The court case examines whether Microsoft's Windows Vista Capable and Express Upgrade programs were deceptive. Microsoft has lost the first round in a legal battle over whether its Windows Vista Capable and Express Upgrade programs were deceptive and led consumers to buy PCs that could only run the most basic version of the operating system.
The case was brought against the software giant, based in Redmond, Wash., by lead plaintiff Dianne Kelley of Camano Island, Wash. Kelley bought a new PC in November 2006 that had a sticker labeled "Windows Vista Capable" affixed to it. Windows Vista had not been released at that time, so customers bought machines with Windows XP preloaded and were given a coupon that allowed them to upgrade to Vista when the operating system was released at the end of January 2007.
View: The full story
News source: eWeek
The case was brought against the software giant, based in Redmond, Wash., by lead plaintiff Dianne Kelley of Camano Island, Wash. Kelley bought a new PC in November 2006 that had a sticker labeled "Windows Vista Capable" affixed to it. Windows Vista had not been released at that time, so customers bought machines with Windows XP preloaded and were given a coupon that allowed them to upgrade to Vista when the operating system was released at the end of January 2007.
View: The full story News source: eWeek
Can you actually read, I am asking this because Dianne is a female...not a male?!
Can you actually read, I am asking this because Dianne is a female...not a male?!
Shes female? Ahh suddenly this lawsuit makes sense.
Can you actually read, I am asking this because Dianne is a female...not a male?!
Shes female? Ahh suddenly this lawsuit makes sense.
Hahah
This is yet another pathetic example of consumers who can't be bothered to do 5 minutes of homework on their purchase decisions and then blaming the producer for their ignorance.
If you don't "get" what 'Vista capable' means then don't make assumptions. This lawsuit proves nothing except that the plaintiff is a lazy moron.
Now, if only there was some way to find out what 'Vista capable' means. If only Microsoft made that information easy to find...
...Oh, wait! What's this? www.microsoft.com ? Here's all the information I need!
Seriously, how hard is that?
If you were a neophyte and purchased a Vista capable machine, you'd expect it to run the version of Vista you wanted and not what MS wanted. Also, as a neophyte, this would probably be your first computer, so how would you go to www.microsoft.com to do research and would you really know what to look for? In the end you'd and up relying on the deceptive MS marketing.
"Vista Capable" implies that the computer is able to run Windows Vista. The problem here is that with XP there were only two version - Home and Professional. However, with Vista they added a new low-end version with significant features dropped (one of them being the transparent interface, a key feature from early on). It wasn't until the "Vista Ready" campaign two months later that Microsoft cleared things up but the confusion / deception had already been created. She couldn't have done "5 minutes of homework" because the information wasn't out there in public.
I agree with the premise of the lawsuit. The "Vista Capable" campaign was not very clear and was, whether intentional or not, deceptive. We aren't talking about an expectation to run Vista Ultimate, the new topend version of Windows - we are talking about Home Premium, the replacement to XP Home. Sure Home Basic isn't as bad as if it was Starter edition but it's still a stripped back version that people buying new computers were not aware of.
Windows Vista Capable, to anyone with even the simplest knowledge of the English language, would imply that the hardware perhaps does not come with Vista.
Dianne sounds like someone just thinking of a way to sue microsoft in an attempt to get rich quick. Heck, I'll have to think of something equally as stupid a reason to sue them!
That is NOT the issue here. RTFA! The computer came with a voucher for Vista and was marked as "Vista Capable", which she assumed she would be able to run - however, Microsoft introduced a new lower tier version and didn't make it clear that that she wouldn't be able to run the regular version (and Home Premium IS the regular version if you look at sales figures).
I don't believe she should be awarded any serious compensation but I do agree with her point. At the least Microsoft should be warned or punished for unclear marketing practices.
Now here in panama premium machines are labeled as capable (i never seen a premium sticker in any store), so i understand the confusion with it.... and in the end capable and premium machines would not run vista as it should. Stick with XP, now if you have the latest dual core processor, the latest videocard and over 2gb of ram then move to vista. with less than 2gb of ram vista its just too slow compared to XP
Last edited by eilegz on 10 Aug 2007 - 14:21
If some car part maker claimed something (say a certain MPG for a engine) and that part was put into the car and then sold as being able to do what the part maker said it would do and it turned out it wouldn't, wouldn't the car maker be the one to go after still? Then of course the car maker would then sue the part maker. That's just the way I think of it, but I know nothing of law.
Did the sticker say 'Vista Capable'?: Yes
Does the computer run Vista?: Yes
Is Vista Home Vista?: Yes
Is Vista Home Premium Vista?: Yes
Is Vista Business Vista?: Yes
Is Vista Ultimate Vista?: Yes
Also, if you don't do research on what you are buying and you end up getting something you don't want its your own damned fault for getting it.
Vista Home Capable
Vista Home Premium Capable
Vista Business Capable
Vista Ultimate Capable
This suit is not about whether or not a consumer has done research (not required by law). It is about MS alleged sales tactic deception (against the law). The heart of this suit is about protecting consumer rights and holding marketing goons at companies responsible when they dish out deceptive marketing propaganda. I'm 100% for it.
Vista Home Capable
Vista Home Premium Capable
Vista Business Capable
Vista Ultimate Capable
This suit is not about whether or not a consumer has done research (not required by law). It is about MS alleged sales tactic deception (against the law). The heart of this suit is about protecting consumer rights and holding marketing goons at companies responsible when they dish out deceptive marketing propaganda. I'm 100% for it.
Actually is does run all of the above, just without the Aero interface!
This lawsuit will get no where!!
That's all that matters. It can run Vista, it didn't say "This will run Vista Ultimate without a problem!"
It runs Vista, people are idiots.
I'm not a lawyer, but I just don't see MS as the one doing the deceiving here.
If you ask me.... This is just people who know quite a bit about computers, acting like they don't.... saw the Vista Capable stuff, and thought "hmm.... i might be able to make a quick buck off this". everyone in this f*cking country has gone too damn lawsuit happy, it's absurd. Almost makes me hate being an American. that, and GWB...
So if you see a sticker on a computer saying its Vista capable and all the features of Vista which you keep reading about mention Aero, you would assume that this computer would run Vista with Aero right ?
For the average consumer this is misleading i think. Most of us here at Neowin would have probaly figured it out, but that doesn't mean it wasn't misleading
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.