Steve Ballmer "We tried too big a task" with Vista

It’s not every day that you hear the CEO of a major corporation admit that they wasted time on a product.  But Steve Ballmer did just that when talking about Windows Vista. Ballmer stated that “We tried too big a task and in the process wound up losing thousands of man hours of innovation," according to Thinq.co.uk.  All of those man hours resulted in a 5 year wait for the follow up to the rock solid platform that is still widely used today, Windows XP.

While Vista itself was not a bad product, it was plagued with delays and because of these delays consumers were expecting a product with the stability of Windows XP.  The immediate bad press that followed the launch of Vista was debilitating to the long term success of the product.  Also, Apple launched a successful “Mac VS PC” advertisement campaign and publicly called out all of the flaws with Vista.  Couple this with an Intel/Microsoft “Vista Capable” campaign that assured consumers that certain PCs were ready for the new OS when, in fact, they were not, because of pressure from Intel, and you have the breeding ground for a product failure.

Windows 7 made good on Microsoft’s line of operating systems and is being widely adopted worldwide.  But Ballmer’s recognition that they wasted time on Vista by taking on a task to big is one of the few times you will hear the CEO discredit Windows Vista. 

Thanks for the tip medium_pimpin
 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Sony boss says they're not arrogant, but Apple is

Next Story

Google announces Android 2.2 “Froyo”

108 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Windows Vista was not a waste of time, it was just un unfinished, unpolished product that should have never been released. Windows 7, as the great product it is, is in reality nothing more than Vista with a few enhancements and optimisations added.

This 'mea culpa' speech is just a publicity stunt.

Not surprising after the whole team was replaced in 04/05 and effectively walked away from most of what they promised at PDC 2003 & 4. Vista was a rushed update, so glad they didn't do that with Windows 7!

melted98 said,
At the end of the day vista sucked and he's had the ball's to admit the fact. Better late than never.

I remember him jumping up and down and praising Vista as a God-send-OS to the world.

ilev said,

I remember him jumping up and down and praising Vista as a God-send-OS to the world.

He praises Vista in this talk as well. He actually specifically says that he is not talking about "the product itself."

That part wasn't interesting enough to include though.

Vista is not a horrible product. It is not nearly as polished up as Windows 7 is, in all honesty though Vista and 7 are alot alike. 7 is really a re-skinned Vista without the hardware compatibility issues and other bugs. Windows 7 is just Vista with sprinkles on top to make it "perfect."

Was Vista a hit or a success? No, not at all. Its like Microsoft ME- its a stepping stone to a greater product.

Personally, I have never had a problem with Vista that I didn't cause myself out of stupidity. I feel most of the downfall came from people that had never used it or were expecting it to be XP and tried to run it on old machines. At least Vista helped set a higher hardware standard for laptops. If Windows 7 didn't boot up/run this much faster, I would still be on Vista.

Hey

Vista was and is fine product. yes some changes could have been implimented better. Over all the goal was to make windows software coders right better software. With 7 still they need to give UAC a slight change that would have saved Vista, a simple check box would have given preinstalled software "remember me" and uac will (would) be perfect.

Ps I use uac all the time. Today it kept one of my room mates from installing so POP games crap.

Vista Capable hmmm... It isn't Vista's fault about that hardware dohicky. I ran Vista on my old P3 1Ghz Tualatin with 512 mem and was able to produce a good clean video in movie maker that ran 10 minutes, only took 15 to produce it too. Was also able to play Jericho on medium settings with Radeon 2400 AGP. It ran at about 40 frames but no biggy, it was fun.

However I tested it on a Celeron D 3GHz With 2 gigs of mem. The machine was slower than honey dripping down my chest on a cold winters morning. I'd say blame Intel's terrible Celeron CPUs, get rid of that line forever!

Only complaint I had about Vista was that it felt bloated. Too many things (lot of space in HDD) and too much RAM usage, while Windows 7 was slimmed down, it's like Vista after a diet. Otherwise I thought Vista was great, more secure than XP, just as stable, etc..

People always say vista is bad. Sorry. No it is not
WinXP (Sucks and crashes everywhere)
WinVista (Revolutionary in many way, stable but annoying)
Win 7 (brother of Vista, who is well-fed, and not annoying at all)
Win 8 (?????)

Fired? Did you bother reading it in context? Scroll up to where I post the quote in context. You'll see how what he said makes sense.

hotdog963al said,
7 is what Vista should have been all along!

And neither one are even close to what Longhorn was supposed to be...

The way i see it as Balmer stated there was a big (probably to big) leap forward in the way Vista did certain things and the rest the platform wasn`t really ready to go mainstream. This meant that a lot of time was needed to sort out problems and those working on said problems could have been using their time to come up with other innovative ideas which would have been more of a benefit.
Vista got a bad rep from the press and the ball just kept growing to the point where people who had never understood what the OS does where slagging it. It is the basis for 7 which is like a comfy pair of slippers

Also, Apple launched a successful “Mac VS PC” advertisement campaign and publicly called out all of the flaws with Vista. Couple this with an Intel/Microsoft “Vista Capable” campaign that assured consumers that certain PCs were ready for the new OS when, in fact, they were not

It's really a shame Neowin doesn't post the source of their news anymore. Nothing in this portion is even remotely true. The difference in Apple's OS X marketshare hardly changed as a result of their campaign. It succeeded only in insulting everyone's intelligence.

And the "Vista Capable" sticker lawsuit was dropped when a judge ruled in Microsoft's favor. I submitted this news to Neowin when it broke months ago but unsurprisingly, it was not posted.

And let's keep in mind that saying "we lost many hours of innovation because a proejct was too big" is a LOT different than saying "that project was a waste of time". Without Vista there would be no 7 so let's put some spin control on Ballmer's statement, shall we?

I don't know what the fuss is I was quite happy with Windows 7 albeit not right out of the gate but I adopted Vista 64-bit before the first service pack. The reason it was a general failure was due to poor third party support. Vendors were slow to produce acceptable drivers, this can make or break an operating system (where do you think Linux would be today if every hardware manufacturer had decent support for it). As the zeke009 stated, Vista was a stepping stone to Windows 7. In fact each generation of operating system is a stepping stone to the next. Vista likely won't be the last Microsoft operating system to fail either as there will come a time when another radical departure from yesterday's technology will be necessary to pave the way toward future innovation.

notta said,
Well, if even he thinks it's crap then I want my money back!

indeed, I can't imagine many corporates will be happy having spent lots on Vista!

csdavidson said,

indeed, I can't imagine many corporates will be happy having spent lots on Vista!

That may not be true, corporations who went to Vista will have a lower cost to upgrade to Win7 since it is similar. WinXP to Win7 will be more costly and time consuming, Vista to Win7 will be easier due to apps and the environment already using a similar OS.

The 'trouble with Vista' as I see it having had it on 3 boxes till 7 came along..wasn't MS operating system..it was 3rd party support..especially video drivers. Some blame that 'failure' on the MS WHQL mandate..well it was the 3rd party developers that balked on WHQL compliance that to the end user made many Vista installs 'junk' 'crap' 'bloatware' the list went on endlessly. Vista with SP2 and WHQL drivers is rock solid but since going over to Windows 7 I do not long for Vista...been on MS since WFW 3.11 what a sweet ride. I also have 'stick time' with Ubuntu...there is just no fair comparison. Ubuntu is basically a disguised Linux CLI environment with may stalls, freezes and multimedia (when you can get it to play) that at best delivers video experience at a level hardly better than a slideshow.
Ubuntu mp3 playback is like listening to Mel Tillis speak....no offense Mel!!!

Vista was necessary step. You can't make a great product (Win 7) without intermediate step. It doesn't work other way. Event these guys from linux needs a lot of time to find and fix the problems (https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12309 - even it's closed, it is not fixed yet!). Look at Mac OSx. The first releases are full of ****. But the only MS gets the peanuts...

"Also, Apple launched a successful “Mac VS PC” advertisement campaign and publicly called out all of the flaws with Vista."

Actually most of the flaws those ads calld out were with Windows XP or earlier. The only Vista specific ad I remember was whining about the increased security in Vista with the conclusion that if you buy a Mac you don't need to worry about security.

The Mac vs PC ad of Microsoft offering around a billion different Windows Vista versions was pretty much spot on.

Vista was not and it's not bad. Vista is even better in many ways than Windows 7, what is only stripped down Vista with new taskbar. IMO main problem was timing. Hardware of 2007 was simply not ready for it..

I guess nobody really sees this as a marketing technique. Saying now that Vista is flawed and Win7 is a new XP is going to push people who are still on Vista to go out and purchase windows 7 license. The statement is going to bring in some moolah to the company.

d4diesel said,
I guess nobody really sees this as a marketing technique. Saying now that Vista is flawed and Win7 is a new XP is going to push people who are still on Vista to go out and purchase windows 7 license. The statement is going to bring in some moolah to the company.

I'll go along with that a little, although the guy had to know what a POS it was to begin with?

"6205 - was not and it's not bad. Vista is even better in many ways than Windows 7, what is only stripped down Vista with new taskbar."

You're kidding, right?

Faks said,
well windows is at platform only for gaming but future is behind the linux !

I find win7 great for gaming, general use, and stability

My ubuntu 10.4 install however, while really usable and nice, glitches out constantly and i dont even trust using it for anything important. Unresponsive windows and UI just plagues it on both my installs, right from a fresh start to on 2 different PC's

Faks said,
well windows is at platform only for gaming but future is behind the linux !

Linux just isn't meant to be a desktop OS. Too much inconsistencies, and too many people wanting to take it in too many different directions. The future remains with Microsoft and Apple.

Faks said,
well windows is at platform only for gaming but future is behind the linux !
Come back when you at least have smooth flash support.

Vista wasn't bad for me, it was just new, and most people that I knew that complained about it either never took the time to learn how to use a new OS (keep in mind the phrase 'new', not XP version 2) or just ate up all the Apple stuff mentioned above. I think Vista, for all that it took in the way of criticism, set the foundation for 7 to come out in its glory. My 7 looks and runs pretty much like my Vista did, and has many more similarities to that than XP. I think its a good thing they had Vista, because if anything, it can be taken as one huge beta phase.

smartin0115 said,
Vista wasn't bad for me, it was just new, and most people that I knew that complained about it either never took the time to learn how to use a new OS (keep in mind the phrase 'new', not XP version 2) or just ate up all the Apple stuff mentioned above. I think Vista, for all that it took in the way of criticism, set the foundation for 7 to come out in its glory. My 7 looks and runs pretty much like my Vista did, and has many more similarities to that than XP. I think its a good thing they had Vista, because if anything, it can be taken as one huge beta phase.
Keep in mind, you got Vista right before SP1, so most of the preliminary bugs were worked out.

"With the stability of Windows XP"?

Hah, Vista is and was far more stable than XP ever has been. It's a testament that even with the absolutely dire quality of nVidia drivers (And still today, to an extent) around GA, Vista didn't BSOD like XP would, it just recovered the driver.

Is IT dominated by 13 yearolds that can't remember the release of XP? Or does the majority have long-term memory issues? Because XP's launch was as bad, if not worse.

Athernar said,
"With the stability of Windows XP"?

Hah, Vista is and was far more stable than XP ever has been. It's a testament that even with the absolutely dire quality of nVidia drivers (And still today, to an extent) around GA, Vista didn't BSOD like XP would, it just recovered the driver.

Is IT dominated by 13 yearolds that can't remember the release of XP? Or does the majority have long-term memory issues? Because XP's launch was as bad, if not worse.

Exactly! People seem to have selective memory when it comes to XP. I remember upgrading to XP when it first came out. Bad driver support and program incompatibility issues were just as bad as it was for Vista. It wasn't until SP2 for XP that XP finally lived up to its potential. I used Vista for over two years and although it did have some glitches, it was no worse than XP in it's initial release. Windows 7 is so much better ONLY because Vista was first and helped pave the way for what was coming.

Athernar said,

Is IT dominated by 13 yearolds that can't remember the release of XP? Or does the majority have long-term memory issues? Because XP's launch was as bad, if not worse.

I had the first PC at my company to ship with Windows 2000. As soon as it arrived my IT Dept. quarantined it, ghosted the machine, and put Windows 98 on it. They also changed my order to remove the sound card - because "you don't need a sound card for work".

For some reason it's people like this that seem to write for technical publications.

Luckily my boss intervened. I got Windows 2000 and he made the Helpdesk order me a replacement soundcard.

Athernar said,
"With the stability of Windows XP"?

Hah, Vista is and was far more stable than XP ever has been. It's a testament that even with the absolutely dire quality of nVidia drivers (And still today, to an extent) around GA, Vista didn't BSOD like XP would, it just recovered the driver.

That was exactly the quote that jumped out at me in the article. How ridiculous!

Athernar said,
"With the stability of Windows XP"?

Hah, Vista is and was far more stable than XP ever has been. It's a testament that even with the absolutely dire quality of nVidia drivers (And still today, to an extent) around GA, Vista didn't BSOD like XP would, it just recovered the driver.

Is IT dominated by 13 yearolds that can't remember the release of XP? Or does the majority have long-term memory issues? Because XP's launch was as bad, if not worse.

Unfortunately these days where a blog gives anyone a platform to rant and rave no matter how lacking in value it may have. I remember Windows XP when it was first launched - I bought it around a month after it was released - I quickly moved back to Windows 2000 because I was so dissatisfied with it. It was not until Windows XP SP2 that Windows XP really started to become better than Windows 2000. Compared to Windows XP at release time, Windows Vista was far superior. Did Windows Vista have flaws? sure, but they pale in comparison to Windows XP at launch time.

franzon said,
if Win7 released in 2007, it would have the same "failure" of Vista.

Pretty much, the reason 7 is doing so well is because the drivers for Vista and 7 have matured over the years. You can easily install Vista drivers on Windows 7.

franzon said,
if Win7 released in 2007, it would have the same "failure" of Vista.

except that would lead "vista being released in 2004" it original lanch date ; so nope

Ci7 said,

except that would lead "vista being released in 2004" it original lanch date ; so nope

No. You don't get it. If all the improvements made on Vista that are in 7 were part of Vista itself, then it still would have resulted in the same "failure." It is a simple fact that drivers and weak hardware being advertised as adequate were the causes of Vista's failure. 7 came out 3 years after Vista. A lot of the antiquated hardware is no longer in use and the drivers have fully matured, giving 7 a smooth start.

Edited by mrp04, May 20 2010, 7:21pm :

vista wasnt the issue it was bad driver support from hardware manufacturers etc, with windows 7s drivers being the same as vista made the upgrade alot easier than from xp to vista

Midgetman said,
vista wasnt the issue it was bad driver support from hardware manufacturers etc, with windows 7s drivers being the same as vista made the upgrade alot easier than from xp to vista

It doesn't matter who was at fault. It's like kids telling their mother no it's not me it's my brother.

The fact is out of the box Vista was not working right with popular and already released hardwares.

People complain about Linux for a lack of drivers. So they perfectly have the right to do the same with Microsoft Windows.

I bought Vista at lauch. My old X-FI did not have any working drivers and the one MS provided with Vista was lacking some features and my nVidia drivers was buggy as hell. The situation persisted for a couple of weeks if i recall well.

This was old hardware that was avalaible way before Vista launched.

It doesn't matter if it's MS fault or not this is their OS and it was not working right out of the box. Windows 7 was.

Edited by LaP, May 20 2010, 4:17pm :

Midgetman said,
vista wasnt the issue it was bad driver support from hardware manufacturers etc, with windows 7s drivers being the same as vista made the upgrade alot easier than from xp to vista
I agree with you 100%, I never had a single issue with vista. In fact it made being an administrator alot easier. I could manage updates and drivers so much easier with this product. I think had they waited another 6 months for the manufactures to get their act together with driver support and not allowing those subpar pc's to have vista installed in the first place we would never had such a bad rep. To me the difference betwen 7 and vista is minimal at best and at times I feel 7 is just overhyped by the folks who never truely gave vista a chance.

LaP said,

It doesn't matter who was at fault. It's like kids telling their mother no it's not me it's my brother.

The fact is out of the box Vista was not working right with popular and already released hardwares.

People complain about Linux for a lack of drivers. So they perfectly have the right to do the same with Microsoft Windows.

I bought Vista at lauch. My old X-FI did not have any working drivers and the one MS provided with Vista was lacking some features and my nVidia drivers was buggy as hell. The situation persisted for a couple of weeks if i recall well.

This was old hardware that was avalaible way before Vista launched.

It doesn't matter if it's MS fault or not this is their OS and it was not working right out of the box. Windows 7 was.

It really isn't Microsoft's fault. YOU should have realized that YOUR hardware's MANUFACTURE did not release drivers and hold off on the upgrade until they were ready. 7 came out nearly 3 years after Vista. By that time, all old hardware which was going to get new drivers did, so people use 7 and find it amazing. If you installed Vista right before 7 came out, you would realize it works perfectly, too.

If anything, I have a problem in 7 that I didn't have in Vista. Sometimes my USB ports just stop working.

mrp04 said,

It really isn't Microsoft's fault. YOU should have realized that YOUR hardware's MANUFACTURE did not release drivers and hold off on the upgrade until they were ready. 7 came out nearly 3 years after Vista. By that time, all old hardware which was going to get new drivers did, so people use 7 and find it amazing. If you installed Vista right before 7 came out, you would realize it works perfectly, too.

If anything, I have a problem in 7 that I didn't have in Vista. Sometimes my USB ports just stop working.

I get that sometimes too. Any idea whats causing it?

Midgetman said,
vista wasnt the issue it was bad driver support from hardware manufacturers etc, with windows 7s drivers being the same as vista made the upgrade alot easier than from xp to vista

Windows Vista was released January 2007, with the RC1 being released:

http://www.neowin.net/news/win...rc1-available-to-the-masses

In September 2006, so they had less than 6 months to compile and test against a stable target. I hardly think that is particularly fair to the OEM's given the massive changes that were made.

This is not news, this is an editorial piece by Brad Sams that has nothing to do with what Ballmer was saying.

hdood said,
This is not news, this is an editorial piece by Brad Sams that has nothing to do with what Ballmer was saying.

*sigh*

Why must there always be one? 8\

Did you know about Balmer's statement before reading this? I didn't. So I would define this as being news to me.

hdood said,
This is not news, this is an editorial piece by Brad Sams that has nothing to do with what Ballmer was saying.
Yeah, the first paragraph is about the statement Ballmer made, the rest...not so much.

smartin0115 said,

Did you know about Balmer's statement before reading this? I didn't.
Well, I did, because there is already a forum thread about it where I posted a correction that shows that Ballmer was actually talking about something completely different, but that's not really the point.

smartin0115 said,

So I would define this as being news to me.
You misunderstand. I mean that it's not news because it's just Brad Sams posting his opinion on Vista. Nothing in the article has anything to do at all with what Ballmer was talking about.

Actually, I suppose it's slightly worse than that, because it makes it sound like what he is saying is actually Ballmer's opinion, when it is not. This is what happens when you take a quote of context and apply bias.

Here is what I said in the forum:

The problem here is that context is crucial. You have to look at what he said in context. This was a forum for business leaders, and what he said was:

In terms of, people ask, you know, how do you innovate consistently? It turns out, one of the things I think I have most come to appreciate over the last two-three years is that in fact there is an aspect of R&D and innovation that's just an execution game, that if you have smart people, they'll do something innovative as long as you hold them to task of executing in some kind of reliable way. It won't provide the vision for something that is entirely new, but it will provide beauty and improvement in a lot of ways.

The saga of our Windows product is probably one of the better chronicled, and I'm sure many people went through a sort of a cycle either at home or at work with our Vista product... just not executed well. Not the product itself, but we went a gap of about 5-6 years without a product. I think back now, and I think about thousands of man-years, and it wasn't because we were wrong-minded and thinking bad thoughts and not pushing innovation. We tried too big a task, and in the process wound up losing essentially thousands of man-years of innovation capability, and so a discipline and an execution around the innovation process I think is essential.


In other words, he was not talking about the final Vista product itself. He was talking about the innovation process. What he was saying is that instead of having a constant stream of innovation on a smaller scale, Microsoft tried to do too much at once. They tried to make massive (and innovative) changes to Windows and it essentially got out of control. They eventually realized this, which lead to Vista's (or Longhorn, as its code name was) development being restarted in a scaled down and more controlled way. This is a sober and honest admittance of a failed strategy for peers to learn from, nothing more.

Edited by hdood, May 20 2010, 3:54pm :

hdood said,
This is not news, this is an editorial piece by Brad Sams that has nothing to do with what Ballmer was saying.

Pretty sure Brad Sams didn't write the article.

medium_pimpin said,

Pretty sure Brad Sams didn't write the article.

He wrote the Neowin article. It's not quoting anything from the other article, except the out-of-context Ballmer quote.

Vista was just *ok* - nothing really special but 7 has incredible improvements and I'm glad because it's a rocksolid OS.

I think every one knows this even microsoft. good to see them admitting.
Vista has some glitches but it is a stable OS now with SP2.

i'm not sure they wasted time, vista was the foundation for win7. developing win7 straight from XP without an intermediate may have taken 80% of the time of developing both. the only thing that really hurt them isnt the man-hours wasted. it's the bad press and a mediocre final product.

Leeoniya said,
i'm not sure they wasted time, vista was the foundation for win7. developing win7 straight from XP without an intermediate may have taken 80% of the time of developing both. the only thing that really hurt them isnt the man-hours wasted. it's the bad press and a mediocre final product.

Agreed. Without Vista, there would be no 7.

Leeoniya said,
i'm not sure they wasted time, vista was the foundation for win7. developing win7 straight from XP without an intermediate may have taken 80% of the time of developing both. the only thing that really hurt them isnt the man-hours wasted. it's the bad press and a mediocre final product.

The problem is that there was a 5 year gap and during the 5 years there was much hyping both by the mainstream IT media outlets and Microsoft that Windows Vista would be the second coming - it became the victim of over hyping and under delivering. Don't get my wrong, the changes Windows Vista bought: WDDM for example, cleaning up of the driver API and so on were needed but had they kept the goals modest, informed the market that Vista would be an evolution and not a revolution - the hype would have died, the product would have under promised and over delivered.

Windows 7 on the other hand was under-hyped, modest goals were set, no revolutions were promised - just modest evolutionary changes and the new manager of Windows kept the details under wraps until it ready to be released to the public. If anything I hope that the new Windows manager is give a bonus for the great product execution because had he been in charge of Windows Vista it would have been delivered 2 years earlier with a more modest scope of changes that didn't make massive disruptive changes.

Azies said,
At least he's honest.

You didn't manage to read that, form an opinion of it and then post about it, in a WHOLE minute, did you? *sigh*

RonanFarrell said,

You didn't manage to read that, form an opinion of it and then post about it, in a WHOLE minute, did you? *sigh*

ummm, 2 minutes is plenty of time for all of the above.

RonanFarrell said,

You didn't manage to read that, form an opinion of it and then post about it, in a WHOLE minute, did you? *sigh*

People form opinions while reading. That article can easily be read under one minute. So yes he most likely did *sigh*

RonanFarrell said,

You didn't manage to read that, form an opinion of it and then post about it, in a WHOLE minute, did you? *sigh*

Wow.... -_-

Edited by Azies, May 20 2010, 3:10pm :

Azies said,
At least he's honest.

I won't call Balmer "honest." For years, he kept telling us Vista was great. To him and some users it was. The rest of the world, it wasn't. Too many bad experiences for myself installing on multiple computers with different hardware setup. All of them meet and exceed requirements. Windows 7 was a better polished OS and did the job like XP. It installed fast and runs solid. Great job for that MS.

Masterp said,
I won't call Balmer "honest." For years, he kept telling us Vista was great. To him and some users it was. The rest of the world, it wasn't.

Actually, what Ballmer said had absolutely nothing to do with the Vista product at all in any way shape or form whatsoever. This is just an editorial where someone tells us how they feel about Vista, it doesn't have anything to do with anything Ballmer said.

Leeoniya said,

ummm, 2 minutes is plenty of time for all of the above.

I dunno I think the post title combined with his already pretty open admission of problems with vista would have been enough to cement the "at least he's honest" statement

Problem is mr balmer you still have work to do, software should b developed to be quicker. I expect windows 8 to fly

RonanFarrell said,

You didn't manage to read that, form an opinion of it and then post about it, in a WHOLE minute, did you? *sigh*

It can be read in a minute. Some people are fast readers. It all depends on how you comprehend it.

GeekTwo said,

I dunno I think the post title combined with his already pretty open admission of problems with vista would have been enough to cement the "at least he's honest" statement

Problem is mr balmer you still have work to do, software should b developed to be quicker. I expect windows 8 to fly

and you are going to stick at obsolete P4 ?
or highly outdated C2D ?(by the time win8 is out)
that sound a winning card!

RonanFarrell said,

You didn't manage to read that, form an opinion of it and then post about it, in a WHOLE minute, did you? *sigh*

I can do that, most people can.

RonanFarrell said,

You didn't manage to read that, form an opinion of it and then post about it, in a WHOLE minute, did you? *sigh*

Where did you learn to read?

I quite liked Vista in general, it wasn't made to run on 10 year old hardware people.

RonanFarrell said,

You didn't manage to read that, form an opinion of it and then post about it, in a WHOLE minute, did you? *sigh*

Say what?

According this news, Balmer said :
“We tried too big a task and in the process wound up losing thousands of man hours of innovation," and NOTHING MORE.

The other paragraph (the stuff about Vista) is not clear if it is a interpretation or it is simply a writer's opinion about the Balmer's speech.