smackfoo.com | I find your lack of faith disturbing.

This is a question that Michael Gartenberg has asked.

His article goes into a little detail regarding a recent experience regarding a pre-loaded Vista system, much of which is on point. I did note, however, a key statement made that highlights an issue Microsoft ironically helped, indeed forced, into the market — he writes:

Of course Microsoft cant’ mandate what vendors ship on their PCs (that would invite a few phone calls from several attorneys general).

Oh but they can. And do. To a point. Strap yourselves in folks, this is going to get a little bumpy.

Microsoft have had a cosy arrangement regarding bundling of the Microsoft Windows Operating System with OEM systems for years. This is not a new phenomena.

Microsoft may not control the third party aspect directly¹, but they do have the OEM market well and truly cornered. So you really do have to play their game to get on-board. Not unlike a large celestial body, once it has enough mass it starts to directly affect the parties around it.

When old is new again.

But that doesn’t explain why this is suddenly such an issue. Why now? Why after more than 10 years of systems bundled with Windows, including the additional bloat of third party applications, do we suddenly take issue with pre-loaded minutia supplied along side Vista?

One simply cannot, in good conscience, suggest the quality of applications and hardware has universally dropped across the board the moment Vista shipped.

Third party drivers and applications have run the entire gamut of exceptional down to dubious-at-best for as long as Windows has been bundled. Again, that’s not new.

What’s new perhaps is that such bundling is highlighting that Vista shipped with fundamental issues on day one. Many of which are still to be fixed. Those issues may well be, in part, resolved in the upcoming service pack, but that doesn’t automatically excuse Microsoft.

Indeed, shouldn’t the question equally be is Vista hurting OEM’s? Vendors seem hell bent on continuing to sell units bundled with XP despite Microsoft’s² attempt to kill off the Operating System used by millions of users every day.

Size matters.

Is there a bloat and performance issue with many bundled systems? Sure. Has it worsened over time? Most certainly. Some of the systems that arrive where I work, targeted for the corporate space, have just as much bloat and third party stuffing as that destined for the home or small office market.

At least we have the luxury of wiping the slate clean on those systems. Building a standardised environment has some serious advantages in the stability and performance stakes.

It also affords the opportunity to review what vendors are bundling with there gear over the life-cycle of any system as many corporates’ will try and re-order the same kit, even if something has been superseded by newer hardware, to maximise a Standardised Operating System’s life-span.

Mr Hyde?

Based on what I have come across, first hand, it’s not that the fit-and-finish of Vista that is a plain failure per-se. It’s just that it doesn’t play well with others. Issues that were well sorted before XP shipped seem to have resurfaced with Vista’s release. It was rushed, there’s no other logical way to explain it.

I’m fortunate to use Vista on several machines that have all be designed to work with the OS, have drivers that work and come from vendors who ship proper SKUs for the proper machine and don’t install a lot of junk.

It might be Dr Jeykl one moment, then Mr Hyde the next. Software and hardware that worked well with XP has been known to fail miserably on Vista. A compatibility issue does not an automatic vendor failure create.

Michael has also commented on first-hand experience:

When you get that experience, Vista is great and a worthy upgrade to XP but that’s not the experience a lot of folks seem to have.

In other words on a limited range of hardware with a low software volume Vista shines. And that’s true, to a point. But that’s not the world we live in.

The real world.

We, the consumer at large, are not all system builders or integrators. We expect to be able to run an Operating System on recommended hardware and have it work. After all, it’s recommended, right?

People use all manner of applications and hardware and Microsoft has always, always pushed the strength of an OS that can do anything with any number of applications and virtually any hardware. I might even be so bold as to suggest Windows XP has seen the peak in that regard.

However the recent changes at Microsoft, including the importance placed on MinWin proves, more than any press statement possibly could, that Vista was a wrong turn. Microsoft made a mistake. Vista was launched too soon and the consumer has been burned as a result. So much so that OEMs have copped more than their fare share of complaint and scorn.

Many of whom have no doubt gone back to selling XP, potentially saving millions of dollars in support costs. When you buy a Dell, or HP, you’ll typically call them for support, rather a lot more than Microsoft. Even for software issues.

Reality.

Microsoft hasn’t seen core architecture changes³ since the Intel 8086. The reality is systems are getting faster and faster. Video cards and CPUs are gaining exponentially more cores, memory is typically counted in the multi-gigabytes for most new systems and yet basic compatibility and performance issues seem to increase in the Microsoft world.

Windows should be an evolutionary product, improving over time balancing new features with performance gains. Vista proves that far from being revolutionary, it’s the tired and bloated end to a product line that is simply going nowhere. It has fundamental issues that cannot be attributed to hardware or software alone.

1. over and above code hooks and connectors (↩)
2. failed (↩)
3. over and above 64 bit (↩)