Windows

Judge opens door for 'Vista Capable' class-action lawsuit

December 2006 was a great time to buy a new computer. Intel and AMD had some great choices in the market and you could buy the XP OEM experience with the knowledge that if the computer was certified “Windows Vista Capable” you could easily upgrade.

December 2006 was a great time to buy a new computer. Intel and AMD had some great choices in the market, and you could buy the XP OEM experience with the knowledge that if the computer was certified “Windows Vista Capable,” you could easily upgrade. There were many computers that shipped with upgrade certificates, entitling the consumer to reduced cost upgrades.

If you purchased in December 2006 and wanted XP, life was good. But if you were one of the many who purchased with thoughts of Vista in your future, the experience was, at the very least, a mixed bag.

On Feb. 22, a Seattle judge determined that consumers may move ahead with a class-action suit against Microsoft over how it advertised computers with XP as capable of running Vista.

Judge Marsha Pechman determined that a Vista Capable machine would have to be capable of running more than a bare-bones Vista Home Basic edition without the Aero interface.

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

At a hearing two weeks ago, lawyers for Microsoft argued that because each consumer who bought a computer touted as "Windows Vista Capable" had different information at the time of purchase, the lawsuit should not be granted class-action status, while plaintiffs' lawyers said that all individuals who bought "Windows Vista Capable" PCs were united in that "each person in our class did not get what they paid for."

In her ruling, Judge Marsha Pechman granted class-action status, stating that "common issues predominate."

"These common issues ... are whether Vista Home Basic, in truth, can fairly be called 'Vista' and whether Microsoft's 'Windows Vista Capable' marketing campaign inflated demand market-wide for 'Windows Vista Capable' PCs," she wrote.

At the same time, though, Pechman narrowed the basis on which plaintiffs could move forward with their claims.

For instance, she said that the plaintiffs could not pursue a class-action lawsuit on the basis that consumers had been deceived because "an individualized analysis is necessary to determine what role Microsoft's 'Windows Vista Capable' marketing program played in each class members' purchasing decision."

However, she said it was appropriate for plaintiffs to argue as a class that Microsoft had artificially inflated demand -- and prices -- for computers only capable of running Vista Home Basic by marketing them as "Windows Vista Capable."

Microsoft spokesman Jack Evans stated that Microsoft is “currently reviewing the court’s ruling.”

Did you purchase a new computer at the end of 2006 in an effort to maintain your XP experience while allowing you to move up into the world of Vista?

More information:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stay on top of the latest tech news

Get this news story and many more by subscribing to our free IT News Digest newsletter, delivered each weekday. Automatically sign up today!

194 comments
BrianHughesMA
BrianHughesMA

I can't help but wonder what people were buying at the end of 2006. Both of my computers are self-built and of somewhat older genrations - one is an Athlon Thunderbird (!), the other a 64-bit but not even dual-core. And according to the Upgrade Advisor, both are capable of running any version of Vista. Who the heck was buying computers with less than an 800 MHz processor at the end of 2006?

rbgbaggage1970
rbgbaggage1970

In 6/06 as a novice newbie who didn't know shinola from Adam about computers only knew that he wanted one and the cheapest one to start out with to learn on. It was replaced with a better machine due to a bad keyboard by HP in Dec. It arrived Vista Capable. I ran the test program that said I would have memory issues so I put more in it and bought Ultimate and have never looked back. Too many people expect more than they actually get and expect restitution since they feel slighted when they fail to understand the facts. I'm by no means a MS fan but it sure pushed the OS initially as to say get with the program or get left in the dust.Does PR equate to litigation? Not for me it doesn't

KeithAu001
KeithAu001

I trialed Vista on my machine as a dual boot, and I could run the "Basic" Vista on my machine and it was purchased well before December 2006. Before I grabbed the trial version I was advised by the MSDN site to test my machine to see IF it could run Vista. I ran the test and all I had to replace was the video card the rest of the machine was fine. The video card change was to accomodate aero. Microsoft had warned users that there "May" be some issues with older machines, and that the machine must be set up according to their specs in order to run Vista. This included the necessary video card. If the computer suppliers attached the stickers and certificates to the machines they were selling then they are the ones that should be held accountable "IF" they didn't supply the machine with the necessary components specified by Microsoft. Dont get me wrong I dont back MS completely and i really get cheesed off when they dont do the right thing by users, but lets look at the bigger picture, were the machines supplied with the appropriate internals if they werent then MS cant be accountable.

Joe_R
Joe_R

Someone name a class-action suit against a huge company or industry that directly benefited the consumer, and/or didn't benefit those lawyers first and foremost - and the most. You can always buy a Mac, but you're pretty helpless against a gang of wild lawyers. I'd take Microsoft any day, regardless of its ugly flaws.

compguy101101
compguy101101

I think that consumers were deceived but it will be hard to win this lawsuit when the computer technically did exactly what the label said it would do. "Windows Vista Capable" no version specified, so it will barely run the short bus version, it still runs Vista.... And the point made earlier that the PC manufactures should be the one to blame is really the issue. Although Microsoft could have up'd their requirements needed to allow PC manufactures to tout their system as "Visa Capable" so that the basic version wasn't the only version able to run.

jthompson
jthompson

The average consumer doesn't know RAM from a hole in their head. Video cards and CPU speeds are useless for these individuals; all they care about is that the product works like the seller says it will. As IT professionals we know not to trust the "minimum system requirements" for any product since we have all been burned at some point by these misleading figures. How is a consumer supposed to make a comparable decision using "research" if the decisions we make are based on years of experience. Question: How many of us know the difference between the compressor in our refrigerator and the compressor in our air conditioner? Maybe some of you know the answer to all of this question, but I would venture to say most of us only care that our homes and refrigerators stay at the temperature they are supposed to be. Imagine buying a refrigerator that only keeps food cold 75% of the time. Would you be upset if you bought an air conditioner that suddenly needed a $200 upgrade to function in the summertime? What if I told you your air conditioner problems where your own fault because you didn't do the in depth research required to buy a sufficient unit even though the sticker on the side clearly states it will work to the specifications you require.

Patrick_m
Patrick_m

That is the point the systems do work as stated it runs Vista basic it is a basic PC just as a Smart car gets good gas milage a corvette does not but I will not run out and buy a smart car to go 160 miles an hour either think about it.

jthompson
jthompson

Vista Basic may run on those machines, but the whole basis for the lawsuit is the Vista capable sticker was used as a selling point and even inflated prices for those computers in December of '06 (before the release of Vista). Users were led to believe they would be able to "upgrade" to Vista from XP. If those users were on XP pro, I doubt their Vista installation felt like an upgrade and you be hard-pressed to convince me otherwise. The information was misleading. It effected pricing and consumers' decision making, bottom line. This lawsuit is not about making money, it is about big companies like MS owning up to their mistakes and serving their shareholders by doing right by their customers.

Tig2
Tig2

The end of 2006 saw my family purchasing a number of computers. We wanted to maintain our XP world but also wanted machines that had the ability to reach the new Vista. As we began to hear some of the user experience around upgrading to the new OS, we slowly shredded those upgrade coupons that the retailer had been so careful to give us and become resolute in our decision to stay in the XP world we knew. While I don't think that I will bother with the class-action, it may be a good thing that it is happening. And it would be a great opportunity for Microsoft to reach out to customers and show a conciliatory face. But legal actions being what they are, I don't think that is going to happen. Did you buy a new system in 2006 anticipating the arrival of Vista?

Buff Loon
Buff Loon

Billy boy G. is a lawyer first and a billionaire second, Moneysoft is inherently big business due to all the legaleze flowing through its disfunctional system. There needs to be a "Class Action Suit" to bring enough money and guns to bear on Monkeysoft, to be successful. It would take a huge colony of ants to attack and feast on BB-Q'd alligator, anything less will fail. IE: I did not vote for Nucular Geo., but if I had not VOTED, he would have won the election legally. Any National Class Action against M$$oft could very well end up in the halls of congress, if enough of Moneysoft's unwitting clients hang together and once and for all put thier case in the eyes of the world. The outcome will be politcal, in todays climate that could very well go several ways. Since Billy G.boy (pseudo) retired he has been lobbying congress to allow M$ to import (better(?)educated/lower paid)IT workers to make up for the shortage(?)in qualified workers. Big Business has exported some of the better jobs we once had in the U.S., can we stand to Lose the rest by importing cheap labor to take the rest? This campaign would take lots of thought and planning, most of all, the U.S. public will have to get behind such an effort, after all this is a capitalistic democracy, saddly more capitalistic than democratic. I for one have empathy for all the Geeks, IT's and Surfers of the World, that have been downtrod, abused and generally snubbed by all the Oil, Insurance, Computer and Big Business Job Exporters. Hey that sounds kinda neat, patriotic like.. This could be our last best chance to strike a blow for Cyberfreedom. jaxontop2

NaughtyMonkey
NaughtyMonkey

saved all of us in IT I believe. I made sure the specs for any new machines I bought were capable of running Vista at its fullest. On the other hand, my dad and father-in-law both purchased new computers which came with Vista. Neither asked for my advice until after there new machines took 5 minutes to boot and ran slower than their old ones. I promptly cut the few Vista features available in Home Basic off and they ran comfortable. I still ended up installing XP on both due to hardware compatibilities and spread the word about the hardware levels on Vista machines. I did notice that in the past few months the machines advertised are at a level that Vista will run. Too many complaints I guess. Maybe I will get them involved with the class action.

mdhealy
mdhealy

My laptop has a little "Windows Vista Capable" sticker, but I have zero intention of putting Vista on it. Long experience with multiple MS platforms (starting with MS-DOS, which at least was somewhat better than CP/M and and MUCH better than Fortran on punch-cards with which I first learned to code) has taught me two basic lessons about MS platforms: (1) don't move to a new Redmond OS until it has been in widespread use for two years and (2) don't plan on upgrading hardware that came out before the new OS did. So I got this XP Pro laptop in Fall 2006 precisely to avoid facing Vista before 2009, by which time most compatibility issues will have been sorted out.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

that no one has brought up Vista's complete lack of ability to play back HD content until the release of the new monitor that had Hollywood approved hdmi inputs.. There have been two class action lawsuites against NVIDIA and ATI for selling HD capable cards, that were not capable because the VISTA driver forced the content into non-HP resolutions, since none of the cards were capable of dual-hdmi (for a single screen, thus making copying the content more difficult.) So many people bought Vista Ultimate, a $700 Blue-ray player, and got the same results as XP and a $30 dvd player.

v6charlie
v6charlie

i am a technet member and my gateway laptop purchased in dec 06 has the vista ready sticker and sure can run the top 3 without a burp. as i have tried them to be sure gateway posted drivers before vista came out in both 23 and 64 bit models.

efpd13
efpd13

I purchased a Vista Capable Laptop from Toshiba. When I uppgraded, all of my components stopped working and it required hours and hours of research to get the machine to work as it did under XP Pro. Worse still I could not return the software. Shame on Microsoft and Toshiba, not telling you that you needed to do so much to get it to work properly and 2 gigs of ram. Come On!!! I will surely buy a Mac and move away from MS all together instead of a class action suit that will net me $.50 cents after the lawyers get thier share....

trevor
trevor

I have my machine which says Vista capable on It and I definitely purchased it with the view to upgrading. I will be keeping a keen eye on what is happening in the fprthcoming weeks !!

The Scummy One
The Scummy One

I do not see the real issue here, unless these items were marked as Vista capable, but drivers would not work. And even that would be more due to the manufacturer or installer rather than MS, unless they certified drivers and those ones did not work. As for bad marketing, MS has been doing this for years, what is new? Can we all sue for that? There were warning signs about Vista and requirements before this was put out. There was much on the Internet about compatibility issues and requirements. The basic home version IS still Vista. All SW companies put out min. requirements where the program will work, but usually they just barely work on Min req.. Personally, if I wanted Vista, I would have waited to prchase until a few new 'upgrades' in HW were available. Even on lower end new comps, Vista is sluggish.

Constantdrone
Constantdrone

One would think microsloth would have learned how to roll out an upgrade the first try, but they do like to beta test using the end user pocket books to cover exspences. Trying to say that MS couldn't for see the crap storm Vista was going to cause is a bit naeave. Building software before the actual need for it, is what sent me back into my XP pro bomb shelter.

zefficace
zefficace

I love this site and learning from you true IT guys and some of your comments are very much inspired, but... When it comes to advertising, MS usually makes alot of waves over nothing, and they know they are dealing with the uninformed noob. So when you say "vista capable" and limit yourself to such a statement, you are in fact confusing the public. As for the "car" comparison in one of the posts, it's all wrong. The dealers have their milage stats, but so does the goverment. Nothing like this exists in IT, so when a compagny says something, there is usually no third party to verify the claim, specially for the consumer. Anyway, most of the stats are meaninless to most consumers, and not everyone knows about or consults sites like tom's hardware that digests the info. That being said, MS knows the level of knowledge their clients have, and if they sell to them, the inherently accept the responsability of the effects their claims have on the uniformed public. So this is not strict issue of IT, but one of responsability from a socially accepted authority(that is MS), making blanket claims that will assuredly confuse the public which looks to it (again MS) for information. Even if MS has a spotty "truth-saying record", borderline lying still isn't right, and you can't blame the public who often sees no other light. MS HAS a RESPONSABILITY, and they must face up to it in light of whom they serve.

JCitizen
JCitizen

If so maybe it could be amended to detail just what "capable" means. To me totally freezing and crashing on driver faults is "NOT CAPABLE". What method did the OEM vendor get logo on the "capable" label, did Microsoft authorize it; this is what I'd have to know to even form a basic opinion. Is it time for just another amendment to liability law here, or what do you call it? I realize your talking tort law here but what about existing commercial law?

Absolutely
Absolutely

I think the "hardware houses" were coerced, and we'd be punishing them for being victims of blackmail. Some of them should have resisted more, and if all had resisted like HP, this probably wouldn't have happened. But the laws that would have protected them in that case are subject to so much interpretation, I don't think it's fair, or good for business generally, to take this one beyond Intel & Microsoft, in that order. http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_002570DE00740E18002573FE006B7266.html?ref=technology

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

You are making me look as if I support the Hardware Houses and I do anything but that. I actually think most are Criminals with what they produce but I also understand the Economic Realities of the situation. So it's probably better to say that the Hardware Houses are wrong but M$ who spearheaded this campaign is More Wrong. [i]The hardware houses... still produced machines that were "Vista capable" even though they felt this was deceptive[/i] Yes they did but look at the postilion that they where placed in. If one agreed to participate in the Program all had to and they where never given the option of actually sitting down and discussing it between themselves. M$ Approached one and told them that others where participating in the program so if they didn't that would effectively killed their sales & Market Share. Then when M$ went to the next System Builder they used the one that they had and others to hard sell this one into participating in this campaign. Which computer would Joe/Jane Public buy at Christmas the one that was running XP but Vista Compatible or the one that wasn't branded as Vista Compatible. Doesn't matter to the Public that they where Technically the same computer with identical Specifications the one with the Advertised ability to run the new M$ OS was the one which was going to sell. Of course if the System Builders didn't carry on like Spoiled Children and hate their competition they would stand a much better chance in all of this. But in the real world things like Common Sense are not required in Business and the buying Public doesn't care at the time of sale so the System Builders have to play ball if they want to survive. Also the fact that they got Free Advertising didn't hurt at all either. [i]Where does that leave them. In criminal procedure it is called accessory. This is the basis of my stand that the manufacturers should be held liable.[/i] Yes it is but this isn't a Criminal Proceeding it's Civil and in a case like that the one [b]Most Guilty[/b] is the one that the Complainants go after to get money. When this is all said and done it is just like everything else it revolves around [b]Money.[/b] There is no attempt to get any Justice here just Money. At the start M$ was not selling well and wanted more Money to help prop up their Share Price. The fact that they where getting a lot of Stick in the Media for the constant delays with Vista or Longhorn as it was then known was the main reason Investors where selling M$ Shares by the truck load. At that time M$ needed to Show a Great Profit to help improve their Share Price. Remember that M$ Profits had been dropping for a few years and the delay of Vista over the Announced Marketing Departments Claims at M$ was really hitting M$ hard in the Hip Pocket or Bottom Line if you prefer. M$ is a Sales Organization and no matter what else they rely on selling their products to stay alive. It doesn't have to work well just provided that they continue to sell product and increase numbers over last years sales they are happy. When this is going backward fast they Panic and do silly things like the Vista Compatible Program. Anyone inside the industry could see this was wrong and they all knew it but with M$ Steamrolling it you had two choices jump on and scare your self SHHHHHHitless or go broke doing the right thing. Hardly a choice for the big makers who rely on constant sales to keep their staff employed. I could chose not to be involved but I'm small and don't have to worry if I sell a computer this month or not as it's not a Important source of income to me. I'm actually better off repairing existing commuters than selling new ones as I make much more money with Labor Charges than you could ever hope to make on Profits of Selling Computers. Have you looked at the profit margins on Computer Hardware recently? I can make just about as much money selling a $500.00 Upper End Scanner as a $2,000.00 computer which is way more than most are willing to pay so I have to work hard to sell the customer what they need rather than what they are willing to pay for. But with a High End Scanner it's a call to me to order one and when can it be delivered. Even that is pathetic when it comes to the amount of money that you make it's not even the cost of 1 hours labor and who ever charges for just 1 hours Labor while On Site? Col

normhaga
normhaga

still produced machines that were "Vista capable" even though they felt this was deceptive. If they so strongly disagreed with the process, they should have refused to participate. Whether they disagreed or not, they did 'choose' to participate. Where does that leave them. In criminal procedure it is called accessory. This is the basis of my stand that the manufacturers should be held liable.

seanferd
seanferd

Absolutely, I like the imagery. Good one. Drivers: My understanding is that MS changes the driver API all the time, for no really good reason. Not just for adding or securing functionality.

Absolutely
Absolutely

If a buddy asks me to "talk him up" to some girl, I'm OK with that. It's when he asks for outright lies that I decide the honorable thing to do is to pretend to do as he asks, but also tell the girl that really embarrassing thing about Band Camp or whatever, and to lead him on, and please, please, please dump an iced drink on him just before last call.

JCitizen
JCitizen

I still can't help thinking that the inconsiderate way the driver vendors were treated by Microsoft since XP sp2 hasn't helped add to MS's problems. And it is their own fault there too!

Tig2
Tig2

And in fact, HP wasn't happy about logoing Vista sub-standard machines. But Microsoft calls that shot. If you want to get irritated with a hardware house, I would look no further than Intel. But Microsoft has culpability- they allowed Intel to dictate the unfortunate decision that caused this problem. http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9882376-37.html?tag=nefd.pop As the information is coming out in this case, it could be a clear win for the class.

JCitizen
JCitizen

a lawyer. But I had preconceived ideas what the logo program was supposed to convey to the consumer. I still so mad at Microsoft over the WGA issue that I suppose I would have reacted with uncontrollable glee if this were the subject of tort action.

normhaga
normhaga

As you, I disagree with your position: >"However having said all this when I was approached by

JCitizen
JCitizen

Microsoft has screwed over the hardware developers in the last few years; I tend to balance the fault scale towards Microsoft as well.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

M$ is the one who ran the Campaign and the same people who told the Manufactures what was required to run Vista. Remember that when this Campaign was launched Vista had not been RTM'd and they still had major issues with the then Beta Version that was being tested. In November 2006 Vista was Released to Manufacturing and at the same time the Volume License Version was made available to the Trade but it was still about 2 months till Vista was Released to the Public and even then it still had issues that needed patching. If anyone was silly enough to actually start an action against HP or the like HP would quite rightly product some M$ Literature telling them what was required to comply with M$'s Advertising Campaign in the Hardware side of things and then produce the Hardware List of the offending machine and say Compare. In just about every case that Vista Compatible Computer would exceed M$'s hardware list. Then you need to look at what was happening at the time M$ was copping a lot of stick for not having Vista Ready and their Share Price was falling. M$ also had missed the Christmas Season and had lost sales because of this so they introduced the Vista Compatible Scheme where you could buy now and get Vista latter to install on your new Computer, Once M$ launched this campaign the makers had to go along with it or loose sales. So from all angles M$ was driving this campaign to improve their current Market Image & Sales. You need to look at all the occurrences of the time and not just isolate a couple of things to base your argument around. However having said all this when I was approached by

Tig2
Tig2

"Designed for XP" with "Vista CAPABLE" (emphasis mine) below. You're right- when the machine is running the OS it was designed for, it generally does it well. Had the machine been running XP and also said designed for Vista, I would have felt reasonably confident that Vista would run on it.

normhaga
normhaga

1. The hardware manufacturer need to be hung, but they are not a low lying target like MS because there are so many of them rather than an easily available single MS. 2. MS needs to be strung up, but not for the "Vista Capable" issue, but rather because Vista in general does not perform as specified.

JCitizen
JCitizen

Yes I do recall many succesfull suits along this line, in the past. But are you suggesting that on OEM machines with the Vista capable logo that it was strictly the hardware manufactures liability? I'm still trying to get a handle on this.

JCitizen
JCitizen

In my experience(which may be limited compared to yours); I have upgraded many machines that had, say, an OEM installation of ME, but a lable "designed for ME/NT/2000 Professional". And W2K ran very well on those machines. Likewise I have had many machines with OEM installations of W2K on them that said "designed for 2000 Pro/XP". And XP ran very well on them. So with my experience I would have been giving poor advice to people in this light(apparently).

normhaga
normhaga

Sherman Anti-trust act and the Patton act. I have long since forgotten the U.S.C. citations. These acts in combination require a product to perform as specified by the "Manufacturer." MS was not the HW manufacturer, therefore I think the lawsuit should be dismissed and brought against the HW manufacturers who mis-advertised the product. However, is is easier for a hungry attorney looking for his next meal ticket to go after the most visible target.

Tig2
Tig2

The originator of the device or software determines the labels that appear on your computer. So when the OEM slaps the Microsoft OS label in place, it is only with Microsoft's blessing. The same goes for the chipset label and the graphics card label. My HP has four- Designed for XP, Vista Capable, AMD Turion, nVidia, and Lightscribe. Because I have a certain degree of specialized knowledge, I did not have an expectation that Vista would run at all on that box. That was fine by me as I wanted it to run XP. The designation "Designed for" was the tip off for me. But the average consumer would not necessarily know this. Therefore the suit.

khyskell
khyskell

When it comes to advertising Microsoft does what a good corporation does, it attracts the interest of the consumer. Microsoft designed an OS with varying levels of features that appeal to different levels of computer users. The users that are complaining, those who are supporting this BS lawsuit, are the users who probably don't have the technical ability or necessity to use the upper level versions. The basic version of any product is usually intended for this type of user. This provides a savings to the consumer both in the cost of the computer and the cost of the OS. These computers claim to be VISTA compatible and they do indeed run VISTA. It does not need to state that it is compatible with only a specific version of VISTA on the market to be stating truth. One does not need to be an IT expert to be held responsible for their purchases. As previously stated, all software is clearly marked with minimum requirements, which are barely enough to run, but ENOUGH, in any case. Fact is Fact. This is just another frivolous lawsuit fueled by irresponsible lawyers who have twisted the justice system in this country beyond recognition. I am not a fan of MS but am much less a fan of ridiculous lawsuits and even less a fan of supported ignorance. People need to stand up and be accountable for their own actions and stop looking for the bigger fish to point the finger at.

zefficace
zefficace

You are most certainly rigth to say that there is a great number of morons out there, and like a great comedian said before me, no one can cure stupid... and MS can't actually expected to cure stupid. The problem is when you know you cater to stupid, you inherently accept the consequences of dealing with stupid... and if you don't know that, you too are stupid (talking about MS, not you personnally!). That being said, MS does want the stupid market, because there are alot of them out there, and now they do have to bite the dust because they were short sighted by their own claim. Mind you, I will admit that I personally have little sympathy for the morons that don't read fine print or research their choices. But I seperate my distaste for weaklings from the established laws and pertinent principles... Hence my prior post. Thing is, this is a legal matter, and with these legal debates, useless or not, society does evolve as to what it accepts to be present in the system. So you reject the weak by your philosophy, and if it is socially dominant (in laws and principles), you will see that the final judgement shall reflect that. If not, maybe society is meant to protect the weak. Accept it or do something about it, but don't complain about the law suit.

normhaga
normhaga

One of the machines I tested Vista on was an E-Machines W4620 laptop. This is a consumer grade laptop purchased at Walmart. Emachines did not actively advertise this NB as Vista capable at the store, but their website i.e. Gateway did state the machine was Vista capable. The VUA stated the machine would only run Vista Basic, primarily due to the video chipset (ATI X 300). I promptly installed two gig of RAM and loaded up Vista Home Premium. When that worked, I loaded Vista Ultimate 32 and 64. they both worked. Therefore, I do not see this as an MS lying issue but rather that of the hardware manufacturer being less than honest about what they were selling. So, should MS be held accountable, or should it be the HW manufacturers?

khyskell
khyskell

I do agree that companies need to be held responsible for their actions. False advertising can not be tolerated. But this is NOT a lie. "I'm sure Microsoft was very careful in being sure they "technically" didn't lie", a lie that is "technically" not a lie, is NOT a lie. Intent does not change the outcome. The "intent" of placing minimum requirements on software packaging is to inform the uninformed consumer. Is that preventing this nonsense? I do know that the features of VISTA being touted were not available in Basic, but at no point did MS claim that those features would be available to the budget minded consumer purchasing a lower cost pc and believing that they were buying something that would run VISTA. The claim that the computer supports VISTA is ABSOLUTELY VALID. MS did not advertise that these PC's would run AERO, only that it was VISTA compatible. Show me the PC with a VISTA compatible sticker that will NOT run VISTA and then you have grounds, right now we just have a group of consumers who got what they paid for, which is not what they wanted, and are now ignorantly aiming for the deep pockets of MS.

$dunk$
$dunk$

[i]People need to stand up and be accountable for their own actions and stop looking for the bigger fish to point the finger at. [/i] I'm sure that Microsoft was very careful in being sure they *technically* didn't lie. However, the intent was there. So it still is a lie. Thus, Microsoft is the one who should be accountable for their actions. Being an IT guy, you know that Vista Basic Home Edition is not the Vista that was being advertised. So, the claim that they support the Home Basic Version doesn't fly.

Patrick_m
Patrick_m

Thank you the best post by far this was mt point to being with. The last thing we need is another law suit that is going to cost us all in the end. I forgot to mention I Bought a HDDVD Player from Toshiba that does not give me the right to now hole Toshiba responsible for them canceling the player. It is my own tough luck I backed the wrong horse.

Patrick_m
Patrick_m

That maybe true but all so the reseller and the manufacturer would all so need to hold the blame here. After all the sticker was on the HARDWARE ie the PC that said Vista Compatible. And where is the lie you can run Vista on the pc the OS does run if the OS would not even install then I would say yes Microsoft lied be hey the end of the day the OS runs.

larrie_jr
larrie_jr

TO all the IT peolple... If this weren't rue wouldn't we all be running Linux?!?!?

joe.krisanda
joe.krisanda

I think the problem is that people are reading too much into this problem. Yes, it's true, that if anybody is going to make a sizable purchase they need to do research into it. But also, if a sticker says "Vista Capable", I don't think MS is really wrong here. If a computer meets the minimum requirements of an OS, then that computer is capable of running that OS. But just because it is capable does not mean it will be functional. While I believe the sticker is deceiving, technically it isn't wrong. However, with that said, if a label had to be placed on a PC regarding Vista, it should have been more specific and detail what version it could run, and what version was recommended. I don't think this lawsuit will get very far. Nobody forced anybody to buy a "Vista Capable" computer, and if not enough research was done by the user that isn't MS's fault.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]But seriously, look at Vista Home Basic... it can not do anything rally. Its like a crippled version of XP home.[/i] What features does XP Home have that Vista basic does not?

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

as part of a strategy to raise the average price of a retail copy of windows. At one end we have Home basic($189), at the other Ultimate($329). In the Middle we have Home Premium and Buisness ($250). The cost of XP Pro fell between Buisness and Ultimate at $300. Many people stayed with 2000 or 98 instead of paying for even an upgrade. Untill their machine crashed and they bought a new one. But seriously, look at Vista Home Basic... it can not do anything rally. Its like a crippled version of XP home. The reason MS offered sucha low end OS is to increase their proffit on OEM sales. Push out the junk, then people can "instant upgrade" to home premium for $120 more! Sweet! On a $450 computer... MS set their target at Home Premium and Buisness and ensured this by adding the required ends of the Bell curve.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

I've discovered a foolproof way to get out of jury duty. One question the jury should ask though ... Why does Vista Home Basic exist? It was designed to run on SOMETHING!!!!

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

On the Evidence Presented to the Court. It's not to have people with a set belief go in and make a decision on what if anything is right or wrong without listening to the Evidence. If what you are proposing was right there is no need for Courts as all that would be required is to get X number of people together and ask them what their Decision is without listening to the Evidence. Now that would make Courts and Court Actions so much cheaper and faster and totally destroy the [b]Concept of Justice.[/b] Yes I know it currently doesn't exist but many believe that it does so as far as Society is concerned the Courts are there to hand out Justice. Col

Absolutely
Absolutely

TonyTheTiger: [i]Nobody has proven that Vista won't run on these machines.[/i] The claim is not that the golf cart can't be driven off the lot, it's that the golf cart was sold as a freeway-capable, full-fledged car. It certainly is not that. http://weblog.infoworld.com/sustainableit/archives/2008/02/vista_lawsuit_m.html "The Home Basic edition of the OS certainly doesn't deliver the Vista experience users were likely anticipating. For starters, it's incapable of running Aero, Vista's flashy UI. In fact, if you take a look at Microsoft's comparison of the different flavors of Vista, you'll see that this low-end variant of the OS can't do much of anything."

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

Nobody has proven that Vista won't run on these machines. As I said elsewhere, I know people who are running home basic on Celeron 800 mhz, 512 meg, 4 GB hard drive computers. It does run, and since the hard drive is SSD, it runs fairly well (no slower than XP on the same configuration). From the get-go, Microsoft stated that it would make Vista modular so that it would run (less some features) on older, less capable hardware. To expect that all of the features would work on all of the hardware is totally unreasonable. Hell, I could claim that since my old laptop never had built-in sound, that Microsoft was liable for the "Designed for Windows 98/2000 Professional" sticker on it. After all, when I upgraded to 2000, the sound didn't magically start working!

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

First and For most that Campaign was a M$ Advertising Campaign. The OEM System Builders bought the right to use M$ Copyrighted Insignia's on their Vista Compatible PC's. Secondly it was M$ not the makers who listed the specifications of these systems. M$ was less that fully forthcoming in this and listed a set of Hardware standards that would be sufficient to run Vista. It's just the same as being told that if you buy X you can do Y when Y is released shortly. Then when Y is finial released X doesn't do as it was advertised and you need to alter the basic specification of X to make it sort of work with Y. Like buying a car that can do 300 MPH and then finding out that the tires are only rated to 50 MPH and are likely to blow long before the car reaches the claimed Top Speed. Or maybe better still it's claimed that the car can do 300 MPH and when after buying it you find that it has a Governor fitted that Can Not Be Removed which limits the car to 55 MPH. It's False Advertising no matter how you look at things and no one here seems to remember what M$ was going through at the time either that need to to be taken into Account to see why it was done. Col

JCitizen
JCitizen

well as Microsoft says it is?

joe.krisanda
joe.krisanda

Was it Microsoft that put the stickers on the machine, or was it the vendors of the machine that did it? I would guess that whoever built the computer decides if it is worthy of a Vista Capable sticker, and if it wasn't Microsoft that built the computer how can they be blamed?

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

"Who actually put the stickers on the PCs?"

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

Microsoft bashers/haters but maybe not so great for the country. The result of this will be much higher prices (you really don't think that Microsoft is going to just "eat" the award amount, do you?) A computer that will run only Vista basic will run Vista. It is not a deception... it is a [b]feature[/b]... that it will run on less expensive hardware. That said, for those who plan on participating in this suit, class action is probably the way to go, as you'll probably end up being glad you retained your anonymity...

dsusysmgr
dsusysmgr

Most of the people who purchased Vista were not IT Pros who you would have expected to do the research. They are Plain Ordinary Folks that relied on the shiny Logo that said Vista Ready. They had a right, as did the true IT Pros. To rely on Microsoft's logo program. The real damage to Microsoft is that we will never rely on their logo again.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

According to a Seattle Post Intellegencer article a Microsoft CVP, Mike Nash, got burnt by this. To quote, "I now own a $2,100 e-mail machine." Personally I think that that lawsuit should go further, like having them provide XP Pro, a full refund and damages of $1,000 (US) per machine.

Tig2
Tig2

That is the same article I cited in the story. I left out the Microsoft guy's comment because I thought it might be too prejudicial and wanted to hear what folks had to say.

DanLM
DanLM

That the general public research's other things they know nothing about. Why couldn't/didn't they do the same with Vista. Dollar for dollar, there are more then enough examples of how the general public researched purchase's of the same value that they knew nothing about. How many people get consumer reports to research purchase's? How many people read up on the web on home tv systems before they purchase. What makes a pc any different. Explain to me what the difference is here. They didn't take the time, the information was there, it is their own fault. I disagree with this suit, not because I like MS. But, I think it is a load of crap. Dan

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

in catering to the stupid and ignorant in this country? A computer that will run only Vista basic will run Vista. It was well reported that there would be multiple versions of Vista, in order to include those who chose to purchase less expensive hardware in the upgrade path. People who didn't do enough research to know this beforehand are either too stupid to own a computer (these are the people who will pour hot coffee in their crotch because nobody told them not to), or those who were ignorant because they didn't take the time to do the research, therefore deserve what they ended up with.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=2087&tag=nl.e019 One VP laments his brand-new "Vista Capable" laptop ended up being little more than a "$2,100 e-mail machine" because it was not "Vista Ready". If Microsoft's own people were confused by the "Vista Capable" vs "Vista Ready" logo program, I really don't understand how you can fault ordinary consumers for not understanding either. I didn't know the difference either.

Absolutely
Absolutely

There is some demand for Vista with Aero, not without.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

...[i]even though it's a completely useless product?[/i] whether or not something is "completely useless".

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...between a "manual" and "automatic". But then again, it hardly requires 10-years of industry experience to figure that out either. And again, the Vista reality was no where near the Vista promotion. Wouldn't it make sense that a "home" user would want "Vista Home", even though it's a completely useless product?

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

So who's responsible? The car lot? the manufacturer? Do they put it in their ads that one should be proficient at driving one before buying one? Or do they assume that the customer knows that?

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...would be easy to drive for people who did not know how to drive a manual transmission? I doubt it.

tomhirtler
tomhirtler

The reader is being steered away from Home Basic. At least that's the way I read it. You make a good point about basic auto insurance. Maybe you want roadside assistance maybe you don't; but you do need to know if it comes in basic to make an informed choice. Again if the article is typical they make no distinction about needing the better PC to have a useful experience. So if this is typical of the non-tech information available it is insufficient to make an informed choice. Microsoft knew (or should have known) that and taken steps to be clearer.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]My read of the article you linked was that the author felt people would not find Home Basic sufficent for their wants. Did I misread the article?[/i] ... this "This covers the basics like surfing the Internet and creating documents. There are parental control features, but you won't find many of the interesting media features." ? To me, that seems a stretch. How does the writer know the reader's wants? It's kind of like saying your basic minimum car insurance doesn't include roadside assistance. Not everyone wants everything.

tomhirtler
tomhirtler

Your "mileage" varies from mine. In my experience, the average user can barely hook up their computer. If it doesn?t work out of the box it just doesn?t work. An upgrade to Vista would be just that. Drop in the CD and hope it works. You and I would do a clean install. Jane user wouldn?t even know where to begin. Maybe Microsoft?s experience is closer to your?s than mine and they honestly didn?t know; but somehow I doubt that.

tomhirtler
tomhirtler

Darn, we got too deep! My read of the article you linked was that the author felt people would not find Home Basic sufficent for their wants. Did I misread the article?

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]There are 5 different versions and you don't want Home Basic.[/i] ... telling anyone what they "don't want".

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]If MS said Vista was capable of running on an 800MHz processor with 512K ram then MS lied![/i] There are many people who are doing just that! Not only that, but it'll run in less disk space than Microsoft suggests. I know a couple of people who have squeezed it onto an EEE pc (800 MHZ, 512 meg ram, 4 gig HD). Yes, your 3.6 ghz quadcore will run it faster, and your high-end video card can run Aero while the cheapie can't. So what? Would you have preferred they not even TRY to make it run on less expensive hardware? Require everyone who wants to run Vista shell out 4 grand for the system that would run it to YOUR expectations? [i]The normal consumer would assume that was the minimum for some sort of useful experience. [/i] Consumers been dealing with these "minimum requirements" since Windows 95. The "normal" consumer is well enough aware. You've got it backwards... the ones who (if they're telling the truth) weren't aware, are ABnormal!

tomhirtler
tomhirtler

Microsoft knew full well that Vista would not run on low end hardware. If MS said Vista was capable of running on an 800MHz processor with 512K ram then MS lied! No normal consumer would understand that this is the minimum possible to run only the OS. The normal consumer would assume that was the minimum for some sort of useful experience. If someone other than MS was spreading this nonsense then MS had a duty to correct the misinformation.

tomhirtler
tomhirtler

There are 5 different versions and you don't want Home Basic. There are two stickers. Since the article warned me about Home Basic and didn't say anything about the stickers I should be able to run my copy of Home Premium on a Vista Capable pc. Except that all of us here know that the specs for Vista Capable are a joke! On the other hand Jane user's eyes glaze over when she reads "800MHz processor".

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

I don't know how.... Vista will install and run on those computers. I recalled the original press release. I thought it was very clear about the various versions and the purpose of each. [i]They want to be able to sit down, turn their computer on, and go.[/i] They did, of course. But just because you buy a car and can drive it doesn't mean you are qualified to change the transmission in it. My niece wanted to buy this car because it was "so cute". The car lot sold it to her. It was a stick-shift, and she had never driven one. She tore the clutch out in less than a week ("Uncle Tony, What's that funny smell coming from my car?"). Is that the car lot's fault? The manufacturer?

Patrick_m
Patrick_m

Man these type of staetments are so not good as I mentioned before the Reseller needs to have the blame not MS with thios kind of law suite it is like suing the manufacturer of the surgical appliance after a doctor wrongfully removes a limb when you were to get a face lift come on people.

rhomp2002
rhomp2002

This lawsuit is not primarily for the pro. This lawsuit is for the general public. The general public does not even know that Tech Republic exists. The general public is not reading slashdot avidly. The general public does not have access to anyone other than the "experts" or "buyer's reps" at their local computer store. If those computer store experts don't tell them about it, they don't know where else to go to get the info you think they should have researched. The general public does not have your thousands of hours of experience to fall back on nor does it have the ability to understand the IT vocabulary. They want to be able to sit down, turn their computer on, and go. That is what Microsoft promised and that is what they expected Microsoft to deliver. Microsoft lied to them and they want redress. They should get it in one way or another and Microsoft should take a lesson from the experience when it advertises its next O/S.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

of the press releases that were put out. http://tinyurl.com/2yjzla If a consumer can't figure it out from that, they have no business buying a computer without their parent's permission.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

You can't be serious. It's easy for us, with thousands of hours of professional experience to be able to see through the MS BS. But ordinary consumers don't have a chance. Your average salesman at Best Buy certaintly doesn't know. How can you expect average consumers to?

dryflies
dryflies

if you are part of the class you should go along for the ride. it won't cost anything and you may come out ahead. what was the utility to kill flash content?

leeroberthill
leeroberthill

Iv been running Vista since beta, now run the full ultimate version, and have recently install full SP1, and havent had any issues (except it needs decent hardware). It makes XP look old and dated (If people didnt want bells and whistles then they would still be running Win3.1) and in 12 months time most Windows people will be running it. People are quick to slate Vista, but remember they did exactly the same with XP.. Dont listen to FUD (usually spread by Linux & mac fanboys), try it out for yourself, and make up our own mind !

normhaga
normhaga

I did, I did. After six months, I deleted it and installed XP. After nine months, I deleted XP and installed Linux.

Jessie
Jessie

If I could do all the stuff I needed to do, from a command line, I HAPPILY still would. I DO NOT need all the eye candy taking up my processor and memory space, slowing things down. My husband has a very popular website which he runs, and after purchasing Vista, he's having problems with caching in any browser he runs. He's also a gamer, and Vista in all it's gaming helpfulness has grabbed a good portion of the system memory for the video card and actually slows down the games so much as to make them unplayable, and the memory grab can't be turned off (at least that we've seen). SO I'm quite happy for you that Vista is everything you need it to be, but there are MANY of us, who were forced into the purchase of Vista because we needed new computers that would work with everything we already have, who are NOT happy with the program. And yes, personally, I'd still run Win3.11 (need that network) if I had that option.

$dunk$
$dunk$

[i] It makes XP look old and dated[/i] I have a Vista Home Premium Edition Machine at home and I can't for the life of me figure out what people mean by that comment. However, I did see that comment on Microsoft's website once. Is that where you got it? I must admit that I'm still using the same software applications that I used on XP (at least the one's that still work). Vista looks different, has a few neat graphical tricks, but certainly was a disappointment for all the hype built around it. Please explain what's so modern looking that just blows XP away?

jmgarvin
jmgarvin

God, they all look the same, it's almost a copy and past job from other forums...

Absolutely
Absolutely

It would be fun to see them side-by-side. Please copy & paste one or two examples of what you mean.

JCitizen
JCitizen

my Uncle Sam avatar; so seanferd is helping me "evolve". Err looking like L.R. Hubbard?! WEIRD!

jmgarvin
jmgarvin

Is starting to look like LRH with his lil' hat ;-)

JCitizen
JCitizen

God, now I won't be able to get that voice and vision out of my mind every time the name Microsoft is mentioned. Talk about metaphor! ]:)

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

I noticed the same thing, thought I was getting paranoid. Kind of reminds me of the iPod zealots on Amazon. Maybe Microsoft is trying to get tax free status as a religion, "Landru guide us," and all that.

rhomp2002
rhomp2002

This lawsuit is targeting people who bought in Late 2006 with the stipulations by M$ and the vendors that the computers would be Vista capable. How would they be able to try Vista. It was not released yet. The only thing the educated and uneducated consumer had at the time was the statement that these products would be Vista capable. Whether it is spread by Linux and mac fanboys or not, that is what happened and did Microsoft say that there were limits on what Vista this was capable of at the time? No, they did not. That is why the lawsuit. Microsoft could have told them what they were buying in greater detail and also telling them what the limitations were but they did not and the judge is saying that the consumers have a valid case on that basis - and I agree that they do. BTW, I am a Linux fanboy because of all the things Microsoft did not tell us and because of their WGA and the overhead of maintaining their O/S. That does not mean that I think their O/S is a total POS. It just means that for me it is not worth the time and trouble of keeping it running. If you do that it works well.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Have been for months. I quite like it, however, I'm failing to figure out how you've managed to have no issues. None, not one, including the Beta ? You'll forgive me, if I say this stretches the bounds of my credulity.

Ed Woychowsky
Ed Woychowsky

As operating systems go Vista is a loser because Microsoft has lost its edge. They now appear to think that they dominate the market because of divine right and not by offering a good product. To paraphrase Ruth Buzzi, ?We don?t care, we don?t have to, we?re Microsoft.?

Patrick_m
Patrick_m

This is complete nonsense we in northamerica are to letigious. Why would any judge allow this oh wait they are not IT experts I however am and I am here to tell you that I purchased a Windows XP Pro pc and yes it came with and upgrade to yes you guessed it Vista Bus. It is dependant upon the version of windows you buy as to what version you get to upgrade too. It is not Microsoft that is the problem it is the resellers of the PC's for not infoeming the buyer of what they were getting. It is the same as the the HD TV conversion. Resellers are telling people that they will no longer be able to watch any TV come Feb 2009 unless they purchase a new HD TV this is not true. If you currently have Sat or cable you have no need for a HD TV this only effects the Antenea crowd. And yes I am running the Vista Bus have been since I purchased the upgrade I have not had a single issue with my system either. The problem is people that dont have a clue about PC's are getting thee and worse the resellers of the PC's are ripping people off so in short create a lawsuit agains the stores that sell the PC's not the softawre developer.

normhaga
normhaga

it appears that your understanding of the article is as bad as your understanding of American English grammar and English spelling. English may or may not be your primary language, but please post in an understandable fashion.

Patrick_m
Patrick_m

Well fortunately the rest of the poosters are not as Illiterate as you apear to be and for that I am glad perhaps it is you that may need to attend some remedial english education classes.And as for a rebutal well you have given and proven what a special person you really are.

normhaga
normhaga

Sorry that you feel I am nitpicking; I am not. I read many many pages of material each day. When I can not pick the gist of what you are saying up quickly but think that you may have something to say, then I will point that out. I know next to nothing about Canadian geography. I do, however, know that Canada has two languages. So, I made an assumption that maybe, just maybe, you are in French Canada and did not for whatever reason make your post clear. It is not as if here on TR we do not see poor english; the english is generally more understandable than your post even when written by some kid in Kenya. If I understood, even at this date, what you had to say, then I might have a rebuttal.

Patrick_m
Patrick_m

English is my first language and if you cannot understand what I am saying then maybe just maybe it would be you that would require an education in the english language. With that said Norm I am lead to believe that you have no usful rebuttle to the statement other then to poke at the grammar and spelling mistakes what about the syntax who was that. After all I would like to know as you seem to be the professional nit picker on the forum and yes there is all ways one that don't have a clue of the world around them so they have to find fault in others.

Kenoscope
Kenoscope

He cannot spell. Look, you can make many choices in your life about what you do and do not own. I have a manual typewriter for back-up for example, as I am a writer. Goddess knows I can easily jump back to DOS 6.22 and be happy, as Word Perfect 6 runs quite well there. What I think is Microsofts problem is, is that they try to be everything for everyone and fail most of the time. WINDOWS is a GUI. Its what is under the hood that counts. Until Microsoft stops trying to be the 'uber controller' they will continue to stumble and make idiots of themselves. Why do we need programs the size of VISTA and MS OFFICE when one a fifth that much code will work just as well. Myself? I'm going to LYNIX on my next system. Even though that means (thanks to Microsoft) that there is no longer a LYNIX version of Word Perfect any more.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

especially since they run just fine in Excel 2000. But I have to open them so infrequently I just never bothered to try to convert them. Time spent on learning and doing would be much greater then just leaving 2000 on there for the once every 6 moths use.

Absolutely
Absolutely

I haven't tried any of them, but I'm guessing that any macro that can be run in Excel can be ported to Calc.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

where the program basically runs all the time, there is no reason not to use OO. I have Office 2000 and OO installed, and I only use OO (except for the very rare excel spread sheet with macros). But at home I just jot stuff down. Really all I need is Kate or gedit, as its just filling the role notepad plays for me in windows.

Absolutely
Absolutely

... about Gnumeric vs. OO.o Calc recently. Still, for shops that are 1/2 Windows, I'd recommend OO.o, for now. When the average secretary knows SQL well enough to ditch Access/Base, there will be no need for "office suites" ... and world hunger and war and disease will also be solved. :(

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

in Abiword. It does the basics twice as fast as OO, but has significantly fewer features. That being said, it IS a full word processing program.

joe.krisanda
joe.krisanda

I think you mean Linux. Ubuntu is very very popular choice. And you won't need Word Perfect, most distro's come with OpenOffice. And if they don't, it's a free download. Actually, I would recommend OpenOffice even if you are running Windows.

larrie_jr
larrie_jr

and if MS really wanted to cover their collective arse, would a small disclaimer at the bottom stating "user experience may vary blah blah blah"? I mean how many other marketing campaigns, advertisments and infomercials DON'T have them? We are so used to seeing them that we blow right by them for the most part, but it 1) puts the buyer on notice that "hey, there may be issues here", and 2) covers the MS arse Everybody's happy (or not)

christopher
christopher

i completely agree with patrick. people do NOT know what they are buying, and the OEM market is taking advatage of this situation. i have an old p3 700mhz laptop that runs xp nicely, and has the xp cert on it. does that mean i can upgrade to vista?? SURE it does, if i want decreased performance due to vista's high standards. Microsoft has 2 certifications, Vista Capable, adn Vista Ready. Vista Capable was that CERTAIN versions of vista will run on that machine. just dont expect alot. Vista Ready are the machines that you can throw Ultimate on and not have any issues. i have beta tested, and currently own vista ultimate and i am running it with NO problems at all. running on a pentium d 925 overclocked to 3.6ghz, 2gb ram, geforce 7600gt 256mb vram. runs great for me, along with a 5.1 rating. i also have it running on an old athlon 1900+ with 512mb ram and geforce ti4200 with a 1.0 rating and even that runs decent. some slow downs here and there, but... i expect that because it is an OLD machine. maybe i should jump on this bandwagon against microsoft because my 700mhz laptop is xp certified. before this judge makes any kind of ruling she really should get her damn facts straight. i hate people in the law community that dont know crap about the IT industry. next thing is we're gonna see lawsuits against apple for being proprietary. OS X only runs on APPLE computers, not all computers.

larrie_jr
larrie_jr

You have GOT to be kidding... As you stated in your post, you are above the norm being an "IT PROFESSIONAL"... This lawsuit is for the Masses... Not everyone is endowed with the all knowing spirit of the IT gods... there are people out there with little to no IT knowledge and it is those people that are attempting to be protected; or compensated for the mis-representation Microsoft perpatrated. If you feel that you are TOO knowledgeable to have been victim to this then kudos to you; but for the 60 yr old grandmother that was trying to experience the technology of today... well she needs a little help

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

Like most people, their eyes glaze over when confronted with most issues behind the surface when things don't "plug-n-play". It's not their fault; they are highly educated professional people. It's just that they don't have the thousands of hours experience that we have. In the same vein, I don't understand 1/1000th of the tax code that my Mother-in-Law understands either. Does that make me a crappy citizen?

Absolutely
Absolutely

Being an IT pro really didn't enter into it. I followed the instructions, I didn't re-write a driver for the 64 bit port of my operating system. Your in-laws would have been fine.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

Especially considering you're an IT professional. I still bet my in-laws couldn't have figured it out.

Absolutely
Absolutely

I was trying to convince you, in November or December, that Linux is not more difficult than Windows. Well, I did eventually get my scanner/printer's scanner functions to work. It was not very difficult.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

MS did push the "VISTA Experience" as the main reason to upgrade, and security second. If a machine is not capable of running the full OS feature set, it should be clearly labeled as such. But, I think the computer makers such as Dell and HP have to take some of the blame, they sold them knowing people would be unhappy with the sub-par systems trying to run Vista (hello, 512 MB ram?!?!).

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

half way through a rant when I realized that I think I agree with you. Its more a matter how how much research they do based on price then anything. A $500 computer will get less research then a $2000 TV, and most likely less use by said person.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...we'd probably be much happier.

Absolutely
Absolutely

Using a "redneck" in your analogy doesn't bridge the gap between the specialty, even hobbyist sub-culture of high-end A/V equipment, and Microsoft's various marketing campaigns. The "plug-and-play" hype is a good example of Microsoft representing their entire product line as something that does not require as much research to use as it actually does; so-called "plug-and-play" hardware still requires separate, vendor-supplied drivers to provide their full functionality. Microsoft isn't getting treated unfairly here, they're finally getting a small portion of what they've had coming for a very long time.

Absolutely
Absolutely

John McGrew: [i]And yes, consumers should be able to have researched this on their own and have come to the same conclusions that we all did 18 months ago. But then again, if they did that, most of them would probably be Linux users and we'd all be out of jobs. [/i] They'd be Linux users, and IT guys who support Microsoft would have to learn something useful.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

Microsoft and the hardware manufacturers actively promoted an expectation that the computers sold under the "Vista capable" logo, would, in fact, be able to run Vista in its complete glory. In common law, it's called "warranty of merchantability", where a consumer has a valid (and legally enforceable) expectation that the product will function as the seller as promised in a reasonable fashion. I think it's "reasonable" to expect that a "Vista capable" computer would be able to run Vista as Microsoft was promoting it. And yes, consumers should be able to have researched this on their own and have come to the same conclusions that we all did 18 months ago. But then again, if they did that, most of them would probably be Linux users and we'd all be out of jobs.

Tig2
Tig2

The judge ruled as she did because the user experience is what was being sold with the Vista Capable logo. And that user experience on some machines was less than was advertised. Thus the court determined that Microsoft wasn't being candid about what Vista Capable really meant.

$dunk$
$dunk$

It doesn't matter if a person did their research or not. That has nothing to do with the suit. The fact is that Microsoft claimed something that wasn't true. They lied. Just because they stuck the name "Vista" on a piece of software that really wasn't Vista, doesn't absolve them from the lie. When touting Vista as the next great operating system, did they tout the Home Basic Version. No. They touted the version that people expected to get when they thought they were getting Vista. You can give excuses and try to weasel around the fact that they intentionally lied with technicalities but you know the intent was to falsely make something sound better than it really was. In my book, that's a lie. Maybe other people just call it business.

DanLM
DanLM

And I was able to go to borders or any other book store to buy the magazines that had the information in them for the research. [edited to add] Everyone has their area of expertise... It doesn't makes a person stupid because they don't understand a topic. But if they can research out one purchase, they can research out all purchase's... That is a cop out... And if I have researched out a purchase, then I ask specific questions when I am dealing with the 'in the know' rep. The information was there, in mutiple media forms. Books, magazines, and online. Think about this... Vista has been slammed sence the beta stage.. There has been NUMEROUS write ups on it. The expert oppinion has always been that it would not work, except with home basic, on most hardware. That is all through the discussions: before it was sold to the general public, after it started to be sold, and right now. This information is nothing new. Dan

larrie_jr
larrie_jr

I have been the JOE-SCHMOE of the world when it comes to computers most of my life; before I went to school I literally thought a mouse was something a cat chased... drag and drop gave me problems... Now I hold a BS and am the IT MGR of a mid-large company, so I have a good idea of what is going on here. I used to be a shade tree mechanic, simply 'cause i couldn't AFFORD to have it professionally fixed, once computers and fuel injection came into the picture, it was out of my league and therefore HAD to differ to the more educated. I was a bit more informed then the genreal public, so I could tell when someone was trying to "get" me with something like a transmission flush... That redneck never did the research... he don't enven HAVE a computer, he listened to the "authorized representitive" (BestBuy guy)and all his 1080i gibberish. He figures if he remembers (not from research) he will sound smart. I bet when asked detailed questions regarding his system he would get that familiar "permanently kicked in the head" look on his face and say, "uh...what?"

DanLM
DanLM

can do the research on various other electronic devices and not a pc? I don't buy that argument, look at all the home theater systems sold. Tell me they didn't do their research. Tell me the difference here. And I'm it, I haven't the faintest idea bout home theater... I settled for one that works. But joe blow next door that has no technical/electrical experience figured it out and got the biggest bang for his dollar. Sorry, your argument doesn't fly. And there WAS more then enough articles about how only home vista would work on certain hardware. The information WAS there. Dan

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

Yes, it's easy for us with IT backgrounds to say that it was stupid to expect a low-end $300 PC to be able to run Vista in its complete glory. But that's hardly fair to the hapless consumers that don't have our thousands of hours of professional experience in making those judgments. MS and the hardware vendors knew what they were doing. Microsoft had spent millions on promoting the wonders of Vista. Microsoft clearly defines what can be labeled as "Vista Compatible", while not going out of the way to explain that "Vista Compatible" does not mean that all versions of Vista will run on a "Vista Compatible" machine. I agree that it's not fair that MS take this hit alone. I think the hardware vendors behaved unconscionable manner when they sold ?Vista Ready? computers with upgrade certificates, and then refused to support the hapless users when they found that Vista would not run in its complete glory, or at all.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

It turns out that many vendors and retailers were quite upset about the "Vista Capable" vs "Vista Ready" logos, and had lobbied Microsoft to reconsider their "downgrading" what was to be considered "Vista Capable" I think Microsoft truely deserves most of the scorn on this one.

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"The problem is people that dont have a clue" No, the problem is an idiot software giant who makes a blanket statement that their new OS will work on certain hardware, but failing to mention that of the four "flavors" they offer, only one will work with some equipment that had been branded as "Vista Compatible." If they would have marketed their product a little better (such as the detailed hardware requirements of each version), they wouldn't have a pissed-off consumer base.

Buff Loon
Buff Loon

Firestone did not have you sign a Eula when you put the tires on your GT-SUV-LT-LTD. Now then, if there is some colusion between the Manufacturers and MS/Vista et al, and if some facts were to show the public was more than usually (normally) duped by the boys from redmond and all the HP's and Gateway's and eMachine's et al, and a judge not politically indentured to MS and Higher political powers.... We might have a ringside seat to a "Vistagate" over the next 8 or 9 years. That'll teach you to sign the Eula...

1Rab
1Rab

I would venture to say that it was a "little" more than misleading. I personaly think that they were lying by ommision.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

My friend can tell the difference between a $10 bottle and a $20 bottle right away, every time. Me, I have no clue, once it gets past Mad Dog, im out of my league. This is a large part of any product marketing. Aim at either the uneducated or the educated segment of the market. Snob apeal or mass apeal, every other target demographics is just a refinement of these two. And in most cases, the product is exactly the same, but advertised in different ways, requiring different spin on the "data". Sometimes this comes across as an outright lie. Why is a 200GB hard drive only 180GB? Because they label them based on 1 GB being an even power of 10 (not based on binary like a computer sees it). So a "standard" has been re-defined for "convenience". It gets even more vague when that "standard" is undisclosed to most before it becomes redefined. Standard A == ??? Standard A gets redefined Standard A now == ??? For example, if you google "meaning vista capable" no MS site is listed in the top 10. Other people are having to determine the value of "Vista Capable" based on the facts available to them. And I bet MS is redefining that standard as we speak, at the advice of their lawyers. And some very obscure web page in their hegemony of crap will be updated to reflect this change, except... It will have been that all along. No change will have been made, if you see my point. And while MS does not necessaraly have a duty to explain all their labels to the public, it should be VERY SIMPLE to find the meaning behind the standard.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

at one point it plain just didn't work. I'm pretty sure its working now, but performance may not be above a better single card. This holds true for XP as well. 2 less expensive cards (say 400 each) many times will not perform as well as a single $600 card. Toms hardware should have some good numbers, or OCforum.

Absolutely
Absolutely

"An audable difference to many, [u]un noticed by even more[/u]."

JCitizen
JCitizen

Since I am called on once in a blue moon to do CAD programing and ACAD. I was going to buy the best I could find with multi-core, 64bit/megaRAM,dual SLI, bare bones kit. That way I was hoping Vista Ultimate would possibly have a Tinkers Ghost chance of actually being functional.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

suffering under the impression they could get away with what the stereo industry has been doing for years. In 90% of the consumer crap on the shelves, the THD, and wattage are rated with a single channel driven (or stereo in the "better" consumer products". This led then to claim .01 THD whn in actual surround use, you had .1 THD. An audable difference to many, un noticed by even more. Now days I think there may be more truth, but I havent bought any gear in 5 years.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

you want a dual-core processor and at least 2 Gigs of ram for vista, and a fat video card to run aero (or any game) with acceptable performance (see reviews of games on vista vs xp on same hardware, avg 20% performance hit in vista). My fiancee and I have the same processor and ram in our laptops, but I have an nvidia quadro 130, she has an 8800GT... I score 3.5 on the ratings, she gets a 5. The performance difference in Vista (not just games) is noticable with the better card.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

been quite accurate. It breaks it down by parts, so even if the video card is crap, you will know it will run without aero. At least, I was able to determine that. What my mother, sister, father, or (bless his heart) my house mate would have gotten from the adviser I have no idea.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]However if I were out buying a OEM unit wouldn't the logo be the measuring stick? There at least I feel it was misleading whether the word was "capable" or "compliant" or whatever. It wouldn't have been as bad if it had said "Home basic ready" or "Premium capable". I don't know - it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.[/i] The claim "Vista capable" was advertised without qualification. The reality of the same hardware configuration is that they are "Vista capable" only with the not-inconsiderable qualification "Vista -- Basic version only -- capable." The logical interpretation of a claim without qualification is that no qualification is applicable. The claim, therefore, is false and the claim of false advertising is valid.

Absolutely
Absolutely

Done. When one of their recent surround sound cards achieved its advertised sampling rate for only stereo output, and a lower rate for surround output, they [u]were[/u] sued. I think they lost. [i]selective law suits. If your going to sue ms for this then you should be suing the rest for the same practice. It's hypocritical, nothing more... Nothing less. [/i] What else? IBM got it pretty hard a few years ago, for their "Death Star" hard drives, as I recall. I don't believe Microsoft is being "singled out" in any way, except legitimately, for delivering a lower ratio of what they promise in their advertising compared to other companies. To convince me, you'll need to provide some specific examples of companies that have likewise failed to deliver, but [u]not[/u] been sued. I don't know of any cases of the general public turning a blind eye to this sort of thing, and I definitely don't see a [u]pattern[/u] of us just accepting being ripped off, by everybody [u]except[/u] Microsoft. [edits: removed a stray comma, lessened the awkwardness of a couple of phrases]

DanLM
DanLM

Then you should be sueing the rest for the same practice. It's hypicritcal, nothing more... Nothing less. Dan

DanLM
DanLM

[i]And most are blissfully watching reguar-def programming on their new flat-screens under the belief that it's really HD.[/i] And I didnt have a clue what I was buying, even when I did some reading on it. but, my final oppinion was: I have 20/200 eyesite... How the hell am I going to know the difference between this many pixels and that many pixels.. All though, a good basket ball game on hd even I can tell the difference. Dan

JCitizen
JCitizen

I was having difficulty gathering enough data to make a decision one way or the other. I ran the advisor on a fairly new XP x64 capable laptop but wasn't encouraged by the test results. I took this as a sign that getting a "capable" machine was going to be an expensive decision to buy as advanced a unit as one could find.

JCitizen
JCitizen

I don't know what to think of the subject. On one hand Microsofts promotional practices seemed irrational but the upgrade advisor was readily available to help advise people not to make rash decisions. This utility seemed accurate to me; also with my limited experience. However if I were out buying a OEM unit wouldn't the logo be the measuring stick? There at least I feel it was misleading whether the word was "capable" or "compliant" or whatever. It wouldn't have been as bad if it had said "Home basic ready" or "Premium capable". I don't know - it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I can't decide what kind of tort liability, if any, Redmond is responsible for. I'm having difficulty finding a relationship here. Seems like after running the advisor on your present unit you would have a clue how difficult finding a capable unit would be.

jmgarvin
jmgarvin

Not only was it inaccurate, but pointless as well.

Absolutely
Absolutely

DanLM: [i]I'm not a MS fan, but in this case... I think the general public is being very selective in who and who they don't sue for inaccurate advertising. If I was MS, I would use just this type of comparison in my arguments.[/i] I bet it sounds much more legitimate when said in court, translated to Latin, by a guy in a suit. It's still a crappy argument.

Absolutely
Absolutely

I think you hit the nail on the head: [i]No, the problem is an idiot software giant who makes a blanket statement that their new OS will work on certain hardware, but failing to mention that of the four "flavors" they offer, only one will work with some equipment that had been branded as "Vista Compatible."[/i] After all the years of viruses and botnets, I think it's kinda funny that anybody even considers buying a new Microsoft product. Maybe the market will finally learn, and switch to Apple & Linux desktops?

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

I was happy that they released the advisor utility though I had no reason to run it against my own machines leaving me without a basis for judging it's accuracy. In general, it was good on them for releasing it though I don't expect many soccer mom buyers where aware of it's existance. Ideally, it would have been nice if stores had the advisor front and center on there "Vista Compatible" computers so customers could see the scores themselves but a retail outlet's purpose is to move units not criple there own ability to sell the goods. In this specific case, I think the Advisor was suited to existing hardware owners interested in upgrading too the newer OS release and more towards the tech types who'd think to look for the utility. I'd like to think that people buying new machines with the promise of compatibility would have been carrying the advisor into computer stores on USB so they could confirm themselves but again, that's more the techie type. But for accuracy of the measurements, I'd have to go back over articles of the time and the MaxPC issue that discussed it in detail and base a response on the third party information.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...most didn't do all that much research on their HDTVs. They relied upon the saleskids at Best Buy to tell them what to get. And most are blissfully watching reguar-def programming on their new flat-screens under the belief that it's really HD.

normhaga
normhaga

> IT Pro's, yes... absolutly have it coming for not doing research, but the soccer mom who is simply trying to keep her children up to date? NOT the same ball of wax is it? If the soccer mom does not check the tires and one blows out because of under-inflation, can she say that she just knows what the manufacturer told her. It is in fact the same ball of wax, just in a different arena. However, if the tire manufacturer told Mrs. Soccer that the tires she bought would work on her Mormon Assault Vehicle (Mini Van) when they were actually made for a Ford Escort, then it would be a different ball of wax.

normhaga
normhaga

Doing your basic research means that you run the Vista Upgrade Adviser. The VUA will inform you if you need more ram, a larger HD, or a better video card. It also informs you which version of Vista will run best on the machine. With this caveat in mind, are you informed? Are you failing to do your basic research?

normhaga
normhaga

The update adviser was accurate with every machine that I tested it on. The test bed was, however, only comprised of six machines.

JCitizen
JCitizen

machines that didn't run at all with Vista! That is hardly "capable" by any definition. This was before adding any thing software OR hardware to the unit.

JCitizen
JCitizen

advisor? This was readily available at the time but how accurate or usable was it for customers to avoid the vendor claims issue?

joe.krisanda
joe.krisanda

If I felt people should hire an IT pro for this, I probably would have said it. I think something like that is completely ludicrous and unnecessary (although it would provide a monetary boost for the IT community). As I said before regarding my new car purchase... I don't know anything about cars. Did I hire a mechanic to help me research my purchase? NOPE! I took a little initiative and read a book, looked at a web page, talked to a dealer, and asked the opinion of some friends and coworkers that own cars (there's a few of them out there). All I spent was a little bit of my free time. And how did MS "intend" to lie by placing a "Vista Capable" sticker on a PC? There was no lie - it was a sticker saying "Hey, you can put Vista on this computer!". Granted, I do feel MS should have been more specific as to what flavor of Vista, but that is hardly a crime. Can a cop pull you over for intending to speed? No, because you aren't actually speeding yet.

$dunk$
$dunk$

[i]. If people were more proactive instead of reactive, this whole "Vista Capable" nonsense would never be an issue.[/i] You are making a huge assumption that most people understand the technical details about computers. Since most people don't, then I guess by your logic they need to hire an IT expert to inform them what purchase they need to make. IMO, That's an utterly ridiculous view point. If a company advertises that a product will do something, then it should do it. End of story. If it doesn't do what they said then they deserve all the lawsuits that can be thrown at them. You know darned well that the "Vista Capable" tag was meant to make the product sound better than it really was. Technically, it may not have been a lie. However, the intent to lie is very obvious and blatant. Thus, the suit is legitimate.

joe.krisanda
joe.krisanda

It all goes back to the user taking the time to research their purchase. I'm not a car guy, but I drive one to work everyday. Last year when I had to buy my car, you can bet your next paycheck I spent weeks researching what I wanted in a car, cost, resale value, depreciation, gas prices, etc. I am very happy with my decision because I made an effort. If people were more proactive instead of reactive, this whole "Vista Capable" nonsense would never be an issue. I have always said stupidity needs to be painful, and if people are dumb enough to buy something on a whim, they should take a hit in the wallet - they may learn something!

jmgarvin
jmgarvin

If I bought that watch, if it didn't work up to ten million meters I'd be quite upset. Why shouldn't it? It says it's Under Water Capable, so it should be just fine, right?

jmgarvin
jmgarvin

MS gave us the specs and we went by them. Not only were they NOT clear, but it was a lie. This is a main part of the reason why people do not want to downgrade to Vista.

DanLM
DanLM

the same with their pc? You'l get el redneck with his pickup truck and gun in the back able to talk circles around you about his new hd tv and home theater system... Because why, he researched it. And how much B.S. do you think is flung about various models from the manufactures? Why shouldn't you expect the same redneck to the same research for a pc? Depending on the tv, roughly the same amount of money. I'm not a MS fan, but in this case... I think the general public is being very selective in who and who they don't sue for inaccurate advertising. If I was MS, I would use just this type of comparison in my arguments. Dan

Patrick_m
Patrick_m

Really did you know that is was not the tires that caused the problem but the manufacturer Ford Motor Corp it was a design fault that was over looked the rear stabilizer actually cut the tire causing it to blow out. And it was not discovered during testing as the testing that they do doea not take into account the idiot factor. If you use a piece of equpimnet inproperly it will bite you.

joe.krisanda
joe.krisanda

If I bought a watch that had a sticker on it that said it was waterproof to 30 meters, I would expect it to go to 30 meters. If I bought a computer that said "Vista Business Capable" I would expect it to run Vista Business. However, the stickers said "Vista Capable" and thats it. A more accurate comparison would be a watch that said "Underwater Capable". Sure, you can dunk it under the surface and it would be okay, but it may not make it down 30 meters. And if a watch was "Underwater capable", I certainly wouldn't sue the manufacturer because I based a watch's performance on a sticker w/o doing some research on my own.

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"I do not recall during late 2k6 any posters afloat in any retail outlet tooting the H/W requirements of each flavor of Vista. Bad." I agree. It is a little misleading, then, to say merely "Vista Compatible." "On the flip side, who in their right mind drops several hundred / several grande on a product WITHOUT doing some deep research?" I believe part of that research would entail the manufacturer being a little more forthcoming in the details of their products' compatibility. "I do not believe it is the job of the a company to hand hold the consumer." Me either, but they need to be accurate in what they tell the consumer. Face it, Microsoft made a somewhat misleading blanket statement to get retailers and consumers on board.

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"Yes it is if people would do the research before the purchase" They did, but Microsoft didn't make a difference between their different versions of Vista. If you aren't given accurate information, it doesn't matter how much research you do. The initial facts were flawed or distorted by the manufacturer, like it or not.

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"Firestone screwed up because they pumped out a product with a defect that caused accidents..." And Microsoft screwed up by saying "Vista Compatible" instead of "Vista Home Basic Compatible." If you bought a watch that was reported by the manufacturer to be water resistant to 30 meters, wouldn't you expect it to be? Or would you be satisfied with 30 meters, give or take a little?

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"Yes it is if people would do the research before the purchase they would be fauther ahead." If the manufacturer says "Vista Compatible" should it matter that the only compatibility is with the most basic version of the OS? I think not. Vista compatibility does NOT stop after the most basic version. If the hardware in question was onlty compatible with Vista Home Basic, then Microsoft should have said that, not a blanket statement to suggest that ALL versions would work on it. Economics 101, son.

rhomp2002
rhomp2002

You are a non-educated consumer. You want to buy a new computer to send your emails and surf the net. You go to the computer store and the salesman shows you the available models. He then shows you the computer that is said to be Vista capable. Just where do you as a normal non-techie consumer go to know that this computer will only work on one very low-level version of Vista - maybe. You have talked to the only expert you know of, the guy at the store you normally deal with, and he has shown you this one that is supposedly Vista capable and will handle all the advertised bells and whistles that Microsoft has advertised. That is the person this lawsuit is meant to cover, not the tech person who deals with these things all the time and who has the facilities and the knowledge to look up what is actually being said. Theoretically companies are supposed to tell the truth when they advertise (a laugh, but supposedly true). The consumers have been using XP for a long time and what they use it for is working well. They have no reason to doubt Microsoft because they have been getting their updates, no problems doing what they want and it just works. They have developed a trust in Microsoft and its products and what it says. Now they hear that this computer they are looking at is Vista capable so they believe that it is capable of running any vista they put on it. They then hear about the bells and whistles and figure that sounds nice, try that and see what it looks like. Boom - you have a dissatisfied customer and a p*ssed off customer who wants satisfaction and redress on Microsoft for lying to them that this computer is totally Vista capable. Had Microsoft told them that this computer is Vista Basic Home capable there would not have been a problem. Had Microsoft told them this computer would not be able to handle the bells and whistles but if you buy it with more memory and storage there would not have been a problem. That, however, is not what Microsoft did and that is why there is a class action lawsuit against them for essentially false advertising. That is why the judge is saying that Microsoft laid itself open to the charge of false advertising and I think the judge is right and is doing just what she should.

larrie_jr
larrie_jr

The uninformed public is just that... uninformed, not stupid. The only thing the general public knows is what the manufacturer tells them. Again, I am talking about the general public, NOT an educated (or even semi educated) IT PROFFESIONAL. IT Pro's, yes... absolutly have it coming for not doing research, but the soccer mom who is simply trying to keep her children up to date? NOT the same ball of wax is it? I told my company NOT to move to Vista for ever now. It is an untested, untryed, and untrue peice of transitional software to make the bridge from 32 to 64 bit processing and there just aren't enough apps running that yet. Let's wait a minute and see what happens; SP1 has proven my assesment and I have since received a raise based on the amount of money we saved not only in the upgrade, but lost clients and lost productivity that WOULD have happened. I say it's about time we REMEMBERED that NOT EVERYONE IS AS GENIOUS AS WE ARE, hence we have jobs...

joe.krisanda
joe.krisanda

Firestone screwed up because they pumped out a product with a defect that caused accidents...and what they did was terrible. However, MS didn't do anything nearly as bad as them. They declared a computer was capable of running their upcoming OS. They were not lying, and they were not putting out a defective product. Those "Vista Capable" computers meet Vista's minimum requirents - that means they can run Vista. Whether its Basic or Ultimate, it is still Vista.

larrie_jr
larrie_jr

Now I KNOW you got to be kidding, no one could be as narsacistic as that. It's up to them to do the research???? What about manufacturer's recalls? Should everyone that had an accident due to Firestone tires be held liable for not "doing their research"?

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

If the OS and greater computer market where a true open market decided by natural market forces then you'd be absolutely right; no lawyers would be needed because the consumer's choices would covern the blend of market share and which brand was dominant. With the ailing market we have dominated by a market leader through synthetic forces, it may require lawyers. I'm not broken hearted to see another suite against MS but at the same time, I also can't decide if it is truly justified or not yet. It'll be a heck of a show to watch though.

eM DuBYaH
eM DuBYaH

Just like two sides to a coin, both MS and the uninformed purchasing public are to blame. I do not recall during late 2k6 any posters afloat in any retail outlet tooting the H/W requirements of each flavor of Vista. Bad. On the flip side, who in their right mind drops several hundred / several grande on a product WITHOUT doing some deep research? I do not believe it is the job of the a company to hand hold the consumer. It sometimes appears to me that end users expect to have a patsy on the arse every step of the way. C'mon! Do they perform the same uninformed purchases on every other item in their life? Car? Home, etc? You research and findout about the product, then make an informed decision. It's dangerous to jump on a buying bandwagon for anything. I suspect that's part of the problem with the folks involved in the upcoming class action. Microsoft should have had much better information EASILY available for the non techie crowd. Myself, I am running Home Premium and Business, and haven't had any problems with either version. I've installed SP1, again, no problems. Yes, Vista has beefier hardware requirements, but it does look nicer (which doesn't matter to me either way). I don't point the finger at Microsoft exclusively, I do partially blame the uninformed buying public.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]If they would have marketed their product a little better (such as the detailed hardware requirements of each version)[/i] Vista's hardware requirements, particularly for Aero Glass, seem to have been a moving target, but that might have been an error in the verb tense.

Patrick_m
Patrick_m

Yes it is if people would do the research before the purchase they would be fauther ahead. In the longer run the people that pay for this Stupid yes I said Stupid lawsuits are the end consumer if you dont like a product dont buy it and if you do dont complain after you made a bad purchase.

rob mekel
rob mekel

Still buying systems ... running XP Special as the SP 1 of vista is not working out as it should ]:) Better wait on the newest OR What do you think TT? Rob

Tig2
Tig2

I might be the wrong one to ask- when the HP I bought to counter Vista died after 10 months and HP refused to honor the warranty, I bought a Mac. And I must say that I am quite pleased with it. That said, I have a retail XP on hand that I can load in a VM if I choose. Given that you purchase for an organization, I quite understand why you are still buying XP. Until your organization has certified Vista, there is not a good reason to upgrade and potentially good reasons to stay where you are. The SP1 issue has definitely been problematic. But at the end of the day, any company can have unforeseen challenges. Microsoft has just had more than their share lately. Edit- spelling. Need coffee!

JCitizen
JCitizen

The weather is clear as ice! ;)

Buff Loon
Buff Loon

Hey JC hows the weather... Moneysoft is inherently big business due to all the legaleze flowing through its disfunctional system. There needs to be a "Class Action Suit" to bring enough money and guns to bear on Monkeysoft, to be successful. It would take a huge colony of ants to attack and feast on BB-Q'd alligator, anything less could fail. IE: some of us did not vote for Nucular Geo., but if we had not VOTED he would have won the election LEGALLY. Any National Class Action against M$$oft might very well end up in the halls of congress, if enough of Moneysoft's unwitting clients hang together. They might once and for all put thier case in the eyes of the world. The outcome will be politcal, thats to be expected, in todays climate that could very well go several ways . Since Billy G. (pseudo) retired he has been lobbying congress to allow M$ to import (better(?) educated / lower paid) IT workers to make up for the shortage (?) of qualified workers in the U.S. Big Business has exported some of the better jobs we once had in the U.S., can we stand to Lose the rest by importing cheap labor to take the rest? It's all about the bottom Line Such a campaign will take lots of thought and planning, most of all, U.S.voters will have to get behind and back such an effort, after all this is a capitalistic democracy, saddly more capitalistic than democratic. I for one have empathy for all the Geeks, Gamers, IT's, Antarticans and Surfers in the World that have been downtrod, ignored, abused and generally ripped off by all the Oil, Insurance, Computer, Big Business and Job Exporters. Hey that sounds kinda neat, patriotic like.. This could be our last best chance to strike a blow for Cyberfreedom. I say join in on the Class Action. jaxontop2

JCitizen
JCitizen

in court, this would aid Microsoft's case. People were buying a lot of very capable "made for XP" machines at the time that were curious if they could also purchase Vista on release; they may have not been serious about whether that model was going to make the grade or not. Of course you or I would have checked the Vista catalogue before buying any machine before making a decision, but most people relied on the logo program, which WAS reliable once upon a time. It is the LOGO program that I feel should hang Microsoft in court.

JohnMcGrew
JohnMcGrew

...the lawyers will walk away with a few hundred million, and you will get a "certificate" for a discount on other wonderful Microsoft products.

nancyjones36507
nancyjones36507

No, I'm fairly sure it wasn't. Because the update advisor would only advise on the machine on which it was run, am I correct on that? Which means that you would have to actually buy the machine first, because the last time I walked into Office Depot, they didn't let you download stuff to their demo models. The principle of "informed consent" then comes into play. My laptop says "vista capable" on it. At the time I purchased it, there weren't seven different differentiations of what "vista" meant; to me, it meant the next iteration of Windows. I did purchase it with the possible intention of upgrading to vista, and I would not, even at that time, have purchased a computer labeled "vista capable" with that intention if the only capability were a stripped-down model. I would not want a stripped down model of anything, and Microsoft will have a very difficult time convincing any court that it believes that most consumers would understand its intentions to be that of "stripped down" capable, particularly when the phrase "Home Basic" wasn't even common public knowledge in the summer of 2006. I could in fact participate in that class action, except that I just don't believe it's going to be worth it, and I don't want to be party to fattening the pockets of the lawyers; because let's be honest here, that's who will really win this lawsuit.

JCitizen
JCitizen

pretty much convicted itself with the logo program; it kind of repudiates the idea that the vendors hyped this when it is Microsoft that keeps a "steel grip" on logo specification.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

I really think M$ needs to pay for that Advertising Ploy. It was a M$ Ploy not a system makers attempt to sell computers that had no chance of running Vista adequately. M$ dreamed up the Campaign and as such deserves to pay for their folly. The entire thing was if it could run Vista Home Basic it was Vista Compatible. Needless to say I wasn't involved in this and when it was shown to the Partners I felt distinctly uncomfortable as here M$ had a Lawyer pushing the idea to System Builders to [b]Sell More Computers Now[/b] & M$ Product and not having customers wait till latter. Of course as it helped to prop up the Falling M$ Share price I think was the main reason behind the Marketing Exercise but even then I thought it was wrong. Col

JCitizen
JCitizen

I must admit I was incredulous at all the vendor offers for "ready" computers and personally doubted most could run even basic very well. One factor in Microsoft's effort was the highly visable Vista update advisor, that was so easily available for download everywhere. Do you think this is going to reduce or minimize liability in this area for Microsoft? My personal opinion is that they deserve some punishment over this issue; but I'm subdued when it comes to the reality of Microsoft lawyer cannons brought to bear at any tort affront.