Article: Has Vista lost all credibility?

Bad title.. lol Vista was never credible.. crapible yes credible no.

http://apcmag.com/8344/has_vista_lost_all_credibility

*The article is rather long so I wont post all of it, only a few
paragraphs.. if you want to read it all go to the above link*

Even internally, Microsoft couldn't agree on what the base requirements to
run Vista were, but that didn't stop it from inaccurately promoting the OS
as running on some hardware, new email evidence in an ongoing consumer class
action suggests. What do the latest revelations mean for the future of
Vista?

Ever since Vista was placed on a firm release schedule, Microsoft has
adopted a united front when it comes to explaining the multiple flavours
(Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise and Ultimate). Each had
clear benefits and a well-defined set of hardware requirements; consumers
could choose the option that met their performance and budgetary needs. To
get the souped-up interface known as 'Aero', Home Basic wouldn't be any
good, but it still offered some improvements.

Microsoft's external front might have been firm, but internally there were
endless arguments over whether that strategy was appropriate, and how much
PC manufacturers were going to get annoyed by the shifting requirements and
endless delays. That information has emerged as a result of court documents
filed in a US class action which argues that systems labelled as Vista-ready
and sold in the months prior to Vista's official debut were not in fact
capable of running the OS.
Microsoft is always in something of a no-win position when it comes to
minimum system requirements. If it specifies huge hardware needs, then the
opportunity to sell upgrades is reduced since most existing PCs can't handle
the new version. If it sets a minimal baseline platform, then it's difficult
(though arguably not impossible) to add any features that make upgrading
worth the hassle and risk.

But the worst-case scenario - the one that increasingly looks like the most
plausible explanation for what happened with Vista - was that it dithered so
much over which path to take that neither new system buyers or upgrading
owners were satisfied with the outcome. The end result was an unprecedented
number of versions of Vista (including the Aero-free Vista Home Basic) and a
bunch of programs designed to stop PC sales tanking while the code was
endlessly tinkered with.

Whether the class action succeeds or not, the 158 pages of email evidence
released this week (even with numerous redacted pages) shows the internal
challenges Microsoft faced in getting the software off the ground, and
balancing the apparent hardware requirements of the new OS with what
hardware vendors were currently selling and planned to sell.


--
What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007/..._windows_vista

50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free

Do you really think that I really care? I'm very happy with my system.

Quit mucking up the newsgroups!
"On the Bridge!" <On@the,Bridge> wrote in message
news:47cadc0a$...
> Bad title.. lol Vista was never credible.. crapible yes credible no.
>
> http://apcmag.com/8344/has_vista_lost_all_credibility
>
> *The article is rather long so I wont post all of it, only a few
> paragraphs.. if you want to read it all go to the above link*
>
> Even internally, Microsoft couldn't agree on what the base requirements to
> run Vista were, but that didn't stop it from inaccurately promoting the OS
> as running on some hardware, new email evidence in an ongoing consumer
> class action suggests. What do the latest revelations mean for the future
> of Vista?
>
> Ever since Vista was placed on a firm release schedule, Microsoft has
> adopted a united front when it comes to explaining the multiple flavours
> (Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise and Ultimate). Each had
> clear benefits and a well-defined set of hardware requirements; consumers
> could choose the option that met their performance and budgetary needs. To
> get the souped-up interface known as 'Aero', Home Basic wouldn't be any
> good, but it still offered some improvements.
>
> Microsoft's external front might have been firm, but internally there were
> endless arguments over whether that strategy was appropriate, and how much
> PC manufacturers were going to get annoyed by the shifting requirements
> and endless delays. That information has emerged as a result of court
> documents filed in a US class action which argues that systems labelled as
> Vista-ready and sold in the months prior to Vista's official debut were
> not in fact capable of running the OS.
> Microsoft is always in something of a no-win position when it comes to
> minimum system requirements. If it specifies huge hardware needs, then the
> opportunity to sell upgrades is reduced since most existing PCs can't
> handle the new version. If it sets a minimal baseline platform, then it's
> difficult (though arguably not impossible) to add any features that make
> upgrading worth the hassle and risk.
>
> But the worst-case scenario - the one that increasingly looks like the
> most plausible explanation for what happened with Vista - was that it
> dithered so much over which path to take that neither new system buyers or
> upgrading owners were satisfied with the outcome. The end result was an
> unprecedented number of versions of Vista (including the Aero-free Vista
> Home Basic) and a bunch of programs designed to stop PC sales tanking
> while the code was endlessly tinkered with.
>
> Whether the class action succeeds or not, the 158 pages of email evidence
> released this week (even with numerous redacted pages) shows the internal
> challenges Microsoft faced in getting the software off the ground, and
> balancing the apparent hardware requirements of the new OS with what
> hardware vendors were currently selling and planned to sell.
>
>
> --
> What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
> http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007/..._windows_vista
>
> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....
>
> CHORUS:
>
> You just format the drive , Clive
> Get a New Mac , Jack
> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
> Just get yourself free
> Boot from a *nix, Jix
> You don't need to discuss much
> Install XP, Lee
> And get yourself free
>
>
>
>

I agree with Charles. I wouldn't go back to XP if you paid me. Well... how
much?

I'm having a hard time finding the relevance here. Microsoft is a big
company. People disagree. The very first e-mail in Exhibit A is Micrsoft
saying some low end PCs will display Aero and some won't. What the media and
sales people told consumers is a separate issue. I haven't slogged through
all the information (and probably won't), but nowhere do I see a conspiracy.

"On the Bridge!" wrote:

> Bad title.. lol Vista was never credible.. crapible yes credible no.
>
> http://apcmag.com/8344/has_vista_lost_all_credibility
>
> *The article is rather long so I wont post all of it, only a few
> paragraphs.. if you want to read it all go to the above link*
>
> Even internally, Microsoft couldn't agree on what the base requirements to
> run Vista were, but that didn't stop it from inaccurately promoting the OS
> as running on some hardware, new email evidence in an ongoing consumer class
> action suggests. What do the latest revelations mean for the future of
> Vista?
>
> Ever since Vista was placed on a firm release schedule, Microsoft has
> adopted a united front when it comes to explaining the multiple flavours
> (Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise and Ultimate). Each had
> clear benefits and a well-defined set of hardware requirements; consumers
> could choose the option that met their performance and budgetary needs. To
> get the souped-up interface known as 'Aero', Home Basic wouldn't be any
> good, but it still offered some improvements.
>
> Microsoft's external front might have been firm, but internally there were
> endless arguments over whether that strategy was appropriate, and how much
> PC manufacturers were going to get annoyed by the shifting requirements and
> endless delays. That information has emerged as a result of court documents
> filed in a US class action which argues that systems labelled as Vista-ready
> and sold in the months prior to Vista's official debut were not in fact
> capable of running the OS.
> Microsoft is always in something of a no-win position when it comes to
> minimum system requirements. If it specifies huge hardware needs, then the
> opportunity to sell upgrades is reduced since most existing PCs can't handle
> the new version. If it sets a minimal baseline platform, then it's difficult
> (though arguably not impossible) to add any features that make upgrading
> worth the hassle and risk.
>
> But the worst-case scenario - the one that increasingly looks like the most
> plausible explanation for what happened with Vista - was that it dithered so
> much over which path to take that neither new system buyers or upgrading
> owners were satisfied with the outcome. The end result was an unprecedented
> number of versions of Vista (including the Aero-free Vista Home Basic) and a
> bunch of programs designed to stop PC sales tanking while the code was
> endlessly tinkered with.
>
> Whether the class action succeeds or not, the 158 pages of email evidence
> released this week (even with numerous redacted pages) shows the internal
> challenges Microsoft faced in getting the software off the ground, and
> balancing the apparent hardware requirements of the new OS with what
> hardware vendors were currently selling and planned to sell.
>
>
> --
> What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
> http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007/..._windows_vista
>
> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....
>
> CHORUS:
>
> You just format the drive , Clive
> Get a New Mac , Jack
> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
> Just get yourself free
> Boot from a *nix, Jix
> You don't need to discuss much
> Install XP, Lee
> And get yourself free
>
>
>
>
>