chgros (690878) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629314)

if it weren't supported at all because MS tried to take a stance against it, then we'd just be complaining about the lack of support
If it wasn't supported by Windows, they wouldn't do it. As you may be aware, Windows is a very large proportion of the market.

Not forced, no technical reason (4, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628362)

You can always provide some sort of compatability environment for drivers. There is no reason why they did not provide an XP driver support mechanism.

If ndiswrapper can run XP drivers in Linux, then surely MS could have run XP drivers with no problems at all.

Re:Not forced, no technical reason (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628488)

I don't understand it either. Why not build a wrapper and sandbox it? If there are security concerns, that ought to solve it. Sure, it might rob some performance, but on a bloated monster like Vista with its processor and RAM hunger, I can't imagine that this would have wrecked the experience that much.

You know, everyone goes around saying "open source only copies, never innovates" and yet you have an (admittedly kludgy) solution to the problem of driver availability that have been forced by uncooperative hardware vendors that does work and does allow older hardware to function. Microsoft has all the kernel sources at their disposal and doesn't have to reverse engineer to get something like ndiswrapper running, and yet instead they shut out a lot of older hardware in one fell swoop.

There just doesn't seem to be much logic to what Redmond does. I can understand the vampiric murderous monopoly that wants to destroy any and all competition, but the design choices they make are bizarre. It's not as if Windows is some elegant masterpiece that they don't want to clutter kludges to keep older things running. Christ, the operating system has been like that since Windows 95.

The really sad thing is that it is closed source, so no one will ever be able to create that sort of an environment to get this hardware working.

Re:Not forced, no technical reason (2, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629120)

There just doesn't seem to be much logic to what Redmond does.
that's the beauty of a monopoly- there doesn't need to be any logic- the users will be forced to use it anyway.

Re:Not forced, no technical reason (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628550)

You can always provide some sort of compatability environment for drivers. There is no reason why they did not provide an XP driver support mechanism.

Um, besides it's extra engineering that they have to do. And given the types of drivers they are talking about -- e.g. audio drivers, which ran in the kernel in XP but are now largely pushed into userspace in Vista -- a good bit of engineering.

Yes, ndiswrapper exists. However, if it's so reasonable to expect MS to provide a compatibility layer, where are the wrappers for other kinds of drivers? Where's the wrapper that lets me run my TV Tuner card in Linux?

Re:Not forced, no technical reason (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628582)

First of all, FOSS developers often have to reverse engineer the Win32 driver model to create something like ndiswrapper, and it's pretty amazing what they can do. I'd love to see more compatibility layers so that uncooperative manufacturers can be bypassed.

Microsoft doesn't have this particular problem. They do have the XP kernel sources in hand, and for them building a compatibility layer would be much much easier than for some FOSS developer. And why shouldn't Microsoft? They're the ones pushing this bloody operating system.

Re:Not forced, no technical reason (2, Interesting)

spisska (796395) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628830)

Yes, ndiswrapper exists. However, if it's so reasonable to expect MS to provide a compatibility layer, where are the wrappers for other kinds of drivers? Where's the wrapper that lets me run my TV Tuner card in Linux?

Chances are there is no wrapper because the tuner is already supported natively by ivtv (for hardware-encoding MPEG-2 cards) or v4l (for framegrabber cards).

If your card isn't supported, blame the manufacturer and get a supported card instead. I recommend the Hauppage PVR-x50/500 series for SD and the HDHomerun [silicondust.com] for HD -- QAM or ATSC.

Re:Not forced, no technical reason (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629106)

It isn't supported, at least last I looked. I chose the card because it had the best quality in the price range at the time of purchase.

And yes, I blame ATI. However, whoever's fault it is doesn't change the fact that I can't use my TV tuner in Linux. I don't really use it anymore anyway, but for quite some time this was actually a very annoying thing.

summary is confusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628786)

The "massive changes" Sinovsky refers to aren't the last minute changes Dell is referring to, but the overall changes in Vista from the getgo.

Link to original (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628258)

http://slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/197498 [slashdot.org]

In case anyone wants to enjoy the usual "M$ Windoze" grade school creative spelling that the /. editor had to remove.

please tag article 'clusterfuck' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628262)

'clusterfuck'

thank you.

Security (5, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628264)

Many of the associated applets don't run within the constraints of the security model or the new video/audio driver models.

When rebuilding a system from the ground up for security, these issues need to be hashed out first. The fact that the security and driver models were changing significantly shortly before launch is a sign of bad design. Or at the very least horrible project management. If Vista was in the works for over 5 years, and it was designed properly from the start, 3rd parties should have had plenty of time (years) to conform to new models.

Re:Security (3, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628356)

Sorry, I disagree. The design had a flaw, but that doesn't mean the design overall is bad, nor does it indicate "horrible project management." People make mistakes, people miss things. Sorry, it happens, but to act like YOU would never have it happen to you is pretty silly. No one is perfect.

Re:Security (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628542)

We're not talking about the odd video card or printer. We're talking about shutting out a lot of older hardware, and then, rather than admitting a fuck up, basically blaming the manufacturers (though I'm sure there's plenty of blame to heap there).

The fact of the matter, and this is only getting driven home ever more with these revelations, is that Vista was released prematurely, before adequate time to test and correct various issues could be taken. Microsoft and the manufacturers needed to get this beta operating system to market to try to force new computer purchases. The unholy OEM alliance between the big manufacturers and Microsoft is coming home to roost.

Not only that, but it's a gas to watch the chaos that surrounded the final months before Vista's premature birth.

Re:Security (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628598)

I don't know where you work but if you were developing on a project that was going to be deployed to over 100+ Million workstations for a multi-billion dollar company and I was getting paid in the ball park they are getting paid in well you can put the rest together.

Re:Security (2, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628700)

If you don't notice a significant flaw in the security or driver model during 5+ years of development and testing then yes, you are incompetent. At the very least your testing is incompetent.

We're not talking about a broken link on a web site. We're talking about an OS that goes on hundreds of millions of computers. Make a few mistakes in the some of the details, but don't fsck up the model.

Re:Security (5, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628632)

Oh for fuck sake, how many of the XP targeting virii that you've heard of lately have been due to holes in the video and audio driver model? This isn't about improving security for the customer, this is about locking down content through poorly implemented DRM. We could have kept our existing driver model instead of changing it YET AGAIN. How many changes in the last 20 odd years have we had? DOS drivers, Win 3.11 drivers, 95 drivers, 98 drivers, 2000/XP drivers, and now Vista drivers. What a waste of goddamn effort. Bad design is an understatement. Get it right and move on for fuck sake. We don't need a dozen incompatible driver models by the time I'm old.

Re:Security (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628746)

So you've never had an XP machine bluescreen from a flaky video driver? My work PC does it fairly regularly. Since they moved the video drivers to userspace this isn't even possible on Vista. Stability, not just security.

Re:Security (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628884)

Clearly you've not used vista. Bad video drivers can and do bluescreen it just like XP.

Re:Security (2, Interesting)

wampus (1932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628976)

I've tried pretty hard to bluescreen my own box, all I ever get out of it is a little text bubble by the clock telling me my video driver crashed and reloaded. My own experience indicates that Vista works at least as well as XP in this regard.

Re:Security (1)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629002)

That's not the driver, thats bad hardware. It happens, get it replaced.

Re:Security (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629142)

It may be, but for video cards, it's more likely the driver. Crashes caused by the video card drivers accounted for at least a sizable minority, and perhaps even a majority of XP crashes reported to MS through the crash reporting mechanism.

They still run in the kernel in Vista; I'm not sure how that jibes with Wampus's comment above about it restarting the driver. Audio drivers, however, are moving into userspace.

Re:Security (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22629044)

How many changes in the last 20 odd years have we had? DOS drivers, Win 3.11 drivers, 95 drivers, 98 drivers, 2000/XP drivers, and now Vista drivers. What a waste of goddamn effort. Bad design is an understatement. Get it right and move on for fuck sake. We don't need a dozen incompatible driver models by the time I'm old.
Like monaural, vinyl, reel-to-reel, 8 track, cassette, CD, mini-disk, DAT, to portable music devices supporting multiple format standards.
Or tin-plate photography, stereo-scopes, silent movies, 8mm, 135mm, iMax, BetaMAX, VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray/HiDef-DVD, movies on demand, satellite TV, digital broadcast, the DVR revolution.

My god... why didn't they just think of the DVR 200 years ago; we wouldn't be in this mess now having to worry if my HDMI cable will work with my TV!

It's called progress... get used to it or get out of the way.

Re:Security (1)

Hemlock Stones (636570) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628756)

Contrary to the attempt to blame "security" for the audio/video driver issues I have another explanantion, DRM. According to a very well researched, written and circulated document (sorry, no URL, and I lost my copy of the PDF document), DRM placed unprecidented requirements and workload on the device drivers for these and other "IP" related devices and services. I suspect one of the main reasons for the lack of Vista device drivers, especially for older equipment is due to some manufacturers believing that there is no way the return on investment is worth the massive effort required. Microsoft appears to acknowledge this when they say that some updated Vista drivers may never be written. You'd think that they could easily spare some "pocket change" to incourage these driver updates, but obviously for whatever reason they are not going to. Personally I hope they continue with this policy as it shows what they really think of their customers, big and small.

Thus spake the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628270)

...Windows Vista Capable....


I just realized this may have been meant as a euphemism, sort of like "handy capable" rather than handicapped.

Vastly Different Models (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628304)

The driver models for audio and video in Vista are drastically different than they were in XP. Microsoft is trying to push towards a more microkernel-ish model where these drivers are intended to exist in user-mode. The entire Vista audio stack is user-mode and the video stack is divided into two portions where a good 90% exists in user mode and the rest remains in kernel mode for performance reasons. Microsoft is also trying to force hardware scheduling to prevent a single accelerated application from hosing an accelerated desktop, which is currently a problem in all accelerated desktops, Compiz and OSX included.

The driver situation wasn't any better when XP was launched. If anything it was much worse because all of a sudden consumer-grade hardware vendors had to jump to supporting the NT kernel rather than the 9x kernel, which finally locked down the memory isolation so that a user-mode app could not access kernel resources. It took years for the big companies like Creative Labs, nVidia or ATI to get half-decent drivers out for XP. The situation for Vista is already much better than it was for XP.

Give it up, dude (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628396)

You're wasting your time. Slashdot has officially degenerated into IHateVista.org. You'll just get shouted down by the adolescent Linux fanboys for daring to contradict the orthodoxy, whether you're right or not.

Re:Give it up, dude (0, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628656)

You're wasting your time. Slashdot has officially degenerated into IHateVista.org. You'll just get shouted down by the adolescent Linux fanboys for daring to contradict the orthodoxy, whether you're right or not.


So what's it like being one of Microsoft's whores on Slashdot? Do they pay you cash, or are you one of the severely retarded individuals who takes free software instead? And don't bother denying it, you gutless AC.

And for the record, Vista does have a few nice UI improvements. It's not enough to explain why it's a resource hungry monster, or to justify actually buying it unless you're getting it with a computer (that hopefully can actually give you the "experience" that's supposed to be the whole point).

Re:Give it up, dude (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628970)

Cash... free software? Where do I sign up?

Re:Vastly Different Models (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628522)

Oh, goody, I see Slashdot has fixed their broken moderation system that assigns AC posts a score of -2:

Starting Score: -1 points
Moderation: +1
50% Informative
50% Interesting

Wait, so it has at least two moderations, both positive. This nets +1 point for a total score of 0. On a post that should have started at 0 in the first place.

Plus, if you're using the new comment system, getting at low-modded posts is next to impossible anyway. (Pound "More" a couple of times and then drop the hidden all the way to the bottom.)

Re:Vastly Different Models (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628790)

So you reckon Vista has better hardware support than Windows XP did at launch? I reckon that falls under "damning with faint praise".

(Windows XP hardware support sucked at launch, and not just because of the switch from 98's driver model. I seem to recall reading warnings about various Windows 2000 drivers that should in theory work not actually being compatible with XP. Sound familiar?)

Re:Vastly Different Models (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628958)

I don't understand why they added so much complexity to the audio stack.

For everyday use, high latency block based audio with occasional glitches (9x style) is fine.

For professional use, you use drivers like ASIO that bypass as much Microsoft code as possible.

I guess if you have a thousand developers, everything looks like a nail. Or maybe a thousand hammers.

Re:Vastly Different Models (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22629212)

Blah blah blah "microkernel-ish". For god's sake this same bullshit has been the watch-word of Windows NT since version 1.0 *COUGH* 3.1. It's been what, 15 years now...is it a microkernel yet? How about now? Wait...how about NOW?

NT is NOT "microkernel-ish." It never has been and never WILL be, especially as Microsoft keeps cobbling more SHIT into the kernel (what's next, is Word going to run in kernel space?)

Re:Vastly Different Models (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629240)

"The driver situation wasn't any better when XP was launched. If anything it was much worse because all of a sudden consumer-grade hardware vendors had to jump to supporting the NT kernel rather than the 9x kernel"

That was not our experience when we had to load 210 PCs with XP-Pro-corp when it came out. There was a plethora of win2000 drivers for those same devices that worked on Windows9x before XP was released and those drivers worked very well in XP. I remember we had to resort to the Win2000 drivers in many cases and those drivers saved us from having to hunt for and replace much hardware back then. This time around this is not the case even with fairly recent hardware. The fact is win2k drivers for the most part worked pretty well in XP compared to this forced hardware obsolescence fiasco we are faced with now.

More reason to avoid release dates. (5, Insightful)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628306)

All the more reason to avoid release dates. Whether it's completely arbitrary, or it's an estimate given by a developer, release dates only result in two things: Making people rush, and making products late or not as advertised.

I can understand a statement such as "We hope for our product to be ready by [date]" or "We're aiming for a possible launch window of [date]", but to say "Our product will be available on this date" only puts pressure on those lower down the totem pole, and can result in a lot of lost features or quality assurance.

Conversely, this should not be used to infer the Duke Nukem Forever will be an awesome game if it is ever released.

Re:More reason to avoid release dates. (3, Insightful)

imaginaryelf (862886) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628438)

You find me customers who's willing to shell out dollars or plan their dependencies for some nebulous release date.

Or you can try that when you have to pay your bills, "Yeah, we'll make our best effort to pay that mortgage on the 10th."

The world doesn't work that way.

Re:More reason to avoid release dates. (2, Insightful)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628588)

Or you can try that when you have to pay your bills, "Yeah, we'll make our best effort to pay that mortgage on the 10th."

The world doesn't work that way.
Except that paying bills, an obligation to having and continuing to have a service or receiving goods, is not the same as marketing software.

Yes, having a firm release date may snag more customers, but you have to look at the end product and decide if the backlash will outweigh the praise.

Re:More reason to avoid release dates. (1)

imaginaryelf (862886) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628662)

Ok, here's a more concrete example.

Let's say you decide to start a company building a great product.

Do you know what the absolute drop-dead release date is? It's the day your funding runs out (whether it be personal or VC).

You think you can ask your mortgage company, your phone company, your VC to essentially extend you an indefinite loan because your software is not ready to be sold yet?

Re:More reason to avoid release dates. (3, Informative)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628924)

Maybe I implied something I didn't mean to, so I'll clarify my position a bit.

Internal schedules, release dates, etc., those should always be present. If you don't have any internal dates, there's no motivation for your workers, as they'll just "get it done when it's done".

Published release dates are what can cause the problems. If you tell your employees "We need this by March", that's one thing. That's also something you can pass along to your business partners. But when you come out and tell the public "Our product will be out in March", and the product falls excessively short of expectations, or does not even make it out of the gate, that's when you create a problem, all for the sake of marketing.

Re:More reason to avoid release dates. (1)

Caesar Tjalbo (1010523) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628492)

"We're aiming for a possible development window of Duke Nukem Forever."

Re:More reason to avoid release dates. (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628496)

Conversely, this should not be used to infer the Duke Nukem Forever will be an awesome game if it is ever released.

Especially since we've recently been given an estimated release date.

Re:More reason to avoid release dates. (2, Funny)

tzot (834456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629166)

Conversely, this should not be used to infer the Duke Nukem Forever will be an awesome game if it is ever released.
Especially since we've recently been given an estimated release date.
I wouldn't call it a release date. The whole issue reminds me of falling towards an event horizon.

Re:More reason to avoid release dates. (4, Insightful)

mikeabbott420 (744514) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628510)

There are only two kinds of software: released too early and never released at all.

Three Kinds (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629174)

Uh, there is a third kind, which VISTA is in. It is the "Released, but never should have been".

Microsoft really screwed the pooch on this one. If they were going to break Windows, they should have broken it completely, and wrote a new OS that resembled Windows, but didn't have a single thing in common. IBM had a similar situation in OS/2 (and PS/2) and screwed it up completely, by marketing OS/2 completely wrong (Windows on Roids).

If I had 100 Million Dollars startup, I'd have a complete OS and New HW platform to run it on, without any legacy code bloat, ready (beta or RC) in 3 years max. I'd design everything from scratch having HW and SW teams working together to design tight integration of both WITH planned expandability and adaptability.

Year 1, mapping out what is needed, early designs
Year 2, Early Implementation and Refinement of Design.
Year 3, Standaridized APIs and Programming / Developer Tools, bug squashing.

I'd have three levels for licensing of all the products and specs.

1)Open Source Open HW (free to all)
2)Shared Source, Open HW (Cost for people who'd like to sell their source, to run on any HW)
3)Closed Source, Closed HW (BIG COST for people to have their own version of Source and Proprietary HW)

I'd sell tools and services as a core business model once the products are released. I'd also have planned and phased obsolescence for both HW and SW, meaning that after a set period of time (5-10 years) NEW releases won't have backward compatibility so that as the system evolve, that newer versions of SW (and HW) don't have to retain backwards compatibility. Major Version numbers would indicate a certain set (Final OS 1.0) such that each version would NOT be backwards compatible (BC).

Why not plan obsolescence?

Re:More reason to avoid release dates. (1)

Jeff Carr (684298) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628556)

Conversely, this should not be used to infer the Duke Nukem Forever will be an awesome game if it is ever released.
Oh, it will be. I expect all bots will be running a standard AI package, and it will have full VR, including smell and touch, plugged directly into your brain through the jack you had installed at birth.

It'll be awesome when it's released April 1st, 2054.

Of course, It'lll probably still be running the goddamn Lithtech engine.

Re:More reason to avoid release dates. (4, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628610)

When coordinating with the CD presses and the OEM's, distributors, and other companies (like NVidia or ATI) that rely on the release date, that's just not possible. For smaller projects, you can pull stuff like that. For one of the most widely used pieces of software in the world, you need to plan ahead.

Re:More reason to avoid release dates. (4, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628620)

Remember, though, MS had sold all those software upgrade contracts with the stated timeline of having the new version out before they expired, this is why Vista was released to business before the user version was available.

Delivering an item on time and not "when it's ready" can be worth gobs more money to people who like to be able to contain risk. Look at how poorly Apple fares in the business market, for many reasons, but a big one is that they're pretty secretive about their development roadmap and you can't make million-dollar decisions based on Apple's stated trajectory (notice the recent deafening silence over the Xserve RAID EOL and iPhone SDK delay).

Not to say secrecy doesn't pay dividends in consumer segment, but consumers have always been the barnacle on the MS ship.

Microsoft... (5, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628386)

Perhaps, one day, when competition re-emerges in the OS marketplace, microsoft will have to clean up their act. Until that day, and as long as people keep giving microsoft their money, nothing will change.

It is too bad that so many people who would benefit from reading /. are the people who laugh at those who do ...

Re:Microsoft... (1)

LDVA (847098) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628852)

I think (and hope) that day is nearing. Consumers may be stuck with Vista, but the big enterprises aren't budging. In my job, I get to talk to bigwigs at the major PC makers. And each time I do, I ask, "How are sales of Vista into the enterprise?" To a person, they say nearly nonexistent or something reasonably synonymous. Like many, I tried Vista and ended up "upgrading" to XP, and blogged about the miserable experience. The last entry was "Vista Begone! My XP Upgrade" (http://www.pcdoctor-community.com/pcdblog/2007/10/02/vista-begone-my-windows-xp-upgrade/. It was a harder decision than one might thinkg because, as our company's marketing guy, I wanted to show customers that we were ready for Vista from Day One. Our app worked fine. It was the other business apps in my personal stack, tho, that crapped out.

Vista: Windows 7 Beta (1)

sacremon (244448) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628388)

From TFA:

According to the e-mails made public this week, Microsoft will apply the lessons it learned with Vista the next time around. "There is really nothing we can do in the short term," noted Joan Kalkman, the general manager of OEM and embedded worldwide marketing, in a message written a week after Sinofsky's. "In the long term we have worked hard to establish and have committed to an OEM Theme for Win[dows] 7 planning.

"This was rejected for Vista. Having this theme puts accountability and early thinking on programs like Capable/Ready so that we make the right decisions early on."

The crippling of Vista isn't something that they will fix, given that they are already working on Windows 7. So take the experience of how not to develop and launch a multiyear/multibillion dollar project and hope not to do the same again next time.

Summary completely misleading (4, Informative)

Keeper (56691) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628394)

The quotes in the summary explain why Windows XP drivers would not work; they do not state that driver model changes were made right before RTM.

Just what we suspected... (0, Flamebait)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628428)

That Vista RTM had been delayed due to DRM issues... That the OS was probably scrapped in the first place to be rewritten with DRM as the underlying security model.

I had long thought, and I'm sure I'm not alone, that microsoft should have pulled an apple and damn the backward compatability. They should have rewritten the OS from scratch after windows XP, and shouldn't have dropped key features along the way like the new WinFS, for instance. They should have bought VMware and integrated a virtual machine with a full copy of the appropriate WindowsXP (pro for pro, home for home)to run all the older "mission critical" software in "classic mode." They could have deprecated the win32 API and most of MFC, and forced all NEW development to move to the .net runtime.

I suspect that the idea crossed their minds, whether or not they started to implement it, but they couldn't figure out how to guarantee front to back digital restrictions with such a dual-OS model.

Something, though, made them panic and start over a few years ago, scrapping any progress they made. And integrating DRM along the way kept making things worse.

Re:Just what we suspected... (2, Insightful)

wampus (1932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628546)

I just looked through the article. DRM and "digital rights" searches both turned up nothing. What the hell are you talking about?

Vista DRM (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629108)

He's probably talking about this [slashdot.org] , this [slashdot.org] or all of this [slashdot.org] . Part of the M$ excuse for all of their problems is that older drivers had to be changed for copy protection and security. It's not surprising a NYT writer would miss those details and they might not be appropriate - the news is that M$ broke XP drivers at the last minute and screwed device makers and users alike. Traditional newspapers left it up to readers to connect the dots because they did not have hyper links to older stories.

Despite these foibles and excuses, it should be obvious that the changes were not really needed. Vista worked better before they were made and free software continues to be able to use the same hardware without security issues. The least they could have done is provide a wrapper for older drivers. Really though, the evidence is pointing to the usual upgrade train story: intentional waste.

Re:Just what we suspected... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22629270)

The DRM issues were discussed in emails that appeared on the redacted pages.

Re:Just what we suspected... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628668)

They should have bought VMware and integrated a virtual machine with a full copy of the appropriate WindowsXP (pro for pro, home for home)to run all the older "mission critical" software in "classic mode."

Nice idea, too bad it would not have worked. There are thousands of poorly written but business critical apps that run under win32 / MFC / ActiveX / Com and whatever else has dribbled out of Microsoft's faucets over the years.

Trying to support all of that nonsense in a VM would be a nightmare for smaller shops and on more marginal equipment. This isn't somebody just running an old version of Parchesi on a three year old laptop. It's business installations with dozens to thousands of PCs and some pretty dodgy apps.

They would just stay at XP.

Wait ...

Re:Just what we suspected... (0, Troll)

aedan (196243) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628942)

They don't even need to buy VMWare, they bought VirtualPC from Connectix years ago.

Or... (4, Interesting)

Squarewav (241189) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628468)

Dell and the like could just keep shipping systems that they know can't run aero with windows XP and don't use the Vista capable stickers on them?

This is the part that bugs me about this. It might be true that MS considers vista without aero to be fine when they shouldn't. However no one is forcing dell to use the stickers, Dell and the like used them on computers they knew couldn't run vista fully. They do it because they knew people would buy the computer thinking it would run vista.

When it turned out vista was crippled on the machine insted of Dell going "Ooops sorry, heres some store credit" (or whatever) they went "Don't look at us, MS made us do it! blame them!" As if MS was the one who built the computer.

Re:Or... (5, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628646)

However no one is forcing dell to use the stickers
Do you know that for a fact, or are you just assuming?

The reason I ask is because it's possible that Dell's contracts with Microsoft did, in fact, obligate them to promote Vista by the stickers on computers. For instance their bulk discounts are tied to various deals, such as having "Dell recommends Windows Vista" on their website.

Also worth noting is that many OEMs were shipping systems with "Vista Ready" stickers long before Vista was finalized. They had no way of knowing how well Vista would ultimately run on the machines, other than what Microsoft was telling them. Still, the OEMs share the blame to the extent that it was irresponsible of them to trust Microsoft and put stickers on systems without being sure that their claims were correct.

Re:Or... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629342)

Hindsight is 20/20. Requiring Vista Stickers on Computers before VISTA was finished is non-sense, and I'd blame both Dell (HP, Acer .....) and MS on this one. It is a marketing deal that was false. Dell (or whatever) didn't have to sign the deal that put stickers on computers, and they knew that Vista wasn't stable in development so they knew that it was possible (and should have known it was likely not to be able to run VISTA).

However I knew that none of the machines that said they could run Vista was ready for it, because I remember Windows 95's requirements resembled nothing like what it actually took to run it. I wouldn't run Vista on anything less than 64 bit with 4 Gigs of Ram and 500 GB HD, and a monster Video Card. Why? Because that is what it NEEDS after all the necessary bloatware that needs to get installed to make it useful.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Re:Or... (1)

BlackCreek (1004083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629386)

Also worth noting is that many OEMs were shipping systems with "Vista Ready" stickers long before Vista was finalized. They had no way of knowing how well Vista would ultimately run on the machines, other than what Microsoft was telling them. Still, the OEMs share the blame to the extent that it was irresponsible of them to trust Microsoft and put stickers on systems without being sure that their claims were correct.
This talk about OEMs not knowing how Vista would run is wrong. Vista Beta's were already available a couple of *years* in advance for the OEM, and big corporations using Windows. I know that because the university I used to work at, had copies of Vista to test in advance.
I bet a lot was still changing, and that perhaps those copies were lacking Aero and what not. But still, if a university had copies of Vista Betas in advance, I can only suppose that OEMs like Dell, HP, Intel, could test the whole of Vista with Aero and everything. They could not know for sure how well it would run, but they had a very good idea.
But what is an OEM supposed to do? Ship without the stickers? When everybody else was going to ship with them?
3 laptops on sale next to each other with similar price and specs, 2 have a "Vista Ready(tm)" sticker, 1 doesn't. Which computer do you think would /not/ get chosen? TFA shows that they kept changing things until the last moment, b

Re:Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628836)

If Dell didn't do it, a competitor of theirs would. Microsoft gave their estimates on what is vista capable and what not so... Kinda microsoft's fault, no?

My Postmortem on Vista (2, Interesting)

jellie (949898) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628634)

Dell's postmortem...

Company managers and executives also did their own postmortems on Vista...
Maybe I watch too many crime dramas, but I originally thought the article was writing off Vista as being as good as dead, since they're already talking about Windows 7. Though I can't say I disagree.

FYI: Postmortem also has an informal definition meaning "an analysis or review of a finished event".

Re:My Postmortem on Vista (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628688)

It's pretty fucking sad that barely a year into Vista, and Microsoft is already demurring to Windows 7. It's a tacit admission so far as I can tell that Vista has been an absolute disaster.

Sure it'll sell just like Windows ME did, purely because of OEM licenses. They'll use that to inflate sales figures, even where people are downgrading back to XP, but we now know just how fucked up things were in 2006.

Re:My Postmortem on Vista (0, Flamebait)

thomthom (832970) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628956)

So what does this say about Ubuntu that releases a new version every 6 month? I'm not buying your argument. Did you expect them to take a break after Vista?

Re:My Postmortem on Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22629202)

So what does this say about Ubuntu that releases a new version every 6 month?
None of my devices have stopped working after each new release from Ubuntu. Usually they work even better. Are you trolling?

Re:My Postmortem on Vista (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629332)

He's trying to make idiotic comparisons. Considering that I don't have to pay a dime for Ubuntu, it works pretty well. I simply don't have the same expectation for a free product as I do for one which costs hundreds of dollars or is forced upon me if I buy a new box.

Re:My Postmortem on Vista (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628980)

If Windows 7 comes out next year (thats a big if), it will be 3 years apart (a bit less depending on the date Windows 7 comes out...if it comes out at the very end, it will be about exactly 3 years).

Thats consistant with the pre-Vista fuck up day (and Vista's original intent), even if we don't count NT. 95, 98, ME/2000, XP, Vista's original schedule... all 2-3 years apart, give or take. And back then, a few months after a windows launch, the next one was hyped. Heck, its that way in the Linux world too, you hear about the next version of Ubuntu almost in sync with the latest version hitting the servers.

Really... I guess people liked the impossibly slow launch schedule...considering how quickly they forgot the fast paced one of old.

Re:My Postmortem on Vista (4, Interesting)

realmolo (574068) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629226)

I wouldn't say Vista is a *disaster*, but it's obviously a work in progress. There are so many obvious improvements to be made, and so many little bugs to be fixed.

Much like Windows 2000 was what NT4 should've been, I expect "Windows 7" to be what Vista should've been. Of course, an argument could be made that even what Vista "should've been" isn't what we actually WANT. Personally, I think MS should bite-the-bullet and just abandon backwards compatibility as part of the "base" operating system. Just run everything in a VM, much like Apple did with the Classic MacOS.

Re:My Postmortem on Vista (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629360)

I don't ever recall NT4 being that big a problem. I only started working with it in the SP3 days, and I do understand there were some problems.

Windows 2000 was a lot more polished, but coming from a *nix background, I really didn't give a damn about polish.

Associated applets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628640)

Many of the associated applets don't run within the constraints of the security model or the new video/audio driver models.'

This sounds like a feature, not a bug. Honestly, those applets are stupid and are a bane of administrators.

Duly tagged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22628664)

"twitter", as usual.

2 minute Vista install (4, Funny)

ed1park (100777) | more than 6 years ago | (#22628670)

This user had a particularly clever way handling the driver compatibility issues of his "Vista ready" system.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FVbf9tOGwno [youtube.com]

I wish... (1)

Aegis Runestone (1248876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629188)

that they had thought this through more carefully. XP was stable and working, if they needed to release an OS, why did they change so much that almost nothing is decent backwards compatible.

Or maybe I'm just whiny. :P

Slashdot hypocrisy in full effect! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22629358)

The story is about why XP drivers don't work. Slashdot has been begging for years that Microsoft break backwards-compatibility in favor of security, then when they do, you guys bitch/gloat about it.

Hypocrisy, thy name is "slashdot".

how dare it not be perfect pre launch!! (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22629396)

yeah wow thats why it's not launched yet, shocking.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...