Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sued Over Vista Marketing
daviddennis writes "According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a lawsuit alleges that Microsoft engaged in deceptive practices by letting PC makers promote hardware as 'Windows Vista Capable' even though they knew it could not run most of Vista's widely-promoted features. Microsoft responds by saying that the differences have been promoted with one of the most extensive marketing pushes in company history. 'In sum, Microsoft engaged in bait and switch -- assuring consumers they were purchasing Vista Capable machines when, in fact, they could obtain only a stripped-down operating system lacking the functionality and features that Microsoft advertised as Vista ... As a result, the suit said, people were buying machines that couldn't run the real Vista.'"
1 GB ram is the minimum for a responsive experience with windows .. especially with the required anti-virus running.
The should start off at 1GB. PC makers lose credibility selling systems with less than that because the experience is going to suck.
Vista Home Basic includes the "core experience," which means Microsoft admits that the rest is useless window dressing.
Hey... which version comes without the DRM feature?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The fact is that the vast majority of users don't need a hog like Vista for anything they don't already use XP for, making an incentive to upgrade almost nonexistent aside from having the latest Shiny New Thing(tm). Making Vista seem more attractive would be the only way to get grandma to pay $500 just to be able to send the same emails at the same speed.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
Unfortunately, you are correct. There was nothing in their promotions that indicated "Capable" at a certain productivity or usability level. If the machine says "Vista Capable" and it runs any version of Vista - then it's Vista Capable. MS is just taking advantage of consumers' inability to interpret what is stated... just like someone complaining about a store sale that says up to 50% off - "Why is this only 10% off?" - "Because it says UP TO 50%".
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
To most of the people who use computers, there's no difference between the core of an OS and the user interface. It's the software that makes the computer work, and it's not the same software that they thought they'd be able to run when they saw "Vista capable" on the machines.
That doesn't necessarily mean the suit itself has any merit, but I can definitely see where the customers are coming from.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I bought a monitor that has a "Works with Windows Vista" sticker on it but my Packard Bell still isn't cooperating.
Agreed. Aero is not vista, but MS never really mentioned that in their advertising, did they? As far as the public knew Aero did not exist. it was all just "vista". I actually concur with the article. I think this case has merit. Not just because I want to see MS go down, but also because I'm sick of bait and switch advertising in technology. I also want to see someone sue a video game company for advertising a game showing all cut scenes with no real gameplay. I hate that.
Well, people assumed that certification meant they could run Vista. It didn't say "Mostly Windows Vista Capable". It didn't say "Windows Vista Capable Without Aero". It simply said it was 'capable' of running Vista, which doesn't imply a subset.
There were so damned many versions of Vista, people were relying on that sticker to know if the machine was worth running Vista on. Finding out that you can run the crippled version on your new machine you just forked money over for is probably not what consumers were expecting. If professionals in the industry haven't been entirely clear on what macine resources you need, your average consumer doesn't stand a chance of sorting this crap out.
Well, except that in those SUV ads they have little wee fine print at the bottom of the screen which says the vehicle isn't actually being offered as something which scales wilderness mountains, and that you shouldn't try to replicate what you see.
In the case of Vista, people have been told to expect all of this shinyness, they've been told that their machines are capable of doing it, and then they're discovering that sticker means "well, you can sorta kinda mostly do the stuff we claimed, but all of the good reasons to buy Vista aren't actually implied by that sticker -- that was just a marketing campaign".
Some of us would argue those two things are one and the same.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The problem is that Vista is all about the WOW, so if you don't get the WOW, you don't get Vista. Can you imagine getting home with a brand new machine and turning it on and not seeing the WOW?.
I'd be mad and mislead!
It is true that the machines are technically Vista Capable in that they can run, and the features MS advertises for Vista are features that Vista has. However, the machines that are Vista Capable are not capable of running what MS is advertising Vista to be. Sure, both ads are technically true, but in conjunction they are designed to mislead.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Consiering that Vista is really based on DirectX 10 graphics, and the only card that pretends to have it (Nvidia G8800) has virtually unusable Vista drivers, can any system claim to be full Vista Ready?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
(If I get modded up for insulting linux guys we know it's true)