Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletters
For more info on a specific newsletter, click the title. Details will be displayed in a new window.
Computerworld Daily News (First Look and Wrap-Up)
Computerworld Blogs Newsletter
The Weekly Top 10
More E-Mail Newsletters 
Preston Gralla's picture
Preston Gralla

Seeing Through Windows

Intel backstabs Microsoft by abandoning Vista

The news that Intel has decided it won't upgrade its PCs to Vista must be especially bitter for Microsoft because court documents show that Microsoft may have launched its ill-fated "junk PC" Vista scheme at the behest of Intel. Is this the kind of payback that Microsoft expected?

According to the New York Times, Intel has decided that it won't upgrade the PCs of its 80,000 computers to Windows Vista. The Times reports:

the company made its decision after a lengthy analysis by its internal technology staff of the costs and potential benefits of moving to Windows Vista, which has drawn fire from many customers as a buggy, bloated program that requires costly hardware upgrades to run smoothly.

Microsoft has good reason to feel bitter about the decision. As I've reported in my blog, Microsoft's "Vista Capable PC" scheme may have been launched specifically to help Intel meet its quarterly earnings by selling older Intel chipsets that couldn't properly run Vista.

A refresher for those who might not remember the "Vista Capable PC" scheme: It was a marketing scheme in which people claim that Microsoft misled consumers into buying the Windows Vista Capable PCs, even though the PCs couldn't run the most important features of Vista.

According to court documents released in a suit related to the scheme, Microsoft's John Kalkman sent an email to Scott Di Valerio, who was in charge of the company's relations with PC makers, noting that the Vista Capable PC scheme was being launched on behalf of Intel:

In the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded. This in turn did two things: 1. Decreased focus of OEMs planning and shipping higher end graphics for Vista-ready programs and 2. Reduced the focus by IHV's to ready great WHQL [Windows Hardware Quality Labs] qualified graphics drivers. We can see this today with Intel's inability to ship a compelling full featured 945 graphics driver for Windows Vista.

Kalkman makes clear in the email that it was a mistake to try and bail out Intel:

...it was a mistake on our part to change the original graphics requirements. This created confusion in the industry on how important the visual aspects of visual computing would play as a feature set to new Windows Vista upgraders.

So Microsoft went out on a limb to bail out Intel, and this is the payback it gets? They're not doubt talking about back-stabbing at Redmond these days.

Like this blog? Subscribe to the RSS feed!

What People Are Saying

This is Business

This is business my friend If Microsoft was at Intel's Place they would have done the same. Don't worry Microsoft will find way to get back with Intel.

Its not about loyalties

Vista SP1 just blew away video, audio, and WWAN drivers, as well as rendering all of the systems software provided by the manufacturer inoperable on my 3-month-old Lenovo. I am in negotiations now to return my new computer. I have a laptop that I just reinstalled XP on and it works like a champ. Will use that, I think.

Intel is not being disloyal by not adopting (can't bring myself to call it upgrading to) Vista, it is merely exercising good business sense. Vista simply doesn't work reliably. As a former SW product manager I define a beta test as something that elicits only rare and unusual errors. I wouldn't rate Vista (even with SP1) as ready for an ALPHA test, much lest beta. I would feel shame if I were a Vista product manager or programmer. This is just not well-though-out, competently planned and executed code.

I understand that security was the driver for Vista. Now, I CAN make any computer as secure and functional as Vista: I can drive a pickaxe through the thing. Your data is safe! You can't do anything with the computer, but that's the case with Vista, too.

Hell, even Office 2007 is harder to use that its predecessor and has features (e.g. a footer created in a powerpoint 2003 document cannot be edited, or deleted in powerpoint 2007, and MS insists that this is "functioning as designed").

I plan to possibly upgrade from Vista to XP, and from Office 2007 to Office 2003. Right now, I think you'd get a more reliable machine buying a used computer with XP off of ebay than buying a new Dell or Lenovo or HP with Vista.

Has anybody tried mount a class action suit based on strict liability? Would that work? I'd love to get the cost of Vista, and the lost days of trying to make it work, back.

The Wiz...

Upgrading Office

Instead of MS Office 2003, upgrade further to the new Open Office 3.0. It is not only better than MS but it is also freeware!

vista

hey. i'm a win 3.1 guy.
i grudgingly upgraded to '95.
i thought '98 was the best ever.
i never had any virus or security issues... until i bought a copy of XP.
i actually downgraded several of my computers to '98.
i just bought a new laptop loaded w/of course vista.
so far i'm really digging the security and have had a very pleasurable experience browsing the web after four years.
i caught a virus about that time from the web whilst running ME and it somehow spread to every computer i owned.
i quit computers entirely for the last four years - damnable things.
it looks to me like this is a hardware issue, and maybe a bit of nostalgia for XP (which, in my opinion, is the worst product microsoft has ever released.)
computer security IS an issue to be considered, and with the price of hardware so cheap, if it takes more memory or whatever resources to run vista, so be it.
try going back to 3.1 or even 3.0 ... dos...(lol,) and run the web.
quit your whining and belly up!

That's exactly why I advise

That's exactly why I advise all my co-workers to buy lease return HP-commercial grade WinXP pro PC's.

Most Enterprises aren't, why pick on Intel?

I know all about the emails between Intel and MS about Intel's chipsets not being ready yet but who had the final decision? Microsoft.

I read articles that are "leaving out the truth" by saying "64% of Enterprises running Vista say they are reducing IT costs substantially".
So 64% of how many enterprise customers? they try to spin it like 64% of Enterprises have rolled Vista out and that is nowhere even near the truth.
I will be surprised if by Mid-2009 50% of enterprises and large institutional MS customers have Vista as their predominate OS.

So when Intel decided not to roll out Vista it wasn't because they don't have a great relationship with Microsoft it is simply because Vista is not Enterprise ready.

For a home computer and particularly a media center home computer it can be tamed (disable UAC, enable the REAL administrator account, etc.
But it is also a resource hog for non-compelling "features".

If you really want "Eye Candy" then buy a Mac.
If you are running out of HW resources but want to go to something other than XP then look at SUSE or Ubuntu Linux.

Not backstabbing - just business sense

Most companies with a substantial base of PCs license the Windows OS based on the number of installations, not the version of the OS. The companies are then free to install and maintain their preferred base OS image(s) any way they want and as long as MS gets paid, MS doesn't care. Maintaining 80,000 PCs and the wide range of applications that are necessary for the business would get exponentially more difficult and costly if Vista was introduced into the existing Win2000 and XP base. For starters, Intel would likely have to scrap 80,000 PCs for more costly hardware. Then there's the lost productivity of workers during the time their machines are swapped out and they tweak and personalize their new machines.

IT already has enough on its hands keeping their machines working so that workers are productive. Their is no cost incentive in introducing a problematic OS into an environment that is currently working and manageable.

Smart decision

Intel made very smart decision not to install Vista to its workstations. If Vista creates so much pain and agony in home use, so how the hell it wouldn't be pain in the ass in corporate environment. Who really wants to install the biggest joke in PC history to their computers.

Intel has NOT stabbed MS in the back.

Intel has NOT stabbed Microsoft in the back. Intel cannot yet downgrade to Vista as they simply have no PCs which are Vista-capable.

As soon as someone develops a PC capable of running Vista well, Intel will be amongst the first in line to buy them.

Biggest joke in PC History?

I think Vista isn't the *biggest* joke in PC History. I'd say there are four contenders for that:

1) Microsoft Bob
2) IBM PC Jr.
3) Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld being pathetic rather than funny in a $300 million advertising campaign that featured a commercial w/ Bill Gates doing "The Robot".

A possible fourth would be that most companies that sue Microsoft for copyright infringement, stealing code/ideas/products/whatever, end up with Microsoft putting money into their companies, becoming their partner, and getting the technology anyway, for a fraction of what the lawsuit would have cost. :)