The ongoing "Vista Capable" class-action lawsuit against Microsoft took an interesting turn the other day when an expert witness for the plaintiffs claimed that the Redmond company made more than $1.5 billion through their "Vista Capable" marketing campaign.The origins of the trial itself are to be found in the months prior to Vista's release when many computers were sold with Windows XP and the promise that they would be capable of running Vista. However, many of these PCs, which sold at a premium and bore the "Vista Capable" label, turned out to be only capable of running Vista Basic. Hence, Microsoft is being sued for what many would call false advertising.
It is unclear, however, how much of the more than $1.5 billion was earned from those PCs that were only able to run Vista Basic. (It is also unclear how many consumers bought these sub-par PCs at higher prices mainly or even partly because of the claim that they were "Vista Capable", but this would not be relevant to the case.)
The plaintiffs, however, are not the only ones with a complaint against Microsoft. Emails made public during the trial reveal Hewlett-Packard's fury at a last-minute decision on Microsoft's part to lower the minimum specifications for PCs that would be able to receive the "Vista Capable" label. This move benefitted Intel, who were keen to sell off lower-spec stock, but enraged HP, who had invested heavily in meeting the earlier, higher set of minimum requirements. In one of these emails, Richard Walker, an executive at HP, writes to Kevin Johnson and Jim Allchin, co-presidents at the time of Microsoft's Platforms & Services Division:
"I can't be more clear than to say you not only let us down by reneging on your commitment to stand behind the WDDM requirement, you have demonstrated a complete lack of commitment to HP as a strategic partner and cost us a lot of money in the process. Your credibility is severely damaged in my organization. I have engineers who've worked their tails off to qualify new platforms to support WDDM who are wondering why they put so much effort in when Microsoft changed the rules at the last minute and didn't even consult us before making the announcement."
Should the plaintiffs win the case, punitive damages against Microsoft could also be applied. Whether or not the plaintiffs are successful, this may not be the end of things, as the EU may want to have their say on the matter.
Its alright you telling M$ to cough up, however, they will recoup their loss by charging you and I more for their wares and services.
They won't charge me any, I happily avoid MS altogether and run Linux. I suggest everyone else do the same and forget the headache of paying the MS tax
They said it is "Vista Capable" if they had said it was "Vista Home Premium Capable" then i would agree with you, but they didnt.
At the end of the day in my mind it didn't say Vista Will Run Ultimate 100% On This Machine. It said capable, now capable can be basically running any version that is branded Vista, without failing.
What's being discussed here is the fact that microsoft set vista's minimum requirements and then lowered them not because they thought they were actually lower, but because intel needed to seel those thingies with the vista capable sticker.
Vista Home is Vista...
theres no way around it.
just because there hardware dosnt support the "extras" that vista offers with the more expensive bundles is no fault of the manufacture.
theres no way around it.
just because there hardware dosnt support the "extras" that vista offers with the more expensive bundles is no fault of the manufacture.
And that is what im saying.
Actually, the "Vista Capable" documentation mentioned that Vista Capable computers may only be capable of running Home Basic, and that the hardware may not be capable of Aero.
It was clearly mentioned for anyone who cared enough to read.
It's because of this that I'm baffled as to how this lawsuit wasn't dropped months ago.
I always wonder why average people will defend ridiculous moves by Microsoft.
Microsoft tricked a lot of people with this, and it was obviously on purpose as they knew, considering they designed the OS, exactly what the high end versions required. But instead of telling everybody "Vista Capable" only meant "Basic Capable" they just kept their damn mouthes shut about the whole thing until it blew up in their face.
In the end, MS knew they were screwing HP, the average consumer, and who knows how many companies that bought the PCs out of they investment they were "actually" looking for. I don't care if "Vista Capable" has no specifics behind it, and the reason the justice system is so f*cked up today is because people like you seem to think it's okay if big companies screw the people over with technicalities on what they say.
So technically, you're right, but you're an absolute fool for not seeing the big picture.
True, they didn't mention "Vista Home Premium Capable" or "Vista Home Basic Capable", but they should. Stating "Vista Capable" means that whatever your Vista is, it will run. They didn't specify, so you'd have to assume it is talking about all editions.
I thought they had a "Vista Premium Ready" scheme or something? I rarely saw those devices though.
Hell, Best Buy, Circuit City, or even the damn Apple Store at the mall, the people working there are generally quite honest about what the machine is able to do. All you need to do is ask.
Now, I'm no Microsoft fanboy. However, I won't defend idiocy by any means. Even my grandmother's bright enough to consult with people before making purchases. Perhaps this falls in line with what George Carlin was talking about dumb choices being made by consumers.
Also, if the machines are running Vista, it's case closed. Doesn't matter the version at all, if one of them can run, it's capable. Does anyone ever look at the minimum or even recommended specs for XP or 2000? I wouldn't recommend ANYONE to that hell...
And then people sit and talk about being greedy and companies just wanting your money. Seriously, ya think?
theres no way around it.
Read the court documents. Microsoft doesn't even refer to Vista Basic as Vista. They refer to it as Windows 2006.
This all stems from the deal that was made with Intel. Intel asked MSFT to drop the H/W requirements of the OS so that the overstock of 915 chips could be pushed out the door.
Amen. Why people throw their unfaultering support behind a company that simply wants to make money is beyond me. MS doesn't make Windows and their other software so they can help the consumer work faster, or have more fun with their computer, or perform tasks with greater ease, the one and ONLY reason they make their products is to sell them and make money. Fanboys seem to feel that MS does it all to help them out in some way. It is beyond me why people are so enamored with MS. Meanwhile, people in the FOSS community actually DO develop software to make people's lives easier, more fun, more stable, and more secure. Most aren't getting paid for their work, they do it because they love it, and want to help.
How many manufacturers pumped out cheap Xp machines that were clearly underpowered to unsuspecting users way back when?
Perhaps MS were being a little cynical underplaying the minimum requirements for Vista, but, then again, acceptable performance is purely subjective.
You never know... I once saw a vendor proudly demonstrating a computer running Vista (it was on for buyers to try out with) with a Windows Experience Index of 2.7 or something, and of course could not run Aero. I did not touch the computer but the Windows Experience Index screen was open and showing the dismal score... and it was a desktop, not a netbook, for that matter.
Oh wait....
Oh wait....
And if companies took responsibility for their own lack of effective security then hackers and pirates would not be able to do their dirty work.
There's law in this country and nobody is over them.
I'm a computer tech and i knew those computer would not be able to run Vista fine but for the average Joe Vista Capable means able to run all versions of Windows Vista. People who think that store clerks know their **** enough to know what the average Joe doesn't live in a world that doesn't exist sadly.
Last year i've seen a clerk that did not know the Samsung 226BW monitor had different type of panel with different performance depending of the panel you got. He sold the monitor has the best gaming monitor while in fact it's the best only if you get the good panel. If you get the wrong panel it's an average monitor.
Leon
I agree, the 915 chipset issue still burns me up to this day. Early betas of Vista would run Aero on the 915 chipset, but Microsoft later changed the requirements to run Aero. Intel promised a driver would be released for the 915 that met those requirements, but later recanted that and never released one. MANY people (myself included) at that time bought computers with that chipset (it was the standard one in most low to mid range computers at the time), and all of them ended up screwed out of the full Aero experience due to this.
fact: it can't run vista ultimate. therefore is not vista capable now is it?
if you say it is, i put vista ultimate on the computer of which it can not run and i call you a liar
You can say that its the peoples fault for not checking first but MS made vista they knew what type of machine it would run on. They were responsible for making it clear enough for the average person to understand and they didn't.
"Vista Capable" machines can still run Vista Ultimate but just won't use all the features.
It's like saying that a machine that can run Home Premium or Ultimate isn't "Vista Capable" because it doesn't have a TV Card to watch TV through Media Center.
The whole pre Vista marketing was a scam, to sell low spec. PC to suckers who wanted to part with their money, and to promote a dreadfully delayed O/S (that is now seen by many as a disappointment and failure).
They were all in on this scam (including Intel), Microsoft colluded (badly) by lowering the spec., as has been seen on this and many other documents.
The email from HP (a company I detest) is probably the biggest exposure of this scam, along with Microsoft's internal emails. I hope they all get hit big time (even if it is only lawyers who make the money).
People here defending the indefensible (big corp's who make big money), are fools, and deserve to become "(low) wage slaves", in the brave "New World Order". WAKE UP NOW!
Microsoft are rapidly becoming an irrelevance - now who'd have thought this 5 years ago?
What about those people who defend Apple, are they "fools" or even "(low) wage slaves"?
FYI, i'm no Microsoft fanboy.
I have to use Windows for work and would happily use Linux if it was an option.
Last edited by neo158 on 06 Jan 2009 - 11:26
A brand new Acer notebook with vista home :its runs vista but slow as hell (with the default configuration), practically unusable, even with serious audio lag/shuttering!
A brand new Dell desktop with vista:the same story, runs vista but slow.
In the acer notebook, their increased the memory from 1gb (factory default) to 2gb but still was unusable, later we decided to install xp. Xp runs like a dream in this machine.
In the dell desktop, we increased the memory from 1gb to 4gb (3gb) but for serious software incompatibilities we switch over xp.
Vista Capable = Capable of running Windows Vista.
See, it's not that hard to grasp, even if you feel compelled to hate Microsoft.
Now saying after the event but it wont run X vista but only Y vista for you after not clearly stating this is seriously misleading people up the wrong path.
False advertising = "False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising. As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid, many governments around the world use regulations to control false, deceptive or misleading advertising. Truth in labeling refers to essentially the same concept, that customers have the right to know what they are buying, and that all necessary information should be on the label."
The last part is the most interesting bit "that all necessary information should be on the label", this is not the case.
The best reference to this is that there was no clearly visible reference to a * that is required when refering to capable. I will put this into perspective, when someone takes out a 24mb dsl broadband connection, they are in fact buying a 24mb 'upto' or 'capable' of dsl connection, they make it very clear in thier * section that this may be variable depending on your distance from the phone exchange. Was this information easy to find, was it available when they bought the system, or was it hidden on a webpage somewhere, which the majority of purchasers wouldnt have been able to read, till after they had bought there machine, if it this information was not avabilable at the store then its a misleading label.
One of the key points in this trial I see is that the original 'Vista Compatible' did cover all versions upto and inclusing the ultimate edition (so originally the capable sticker was fine). If this is the case then the changing of the specs (which HP is rightly miffed of at) for purely Intel to place it on there below standard systems (the ones that would not have been vista all versions capable pre the change) then surely the **** will hit the fan.
This is more than just misleading people into buying sub standard systems, this also includes the billions HP and the other would have spent to get there machines upto the original capable specs, before it was revised purely for intels ability to sell systems that pre the change would not have been sold.
However I think the blame should rest with Intel as its their demands that meant Microsoft lowered the requirements for Aero to, supposedly, get Areo running on 915 chipsets for which a driver never materialised.
AFAIK Intel threatened Microsoft that they would stop being an Official Partner unless Microsoft lowered the requirements, someone correct me if im wrong.
I feel that the other issue was the education of retailers around what "Vista Capable" actually meant, particularly here in the UK.
Last edited by neo158 on 06 Jan 2009 - 11:40
However I think the blame should rest with Intel as its their demands that meant Microsoft lowered the requirements for Aero to, supposedly, get Areo running on 915 chipsets for which a driver never materialised.
AFAIK Intel threatened Microsoft that they would stop being an Official Partner unless Microsoft lowered the requirements, someone correct me if im wrong.
I feel that the other issue was the education of retailers around what "Vista Capable" actually meant, particularly here in the UK.
This is EXACTLY where the issue is. The biggest partner imposing their will to sell its machines, and MS going out of their way to actually make this happen. You should ask yourself which one is the monopoly, MS or Intel?
+1
However, just because it doesn't specify a version, then that's no cause for a law suit, because the label isn't lying. It's just not being specific enough for people's wants these days.
I see this type of advertising all the time, a good example is internet. In so many places it says "16MB download speed" - yeah, only if my line can take it, only if I am close enough to the exchange AND if nobody else in the area is using the internet. Granted, many places you see "up to" but there are still so many that don't say that.
It's just another excuse to jump on the band wagon and sue somebody, it's a fashon these days didn't you know?
It's just another excuse to jump on the band wagon and sue somebody, it's a fashon these days didn't you know?
What you fail to recognize though is the sales staff HAVE to tell you its up to 16mb and it not guaranteed 16mb, a simple badge cannot do this. So at the sales point they should have been clearly told it may not run all versions, as I mentioned above this is a misleading advert, it maybe technically correct label, but that wouldn't stand up against any laws, if the fine print is told to people and they have not been made aware of this.
But as I stated above this is more a case of the original capable badge would have worked on all versions, its just MS changed it later to suit Intel, thus actually ruining the whole capable sticker.
HP should have a very good case against them.
I know the average Joe may not have known you need a freaking SUPER computer to run Vista, evn the basic version, but when MS did that to HP (and they're partners?), that flat out did everybody wrong.
Just the fact of their lousy third party driver support when it was first released, shows how bad they worked with their "partners!"
"HP" - what has this to do with HP?
"Super computer" - rubbish. A reasonable PC bought when Vista was released would run it fine. There was a big time gap between XP and Vista, and people expected a small jump in spec requirements?
"Third party driver support" - ah yes, let's focus on MS. Nice easy target. Rather than the guys that should. .. uh ... have been writing the drivers? It's not MS' responsibility to write all of them.
The key words in the last line of your post are "third party" driver support, does that mean we should rage at Microsoft every time Nvidia or ATI release a dodgy driver?
Last edited by neo158 on 06 Jan 2009 - 14:54
This has NOTHING to do with the version of Vista whether it be Home Basic, Home Premium, Ulitmate, Business, because they all can, its that they couldnt run Aero, which as i would say this is one of the main features that Vista offered, you could claim that a Vista Capable machine should be able to run Aero.
BUT IMHO, Capable doesnt mean it will be good at it, for example, im capable of using photoshop, yet everything i create in it looks like a big pile of dog poo, same with sports, i am capable of playing football, but im rubbish at it, and this is why i think the law suit should be discarded, there is a significant difference between begin capable of doing something and doing something well.
Now are they quilty of colluding with Intel maybe, or are were they just trying to keep one of their biggest partners? and do they owe anything to HP, i dont know.
This is what I was trying to say in post #11.1 earlier.
See, just because im CAPABLE of posting on here, doesn't mean im good at it!!!!
So, in other words, computers labeled as Vista Capable were indeed capable of running Windows Vista.
How has this not been thrown out of court yet?
Then they find out Intel cant slap this sticker on near enough all there units they are selling, and coerce MS to change the specs, this in turn reduces the cost for Intel, but all the other manufacturers HP, etc have actually spent money making them fit the original specs.
Really there is an awful lot more to this than just the CAPABLE badge going on here.
Then they find out Intel cant slap this sticker on near enough all there units they are selling, and coerce MS to change the specs, this in turn reduces the cost for Intel, but all the other manufacturers HP, etc have actually spent money making them fit the original specs.
Really there is an awful lot more to this than just the CAPABLE badge going on here.
As mentioned above, I believe the capable badge was original good, it was that Intel imposed on MS to change the specs so it could move product it new couldn't meet the original specs of the capable badge.
Now if this is the case, that they changed the specs that originally capable badge had (meaning it ran all versions), then MS under the coercion of Intel changed minimum specs so they removed the original meaning of the CAPABLE badge, I really doubt MS originally intended for thje badge to be used to just support the bare minimum version of vista, but when Intel threw in the, well we wont be able to pre-sell, or even get upgrades from XP from N units sold by intel, MS bean counters decided to drop the specs, thus breaking the original CAPABLE meaning of the badge.
any x86 computer (within reason) can run Vista, this isnt about whether it could or couldnt run Vista its about if they could or couldnt meet WDDM, which is basically Aero
Vista capable was a complete shambles. Most of the machines that went out with the sticker granted could have it installed, but it ran like total arse. Microsoft deserve to be fined for the complete waste of time campaign.
HP also have a very valid point, as do many others who worked their asses off to meet the WDDM spec, only to have it dropped at the last minute on a whim because intel cried about it.
Any computer bought within the last 6-8 years is "Vista capable" if your definition of "capable" is that it will be able to install and execute a version of Vista. But if that's the definition used by MS, then making the label in the first place would make no sense at all.
This fact would naturally make any regular consumer assume that "Vista Capable" means that it will run Vista well, along with at least a few Vista specific effects.
All this leads us to conclude that MS have in fact been trying to mislead the common consumer with their "Vista Capable" labels.
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.