It seems that Steve Ballmer, the current CEO of Microsoft, is stating that it is the testers’ failure to provide feedback for the reason that Vista was not well received. He also states the the testing results for Vista was good, as it is for Windows 7. Therefore one cannot judge how good an operating system is by testing alone.

Excuse me! I was a beta tester for Vista. I take exception to Mr. Ballmer’s statement that:

“’The test feedback (on Windows 7) has been good, but the test feedback on Vista was good,’ Ballmer, 53, said in an interview last week. ‘I am optimistic, but the proof will be in the pudding.’”

I just went over to the Microsoft site for Vista and here is what they still states Vista Home Premium, Business and Ultimate needs at a minium to run properly:

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor, 1 GB of system memory, 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space, Support for DirectX 9 graphics with: WDDM Driver , 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum) ,Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware , 32 bits per pixel, DVD-ROM drive, Internet access (fees may apply)

Let’s be honest here. Any system with a 1GHz processor and only 1 GB of RAM is not going to run any version of Vista, with the exception of Vista Basic. Vista does run well with a dual core processor in the 2GHz range or higher, plus 3GB of RAM or more. Windows 7 also needs this same type of horse power.

I know for a fact that testers told Microsoft that they were having issues with a lack of drivers during testing. In fact as I recall machines that were labeled Vista capable or Vista ready in some instances were not. Wasn’t it Intel that knew that one of their chips wasn’t compatible and yet forced Microsoft to say it was?

When I reported problems with Vista on my test box, I got a resolved notice from Microsoft, yet the problem wasn’t fixed. Yet Microsoft continues down the same path of deceit with their minimum system requirements for Windows 7:

If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here’s what it takes:1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor. 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit), 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit), DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver.

Before Windows 7 went to Beta, I had built myself a new box with an AMD 64 bit dual-core at 2.2GHZ, a NVidia 1GB video card and 4 GB on board memory. I also am using a USB drive with another 4GB running RAM boost. Naturally Windows 7 runs perfectly. But how many people have new systems with the latest hardware that actually will support Windows 7 properly?

During the Beta testing I had no issues with Windows 7 to report. Many of the problems that Vista users experienced when it was first released have been repaired. Driver support has been improved and it shows in Windows 7. It was not the testers who failed, it was Microsoft. They rushed out Vista with the same mind set that has plagued the American car companies. People are stupid and will buy any piece of crap we produce.

Do you think it was the testers who failed?

Comments welcome.


Vista requirements as stated by Microsoft

Windows 7 requirements as stated by Microsoft