More "Vista Capable" emails unsealed, revealing sassy civil war

Remember when Microsoft was hit with a lawsuit over its "Vista Capable" stickers? How about when the judge unsealed emails revealing that after a long battle to promote Vista's graphics-intensive Aero UI, it capitulated and lowered the requirements for the sticker so Intel could keep on selling its graphically-challenged (i.e., WDDM noncompliant) 915 chipset? Yeah, that was awesome. Connoisseurs of corporate drama should appreciate the latest development -- the judge has made public a second batch of emails revealing that MS execs were at odds about that decision. Senior VP Will Poole apparently made the call to appease Intel, but co-President of Platform & Services Jim Allchin (along with many others who had been fighting for the other side for months) was "beyond being upset," saying "this was totally mismanaged by Intel and Microsoft. What a mess." The mess he was referring to: an unhappy partner in HP, which had spent millions to meet the old standards... and presciently, the lawsuit we're watching now. Alright, maybe not so awesome for everyone.

[Homer @ Nov 18th 2008 9:40AM]

That stickers can be bought on eBay too.

[Bobby @ Nov 18th 2008 9:49AM]

I prefer sticker: "Twice the price, twice the speed". No stupid lawsuit here

[John @ Nov 18th 2008 11:22AM]

Does anyone stop to think that maybe, just maybe, Intel is the problem?

1) Intel is the one who pressured Microsoft into putting Vista Capable stickers all over non-capable computers.
2) Intel is the one who developed HDCP, and pressured Apple into including the standard in their DRM
3) Intel is the one who continues to keep the USB 3.0 standard from being released to the public.

The problem is that Intel operates behind the scenes, and when the ish hits the fan, the companies that deal with them are the ones that take the hit.

[murphy @ Nov 18th 2008 12:05PM]

Intel may have pressured them, but it was Microsoft that pulled the trigger.

[bebop @ Nov 18th 2008 7:39PM]

Intel pressured, Microsoft caved, but before that Microsoft changed the release date of Vista from what was previously agreed, so Intel wouldn't have time to sell off the stock of 915 chips before Vista came out like it had planned.

Or something like that.

It's complicated.

[Gabe @ Nov 18th 2008 9:45AM]

Ah, Mac OS X gives me a warm fuzzy feeling...

[thethirdmoose @ Nov 18th 2008 9:48AM]

So does hypothermia. What's your point?

[rock99rock @ Nov 18th 2008 9:48AM]

I must agree, especially when not installed on Apple hardware.

[Alex @ Nov 18th 2008 10:37AM]

Gabe,

I'm an Apple fan. Always have been, always will be. Probably fair to call me a fanboy.

But your comment embarrasses even me.

[Oli D @ Nov 18th 2008 10:39AM]

u think thats the magical thing about macs, there designed so that you know that they can keep up with the GUI for at least 2-3 versions.

Powerpc fans are going to give me hate mail for this... sorry but snow leopard has to happen!

[Rob @ Nov 18th 2008 9:40PM]

@thethirdmoose,

Don't you mean Hyperthermia?

[Canoo @ Nov 18th 2008 9:52AM]

lots of juicy drama

[OneLove @ Nov 18th 2008 2:38PM]

Daaaaaamn dude. Your avatar redefines fugly

[GON @ Nov 18th 2008 2:58PM]

What this about onelove?

[From My Cube @ Nov 18th 2008 9:54AM]

and they wonder why everyone hates Vista...maybe its because they let millions of laptops that were not capable of running vista to be allowed to display that it could

[Flashpoint @ Nov 18th 2008 9:58AM]

As an owner of a G5, a Macbook and an iPhone, I can say that apple's strength comes from tying its hardware to its software and then very closely scrutinizing both in order to ensure they have full control over their quality (and image).

But Windows, is sold worldwide for any number of machines, including built ones. Microsoft has no control over system specs.

I have a HP Dv7835nr (and I've bought other HP computers running XP). I love Windows Vista. But the problem is obvious. You can't simply upgrade an old computer to Vista without losing something. Vista has steep requirements due to all the eye candy and therefore requires no less than a NEW computer with 2GB RAM, DUAL CORE CPU and a Video Accelerator chipset.

I've NEVER had a problem with my laptop. My sister and two Uncles have the same series laptop and they've had Hard Drive failures. Is that Microsoft's fault? NO.

Microsoft is the largest maker of internet software and Operating systems. so therefore, they get targeted by malicious software makers inporportionately than apple does. I've had PLENTY of problems with Leopard and plenty of problems with Tiger. In fact, my friend Joyce bought a brand new Macbook Pro running the latest Leopard and she keeps asking me why does the computer go into hard freezes and require complete rebooting.


I'd also like to say that I've had more problems with Leopard than I have with Tiger (and the same goes for Tiger vs. Leopard Server).

This is a quality control issue across different platforms.

[John @ Nov 18th 2008 11:26AM]

you say that like a dual core processor is some new far out funky idea.

[WirelessMajr @ Nov 18th 2008 2:15PM]

That's precisely the point. I've argued with coworkers and friends, that if Microsoft had the same level of tight control over both hardware and software, that Microsoft would been seen in a much better light. Apple has the ability to design the hardware around the software, and Microsoft simply doesn't have that luxury. As such, I believe they do pretty well for having a program as complex as an operating system work sufficiently well across all the combinations of hardware that it does.

On the same side of the issue, OSX users would have the same frustrations as Windows users if Apple did not have the closed loop process they employ

[SHiot TEH BED @ Nov 18th 2008 9:59AM]

wat

[Jesse @ Nov 18th 2008 10:00AM]

Technically it still runs Vista even with that Chipset and in fact quite well. Seems to me it would be as much of a lie to not have the sticker on there. Sure you don't get all the features but then again any computer without a capture card misses a lot of the features too. Where do you draw the line?

[Saad Rabia @ Nov 18th 2008 10:02AM]

Well, to keep it simple: Microsoft deserves what they might get, or got. I hope they learn and apply the right ways for Windows 7.

[Mobius_1 @ Nov 18th 2008 10:05AM]

I personally think MS messed up with this "Vista Capable" standard. If the experience is going to be poor, just barely acceptable, on a brand new PC with a brand new OS, it's going to piss off qutie a lot of people. Also, I think the OEMs were too eager to push out Vista despite the majority of hardware not entirely suited to running it.

I'm using Vista on a decent new PC and personally it is quite good save a couple of small niggles, although I would not let Vista anywhere near my severly underpowered laptop.

[sjdurfey @ Nov 18th 2008 10:08AM]

the issue here isnt whether or not the graphics chip was capable of running Vista, which it was, it wasnt capable of running anything other than Vista Basic, since it was not capable of running Aero. With all the hype around Vista, Aero was obviously at the forefront at the advertising. So when consumers go to purchase a new laptop that says its "Vista Capable", while it isnt inherently a lie, it is deceptive because it isnt capable of one of Vista's biggest marketing points. If it had sad "Vista Basic Capable" then all these problems go away. On the another note the real losers here are AMD and nVidia who were once again muscled out of market share by Intel's shady business practices.

[Magallanes @ Nov 18th 2008 10:11AM]

Designed and tested for Windows XP.

Windows Vista Crap-able.

[Jonathan-DBOSS @ Nov 18th 2008 10:17AM]

Strike two for Ballsmer.

[Dew @ Nov 18th 2008 10:36AM]

What's strike one?

[Oli D @ Nov 18th 2008 10:41AM]

the time i slept with his wife

[blue @ Nov 18th 2008 10:55AM]

XP= Last good known configuration of MS :)

[Greg @ Nov 18th 2008 10:56AM]

Perhaps if Microsoft had brought Vista out in the time it said it would, then the hardware market wouldn't have suffered as folks kept on delaying buying kit until Vista popped (and thus required the stickers to allay fears in the first place).

Let's hope MS finally learns some expectation management skills for Windows 7...

[Chad @ Nov 18th 2008 11:52AM]

Not only on time but with the features that would have made it actually a compelling upgrade from XP. You know, like WinFS and Virtual Folders. As well as removing popular features XP has like NetMeeting, and Profiles.

[PeterZheng @ Nov 18th 2008 11:10AM]

I wants Ubuntu 9.04 able to a fast bootup less 10-sec.

[michas_pi @ Nov 18th 2008 11:18AM]

Drama llamas

[inteller @ Nov 18th 2008 11:35AM]

HPs argument was pretty weak. They said they went out and spent millions sourcing a better chipset to work with vista. An Nvidia 6150SE? Give me an effing break. Those "Vista Capable" PCs were a race to the bottom.

Microsoft needs to stop having self esteem problems and stand up to thugs like Intel. If a chipset is inherently buggy like the 915, why in hell would you compromise quality? The Vista capable specs should have forced manufacturers to include a DX10 compatible card. The 430 chipset from nvidia was the same bottom feeder dreck as the 915.

Microsoft needs to more strictly enforce its driver models. Hoepfully they won't backslide on the signed x64 driver rule when all new OSs are 64-bit only.

[Joe @ Nov 18th 2008 11:40AM]

I'm unfortunately one of those suckers that bought a "Vista Capable" laptop. It was near the end of summer and I needed a computer for the fall. I picked up an Acer precisely because it had that sticker on it. I figured with just a few months to go this "new" laptop should be able to run the upcoming OS. Imagine my surprise when I get the upgrade CD, install, track down the drivers, and was completely blown away by the godawful performance. Then I had to find out that the applications I was interested in (the new Windows Movie Maker) wouldn't even run on my PC based on the fact that it had such a shitty GPU.

I hope whoever is suing is successful. Then they can turn and smack the shit out of intel. Because they truly deserve it.

[tyler32290 @ Nov 18th 2008 11:43AM]

Personally, Vista is over-done. To many flaws, and not enough fixes.. Took them how long to even put out ServicePack 1? And most people can't even update to that..

Microsoft takes advantage of the Monopoly they endure and slam it down on people. Give it another 5-10 years and Microsoft won't be leading company anymore I presume.

[sjdurfey @ Nov 18th 2008 3:58PM]

lets dismiss some fallacies here:

Vista was available to consumers in January 2007, SP1 came out in mid-March 2008, so a little over a year.
XP was released in October 2001, with SP1 coming out in September 2002, so a little under a year. not much of a time difference here, so release times are in line with previous releases. so i wouldnt say that it was too long, also keep in mind the incredibly vast number of devices Windows must support. Creating a SP thus becomes a daunting task.

"And most people can't even update to that.. "

this problem was fixed a loooong time ago, and shortly after the release of SP1.

Let's us also keep in mind that the vast majority of Vista crashes were a result of poorly written drivers by device manufacturers. With nVidia leading the way being responsible for 30% of all crashes (http://www.windowsvistaweblog.com/2008/03/29/nvidia-causes-early-vista-crashes/). If you really think Microsoft will be irrelevant in 5-10 years, well, i believe you are missing quite a few brain cells. You dont just fall from a 90% market share to the point of non-relevance in that short of a time period. Microsoft seems to recognise the problems that were involved with the Vista launch, and are correcting them in 7.

and as far as this report goes, while Microsoft was certainly a large part of the problem, the real villains here are the Intel execs.

[azex @ Nov 18th 2008 12:10PM]

Is the 945GM much better then the 915? I have this, I think, in my macbook and I remember running Vista Ultimate on Boot Camp and it ran pretty good with Aero, although it nearly maxed out my 1 gig of RAM at the time and I didn't do anything intensive.

[futurepastnow @ Nov 18th 2008 8:20PM]

It's not much better, but the important difference is that the GM945 graphics (GMA950) has a WDDM driver, which the 915 (GMA900) never had. Vista requires the use of WDDM.

In fact, on the Beta versions of Vista that did not require WDDM, Aero ran on GMA900 graphics.

[MikeNJ @ Nov 18th 2008 12:35PM]

Here's the thing... & Microsoft seems to do this every 3rd Windows release. Vista is to XP what Me was to Win98. It's a poorly created, sub-par bastard stepchild of a superior OS. I mean think about it... Win95 was solid, Win98 improved upon it, then Me crapped the bed. Win2k was solid, XP improved upon it, then Vista crapped the bed. I'm a support guy too, so I know from whence I speak. "Uncle Bill" & his minions over there at Micro-Squash (credit to Berk Breathed for that one) had better get their act together for the next OS.

[crispy @ Nov 18th 2008 3:02PM]

Hey I don't know if you remember or not but BILL GATES FUCKING RETIRED.

[BigD145 @ Nov 18th 2008 2:01PM]

When two CEO's get together, they are conspiring. They do absolutely nothing else. Same company. Different company. It doesn't matter. They are conspiring to maximize their profits. Intel did it. Microsoft did it. Consumers lost.

[Racethesun @ Nov 18th 2008 3:49PM]

I was expecting a CE-oh no he didn't and picture of Ballmer's mug for this news story, Engadget why did you let me down?

[Crash900s @ Dec 2nd 2008 12:40AM]

Wait so this class action lawsuit what happens if they win? I am one of those idiots that bought a crappy "Vista capable" laptop with the 915 chipset thinking I could run Vista Areo. To be fair though Home Basic works just fine for me.

[scape @ Nov 19th 2008 8:44AM]

I absolutely cannot wait to see the verdict, sue the pants of those greedy aholes

[Kitty @ Nov 26th 2008 12:03AM]

You really should stop wasting all this time on Vista and start getting your smear campaign ready for Windows 7.