Microsoft knew Vista wasn't ready, but released it anyway.

[techs]

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/...oft-knew-vista-unready
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...sta28.html?source=mypi

From the first link:

A lawsuit filed against Microsoft has uncovered emails from the head of Windows engineering, with warnings about unreadiness endorsed by CEO Steve Ballmer.

According to the mails, even Volish employees couldn't get Vista to work with MSN. The emails are revealed as part of a class action lawsuit over the " Windows Vista Capable" scheme used to keep Windows XP sales buoyant.

Microsoft suit John Kalkman blamed Intel to help "it make its quarterly earnings" by encouraging use of 915 chipsets which have integrated graphics.


From the second link:

Even some of Microsoft Corp.'s top officials struggled to make Windows Vista work smoothly when it was released, according to internal e-mails released Wednesday.

The messages, unsealed in a lawsuit against the company, show that Vista's early problems with hardware and software compatibility affected more than just average PC users. The e-mails also illustrate how the company will try to avoid such issues in the next Windows release.



What is interesting about this is they seem to also be jumping the gun with SP1.
This could really turn out to be a big lawsuit against MS!

 

[SunnyD]

So? Just another money-grab from greedy lawyers.

 

[KeithTalent]

Holy crap a business trying to make its earning look good? Alert the authoritays!

Oh and WTF I've been on Vista since RC1 and it has been very, very stable so I think this lawsuit (surprise, surprise) is completely baseless.

KT

 

[Tobolo]

Wait till windows 2007 hits the streets.

 

[ElFenix]

XP works. so does 2K.

 

[Kaido]

Every company is like this. You never have enough time to complete your product. Even Apple does it...look at the iPhone - screen problems, speaker problems, reception problems, etc. Point is, "buyer beware".

 

[foghorn67]

When Vista was out, we built a few demo machines at work only weeks after release. Most were Dell GX620 SFF's, with a lower end Pentium4, or a Celeron with 512MB and on board Intel video. It only took a few tries to get a good, stable image going. And it didn't seem any slower than our XP images. And it worked really snappy on our newer Optiplex 720's.

 

[amdhunter]

I wonder if I can get in on this... I bought a Vista "capable" machine from Dell a few months before Vista's official launch.

 

[Queasy]

Does this mean I can sue EA for buying any of their games that weren't ready for release?

 

[AMDZen]

I'm quite enjoying Vista x64 installed on my new rig, but really I understand how trendy it is to jump the bandwagon against Vista even now that its the only worthwhile 64bit system to choose from....or I guess with SP1 its just happening all over again.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
When Vista was out, we built a few demo machines at work only weeks after release. Most were Dell GX620 SFF's, with a lower end Pentium4, or a Celeron with 512MB and on board Intel video. It only took a few tries to get a good, stable image going. And it didn't seem any slower than our XP images. And it worked really snappy on our newer Optiplex 720's.

Vista working decently with 512MB and shared Intel video?

FUD MTMFL. Just booting to a visible desktop is excruciating with that kind of setup, let alone the interminable hdd thrashing that happens with such a tiny amount of ram.

Vista w/512mb = near useless
Vista w/1gb = pretty decent, unless you game
Vista w/2gb = very good, and adequate for gaming
Vista w/3gb or more = perfect

 

[IlllI]

bah, who cares? i stopped upgrading since windows 3.11 came out. its plenty enough for me. who needs all that newfangled tecchnologie

 

[Arkaign]

lol : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awfX-40OaGA

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
XP works. so does 2K.

so does Vista.

Vista requires new drivers for proper hardware support. Blame the slow trickle of drivers from hardware manufacturers on compatibility problems. Not Microsoft. And the inclusion of hardware in Vista pc's that at the time didn't have proper drivers for Vista. That problem was numerous in quite a few lower-end laptops and desktops when Vista was new.

I have Vista on both my desktop and my recently purchased Acer Extensa laptop.
No complaints here, other than file transfer speeds. But other than that, I love Vista and it will prove to be more capable than XP as hardware tech advances in the future.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
lol : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awfX-40OaGA

That's not surprising. 128MB was recommended for WinXP (64MB minimum). I had the pleasure of my first PC at my current job being a box with only 128MB memory. I thought I was going to go insane with how slow it ran. IT was slow so I brought in some extra memory I had sitting around the house and upgraded the memory myself.

 

[Saulbadguy]

All software is released before it is ready.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: foghorn67
When Vista was out, we built a few demo machines at work only weeks after release. Most were Dell GX620 SFF's, with a lower end Pentium4, or a Celeron with 512MB and on board Intel video. It only took a few tries to get a good, stable image going. And it didn't seem any slower than our XP images. And it worked really snappy on our newer Optiplex 720's.

Vista working decently with 512MB and shared Intel video?

FUD MTMFL. Just booting to a visible desktop is excruciating with that kind of setup, let alone the interminable hdd thrashing that happens with such a tiny amount of ram.

Vista w/512mb = near useless
Vista w/1gb = pretty decent, unless you game
Vista w/2gb = very good, and adequate for gaming
Vista w/3gb or more = perfect

Sorry to tell you this but I have installed it on a multiple business class HP d530's with 512MB of RAM and it worked just fine. It wasn't screamingly fast but it was no where near as miserable as running XP Pro on a 128MB workstation (which was the MS minimum req for that OS). It was not "near useless" as you put it.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: foghorn67
When Vista was out, we built a few demo machines at work only weeks after release. Most were Dell GX620 SFF's, with a lower end Pentium4, or a Celeron with 512MB and on board Intel video. It only took a few tries to get a good, stable image going. And it didn't seem any slower than our XP images. And it worked really snappy on our newer Optiplex 720's.

Vista working decently with 512MB and shared Intel video?

FUD MTMFL. Just booting to a visible desktop is excruciating with that kind of setup, let alone the interminable hdd thrashing that happens with such a tiny amount of ram.

Vista w/512mb = near useless
Vista w/1gb = pretty decent, unless you game
Vista w/2gb = very good, and adequate for gaming
Vista w/3gb or more = perfect

Sorry to tell you this but I have installed it on a multiple business class HP d530's with 512MB of RAM and it worked just fine. It wasn't screamingly fast but it was no where near as miserable as running XP Pro on a 128MB workstation (which was the MS minimum req for that OS). It was not "near useless" as you put it.

No dice. Open Vista w/512mb, and you can pretty much run one app semi-effectively at a time, and something simple like running Word while running an Antivirus suite and having Outlook open *CRUSHES* Vista.

It's not much of a complaint, really. Ram is cheap, there's no reason to suffer with Vista/512.

And yes, XP w/128mb is worthless as well. XP w/256mb is painful, but workable for light tasks. XP w/512mb works very well for most office work, far better than Vista w/512mb. 1GB and up, both are great.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: foghorn67
When Vista was out, we built a few demo machines at work only weeks after release. Most were Dell GX620 SFF's, with a lower end Pentium4, or a Celeron with 512MB and on board Intel video. It only took a few tries to get a good, stable image going. And it didn't seem any slower than our XP images. And it worked really snappy on our newer Optiplex 720's.

Vista working decently with 512MB and shared Intel video?

FUD MTMFL. Just booting to a visible desktop is excruciating with that kind of setup, let alone the interminable hdd thrashing that happens with such a tiny amount of ram.

Vista w/512mb = near useless
Vista w/1gb = pretty decent, unless you game
Vista w/2gb = very good, and adequate for gaming
Vista w/3gb or more = perfect

Sorry to tell you this but I have installed it on a multiple business class HP d530's with 512MB of RAM and it worked just fine. It wasn't screamingly fast but it was no where near as miserable as running XP Pro on a 128MB workstation (which was the MS minimum req for that OS). It was not "near useless" as you put it.

No dice. Open Vista w/512mb, and you can pretty much run one app semi-effectively at a time, and something simple like running Word while running an Antivirus suite and having Outlook open *CRUSHES* Vista.

It's not much of a complaint, really. Ram is cheap, there's no reason to suffer with Vista/512.

And yes, XP w/128mb is worthless as well. XP w/256mb is painful, but workable for light tasks. XP w/512mb works very well for most office work, far better than Vista w/512mb. 1GB and up, both are great.

How did you install Outlook? We used the Office tool to custom package the MST, stripped out a couple things that were known to bog the system down (we found alternative user input and text to speech options crushed machines). We did this for our normal XP systems, and used the same transform for the demo Vista machines. They worked fine.
Most people at that company though ran the following:
Outlook 2003, a loan origination software with an Access 2003 front end, IE browsers for processors and lenders looking up records and etc, Word, once in a while, and some bankers would have excel open for loan bibles and ammort. schedule calculators.
Nothing heavy or intense, but just standard stuff.

 

[daveshel]

They got off with less than a slap on the wrist on the antitrust suit a few years back, then the Justice Department never even bothered to hold them to the terms of the settlement. If the US treated them more like the EU does, maybe they wouldn't be able to force this kind of bloatware on us.

 

[erikistired]

you couldn't tell that just by running it? lol.

 

[BooGiMaN]

well why dont they go after all those video game makers that release games with a ton of bugs...

i mean those games flaws are very obvious sometimes making the games unplayable.

 

[Casawi]

Best Microsoft Product.

 

[UNCjigga]

As much as I hate Vista, after reading the two articles this has nothing to do with Vista's "unreadiness", but rather Microsoft's incompetent marketing machine and Intel's crappy GPU. Microsoft made a poor decision to advertise Vista compatibility on platforms that wouldn't support all the features. Intel/MS knew well ahead of time that the 915 would never magically support Aero Glass.

The Inquirer article is just horribly written, but I digress. The important thing is that nowhere in the quotes emails do MS employees acknowledge that Vista is "buggy" or "not ready for release". The article mentions issues with MSN, but why don't they quote the actual message? It seems the "Vista Ready" lawsuit is the bigger issue?

I just think its hilarious that the MS exec calls his $2100 Sony TX (albeit from 2006) an "email machine". Should've bought a MacBook Pro for that price!

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: BooGiMaN
well why dont they go after all those video game makers that release games with a ton of bugs...

i mean those games flaws are very obvious sometimes making the games unplayable.

Yes but an operating system is the base to run all your apps from.

Therefore it needs to work well.

Without it, you're not going to play any games or run any apps.