Quote : "The lawsuit said Microsoft's labeling of some PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" was misleading because many of those computers were not powerful enough to run all of Vista's features, including the much-touted "Aero" user interface."
See : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080223/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_vista_lawsuit;_ylt=Avmbli.PE...ookFPkA7UjtBAF
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 25 of 25
Very very VERY interesting. The reason I say this, is because I got myself one of those computers. I have an HP a1640n, which advertised as Vista ready. Thing is, not all features would be handled because of limited graphic capability. So, I filed a BBB complaint against Circuit City, saying they had misrepresented a product by stating it was Vista ready, when in fact, it is not 100% Vista ready. They returned my complaint with an explanation that - If it will run Vista's core components, then it is Vista ready. Any additional features accessed would be the responsibility of the user. I was a tad shocked, since all I asked for was a graphic card that would handle the extra features, not like I was asking for the store. I'm interested to see what happens here.
Are you sure it was "Vista ready" as opposed to "Vista capable"? SFAIK the "ready" meant Aero and the "capable" did not.
Mine does say Vista capable, but there could be different interpretations of that word, so I guess it will take a judge to determine what to do next. I'm glad I don't have their job.
It would be a frivolous and stupid law suit.
Google the phrase "Windows Vista Capable" (with the quotes) and click on the second hit. You know, as if you were pondering the question "Hmm, nice looking PC - what's this mean - Windows Vista Capable?"
It takes you to Microsoft's definition of Windows Vista Capable. Namely, the PC is capable of running Vista as opposed to it isn't. Duh.
A new PC running Windows XP that carries the Windows Vista Capable PC logo can run Windows Vista. All editions of Windows Vista will deliver core experiences such as innovations in organizing and finding information, security, and reliability. All Windows Vista Capable PCs will run these core experiences at a minimum. Some features available in the premium editions of Windows Vista—like the new Windows Aero user experience—may require advanced or additional hardware.
You might buy a PC that has that sticker and it won't even have Vista on it. It just means you can install Vista and it will run. Period.
As for this poll: Millenium Edition by far. Anyone who believes Vista is worse obviously spent too much time outside on Wednesday night staring at the sky. And what does the poll have to do with the lawsuit?
I also voted ME. It was utter trash compared to the NT kernel releases that were out already. However at least then there was a choice of an upgraded OS. Now you have to use a flavor of Vista or go with a 7-year old operating system. The choice for now is obvious: until support for XP is discontinued I will always recommend the platform that has had 7 years of revisions and debugging.
As for the lawsuit I don't think it's stupid but I do agree it is frivolous. The labels are misleading at least, possibly fraudulent at best. However with the dynamic nature of computer hardware and software it's going to be difficult to nail down who would be part of the class action.FB-DIMM are the real cause of global warming
The sticker is a simple (perhaps too simple) means of indicating the hardware capability of the computer. Microsoft don't put the sticker on. PC manufacturers do. As long as the PC meets the hardware requirements for the particular sticker, the vendor can put the sticker on.
I think it should be the responsibility of the end retailer to provide the detailed information. It would be in their interest to do so.
The original point of the different stickers was to assure consumers *before Vista was launched* that their XP-based PC could be upgraded to Vista.
A "Capable" PC requires a minimum of 512MB - with integrated graphics - that's laughable. A "Premuim Ready" PC requires a minimum of 1GB.
Personally, I think the PC vendors have abused the sticker system and put out PCs that should really carry a sticker that says "Barely Runs Vista - Get More Hardware Now!".
Perhaps Microsoft were too "generous" in the minimum hardware requirements and should have limited the RAM requirement to a minimum of 1GB instead.
Re the plaintiffs in the suit - I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that they had no intention of ever putting Vista on their XP systems, anyway, and are simply looking for their day in the sun...
So "VISTA capable or ready" caused and encreased demand for such PC's, which inflated their price, making people pay more for their XP PC then they needed to, and now those PC's are not truly ready for VISTA, while ONLY SOME of those purchases were made based on reliance upon the label. Buyer beware.........never buy anything based upon a promise of what the future will bring. I doubt if anyone benefits from this in the end, except the lawyers.
The bigger problem that I see is the number of PC's (especially laptops) that were sold in 2007 with VISTA pre-installed which did not have the RAM and Processor speed to run VISTA with a reasonable level of performance, "reasonable" being the level of performance people got with the last one they bought running either XP, W2K, and even Win98SE......hell with the Aero. I'm talking defective consumer products here.
I don't think defective products are Microsoft's fault....... of course the PC and hardware makers may argue that they were misled too.
I looked at my Toshiba laptop that I bought in 6/06 and it says Windows Vista Capable,I find that odd because Vista wasn't released until 1/07.The hardware is capable of running Vista but I am sticking with XP Pro.
I don't see how this is Microsoft's fault because they don't build PC's,it sounds like another frivolous lawsuit just to go after MS.
Originally Posted by MOVIEGEEK
Any computer that was preinstalled with Vista and functioning clearly doesn't need the sticker.
My impoverished university couldn't afford the minimum hardware requirements:
The system requirements for Windows 1.0 constituted CGA/Hercules/EGA (or compatible), MS-DOS 2.0, 256 KB RAM, and 2 double-sided disk drives or a hard drive.
Looks like the suit may not be so frivolous, according to these articles. Seems some internal emails are out that might look pretty bad in court, for both Microsoft and Intel:
JohnnyMalaria has a history of defending Microsoft. I like his posts, just note his bias.
Yeah, and I pretty much agree with all Johnny's posts defending Vista. I like it myself. But in this case it's Microsoft's business practices, specifically helping Intel to sell the 915 chipset, that's going to bite them in the ass. That chipset had been obsoleted by Vista because it can't run Aero (among other things), but MS slapped the "Vista Capable" stickers on those.computers anyway, even though Aero was Vista's most touted new feature, to help Intel meet its quarterly profit projections. That's hard to defend.
You need to sign on with that lawsuit, funnel71.
There are different Vista capable tags around. I have seen many laptops tagged as Vista Basic compatible. Means they will run Vista, but without Aero. I am running Vista on a 3 year old Toshiba A200. I increased the ram to 1.5GB. There is no way in hell it will ever run Aero, and frankly, who cares. I turn off most of the eye candy on the XP desktop as well. It is actually running more stably and faster than the new model laptops (Portege M600s with 2GB RAM) on what are mostly XP drivers. The new models with Vista specific drivers are very poor in comparison, especially when you see the huge difference in raw CPU grunt. My modest 1.6Ghz mobile pentium boots faster, loads apps faster, and is rock solid stable. The core 2 duo models are very sluggish in comparison. The difference comes from the driver base and all the Toshiba utilities, which don't run on my old system, and which I don't miss or need anyway.
My biggest issue isn't with Microsoft and their confusing and needlessly complex product structure, but the lack of support for Vista from venders. Driver support still sucks the big pickle in many instances, and many Vista Basic capable systems are sold cheaply without a clear explanation of what that really means. Microsoft has a role int his with their certification process, to be sure. But the average punter is, frankly, ignorant, and the stores that sell to them will happily prey on this. This is where the lawsuits originate.
Vista still has a ways to go, and like XP, I expect it will be service pack 2 before it really hits it's straps. If only software and driver writers would support it.
I certainly prefer it to Leopard (OS X 10.5), which is just as buggy, just as sluggish, and very bland by comparison.
Originally Posted by guns1inger
[ ] Sluggish
[ ] Sluggish and Buggy
[ ] Suck
[ ] Sh*t, where are my files, dude?
[ ] Where was my XP install disc ?
I know people who bitch constantly about how buggy and unstable XP is. I work XP hard, with a wide variety of software doing many different things, from video to audio to programming to games. I cannot remember the last time XP crashed. I have also seen XP machines that are unstable and vile to use. However they are treated badly, and it reflects in the way they behave.
Similarly, I have been using Vista now for over twelve months, and my personal experience has been positive. But then, I look after my systems.
30 hours a week I support a local private school. Over 600 laptops, running either XP, Vista or OS X. If the owner looks after them, they run well. If they don't, they crash. Doesn't matter what platform it is.
The problems I am seeing with Vista are the same problems that happened when XP was released, and when OS X 10.4 and now 10.5 were released. The same type of problems occurred when Windows 98 and Win2K were released. The systems now are a lot more complicated than they were back then, and our reliance on them is much greater. Therefore the perception of pain is greater if things do go wrong.
The funniest thing is watching how what is essentially an optional change (you can still get XP if you want it) has turned so many in to crying little girls who wail on the one hand about how terrible it is, and revel, on the other, about what a f*#k up they hope it will be.
Vista is neither the abomination you hope it will be, nor the pinnacle of computing genius Microsoft would have us believe it is. It is just another OS, just like the last one. In 4 years time most of us will be using it, and the whiners will be complaining about the next version. So save you posts. You can use them to cut and paste in a few years time.
Originally Posted by guns1inger
Originally Posted by halsboss
I believe this lawsuit shouldn't just be about Microsoft, though. It should involve all the vendors with a vested interest in selling pre-Vista release PCs based upon being Vista compatible. That should encompass hardware and software vendors as well as the end retailers.
Microsoft finally admit they don't have a worthy product to replace XP (aka W2k), and posted this on their web site:
"After careful consultation with our customers and industry partners, we've decided to proceed with our plan to phase out Windows XP in June. It'll be a long goodbye. We plan to provide support for Windows XP until 2014."
Note: Have they fired most of the Vista developers yet ?
Originally Posted by SingSing
As for XP:I just bought a OEM CD that I will use on my next PC.
I think it's a bit frivolous. Vista Capable means just that.
'This PC may either be able to run Vista as is, or can be upgraded to run Vista.'
Nothing says how well or to what degree it will run Vista. If you install Vista and it boots up and runs, you got what you paid for. Vista is not Aero and vice versa. I'm pretty sure wireless networking was one of the features touted when they were marketing Vista. If your PC doesn't come with a wireless card, it will still run Vista. Truth be told, I'd place more blame on hardware manufacturers than M$. Microsoft made their money on the OS either way with XP OR Vista. PC makers wanted to get out cheap by selling you PC that didn't have all the hardware might of something that would run Vista well, but still sell you something in the event that you didn't want to wait for Vista or pay for something more high end.Nothing can stop me now, 'cause I don't care anymore.
Originally Posted by guns1inger
Even some of the new features in Vista such as UAC are whine targets. UAC exists for a reason. It reduces the chance that some piece of malware can install itself in a system. If someone doesn't want this protection because it burdens his lazy ass to click his mouse to allow it to run, they can disable UAC.