Dell Documents Reveal Microsoft's Pre-launch Vista Errors 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.'
But why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Security (Score:5, Interesting)
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:But why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Vastly Different Models (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Or... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
My Postmortem on Vista (Score:3, Interesting)
FYI: Postmortem also has an informal definition meaning "an analysis or review of a finished event".
Re:My Postmortem on Vista (Score:5, Interesting)
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:But why? (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Not forced, no technical reason (Score:3, Interesting)
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:But why? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Security (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But why? (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
They could have made it a lot faster, but it wouldn't have been as robust in failure conditions.
Re:My Postmortem on Vista (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
-1 Overrated?? Moderation Abuse (Score:-1, Interesting)
Slashdot is rapidly swirling around the bowl these days. Vista bashing is the only way they seem to be able to drum up pagehits and generate flamewars.
Needless to say, the article exagerates (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:-1 Overrated?? Moderation Abuse (Score:4, Interesting)
Namely, to prevents developers from creating unauthorized audio/video drivers that can create analog outputs to all media.
Re:But why? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't use Vista for anything media production related so I haven't delved into this.. but it caught my eye a few weeks ago.
Re:Not forced, no technical reason (Score:0, Interesting)
XP video drivers can load, but you lose support for desktop composition (which is what this article is about - a last minute stupid decision my Microsoft to push DirectX 10).
Sound drivers are a little hit and miss - the better written ones may work, but you're best off getting updated versions. Most of the older cards have built in drivers anyways. For the newer cards, Microsoft has started a good initative that will allow generic drivers (included with Vista, of course) to push any new sound card with basic audio, while allowing a fancy driver pack to add on special features (much like video cards, today). Linux will be able to take advantage of this as well.
Printers are a shot in the dark, and historically have been the among the most poorly written drivers for Windows (how many times have I found spoolsv.exe grinding the CPU for no damn reason?). Many still run in Vista, but if you can find new drivers, it's by far worth it.
All that remains are drivers that are highly integrated with the kernel like chipset drivers and security packages (for which abandoning backwards compatiblity is a no-brainer), and specialist devices like USB all-in-one machines and cryptographic software protection dongles that typically barely function in the environment they were built for. The situation doesn't exactly represent the destructive vampiric murderous monopoly you describe, but hey - what would Slashdot be without hyperbole?
Re:Give it up, dude (Score:1, Interesting)
The one where somebody can be labeled a "Microsoft shill" for criticizing Slashdot. Not supporting Microsoft, not bashing Linux, just criticizing the conduct of Slashdot's editors and top contributors. Or have you declared Slashdot perfect, complete, and incorruptible?
Re:Not forced, no technical reason (Score:2, Interesting)
They remade NtCreateProcess for DRM (Score:4, Interesting)
Prior to Vista, NT had a "create process" mechanism differing in design from most other operating systems. NtCreateProcess() creates an empty process with nothing in it other than the new
This worked well until Vista. In Vista, their DRM system had a problem: they didn't want anyone to be able to debug audiodg.exe, but the parent process had to be able to debug it in order to start it. The solution? Redesign the entire process creation system such that the kernel does all the initial process creation procedures so that the parent does not have control over the child if it is a "protected process". Hence, NtCreateUserProcess() was born.
For those that don't believe that this change was for DRM, I offer proof [msdn.com] in the form of a Microsoft kernel developer on video explaining it.