Discussion on:

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

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?

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

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!

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.

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 Sell More Computers Now & 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

The weather is clear as ice!

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.

"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.

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.

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.

advisor?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

"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?

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.

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?

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!

. If people were more proactive instead of reactive, this whole "Vista Capable" nonsense would never be an issue.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

nt

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.

"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.

"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.

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?

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.

Or was it a bad decision based on poor information: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-12844-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=255503&messageID=2436818

That is besides the fact that Vista is not what it was claimed to be.

Not only was it inaccurate, but pointless as well.

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.

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.

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.

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.

nt

If they would have marketed their product
a little better (such as the detailed
hardware requirements of each version)

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.

... not any fault of the consumer.

I think you hit the nail on the head:

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."

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?

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.