Originally Posted by sparda
What did you expect? It's a whole new platform, the product doesn't "suck" because applications that were programed by third parties specifically for previous versions (9X / 2000 / XP) don't work on Vista, it's up to developers to start working on Vista compatible applications. As Isaac said, pretty much the same thing happened when XP was released, there was though, more compatibility back then, but it was basically because XP was built on top of Windows 2000. Are consumers going to be pissed ? Of course! And they will take it out on Microsoft because it's their operating system, but they fail to see that it's up to software developers and hardware vendors to start working on making their products compatible with Vista. These type of conflicts are not specific to Windows either, on Linux, most of the times if you want to get an application working, you need to make sure that you have the appropriate kernel version and that all dependencies (libraries) are up to the specific required version (or greater), if a new kernel is released and you compile it on your box, chances are that application will not work anymore and you will have to re-compile a new version of it....yet people go out saying things like "Why can't Windows be more like Linux?" (I'm not saying that's your case).
You're missing the point - Microsoft does have a responsibility to bring a product to market that will work properly. Part of that process is working with hardware vendors to ensure most, if not all, mainstream hardware works properly with their new product before putting it on store shelves. This is part of the process, and this is one of the many corners that Microsoft has cut in an effort to bring Vista to market sooner. To put it another way, MS has essentially released a beta product, in which known issues still have not been resolved. Yes it is the hardware vendor's responsibility to release drivers that will work, and software vendors to release software that will work, but it is Microsoft's responsibility to ensure this happens BEFORE their product is released, NOT AFTER. That is what the beta process is supposed to be for.
Not that I blame them, with the countless delays it was either "cut features and release an unfinished product now" or "delay even longer reducing investors' confidence in Microsoft's future growth potential" - guess which one sounded better to management (at least at the time)?