Even Microsoft Execs Are Confused About 'Vista Capable' Claims

from the marketing-doublespeak dept

In April we noted a lawsuit charging Microsoft with deceptive advertising for slapping a "Vista Capable" label on computers that will only run the Home Basic version of Windows. The lawyers are currently taking depositions in that case, and we're learning that even Microsoft's own executives can't keep their story straight. Apparently, a Microsoft executive stated that "capable is a statement that has an interpretation for many that, in the context of this program, a PC would be able to run any version of the Windows Vista operating system." Not surprisingly, his lawyers quickly pulled him aside and pointed out that this statement was undermining their case, and he quickly changed his tune and said that "capable" meant able to run at least one version of Windows Vista. So Microsoft deservedly has egg on its face here. Still, I'm torn about whether a lawsuit is appropriate. Home Basic clearly is a version of Windows Vista, and so the statement that the machines were "Vista Capable" is technically true, albeit misleading. I just checked HP and Dell's website, and they're both selling their low-end machines with Home Basic. Unless there's evidence that consumers received more specific promises from sales reps or in marketing materials, it seems like a stretch to interpret "Vista Capable" as a promise that the machines would be able to run every version of Vista. Microsoft is getting some richly deserved bad press here, and that may be enough to make them be more careful in the future. It's not clear a class action lawsuit will accomplish anything beyond enriching the lawyers involved.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Max, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 4:13am

    Microsoft is a dinosaur that is waaay behind the curve. They are trying to sell over bloated over priced software into a world of $399 computers. They think they have a captive customer base they can rape anytime they want money. There is no other reason for Vista.

    No more. People who are buying modern, cheap computers are looking for an appliance. They want to plug it in and have it work for the basic tasks of non nerds. It does e-mail, it has a browser, it plays CDs and DVDs, and it does all that without superfluous bells and whistles.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Burzum, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 4:21am

    The version of OS the system came with

    Something to consider is the version of XP that the system came with. If someone purchases a system with XP Home Edition than Vista Home Basic is likely to work for them. If they've paid a little extra for XP Professional I'd imagine they'd be in the market for Vista Business or Vista Ultimate.

    I was really disappointent when I tried to load Vista Ultimate Prerelease on my brand new Sony VAIO in late 2006. It installed and worked well enough but I had a very hard time finding drivers for it. I guess I had misinterpreted "Windows Vista Capable" as "you can install Windows Vista on this thing now and it'll run smooth as silk." Guess I was wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Matt, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 4:24am

    Vista?? Um, no.

    I just built a new high-end PC, and guess what... XP went right on there, not Vista. $399 for an OPERATING SYSTEM, hahaha yeah... right. In your DREAMS, Microsoft!

    Make it $100, fix the bugs, give us a BIGTIME service pack, and maybe one or two of us will buy Vista. I personally do not see the benefit of spending $400 on an operating system that will run programs and games SLOWER than XP (Check the Crysis benchmarks, especially SLI in XP versus SLI in Vista64 - LOL!).

    Read this Microsoft: We will NOT give you $400 for your lousy, shoddy, slapped-together "code", when a high-end 8800GT GPU is only $250, and a quad core Q6600 is only $275. Is the operating system supposed to cost as much as a speedy CPU and GPU COMBINED?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anon, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 4:40am

    I'm afraid

    I'm afraid I would have to agree and say that 'capable' most likely means 'will run a version' rather than all. Still, it's nice to see these highly-paid lawyers slipping up and pointing out that M$ are trying to ride people alittle bit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 4:50am

    To borrow a line from Casablanca...

    I'm shocked, simply shocked, to hear that Microsoft executives are lying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    nonuser, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 5:05am

    an oxymoron?

    But not as bad as "Windows Genuine Advantage".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 5:13am

    Re: Vista?? Um, no.

    [quote]
    I just built a new high-end PC, and guess what... XP went right on there, not Vista. $399 for an OPERATING SYSTEM, hahaha yeah... right. In your DREAMS, Microsoft!

    Make it $100, fix the bugs, give us a BIGTIME service pack, and maybe one or two of us will buy Vista. I personally do not see the benefit of spending $400 on an operating system that will run programs and games SLOWER than XP (Check the Crysis benchmarks, especially SLI in XP versus SLI in Vista64 - LOL!).

    Read this Microsoft: We will NOT give you $400 for your lousy, shoddy, slapped-together "code", when a high-end 8800GT GPU is only $250, and a quad core Q6600 is only $275. Is the operating system supposed to cost as much as a speedy CPU and GPU COMBINED?
    [/quote]

    QFT, QFE

    and amen

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Nov 28th, 2007 @ 5:37am

    Vista

    I think the only home users who are getting Vista, are those who are buying premade computers that its bundled into.
    They say Vista is selling well, but I bet thats only because computers are becoming more prevalent, and more people don't know the difference.

    I agree 100% with Matt post #3. I am looking at rebuilding my machine here this spring and Vista will NEVER touch it.

    Gawsh I wish game programmers would get with it and ALL start developing OpenGL. I know it is a little behind DirectX now, but thats only because they are all slackers and haven't been working on it. If they did it would smoke DirectX I am sure.

    Oh, and "Windows Genuine Advantage" may very well be the biggest oxymoron ever, I agree there. Not to mention its practically a misnomer. Should be called "Genuine Windows Authenticator" or something at least a little more appropriate.

    And we would probably mostly agree, any system that HAS to be labeled "Vista Capabale" is probably going to run it like shit anyways.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Seth, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 5:54am

    Why not....

    Provide the Windows Vista benchmark score as a mandatory requirement for each pc with vista sold. A simple one sheet would let you know which features of Vista are available, as well as having the benefit of showing the average layman non computer user know which types of programs the machine is best suited to.

    Seems like a simple enough idea to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    OKVol, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 6:03am

    Vista capable to do what?

    Vista capable could mean what Dell spelled out for one low-end PC - it was recommended as good for "booting". In other words, the system would boot Vista, but forget running any applications. Would the court hold this as Vista capable?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 6:06am

    but....

    I bought a nearly top of the line Acer laptop late last year that came loaded with XP media center but provided a free upgrade to Vista ultimate as it's release was right around the corner. After jumping through Acers hoops and finally getting the upgrade disk I installed it only to be informed that my machine "might not run Vista ultimate optimally" because the hardware wasn't up to it. This is BS. I didn't buy the machine for Vista and I've NEVER be an early adopter of M$ OS but I expected the machine I'd just bought to be able to run the latest OS. There really is no excuse for it not to. HTF should my laptop be essentially obsolete the day I bought it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Minimum Requirements, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 6:11am

    mean minimal performance

    I think of the Vista Capable tag like the 'minimum' CPU and memory requirements they publish for an OS or software package. Just because you 'can' run a software package using only the minimum CPU and memory specified doesn't mean it will perform well. Every try to run Windows XP using the 'minimum' memory and CPU specified on the shrinkwrap? It runs like shit. These labels are legally correct but misleading to the average consumer.

    That being said I agree with post #3. M$ will starve to death before I'll drop $400 for a shoddy version of an OS.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Rug, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 6:21am

    Vista

    While I don't agree with the bazillion flavors of Vista decision (I didn't like the 3 with XP), it's not Microsoft's fault these people didn't make an informed decision. The machines run Vista, they just can't run all the fancy (mostly unnecessary) features without some upgrading.

    It's like a car, you can get a Chevy whatever for $12,000, but it won't have electric windows, locks, etc. You have to get the $23,000 version to get that. And guess what? You can't just upgrade your car either.

    If these people were told differently by the person that sold them the computer, then it's the company who sold them the computer's fault for not having their employees being educated. In this case, I believe Microsoft has tried to go out of their way to try not to be deceptive.

    You people whine about a $400 OS, but they offer cheaper versions (that's what this case is sort of about) specifically for that reason. What you are saying by not being happy with the $99 version is that you want all the fancy features, but don't want to pay for it. Since all the features above home basic are "flash", with maybe the exception of bit-locker, I don't see much point in the argument.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 6:24am

    Re: Vista?? Um, no.

    525 != 400

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 6:42am

    Re: Vista

    I believe Microsoft has tried to go out of their way to try not to be deceptive. Pass the kool-ade, pal! M$ hasn't gone out of their way to be informative either. They refer to Vista as though it is one product but in fact it is four. If M$ was 'going out of their way to not be deceptive' they would have four labels: Vista Capable - Home Basic, Vista Capable - Home Premium, etc., etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Vi$hita H8ter, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 6:53am

    Protools and Vista

    I brought the newest version of ProTools (for music production) this past spring and then a new Acer desktop with Vista. I soon learned that this industry standard, ProTools, doesn't have a Vista version yet and has no firm plans to introduce one. So, I went tried to go back to XP. What a mess. I ended up buying a new harddrive, disconnecting the old one, and starting from scratch. After weeks spent loading and reloading new drivers, I finally got it working, but it's still buggy. Bottomline: I'll never buy ANYTHING from M$ again!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 6:56am

    Re: The version of OS the system came with

    Hmmm, so Sony screwed you over on drivers and that is Vista's fault? I am not very bright, but I think I would be blaming Sony.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 6:58am

    Re: but....

    So Microsoft said you could run Ultimate on it, not Acer?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    nushustu, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 6:58am

    Multiple versions of Vista

    I watched Top Chef. (It was a reality show featuring actual chefs.) During the show, one of the chefs made a dish where the diner had two choices of sauce, or something. The judges were annoyed by this. Their attitude was, "You're the chef. You decide what the dish needs. If you're going to make me decide, then I want to pick a different dish entirely."

    Vista's twelve different versions are like this. Either I need the stuff that Vista has or I don't. MS doesn't make twelve versions of Word. They just sell Word. Lots of people complain that Word is too bloated, and they're right, but basically everybody has it anyway.

    Half the reason that people make uniformed decisions as to which version of Vista to buy is, there are too many choices. They should just have one (maybe two) versions of Vista. When people make the car analogy, they're making a mistake. Cars are major investments. Tens of thousands of dollars. This is a $400 OS. It would be more accurate (although admittedly still a stretch) to compare Vista to buying peanut butter. If you give me two different kinds of peanut butter, I'll probably take the time to figure out which one I prefer. But if I have to choose between 12 different kinds of peanut butter, I'm just going to say "fuck it. Gimme Jif." Because even though it might not be the best one, it'll still do for PB&Js.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Drak, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 6:59am

    My experience with XP

    Well folks, here's my imput:

    I personally don't care much for Microsoft but being a computer repair guy I do have to deal with their products and know how to resolve issues with them. Following this logic I did install Vista onto my new machine. (New is relative). Core 2 Duo Overclocked to 2.6Ghz, 512MB Nvidia graphics card, Raid 0 drives, etc...

    The Bad:
    Vista did NOT automatically have the drivers to load my raid array, although it did allow me to use a flash drive to load the drivers unlike XP requiring a floppy disc.

    Vista didn't run well with all features turned on until I had 2GB of RAM (512for XP) and I have since put in another 2GB making 4 total. It runs smoothly now (go figgure).

    The performance hit is noticeable, especially when trying to do file operations. Although the operations go smoother, it appears that Vista does some extensive checking for duplicate names and such before it even begins the file operation leading to slower performance, especially over a network.

    The good:
    Vista is laid out nicely and support tons of nifty gadgets that I actually find myself using. This could have been offered for XP as well though.

    The performance of my 3D gaming has improved, believe it or not. My framerates are higher and game load times are lower. I can't explain this.

    Summary:
    Vista isn't worth it, especially the ultimate version. XP worked fine for me, had fewer compatibility problems, etc. I would have to say that the reason Vista is selling so well is that it's packaged with almost all new PC's unless you find a vendor like Dell who offers the option of XP or you have your system custom built. Vista really doesn't seem to offer anything earth-shattering right now. BTW: the vista capable sticker is misleading, I've already received tons of calls from consumers requesting help with their machine which is almost entirely related to lack of RAM in the new machine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    ian, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 7:00am

    Re:

    Couldn't agree more. For instance, Outlook + Exchange. Trying to get this behemoth to work is like trying to find a three-legged ballerina. Most of the terminology is all ass-backwards, there are known issues with contacts / business contact manager and 2003 cant read the 2007 calendar, to name a few.

    They should just rewrite the whole thing from scratch and think about usability / simplicity this time around.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 7:01am

    Re: Protools and Vista

    Shouldn't you have researched that first? I would be sure to stay away from your business if I knew who you were.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    NewEgg, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 7:08am

    Re: Re: Vista?? Um, no.

    $320 is more like it (still pricey, but not as bad as claimed here)

    Ultimate:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116140

    $220 for Premium
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116142

    $149 for Basic
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116152

    I use Vista. I think it's pretty good. For those that say it should be $100, I'd like to see your business plan that will allow for that to happen AND keep your company in the black.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Duodave, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 7:16am

    Not practical to expect every machine to run every

    Certainly this is an error in the executive's understanding of the variety of versions of Vista available. An older machine with a 32-bit processor, for example, wouldn't properly run a 64-bit version of Vista. And the Basic version isn't designed for laptops. So its obvious to me this is an error in the sematics of the executives' statement, not intentional lying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    SteveD, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 7:26am

    Too many Vistas, but still a good OS

    We've got Apple popping out a new OS (read; service pack for the previous OS) every 2 years and charging $200 for it.

    When we've got Microsoft popping out a new OS every 4 years on average and charging $400 for it.

    Whats the difference? Microsoft is somehow 'poorer value' because its a bigger number? :/

    The responsibility here not only lies with Microsoft but also the retailers. While a 'Vista Capable' sticker is technically correct, its missleading (especially in the hands of a salesman). Microsoft should probably have brought out multiple stickers for the different OSs different levels of requirement.

    I've been using Vista for four months now, and I wouldn't go back to XP. Its not perfect, but its definately an improvement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Vista Victim, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 7:30am

    Pre-installed Vista

    I bought an HP [Compaq] laptop with Vista pre-installed. OK, I'm lazy; I've learned XP and I don't feel Vista offers advantages to compensate for learning the differences in the two systems. So I went to HP to ask about converting the machine to XP. Couldn't be done. [A flat lie.] So I went to the website and looked at the FAQs for my computer. One was on upgrading the system from XP to Vista; the answer was: couldn't be done, the system doesn't support Vista. So a machine that doesn't support Vista is sold with Vista, and becomes a machine that can't be downgraded to XP? It's not just Microsoft that's lying to customers, it's the companies that have bought into [sold out to] Microsoft's marketing program.

    Off topic: I put Open Office on the laptop since it was free. It didn't work like MS Office [for XP, which I'm familiar with] so I took advantage of the offer to get a 60-day trial of Office 2007. This has been "improved" until it's further from Office XP than the Open Office product. For someone who was dragged kicking and screaming from DOS, I can only wonder what kind of customer MS is selling to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Nov 28th, 2007 @ 7:49am

    Re #12 Minimum Requirements

    Actually, I bought Call of Duty 4.
    My computer meets the minimum requirements (and that is about it since it is now 2.5 years old).
    I set everything to the minimum and it still looks awesome and plays sharp as a whistle.
    Never ever lags on minimum even with my system only meeting the minimum requirements (only think I am over on is the RAM, my CPU is actually below).
    Gawd I love that game.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Sean, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 8:06am

    Vista Capable v Premium Ready

    Show me the budget PC or laptop that's going to run the latest MS O/S easily, whether that was XP a few years ago, or Vista now. Someone buying the lowest spec PC available for Vista, and then complaining that they can't run all the whizzes and bangs, is going to have a hard time proving that they really EXPECTED to be able to do so in the first place.

    Just checked Dell, and they've clearly got two different versions of hardware - "Designed for XP/Vista Capable", and "Premium Ready" - guess which is cheap and which isn't?

    Think I'll keep XP for the time being, thanks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Bob, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 8:12am

    M$ Butt Licker

    Still, I'm torn about whether a lawsuit is appropriate. Home Basic clearly is a version of Windows Vista, and so the statement that the machines were "Vista Capable" is technically true, albeit misleading.

    ...you are a Wanker and a Microsoft shill !

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Old_Paranoid, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 8:12am

    On Vista SKU's

    I always viewed the Vista capable" claim as equivalent to the minimal processor and memory requirements that are listed with an OS - it will run, but the experience may be rather irritating. That said, I joined the Microsoft security team around the LongHorn reset and worked on security issues throughout Vista development.

    Unlike most consumers, I don't like unnecessary bells and whistles (I came from the BSD side, rather than the Linux* side).

    Vista is a good OS. There have been driver issues due to third parties not releasing Vista drivers in a timely manner or releasing badly written drivers. Even so, this seems to be being corrected faster than the earlier transition from Win 98/ME to XP, when I had numerous serious problems.

    From my point of view, the reason to upgrade from XP to Vista is security.

    It is all but impossible to run XP as a normal user, but it is quite easy to run Vista as a normal user. I configure my machines with an administrator account and individual user accounts. This results in a great security increase and is not discussed in public, I believe because it is too hard to communicate to a user and developer base that is used to running as administrator.

    There was a lot of hardening of the OS infrastructure - utilization of fine-grained permissions to service hosts, massive fuzzing of parsers, introduction of low-rights limitations, etc.

    Despite all the complaints about UAC, under reasonable usage you shouldn't be hitting this much - I don't. You get hit when you are installing executables to the system. Under normal usage, you should be manipulating data, not modifying the system. As a former Unix sysadmin, the last thing I wanted was for users to be able to install or modify stuff on the system.

    I turn off sidebar (it takes extra cycles and increases the attack surface) and Aero (it takes cycles and increases memory usage). Indeed, I optimize my systems for performance not appearance. They work well. My desktop system, which is running Vista Business has a 3.2 Ghz Pentium D with integrated graphics and 1 GByte of RAM. My older notebook, on which I ran Server 2008 beta's had a 2 GHz notebook proc and 2 GByte of RAM. It ran well, even on maximal battery savings mode.

    The bells and whistles cost processing cycles and RAM. If you are running systems that may lack something here (and RAM and processor speed are rather cheap these days), you should configure your system to avoid the bells and whistles. Vista Home Basic is a solid implementation. If you are running minimal systems, you do not want to try and run the bells and whistles, you will not be happy with the result.

    By the way, I found the transition to Office 12 to be very irritating. I did not like the forced UI change. In my opinion, even if you ignore the new features, the security improvements if Office justify the transition. I have seen rather careful reviews that suggest that Office 12 probably has significantly fewer vulnerabilities than Open Office.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    TomTheToe, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 8:18am

    Re:Protools and Vista by Vi$hita H8ter

    Pro Tools 7.4 with Vista support is out now and works great.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Mitch the Bitch, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 8:19am

    When I built my first PC circa 1984 the hardware cost me almost $5k and the OS which was DOS 3.1 cost me $79. A very TINY fraction of the cost of the PC. Now we have

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Vista Rejectionist, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 8:20am

    I bought a new dell off the outlet with vista preinstalled for under $300. I set it up to dual boot UBUNTU linux and installed virtualbox under UBUNTU. I then made a virtual machine of an older legit copy of win2k. This thing smokes. I haven't booted the Vista partition more than 3 times. I installed my required winblows apps on the "updated and current" win2k pro install and am completely satisfied with performance and functionality.

    I would suggest that m$'s next objective would be a new version of vista called lightning - stripped of bloat and optimized for performance. This is a product people like me would consider buying (if we weren't already running win2k in a virtualbox).... Too late!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Rug, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 8:21am

    Vista

    While I didn't research every pc out there, most of what makes a PC able to run Aero / Media Center is a better graphics adapter and more memory. So unless these $300 computers with Home Basic have the memory glued in or don't have memory slots and don't have any PCI/PCIe slots, then upgrade the stupid thing. Good grief. Then it can run every Vista. If it hobbled that much, then yes, it should have a sticker that says this is as good as it gets, no Ultimate for you. But most PCs are upgradable.

    This is all about choice. Rather than thanking MS for making it possible to have a $300 Vista machine, you complain that a $300 can't run the latest piece of software technology. Duh.

    As far as 'upgrading' to XP from Vista... Just go get XP and do a clean install. Can you do an upgrade over Vista? No, XP has no knowledge of Vista. Just reformat the drive and have at it. Just because *you* don't know how to do something, don't blame Microsoft. These are PCs at the end of the day, and there's nothing in them that make them Vista only PCs.

    No offense, but if you are calling HP, Sony or Geek Squad, trying to figure out your PC situation, you are in over your head only asking for trouble. Go get help from someone that does know, and that does not include Geek Squad, Sony or HP.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 8:59am

    Ummm, Microsoft doesn't make computers, they create software. Why are you wankers pissed at Microsoft?

    Oh, thats right, its the popular thing to do. Nevermind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 9:00am

    Re: Too many Vistas, but still a good OS

    $129 for Leopard doesn't equal $200.

    Except in Redding.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Mr. Vage, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 9:09am

    I've gotta side with MS

    There is nothing misleading about a machine being Vista capable but not able to run the advanced features.

    Let's say I just bought Crysis. It looks amazing, I've seen the screenshots of what it looks like on Very High. My computer meets the minimum system requirements. I run the game and find that I can only play on low settings and it looks ugly! Is my computer not capable of running Crysis?

    Of course it's capable. I just don't get the best experience.

    Now take the same scenario but let's say that MS made Crysis. Is my computer not capable of running Crysis?

    Of course not, it's made by M$.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    4-80-sicks, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 9:11am

    Re: Too many Vistas, but still a good OS

    We've got Apple popping out a new OS (read; service pack for the previous OS) every 2 years and charging $200 for it.

    Your understanding of Mac OS is flawed. It costs $129, not 200. And while the number hasn't changed (10.4 to 10.5) it's not a "service pack." A Windows Service Pack contains security patches and hotfixes, and maybe a runtime or new version of Internet Explorer. That's it. Mac OS 10.5 includes over 300 new features not in 10.4. Some are applications or drastic interface updates, some are updates to already existing, included with the OS, applications (which are worthwhile, not trash like Windows Movie Maker or Wordpad), and some are under the hood. Take just a quick look here: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ at the major new features, and tell me XP's Service Pack 2 included anything that even closely resembles this kind of update over SP1.

    I do not use Mac, but I keep up with their news (as well as that of Microsoft and Linux/FSF), and don't like to see misinformation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    J.D., Nov 28th, 2007 @ 9:19am

    Re: Vista?? Um, no.

    $400????? If anyone who's into computers for more than just casual browsing/music use, and you are buying software at retail, you are an idiot. Go OEM, i paid less than $200 for a copy of Ultimate 64-bit (and then felt stupid when my friend with a TechNET ID gave me a copy of it for free!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    ConceptJunkie (profile), Nov 28th, 2007 @ 9:36am

    Re: Vista

    It's like a car, you can get a Chevy whatever for $12,000, but it won't have electric windows, locks, etc. You have to get the $23,000 version to get that. And guess what? You can't just upgrade your car either.

    Yes, but I've never seen an instance of buying a $12,000 Chevy and getting out on the highway and finding out its top speed is only 43 miles per hour. _That's_ what buying a system with Vista pre-installed is like.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Excuse Me, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 9:40am

    Who filed this lawsuit?

    Are they not capable of 2+2? You read in the news there will be umpteen versions of Vista, and the low end will need better hardware while the high end will need bleeding edge hardware. So you find a $400 PC with a sticker that says it's Vista ready.
    Now do ya really think that $400 overgrown web browser is really going to run Vista Ultimate (an oxymoron if there ever were one)? C'mon people. Those people filing the lawsuit should be the laughing stock of all this.
    Likewise Microsoft should be chastised for being cagey. Sure you need to obey every if, and, or but in their EULA. But on this one we should just them some slack. Yeah, right! Those assholes!
    This whole thing is a farce!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Burzum, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re: The version of OS the system came with

    In #2 I wasn't trying to do anything but point out how upgrade paths should be considered when the "Vista Cabable" tag is used.

    It says "Designed for Windows(R) XP" and then below "Windows Vista(tm) Capable". It can run Media Center, XP Home and XP Pro and they assume you know that without specifying each product. One would assume that the Vista Capable line can be taken in the same context as the Windows XP line and that all flavors are considered.

    And it's not like the hardware can't support Vista! Intel Core2 Duo, 2gb RAM, Dual 100gb HDDs and a nVidia GO 7600.

    Microsoft clearly has their phrasing mixed up....I doubt it was intentional but it sure is annoying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    MS Fan, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 10:06am

    Love Vista

    Great OS, runs like a champ. Wouldnt go back to XP. My new computer came with the Home version and been thinking of spending the $180 to upgrade to the Ultimate version

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    windwolf, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 10:13am

    microsuck

    I build my own machines, and early this year, i built one with enough ram to handle vista in any flavor. However, I run xp and have no plans to change. I did this just in case microsuck decides to FORCE us to change, like they do all their operating systems. Personally im just tired of being told i have to do anything. And all we do is make them richer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 10:53am

    A Vista is a great view but not anything functional I guess M$ named it correctly after all

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Tool, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 11:01am

    Re: Protools and Vista

    F#ckin haters!! I hate 'em.

    How the hell can you blame Microsoft when it was you that bought software that was incompatible with your OS?

    I couldn't tell you how many times I've wiped out a pre-installed OS and installed something different WITHOUT having to buy a new hard drive.

    It sounds like you're the dumb @ss that doesn't know what she's doing.

    And to the rest of you crybabies, don't blame Microsoft because you bought "Vista Ready" computers that run like shit under Vista Ultimate.

    Next time, do a little research before you invest money. Find out what the minimum and recommended system requirements are for the OS that you want to run and make your purchase accordingly. Duh!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Shun, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 11:23am

    Corporate Crash

    #23:
    [quote]
    I use Vista. I think it's pretty good. For those that say it should be $100, I'd like to see your business plan that will allow for that to happen AND keep your company in the black.
    [/quote]

    Last I checked M$ had something like a hundred gazillion dollars in the bank -- CASH! So, no, I'm not worried about them not having enough money to pay the rent next month.

    Their X-Box platform OTOH...well, let's just keep this civil.

    Also, the fact that they are not selling Vista AT ALL compared to XP one year after its release should be more worrying. Drop the price, sales climb (maybe), problem solved.

    Part of the reason why Vista sucks is that it requires 4 gigs of ram to run smoothly. Now, if the big box stores sold a low-end PC with 4 gigs standard, then we wouldn't be having these problems. It'd only add $100 or so to the sticker, the price of DDR2 falling through the floor.

    Only problem is, this would no longer be a low-end machine. Econo-box makers like their 512MB and 1GB RAM numbers. It allows them to up-sell their "high-end" machines for ridiculously over-inflated prices. They need to realize that the 32 bit era is coming to a close, and 4GB should be considered the minimum when running upper-echelon operating systems.

    Me, I recently "upgraded" to Ubuntu 7.10, and 512MB of ole' Kingston DDR. It doesn't sparkle, but a) it boots, and b) I can open up a web browser.

    That's all I really need, on my 'net machine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Bill, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 11:53am

    When will MS learn?

    Microsoft should learn from the Vista failure:
    1. Making many versions of the same product so you can extract the most money from consumers...is a bad idea.
    2. Making the roll-out so confusing that it not only bewilders consumers but also your own Execs...is a bad idea.
    3. Being greedy...is a bad idea.
    4. Angering customers by making what should have been in release pack #3, a new product with a hefty price tag...is a bad idea.
    5. Misleading potential customers...is a bad idea.
    6. Giving customers yet another reason to adopt Linux...priceless!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Buzz, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 1:04pm

    Windows Vista? What's that?

    While the world bickers about Vista costs, driver issues, lack of support, etc. I sit at home happy as can be on my system76 Darter Ultra running Ubuntu's Gutsy Gibbon. In the rare event that a program freezes and I tell the system to kill it, it goes away IMMEDIATELY. That is something I have yet to see Windows do. I can put any window always-on-top. I can tweak my system to do whatever I want.

    Let me just say this: I was doing just fine with Windows 2000. Almost everything I need that runs in XP runs in 2000 as well. I switched to XP for about six months before making the leap to Linux. I am considering installing Windows for the sake of playing my games, but I will probably just use 2000 since it is less bloated than XP. I have not seen one good reason to use Vista.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    John, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 2:48pm

    It's like gaming companies

    Like a few posters have mentioned, this is just like what gaming companies do: they print the "minimum requirements" or "capable of". Yet, if your computer barely meets these requirements, your "experience" will be pretty bad.

    Is a computer designed for Windows 95 "capable" of running Vista? Maybe at the barest level, but technically, it will still run. Is this "misleading"? No, but it's not being very informative either.
    However, when a customer is faced with spending $300 (or whatever) on a new operating system on their existing computer or spending twice that on a brand-new computer, which option will they take? How many people go into a store expecting to buy an operating system and actually come out with a new, mid to high-end computer?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 3:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: The version of OS the system came with

    You completely missed the point, Microsoft doesn't make the drivers, therefore your beef is with Sony for not working with the hardware vendors to keep drivers current. This is a constant sticking point with Sony. I had 2 laptops from Sony and will never have another for that very reason.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 28th, 2007 @ 5:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Vista?? Um, no.

    Vista ultimate is $500 here. And my dad just bought a computer that wasn't too shabby for $497 including Vista Ultimate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Cybermachiavellin, Nov 29th, 2007 @ 12:06am

    Re: My experience with XP

    Everything on the OS is slow, not only file operations. And its not checking for duplicate file operations, it is performing DRM validation on your files.

    VISTA is horrible for many reasons, but the biggest one is the imbedded DRM. Gates and company went down on the poles that are the RIAA and MPAA. Everytime I read bad comments on VISTA, I cheer. Down with DRM!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    identicon
    Da_ALC, Nov 29th, 2007 @ 2:20am

    While I havent read every last comment here, most of you seem to be missing the point entirely.
    Vista was designed for high-end and future systems. Microsoft expected PC's and Laptops to be better by now as this is what hardware manufacturers where advertising... Supposed to have octa-cores out by now said Intel a few years ago. (ignoring the cell).
    Fact is these laptops CAN run A version, but simply shouldnt.. its like running Bioshock on or just under the minimum syste, requirements.. you CAN, but you shouldnt.
    The sticker is marketing play aimed at stupid people who take things for granted and believe that adverts tell you something real... deluded simple people, who see hear and buy without knowing as they allways have and allways will... Thats why the advertising industry is so big people! Because most people are thich and brainwashable.
    Microsoft is playing the same old game that the rest of the world is playing... and so are Dell and such releasing laptops with these stickers on.
    Listen good, Vista wants 4,9 and mroe cores, and at least 8gigs of ram.. it supports up to 128gigs of ram... this is what its designed for... stop trying to run it on your craptop when you really dont even know what you want it for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Nov 29th, 2007 @ 5:19am

    Re#50 John

    Again I would just like to reiterate that my machine at home meets the minimum requirements for Call of Duty 4, and that is about it. The game does have its settings turned way down. It still looks great, and plays flawlessly.
    I would bet I could get this Vista level of performance out of CoD4 with a system far below the minimum reqs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2007 @ 10:13am

    Merit

    It's not clear a class action lawsuit will accomplish anything beyond enriching the lawyers involved.

    That doesn't meant that a case is without merit, just that the legal system is too screwed up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2007 @ 10:31am

    Re: Re: Vista?? Um, no.

    If you are buying OEM, you are an idiot. I paid $0 for my cracked copy of Ultimate 64-bit (TechNET ID? We don't need no stupid TechNET ID).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2007 @ 10:34am

    Re: Re: but....

    So Microsoft said you could run Ultimate on it, not Acer?

    M$ sets the requirements for what qualifies for the "Vista Capable" label, not Acer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2007 @ 10:38am

    Re: Vista

    It's like a car, you can get a Chevy whatever for $12,000, but it won't have electric windows, locks, etc.

    But it will run. Most people would be upset if when it was delivered it wouldn't run and the dealer just said "Oh, you wanted it to run? You have to get the $23,000 version to get an engine."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2007 @ 10:45am

    Re: Not practical to expect every machine to run e

    So its obvious to me this is an error in the sematics of the executives' statement, not intentional lying.
    Truth isn't just a question of semantics. "Vista Capable" is a very broad statement and they shouldn't make it if it isn't true. If it will only run Vista Home Basic they should just say "Vista Home Basic Capable", but I guess the truth might not sell as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2007 @ 10:56am

    Re: Vista

    This is all about choice. Rather than thanking MS for making it possible to have a $300 Vista machine, you complain that a $300 can't run the latest piece of software technology. Duh

    No, this is about truthfulness and untrue blanket statements about Vista compatibility. If a computer will only run certain version of Vista, then that is what should be stated. A computer touted as Vista capable, with no restrictions or qualifications stated, should be able to run Vista without restriction.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2007 @ 11:00am

    Re: I've gotta side with MS

    There is nothing misleading about a machine being Vista capable but not able to run the advanced features.

    Sure there is, if that restriction wasn't made clear to the buyer before purchase.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 30th, 2007 @ 11:04am

    Re:

    The sticker is marketing play aimed at stupid people...

    The law is supposed to protect the public from con jobs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Bill, Nov 30th, 2007 @ 1:38pm

    To me, Vista Capable(VC) just means that the hardware was Vista certified (meaning it had the required DRM). The MS exec who stated that any version of Vista could run on the pc was correct...the hardware has been certified for that, but that has nothing to do with how well Vista would run on the pc...only that is is capable of doing so. Does VC mislead pc buyers? Absolutely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Jeff Hyder, Dec 12th, 2007 @ 7:11pm

    Re: I'm afraid

    I agree with that. Does it say "Capable of Running Vista Ultimate"? No! Somebody is a complete fool and I wont say who, but thats so rediculous..If I wanted a computer to run Ultimate,,When I bought a computer I would say "Will this run Ultimate"? How hard is that. Anyone that wouldn't ask surely doesn't have anything much to compute anyway...If I say "I'm capable of lifting 200 pounds" that doesnt mean I can do it with ease and am really capable of lifting 300 pounds, or I'm capable of running a mile in 4 minutes" but really I can do it in 3. I would swear to this but I dont but, Every day of my life it seems I hear a story in the news or in the neighborhood that makes me think that half the people in this country think the other half are stupid and the other half are thinking " Those dumb a##es think we're stupid". What has the USA come to? .. Let's worry about world hunger,, Can you imagine how much food the court case fees could buy. And the same with Ebay getting hit for 30 mil for "Buy It Now" If they had said "Purchase It Now" would there still be a lawsuit? ,,,, Talk about a bad choice of words. Patent infringement my butt. Id love to slap the fool that made that claim. Heck everytime I sell something I say "If you pay me cash now Ill take xxx dollars. You cant infringe on natural language. They are all lookin for a free ride and dont care how many people think they are worthless and petty. What a load.No wonder so many people go POSTAL in this country. They are just plain sick of all of the bull. Sorry but that bites my ear.

    Jeff Hyder (Fed Up)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This