Vista Branding Confusing Even To Microsoft

Trotti Laganna writes "Lawyers are now arguing a case brought against Microsoft over Vista's marketing. The software giant is being dinged for allegedly not telling the truth when it put the 'Vista capable' logo on PCs that would only be capable of running Vista Home Basic. Case in point - even the software giant's marketing director Mark Croft was confused by the pre-launch campaign in the United States. Croft's explanation was that "'capable'...has an interpretation for many that, in the context of this program, a PC would be able to run any version of the Windows operating system". After a 10-minute break to talk to Microsoft's lawyers, Croft admitted he had made 'an error', and retracted his previous statement, saying that, by 'capable', Microsoft meant 'able to run a version of Vista'."

Comments

Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I'm not confused by this.

Still waiting..

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting from my linux machine, because my new vista capable computer still hasn't completed booting since I bought it back in Aug.

Re:Still waiting..

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here, posting from my Ubuntu machine, mad as hell as my DVD was still being ejected from the "Vista capable" system at least one time too many...

Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the article and still don't get it. Who is claiming what and why is there a lawsuit against Microsoft.

Re:Confused

[rvw]

I read it as "Vista capable" is instilling a false sense of confidence in customers, as in it misleads them into believing that Vista isn't the only os supported, rather just one that is. I read your comment and now am even more confused.

Re:Confused

[Dak RIT]

If you read the article, or possibly even the summary, you'd notice that it has nothing to do with running other operating systems other than Vista.

What people are complaining about is that people assumed a "Vista Capable" computer would be able to run any version of Vista when it came out... meaning Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium all the way up to Vista Ultimate. What's ironic is that Microsoft's own marketing director testified that "Vista Capable" meant exactly what many consumers assumed it did.

Microsoft's actual position though is that for a computer to be "Vista Capable" it only had to be able to run Vista Home Basic. That means a computer that can't run Vista Home Premium or Vista Ultimate could still be labeled "Vista Capable" even though it can't run versions of Vista that have many of the features advertised with Vista.

So some consumers who went out and purchased a "Vista Capable" computer and then later bought Vista Home Premium when it came out suddenly discovered they couldn't use Vista Home Premium on their "Vista Capable" computer.

Re:Confused

[StarvingSE]

Install Vista ultimate, turn off the shiny crap that eats all of your processing and GPU power... I don't see what the problem is here.

I am not a Vista user, so please correct me if I'm wrong. If a windows ultimate user turns off aero and whatever other extra that makes it look pretty it should run just as well as home basic?

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's so much to do with the PC being able to run Vista,
but Vista being able to keep itself together. The OS itself does not seem
able to manage memory effectively, or as has been the case for a long time Vista and other
"versions" of windows don't take advantage of current hardware. How is it you
can run full blown CAD software yet break the same PC with just loading Vista.
It simply ridiculous.

Anon 2 cents

Re:Confused

[danielk1982]

What people are complaining about is that people assumed a "Vista Capable" computer would be able to run any version of Vista when it came out... meaning Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium all the way up to Vista Ultimate

Technically thats true no? I mean, if your system is underpowered, all version of Vista will disable Aero.

Re:Confused

[Z34107]

So some consumers who went out and purchased a "Vista Capable" computer and then later bought Vista Home Premium when it came out suddenly discovered they couldn't use Vista Home Premium on their "Vista Capable" computer.

Sigh. You get what you pay for.

The problems people are complaining of? Trusting Microsoft's marketing director (who corrected his mistake about the meaning of "capable") and expecting leetness from the cheapest PC you can buy from Dell.

Re:Confused

[HeroreV]

Some people are suing Microsoft because the "Vista capable" labels are misleading. They're saying "Vista capable" implies a computer meets the minimum requirements to run any version of Vista, while the actual meaning is that it meets the minimum requirements for just the Home Basic version.

Their claim got a boost when Microsoft's marketing director showed that he also thought "Vista capable" meant that a computer meets the minimum requirements to run any version of Vista.

"Capable" is a good word

[Rik Sweeney]

When I was at University, someone I knew had a computer that was capable of running Windows 95.

She was using a 486.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[eggstasy]

I used to run Windows 95 on my 486 10-11 years ago.
A 486 with 32 megs of RAM could run Windows 95 just fine. A 486 with 8 megs of RAM, however... would take literally three minutes to boot basic stuff like IE2.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[Rik Sweeney]

A 486 with 32 megs of RAM could run Windows 95 just fine. A 486 with 8 megs of RAM, however... would take literally three minutes to boot basic stuff like IE2.

Jo, is that you?

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[Silver Sloth]

Believe it or not the skin flint organisation I work for got 486's to run NT workstation - but only for those users running a terminal emulator to work on our Unix systems. No e-mail, no office apps, no IE, just the emulator. To be fair they save thousends on upgrade costs as this was applied to ~800 machines.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[jacquesm]

windows '95 probably was the most stable release of windows that MS ever made. This must have been partly due to the fact that at the time an internet connection was very much optional and viruses had to spread slowly. There was also no 'backchannel' for paydirt to be delivered to the perp, so the worst that could happen was data desctruction. I often wonder what would have happened to the IT world if MS would have wised up at the time and bought out one of the unixes of the time (SGI would have been a good start) and built their empire on that instead of trying to reinvent the wheel badly.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[matsuva]

Your links aren't working Sweeney, i get "Access denied for user 'parallel'@'server213-171-218-204.livedns.org.uk' (using password: YES)" when i click them.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[paganizer]

I've got a 386DX-40 w/32MB that runs Win98SE no problems; I've got a 486DX-120 system w/96MB that runs Win2k with no problems, it was my file server/RAID system for years.
If you don't try to run games, you can get a lot of good use out of older hardware.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats an oxymoron -- stable windows 95. Did you ever actually USE it? I used NT 4 at the time, and it was actually stable.. 9x line.. not so much.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[marcosdumay]

"A 486 with 32 megs of RAM could run Windows 95 just fine."

Yes, and that same computer was slow as hell running a (bare) XWindow system. Every GUI for Linux was just unusable because of such slowness.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[gazbo]

You are banned from ever talking about operating systems. It's for your own good.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[thannine]

Well, I don't know about the same computer, but my 486 was running X windows just fine. It was beating the crap out of the win 3.11 I was using at the time. (When I still dual-booted). And I was running with 16 megs of memory, being the poor student I was.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[rvw]

windows '95 probably was the most stable release of windows that MS ever made. I had to reinstall my system about every three months. I don't call that stable.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[muszek]

He bought a server that's "MS SQL 2005 Capable". Unfortunately, queries that would return more than 1 row of data on truly capable hardware (min. 4GB of RAM) get access denied error instead. If you turn the profanity lang switch in conf file, it says "we don't like cheap bastards like you. come back when you have craploads of cash".

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe the measure of geekiness should be the ratio of how long between reinstalls of your linux machine and your windows machine.
or just 1/ windows if your linux never crashes.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, and say Windows 2000 Professional is the most stable MS ever made.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[Sigma 7]

windows '95 probably was the most stable release of windows that MS ever made. No, it wasn't. If you attempt to access the file located at c:\con\con, you get an instant bluescreen and can no longer use your system. A malicious webpage can easily say that it needs to load an image there. There are plenty of other ways to mess up the operating system, such as attempting to load Slashdot or Kuro5hin when you have moderator privilages - the number of combo boxes on those pages alone will cause the OS to run out of GDI resources.

Architecture wise, Windows 95 is a version of Windows 3.11 with 32-bit support (when you ignore additional features). The mix of 16-bit and 32-bit code has caused stability issues through Windows ME and were not present in the Windows NT series of operating systems.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[Vexorian]

I got to run windows 98 in my old 486dx4 computer. It is not a big deal, such computer would always be slow whether you put windows 3.11 or 98 didn't make a hell of a difference. Although I did upgrade RAM a little.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[null-loop]

He's on Fasthosts:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/30/fasthost_hack_update/

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[rograndom]

In highschool, my friend had a 486SX2-50 with 8mb of ram. It ran WFWG 3.11 and Doom wonderfully. Then he put a copy of the brand-y new Win95 on it and it was like frozen molasses in January, he then picked up a 4mb stick of RAM for some obscene amount of money at the time ($100 maybe?), bringing the total to 12mb and then it quite usable, amazingly.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[ATMD]

Does that make you infinitely geeky if you don't actually have Windows in the first place?

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[Anonymous Coward]

"A 486 with 32 megs of RAM could run Windows 95 just fine."

Yes, and that same computer was slow as hell running a (bare) XWindow system. Every GUI for Linux was just unusable because of such slowness.

My first x86 computer was a Pentium 133MHz with 16MB ram. It came with Win95 which ran somewhat okay, but when I installed Red Hat (4.x) I was amazed at how much faster it felt than Win95. That, and with Red Hat everything actually worked. I could use the computer for more than three hours without it slowing to a crawl, I could leave it running as long as I wanted to without it crashing, my hardware worked and always worked (on Win95 my sound would occasionally stop working for a few weeks), etc.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[jacquesm]

for what it's worth, I wrote my own, multi user, multi tasking unix clone somewhere in 92/93

what were you doing ?

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[cnettel]

You confuse stability and security. Shared 16-bit GDI, anyone? 49.7 day bug? NT 3.x was real stable and had the era-advantages you mention.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[theskipper]

for what it's worth, I wrote my own, multi user, multi tasking unix clone somewhere in 92/93

Shouldn't that be "GNU/my own, multi user, multi tasking unix clone somewhere in 92/93"?

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[Anonymous Coward]

I was busy making the core rope memory from the NASA Apollo mission computers into erotic fetish wear.
It is surprisingly stretchy.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[cheater512]

I've never ever seen IE 2. I used Netscape before IE 4.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[cheater512]

Good grief! Windows 9x running for 49.7 days?

I'm sure the bug you mention is purely theoretical and has never been seen in real life. :)

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[CastrTroy]

It probably depends on what MHz the 486 was running at. According to wikipedia, the 486 ran at speeds from as low as 16 MHz, all the way up to 100 MHz. I had a DX4 100, which ran windows 95 quite well. However, I know a lot of people who had the 33 MHz version, who's computers were much slower than mine.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[DohnJoe]

Linus?, it that you? OMG!

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[geekoid]

So what? it's doesn't mean it was any good.

Hell, it isn't even really that hard for basic 'OS' capability.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[stjobe]

frozen molasses in January

Does the speed frozen molasses run really differ depending on what month it is? I would have thought that once the molasses was frozen its speed would vary very little. Now, unfrozen molasses I could see running slower in the winter months than in the summer, but frozen molasses? I don't know, but it seems to me it would be just as slow any old month.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[jbevren]

Oddly, windows 95's device drivers and swap usage makes it perform more smoothly in 8M of ram than win 3.11 would have. However, you'll need to strip some unnecessary cruft to save on memory usage.

I ran '95 successfully for quite some time on a 386/40 with 8M ram before finally upgrading it to 16.

-jbevren

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever even used win95? no? k

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[tcc3]

Evidently he was about 2 years away from using Windows 95. Its obvious you never have.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[jacquesm]

http://ww.com/task.cc.html

for the skeptics.

this is unreleased source.

enjoy the read and if you spot any bugs I'd be delighted to hear about them.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[operagost]

Huh? I ran OS/2 4.0 and Windows 95 on a 486 with 16 MB RAM. It ran well.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[mortarn]

I had Windows 95 on a 386SX/16 with a whopping 4MB of RAM.
It wasn't much slower than Win3.1/Dos6.2 on the same setup (it ran Office acceptably, in the days before Clippy), so long as you made a large, fixed size, swap file. There was actually a special kernel just for SX machines (detected by setup). It took over 15 minutes to boot, even with a totally empty StartUp folder. Never had IE on there though: it was the original Win95 release, the one that came on 13 floppies and had no IE.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[Anonymous Coward]

Overruled! Windows 95 was not an operating system, it was a bug. (Vista is just the latest release of that bug.)

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[Tolkien]

Untrue, I managed to keep my system up long enough to experience that bug. It completely hangs the system. The only thing you can do to remedy it is a hard reset.

Re:"Capable" is a good word

[cheater512]

Maybe its a feature then designed to teach you not to do that again. ;)

Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[BadAnalogyGuy]

For kicks, go to the women's section of your favorite department store and pick up a few jeans that are the same size (pick something that would fit you. Lane Bryant might be a good store choice). Take the jeans into a changing room and try them on. What you'll find is that even though the same size is printed on the label, the actual size varies from item to item.

Now, when you hear someone say something is Vista "capable", you'll realize that "capable" means the bare minimum requirements have been met. Likewise, "ready" doesn't mean much more, though MS marketing wants to make the differentiation. So what matters here is not whether the bare minimum can run the lowest version of Vista, but whether it can run the more featureful versions at all. Should someone mind if their Vista "capable" machine is as slow as a dog running Vista Ultimate and can't take advantage of the Aero interface? I would say that anyone paying for the barebones shouldn't expect to run the top of the line, no matter what the labelling.

In other words, always buy one size larger than you expect to fit. Also, always try the pants on before buying.

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[value_added]

For kicks, go to the women's section of your favorite department store and pick up a few jeans that are the same size (pick something that would fit you. Lane Bryant might be a good store choice). Take the jeans into a changing room and try them on. What you'll find is that even though the same size is printed on the label, the actual size varies from item to item.

Dear Sir,

I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms about the aforementioned post, namely, that Slashdot readers might consider trying on women's clothes. Many of my best friends are Slashdot readers, and only a few of them are transvestites.

Moreover, while it is true that certain manufacturers of women's apparel mark down the size of a garment to a lower size to placate the buyer's desire for petiteness, there should be no shame for anyone relegated to shopping in the plus-sized aisles, or otherwise interested in purchasing a copy of Vista.

Yours faithfully,
Brigadier Sir Charles Arthur Strong (Mrs.)

PS I have never kissed Cmdr Taco.

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just ironic that every Mac that is currently sold will run Leopard. It is also strange that the PC guy in the Mac ad would look GREAT in something from dressbarn. Damn. I'm now all worked up thinking about it. Gotta run

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[Rocketship Underpant]

While your post wasn't half bad, I see why you picked that nickname.

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[whoda]

"In other words, always buy one size larger than you expect to fit. Also, always try the pants on before buying."
Here's the problem:
I don't know what size fits and Microsoft won't provide a dressing room to try the software on.
Once purchased and opened so I can 'try it on' I can't return it if it is the wrong size.

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean actually 'Running' using Leopard, or 'fuddle along until it crashes' using Leopard?

"Leopard is the New Vista, and It's Pissing Me Off"
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2223921,00.asp

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could try on all your clothes and buy what fits.

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[Prof.Phreak]

Eh. I used to wr0k at a clothing factory and when cutting fabric, if you can't fit a "large" piece for something, you substitute a "medium" (and so on and so on)---primarily to save on fabric (it's a jigsaw puzzle where you layout the pieces, and then cut'em, and when some pieces don't perfectly fit, you use a smaller piece instead).

It's well known. Experienced folks often adjust things by a fraction (so things will only be a quarter of an inch different, and not a whole size different). The labels still stay as they are of course ('cause you still need to deliver X number of large, Y number of mediums, etc.). You also relabel things once in a while. Make a small into a medium, etc,---to get the shipped numbers right.

Some fabrics are easier to tweak than others. If it stretches, you can bet the sizes are almost always off. Gotta be very careful when doing this to denim though.

In any case, it certainly doesn't surprise me that -exactly- the same labeled sizes have different actual sizes.

This is in NYC... high end expensive stuff... with only a few thousand pieces in production.

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[u-235-sentinel]

In other words, always buy one size larger than you expect to fit. Also, always try the pants on before buying.

Microsoft frowns on that too. They call it piracy. :D

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[rtechie]

I don't know what size fits and Microsoft won't provide a dressing room to try the software on.
Once purchased and opened so I can 'try it on' I can't return it if it is the wrong size. The complaint is about new "Vista Ready" PCs that can't run Aero. And you certainly CAN return a new PC. This was a Microsoft problem only in the sense that they didn't require manufacturers to include Areo support to get the "Vista Ready" logo. The manufacturers are really the ones scamming the customer here because they KNEW that they needed DirectX 9 cards to run Aero and chose not to include them because they were too expensive. I'm certain Microsoft would have preferred that all "Vista Ready" PCs supported Aero. One could argue that perhaps Microsoft should have waited, but people were complaining about how late Vista was already. Basically, early adopters who bought entry-level hardware got screwed. This is pretty typical in the industry, Apple does it all the time (for example).

It's not a problem NOW because entry-level PCs can now run Aero fairly smoothly, it's only a a problem for PCs sold between October 2006 and about March 2007. Perhaps the manufacturers should provide some sort of rebate.

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[revengebomber]

Dressing Room.

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[Julie188]

At the time these people were buying the computers the average customer couldn't have known about the performance issues Vista would have. The labeling was clearly misleading. It had one intention only, to assure people that it was ok to buy the machine now and then it would be ready for "Vista" when that was available. At the time they were slapping those labels on the machines, Microsoft executives certainly must have known that this was hardly the truth.

--

Microsoft Subnet: the independent voice of Microsoft customers

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[operagost]

I, for one, welcome our new transvestite Slashdotter overlords.

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[operagost]

Back in my day, only Milton Berle was allowed to try on women's clothing! That was family entertainment!

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[flyingfsck]

I guess Vista is like a bad condom - you can't return it if it is the wrong size and due to all the little holes you can still catch a virus...

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[Green Salad]

...always try the pants on before buying.
With Vista, that makes you a criminal.

In the "try it first" tradition, Microsoft "Live" is not an install-free version of the OS on bootable media. Now be a good little boy, buy Vista, and try it and you WILL like it.

Should you foolishly decide you want your money back, you merely need to use the tiny little fixed-size window to read a clause on page 17 of the user licence agreement (depending on which security patchs you've installed) that you already signed by mouse click, in a section marked "NO WARRANTY" and find the clause saying something like "THERE'S NO IMPLIED OR EXPRESS WARRANTY THIS SOFTWARE IS ACTUALLY SUITIBLE FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. IF YOU JUMP THROUGH A BUNCH OF MYSTERIOUS DRAWN-OUT PROCESS HOOPS WITH AN EXPENSIVE ATTORNEY...YOUR SOLE REMEDY IS $5. WE ALREADY GOT YOUR MONEY. NOW GO AWAY LITTLE BOY, YOU ARE BOTHERING MR. BALLMER."

Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding

[cheesebilly]

am i the only chick here? - but yeah stick to car and sport analogies... you guys trying on our clothes freaks me out

The word 'any'

[AEton]

Uh, without RTA, it sounds like there was just some linguistic ambiguity. The word "any" is special that way.

Re:The word 'any'

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, without RTA, it sounds like there was just some linguistic ambiguity. The word "any" is special that way.

Can you explain this statement? I always thought the meaning of "any" was pretty clear.

Re:The word 'any'

[fnord_uk]

The word "is" seems arguably worse in that respect.

Re:The word 'any'

[AEton]

Per a quick Google search:
"Any voids greater than 1 mm across shall be filled." This requirement says that some voids greater than 1 mm, but not necessarily all of them, must be found and filled.

"There shall be less than 10 mV of error measurable between any two of the three test points." Here the specification says that if the tester finds one of the measurements yielding less than 10 mV, the equipment passes the test.

Re:The word 'any'

[Anonymous Coward]

"Any voids greater than 1 mm across shall be filled." This requirement says that some voids greater than 1 mm, but not necessarily all of them, must be found and filled.

I believe that is incorrect; do you have any sources to back up this usage of the word "any"?

Re:The word 'any'

[AEton]

Per the Merriam-Webster online dictionary at http://m-w.com/dictionary/any:

1: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind: a: one or another taken at random b: every --used to indicate one selected without restriction
2: one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity: a: one or more --used to indicate an undetermined number or amount b: all --used to indicate a maximum or whole c: a or some without reference to quantity or extent

Consequently, "any version of Windows runs on this system" could reasonably be spoken to mean "one or more one of the possible versions of Windows runs on this system" or "all of the possible versions of Windows run on this system."

Re:The word 'any'

[Anonymous Coward]

Per the Merriam-Webster online dictionary at http://m-w.com/dictionary/any [m-w.com]:

        1: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind: a: one or another taken at random b: every --used to indicate one selected without restriction
        2: one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity: a: one or more --used to indicate an undetermined number or amount b: all --used to indicate a maximum or whole c: a or some without reference to quantity or extent

Consequently, "any version of Windows runs on this system" could reasonably be spoken to mean "one or more one of the possible versions of Windows runs on this system" or "all of the possible versions of Windows run on this system."

No, you're wrong. Saying that any version of Windows runs on a system means that it doesn't matter which version, or bunch of versions, you choose, it/they will still run on the system in question. The key in the definition you linked to is the word "indiscriminately".

You've misinterpreted the definitions.

Re:The word 'any'

[AEton]

No, you're wrong. Saying that any version of Windows runs on a system means that it doesn't matter which version, or bunch of versions, you choose, it/they will still run on the system in question. The key in the definition you linked to is the word "indiscriminately".

You've misinterpreted the definitions.

Look, I first sourced you a U.S. Navy writing guide which said that the word "any" is ambiguous because

Writers may intend it to denote "plurality" and readers may interpret it to denote "oneness." Also, when "any" is used to describe the selection of items from a set, it's the reader who selects, not the writer. Which, and how many items the readers select depends upon their point of view.

You refused to accept that as an example of modern English usage, so I supplied you with a dictionary definition in which "any" means either one or indiscriminately many of "a or some without reference to quality or extent." The "or indiscriminately" is not exclusive.

From the Oxford English Dictionary, a similar definition:

3. With a specially qualitative force: Of any kind or sort whatever; = earlier ANYKINS. Often depreciatory: Any, however imperfect. Cf. ANYBODY 2b, ANYTHING 2, ANYWAY 2.
1866 RUSKIN Cr. Wild Olive 98 This place..this moorland torrent-bitten, snow-blighted; this any place where God lets down the ladder. 1868 M. PATTISON Academ. Organ. 2 The danger is..that any reform should be adopted because some reform is required.

Speakers of the English language have, since at least 1866, sometimes used "any" to mean "there exists" rather than "for all".

Re:The word 'any'

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not refuting the validity of your sources, but they simply don't show that the phrase, "a PC would be able to run any version of the Windows operating system", can mean the same as "a PC would be able to run a version of the Windows operating system".

It's not the same thing; you know it, I know it, the U.S. Navy and Oxford English Dictionary both know it, and even Mark Croft knows it.

worse than that

[eneville]

Capable is very much a vague term, it does not mean 'able'. I think the sticker is seen as a certificate to some. It's a badge of office, so it should be a little more thought out. There is more info here on what the dictionary thinks capable is: http://s5h.net/u?14

Re:worse than that

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm torn, did I enjoy the rickroll or not?

and since when does Slashdot have rickrolls?

PS. Beware the link in the parent thread is a rickroll.

Re:worse than that

[ozmanjusri]

I think the sticker is seen as a certificate to some. It's a badge of office, so it should be a little more thought out.

Microsoft has given the sticker a little more thought.

In future, all computers intended for Vista will have a sticker based on this design.

Re:worse than that

[eneville]

Well, in some respects that's quite ideal as many people use windows for just getting mail, browsing web and listening to music. What more does one 14 year old need?

Re:worse than that

[giafly]

Croft admitted he had made 'an error', and retracted his previous statement, saying that, by 'capable', Microsoft meant 'able to run a version of Vista'."

Capable is very much a vague term, it does not mean 'able'.

Run is apparently also a vague term, it does not mean 'go quickly'

Re:worse than that

[Anonymous Coward]

EVERYWHERE has rickrolls now. The retarded masses have jumped on it, turning a meme that already failed (duckroll = the original and superior) into an epic fail.

Re:worse than that

[eneville]

the dick roll is superior

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7n2hHmixWI&feature=related

new acronym proposal: HINAL

[GroeFaZ]

He Is Not A Lawyer.

Re:new acronym proposal: HINAL

[Anonymous Coward]

He Is Not A Lawyer.

Neither are their fucking customers.

'Vista Capable' isn't a catchy phrase, so it wasn't chosen for that reason. It's designed to dupe people. It's meaningless -- a stick of RAM is Vista /capable/. MS should get keelhauled for crap like this. To see it go to court rather than simply cause Consumer Disgust is a little bizarre, but having their own Marketing Director confused by it has got to be worth something.

Re:new acronym proposal: HINAL

[TimothyDavis]

This wasn't entirely Microsoft's fault as to this marketing.

Windows Vista was released to manufacturer in January, which is not exactly the peak retail time for computers. Many of the manufacturers pressed Microsoft to allow for this 'Vista compatible' status so that they would not lose (or 'loose', as it seems to be on /.) out on holiday sales with people waiting for Vista to actually ship.

MS sells what?

[ThreeGigs]

The case involves the way Microsoft marketed PCs

Since when has MS been a computer retailer?

I'd think that the class action would be against PC builders, who in turn would go after MS for misleading them into labeling a PC as Vista capable.

Re:MS sells what?

[will_die]

Since when has MS been a computer retailer?

For a long while now, however they are only sold in stores in Japan or Korea, don't remember which. that does not even include the xboxes but they are not being advertised as Vista ready.

But back to the main item, the people sueing are saying that because Microsoft advertised that computers with the Vista Ready sticker were capable of running Vista that it is Microsofts fault and Microsoft was doing the misleading .

Re:MS sells what?

[Rolgar]

Doesn't MS have a certification program or a set of standards that are required before the stickers can be put on a PC? Since the stickers are Microsoft's, and they are on a product carrying their OS, the certainly can be held responsible if their stickers convey inaccurate or misleading information.

Re:MS sells what?

[marcosdumay]

It was Microsoft who defined the requeriments and fiscalised the stics anyway.

Re:MS sells what?

[TyrWanJo]

MS and computer(IBM based computers anyways)companies have been in bed together for a long time. Although its subtle, MS markets computers by bundling its software with them, and then allowing a computer company to advertise their computer as "capable" of running that bundle (or in this case the barest minimum version of that bundle available.) With almost any major computer brand it is impossible buy a computer without an OS, and nine times out of ten that OS is going to MS based. This is part of how MS sold Vista to begin with, as far as I can tell, and at the same time helped major PC manufacturers move newer products. While MS might not be directly responsible for the sale of computers, many people rely on the MS software, and so by assuring people that the computer they are about to buy can run MS Whatever, they sell computers as much as they sell their OS.

CHANGE THE COLORS TO BLUE!!!!

[HOTTILA.COM]

People like the blue windows XP than BLACK ok... Even in Linux i like BLUE!!!!!!!!!

Odd way of coming out of the closet

[SmallFurryCreature]

Look, as your nick suggests on slashdot we use real men's anologies namely cars. Guy stuff. Not clothing and most certainly not womens clothing and MOST DEFINITLY NOT TRYING THEM ON.

Yes I know the temptation can be great when you feel that soft lace... Eh, how about them Yankees eh.

Re:Odd way of coming out of the closet

[esme]

Clearly, this being Slashdot, he should have invented a girlfriend to attribute the women's pants experience to. -Esme

Re:Odd way of coming out of the closet

[PopeRatzo]

Look, as your nick suggests on slashdot we use real men's anologies namely cars. Guy stuff. Not clothing and most certainly not womens clothing and MOST DEFINITLY NOT TRYING THEM ON.

I don't know, I was kind of getting in to his analogy. Who among us hasn't secretly wanted to go into a Lane Bryant and try on a nice sheath dress? I mean, NOT ME, but I'm thinking there might be some of you guys who would like that sort of thing. In a strictly ironic way, of course. As a joke.

Re:Odd way of coming out of the closet

[rvw]

Clearly, this being Slashdot, he should have invented a girlfriend to attribute the women's pants experience to. -Esme Clearly he hás invented an imaginary girlfriend. And because she cannot be naked all the time he had to go and try these cloths, understand?

Re:Odd way of coming out of the closet

[denisfalqueto]

What would you expect from a BadAnalOrgyGuy??

Re:Odd way of coming out of the closet

[Random Walk]

Do it in Second Life. Nobody will know you're a guy.

Re:Odd way of coming out of the closet

[Anonymous Coward]

Yankees Suck!

Sincerely,
Red Sox Nation

Re:Odd way of coming out of the closet

[pintpusher]

Yeah, but the silk just doesn't feel the same in second life as it does in ... um. So... we're putting in 220 in the whole house and I've got bundled 2x cat6, coax piped to each room. Hey wanna come check out my new Holley 4-barrel double-pumper? aw crap. that didn't come out right either.

Usual Caveat: Don't trust MS statements.

[gweihir]

Find out for yourself. Especially MS marketing is prone to lie, steal and cheat. And they have no clue about technology. Why people eat up every new "revolution" out of Redmont is beyond me. It is well known that MS products are unusable until they have has a few serious revisions/service packs.

Re:Usual Caveat: Don't trust MS statements.

[jimicus]

And they have no clue about technology.

Do you think it's reasonable that an average joe-user should expect that?

Re:Usual Caveat: Don't trust MS statements.

[Teflonatron]

For the same reason that people would sign a petition to ban Di-Hydrogen Monoxide...

Re:Usual Caveat: Don't trust MS statements.

[gweihir]

By now, it should be common knowledge. MS has pulled this stund (immature products) for over 10 years.

Re:Usual Caveat: Don't trust MS statements.

[gweihir]

For the same reason that people would sign a petition to ban Di-Hydrogen Monoxide...

Of course its hsould be banned! I hear that if you treat it with electricity, the resulting stuff can explode! This is terrorist material!

Seriously though, banning everybody from using it that signs such a petition would do the human race a whole lot of good.

You know you've failed when...

[idiotwithastick]

... your own marketing director has no clue about the product he is actually trying to market. Who comes up with those stickers, anyways?

Re:You know you've failed when...

[SolitaryMan]

.. your own marketing director has no clue about the product he is actually trying to market.

I'd say that this is almost always the case.

If developers build a small 1 person helicopter, marketers will sell it as a space rocket (capable of going into space.)

Re:You know you've failed when...

[norminator]

Have you ever met a marketing director?

Re:You know you've failed when...

[idiotwithastick]

No, but they shouldn't be making mistakes like these. They're supposed to be good at marketing, right? I'm sure the job is a lot harder than I think it is, but even as a marketing director you shouldn't make statements you are unsure about without verifying it first.

Re:You know you've failed when...

[Blkdeath]

Have you ever met a marketing director?

Yes, actually, I have. Even engaged in a discussion with him over the future of the advertising strategy of our corporation in Canada. The man had some really interesting ideas and I've seen several of them unfold over the past several months.

Re:You know you've failed when...

[Azuma Hazuki]

I stopped laughing at Dilbert a long, long time ago. I smile, but it makes me hurt inside. Crap like this is exactly why; it's not funny anymore when it's TRUE!

...think we can get a picture of the PHB throwing a chair, Scott?

So people pay extra

[MichailS]

for a badge that says "this PC can run Windows"?

And then it turns out to be "a Windows", not "Windows, period"?

Must feel good to be in the customer shafting business.

Like the swedish witch Häxan Surtant says: "I love charging people too much money!"

Uh...

[Kawahee]

Minimum System Requirements

Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate
* 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory
* 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
* Support for Super VGA graphics
* CD-ROM drive

Any computer than can run Home Basic can run any other edition. Yes, you won't get Aero without a graphics card that supports DX9+ hardware acceleration, and performance won't be ideal but you will be able to run any edition of Windows - the (minimum) requirements are identical.

The recommended requirements for Home Basic and the other editions are different, however. Please correct me if the Vista Capable sticker is only available to systems that meet the recommended system requirements (in which case Vista Capable != any edition), but I suspect that since Microsoft hasn't been afraid to cut corners before that it is awarded based on minimum system requirements and that Vista Capable is therefore universally applicable to all versions of Vista.

Re:Uh...

[seyyah]

Any computer than can run Home Basic can run any other edition. Yes, you won't get Aero without a graphics card that supports DX9+ hardware acceleration. That's the kind of sentence which GETS YOU OUTED AS WORKING FOR THE MS MARKETING DEPARTMENT!

Re:Uh...

[ilovecheese]

Recently, I got a new laptop for work. A pretty decent upper end Toshiba. Neat little sticker on it saying "Windows Vista Certified" or some crap like that. OK, for the hell of it, I went to install a copy of Vista Ultimate on it. I definitley had more than the min requirements to run Aero & all that crap.

What happens? Well, going through the lame assed install, pukes at the end of it, with an "Undefined Error". Needless to say, the little "Vista" sticker is now afixed to the side of the office toilet, the copy of Vista went back to the retailer, and I'm quite happy with XP on it.

MS: Get your head & your ass wired together for once. ;)

Re:Uh...

[jkrise]

I think Clington would've argued this case for Microsoft brilliantly:

It all depends on the meaning of the word 'Capable'... and then
It all depends on the meaning of the word 'Vista' ... and later
It all depends on the meaning of the phrase 'Vista Capable' taken together.. ...your honour, I'm not finished yet!

Re:Uh...

[Andrewkov]

Your office toilet is Vista Certified? Brings new meaning to the term "system dump".

Re:Uh...

[Chris Mattern]

Your argument would be more convincing if it weren't for the fact that in the "system requirements" listed for any software "recommended requirements" are in fact the minimum requirements, while minimum requirements are "if you have this, the box won't burst into flames. Probably."

Chris Mattern

Re:Uh...

[Dancindan84]

* 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory
* 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
* Support for Super VGA graphics
* CD-ROM drive Hahaha.... Will UAC even load under Vista Ultimate with those specs?

"You're trying to do anything useful. Cancel or All..."

Re:Uh...

[Corporate Troll]

Ask Dell

I have a Vista Capable laptop (that came with XP MCE), and the small print on the box made it clear: "do not run Windows Vista on this Machine, you will not be happy". Bought January 2007. The fine print was a sticker added to the box. I supposed Fujitsu-Siemens already got complaints and needed to add such a sticker in Europe, or their legal department recommended it to avoid lawsuits.

Re:Uh...

[flappinbooger]

+1 Brilliantly Insightful and Informative

Re:Uh...

[Firethorn]

Doesn't that need to be placed on every computer at the moment?

Re:Uh...

[Corporate Troll]

Well, I must assume that all 2000€++ computers will run Vista "okay"... So, probably not.

Re:Uh...

[geekoid]

If you advertise it with Aero, then the specs you list should be able to run AERO.

Re:Uh...

[Firethorn]

Good point. I just figure anybody willing to spend €2k on a computer would want the extra performance XP grants... ;)

Re:Uh...

[sootman]

Yes, you won't get Aero without a graphics card that supports DX9+ hardware acceleration...

True--but ALMOST EVERY SINGLE AD for Vista shows it with Aero. You CAN NOT GET things like the often-showcased 'Flip 3D' effect without Aero.* (Right? I'm pretty sure, but I don't actually run Vista, so I can't say for vertain and I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) So people are buying computers and not getting what they see in the ads. Period.

In most people's minds, Aero == Vista. This impression comes 100% from the Marketing folks. Serves them right. I'd love to take some Marketing folks, wipe their minds, and make them live life and make decisions based on what they see advertised. "But McDonalds said this food was healthy! And this pill was supposed to fix what's wrong with me! And this cologne was supposed to make women fall all over me! And this $399 laptop was supposed to have Flip 3D! Why is the world not what I was told?!?!? Ah, the government is at my door! Surely they're here to help."

* I don't have a circular in front of me, but IIRC, many of the ads in the Sunday paper show all the cheap computers with the same "Flip 3D in action!" screenshot. I'd love to buy a non-Aero computer and bring it back, saying "This computer can't produce the effect shown in it's advertisement."

Re:Uh...

[magus_melchior]

FWIW, this laptop only has 504 MB of RAM for the system (8 MB 'stolen' by the onboard graphics chip), and it had a "Vista Capable" sticker (that I affixed to the office trash can). I'm thinking it's the minimum requirements for Home Basic, and they don't take into account things like shared memory with video hardware.

Currently lobbying my boss for another half-gig of RAM, as HP's new printer drivers tend to eat all the resources when printing double-sided. Nifty feature, but they should've thought twice before sending the development contract to Asia.

Well MS got a point

[SmallFurryCreature]

Google Windows Vista Capable and you get MS own page which currently states the following (Bold added for emphasis)

Windows Vista Capable and Premium Ready PCs

What is a Windows Vista Capable PC?

A new PC running Windows XP that carries the Windows Vista Capable PC logo can run Windows Vista. All editions of Windows Vista will deliver core experiences such as innovations in organizing and finding information, security, and reliability. All Windows Vista Capable PCs will run these core experiences at a minimum. Some features available in the premium editions of Windows Vistalike the new Windows Aero user experiencemay require advanced or additional hardware.

A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:

• A modern processor (at least 800MHz).
• 512 MB of system memory.
• A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.
• Windows Vista Premium Ready PCs

Some Windows Vista Capable PCs have been designated Premium Ready. These PCs will provide an even better Windows Vista experience, including the Windows Aero user experience. Features available in specific premium editions of Windows Vista, such as the ability to watch and record live TV, may require additional hardware.

A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:

• 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor).
• 1 GB of system memory.
• Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum), Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
• 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
• DVD-ROM Drive.
• Audio output capability.
• Internet access capability.

I do NOT know if this page has been changed since the ad campaign was started but in its current form it is quit clear that Windows Vista Capable means just the bare bones of Vista and that if you want everything you need a Vista Premium Ready machine.

Yes it is weasly, but that is marketing for you, buyer beware.

Does anyone know if MS had the same text at launch, if so, then the case is without merit. If not then quit a few games are in trouble, because they ALWAYS show the screenshots at the highest setting, that may be impossible on the minimum requirements they list on the box.

Now if you excuse me, I have to chastise myself for defending Microsoft.

Re:Well MS got a point

[Kazymyr]

The wording on Microsoft's web site is quite inappropriate.

Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements

        Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

        * 800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory
        * 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
        * Support for Super VGA graphics
        * CD-ROM drive

I have a Personal Computer that fulfills these requirements. It will definitely not run any version of Vista. It's a G4 Mac.

Re:Well MS got a point

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I have been following this story from the beginning and I have to tell you that those bolded passages that you have in your post were edited by Microsoft to say that after the suit was filed.
(This is the first thing I found about it in a Google Search)
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9016178
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003652011_brier05.html

Additionally, I believe the suit alleges that because Aero was highly marketed as one of the new features of the Vista Operating System in the commercials so it can only be reasonably assumed that the new interface was a "core" experience. (I tend to believe her because unlike an IT professional who would care about a new file system or whatever, all a "Regular Joe" sees or cares about is the new interface)

Yes, Vista can be "run" on any "capable" machine, but thats like saying that a high-end sportscar can run on basic unleaded gas.

Re:Well MS got a point

[__aauygf7127]

Apparently that text was changed. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003652011_brier05.html

Re:Well MS got a point

[nine-times]

Somehow I doubt all that text was on the "Vista Capable PC" stickers.

Re:Well MS got a point

[cnettel]

Do the PowerPC Macs have a VESA (x86...) BIOS for their graphics? If not, you fail Super VGA...

Re:Well MS got a point

[RedHelix]

This is true. When I worked in Geek Squad hell, I set up antivirus software on computers people were buying, so I got a lot of exposure to new hardware.

In the months before Vista's release, low-end laptops and desktops had new stickers saying "Vista Capable." (By "low end" I mean any machine with a Celeron/Sempron CPU and integrated graphics.)

Higher-end multicore machines with dedicated GPUs said "Vista Home Premium Capable."

For that reason, I never really foresaw this as being a problem.

Re:Well MS got a point

[geekoid]

So the buyer now has to go to the companies website to figure this out?
That's just stupid. The buyer is in the shop, and the PC says it's capable of running Vista. It should run Vista as marketed. The sticker should say "Vista home Basic capable" at the very least.

Ford can't say "This car gets 100 MPG" on a car, then on a web page someplace else have some small print that says "Users without a high tail wind my not achieve the stated millage."

Re:Well MS got a point

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know if MS had the same text at launch

The Wayback Machine has that page archived since February 2nd, 2007:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/capable.mspx

It has the same text.

Re:Well MS got a point

[ignavus]

A PC under Vista will "run a core experience"?

Whaaa? My PC runs software, programs, code. It doesn't run "experiences".

Save us from the marketroid mangling of the English tongue.

A summary of this post follows: "Aaaaaaagh"

Re:Well MS got a point

[MojoStan]

I do NOT know if this page has been changed since the ad campaign was started but in its current form it is quit clear that Windows Vista Capable means just the bare bones of Vista and that if you want everything you need a Vista Premium Ready machine.
[snip]
Does anyone know if MS had the same text at launch, if so, then the case is without merit. If you trust articles from Ars Technica's Microsoft-related journal, then Microsoft was defining "Vista Capable" as "at least Home Basic Edition" in March 2006 . Recall that Vista was released to volume license customers in November 2006 and to the general public in January 2007. So this early definition of "Vista Capable" was defined about 8 months before release. They couldn't get too specific about requirements at the time, but they were very similar to the final requirements.

From that March 2006 article:

• The company plans on using the next few months to go into detail about what will be required of a very Vista-capable PC, but for now it has released a document that covers what constitutes a Windows Vista Capable computer. But don't get too excited because "Windows Vista Capable" only means two things: the PC can definitely run Home Basic Edition, and it gets to sport a pretty logo.

  The Windows Vista Capable program is intended to be used as a way to entice customers into performing an early upgrade to Vista. If a customer sees the "Designed for Windows XP--Windows Vista Capable" logo, then he knows that he can purchase that PC and safely upgrade to some version of Vista in the future. But what exactly are the minimum requirements for a capable computer anyway?

  PCs must meet these requirements in order to display a Windows Vista Capable logo:

  • Be able to competently run Windows XP
  • A modern CPU
  • A minimum of 512MB of RAM
  • A DirectX 9 class graphics processor
  • Optionally support Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) to take advantage of Vista's improved graphics

  Still, the requirements just mentioned are required for "good" performance. Nobody is happy just being "good." People want only the best, right? Here's what that's going to take:

  • DirectX 9 class graphics hardware that supports WDDM and Pixel Shader 2.0
  • A minimum of 32 bits per pixel
  • Appropriate graphics memory for specified monitor resolutions expressed as total pixels (X dimension multiplied by Y dimension)
  • Graphics memory bandwidth, as assessed by Windows Vistas built in system assessment tool WinSAT.EXE, of at least 1,800MB/s at 1,310,720 pixels on a desktop and at the native resolution on a mobile PC

  With those features in hand, Microsoft says that you should be able to run Aero. According to a Microsoft spokesman, even if the hardware is able to run Aero, that still doesn't necessarily mean that it can run any version of Windows Vista.

  • "The Windows Vista Capable program does not represent minimum hardware requirements for the different versions of Windows Vista we look forward to providing additional information regarding minimum hardware requirements for Windows Vista and the Windows Vista logo program in the coming months."

XP Capable

[thegermanpolice]

I'm running a Compaq NX9420 which has/had a sticker on it saying Designed for Microsoft Windows XP.

Yet when I try to install windows XP on my pc it fails to see my hard drive. Who'd a thought that a SATA hard drive is incompatible with an out of the box XP installation disk?

Even though my laptop is designed for XP doesn't mean it will work. After purchasing a USB floppy disk drive it's up and running.

Strangely it runs Vista with no problems at all. (from a fresh install as well)

When I said my laptop has/had a sticker on it, it's now sitting proudly on my nortel norstar phone as that is probably just as capable as my laptop, of running XP from an installation disk.

Re:XP Capable

[rolfc]

The same thing happened to my wx4300, but a driver disk from internet saved my day.

Re:XP Capable

[MichaelTheDrummer]

How old is the XP disk you have? The point being that SATA wasn't even around when XP was released. If you're using an old install disk, then it won't have drivers for it. I'm fairly certain I haven't had any problems with a SP2 disk and SATA...

Re:XP Capable

[thegermanpolice]

The problem is well resolved. The disk was a HP supplied sp2 disk for an ATA laptop (only 1 month older than mine), the installation disk for the laptop was a PRESS F11 to restore your setup type operation.

Which doesn't help when your hard drive fails. I know the ways to fix these things.

Tech support not needed, unless you do know away of putting XP on the above mentioned phone?

Incidentally the up to date HP disk came through 3 days after I'd got it up and running.

Caveat Emptor

[Graftweed]

It seems that more and more often we're returning to the good old days of caveat emptor. In the past few months I've seen quite a few number of shady advertisements that, if not exactly illegal, certainly push the boundaries of the law.

Example: my cable company is running this huge ad campaign promising net access at X Mbps for $Y per month. Fantastic deal... until you read the fine print where it's stated that it's a time limited promotion and that after 6 months it's X/2 Mbps for $Y*2 per month, or something to that effect.

Maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see and things have always been like this, but when MS starts arguing about the definition of "capable" and saying it's all explained in the fine print, it's a bit like saying "Well, you should have been more careful, you should have been aware of the fine print, it's all explained there." In other words, caveat emptor.

It's like labeling a PC "Linux Capable", someone buys it after reading all the articles about compiz and bling and rotating cubes, is ultimately disappointed, goes to the vendor and gets told that the computer they just purchased can clearly run BusyBox, a version of Linux.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[moranar]

It seems that more and more often we're returning to the good old days of caveat emptor

I wasn't aware we'd ever left those days.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like labeling a PC "Linux Capable", someone buys it after reading all the articles about compiz and bling and rotating cubes, is ultimately disappointed, goes to the vendor and gets told that the computer they just purchased can clearly run BusyBox, a version of Linux.

No, it not like that. GNU/Linux is a kernel and not a distribution, while Vista is a distribution.

Your analogy should be like Red Hat Capable, but then it does not work.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[Graftweed]

No, it not like that. GNU/Linux is a kernel and not a distribution, while Vista is a distribution. Your analogy should be like Red Hat Capable, but then it does not work.

No, GNU/Linux is the combination of the GNU userland tools and the Linux kernel. A distribution is a combination of GNU/Linux and several other applications that run on top of it, all nicely packaged and ready to be used in a (hopefully) coherent manner.

In any case, Vista can be considered a term that applies to several different versions, or distributions if you want to call them that, of MS's operating system, of which there are five. All of these versions have different capabilities, even if the core of them stays the same. So to say that a computer is Vista capable is the same as saying that a computer is Linux capable. It doesn't mean much if you don't qualify this statement further with exactly what version of Vista or what distribution of Linux the "capable" part is referring to.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[mpe]

It seems that more and more often we're returning to the good old days of caveat emptor. In the past few months I've seen quite a few number of shady advertisements that, if not exactly illegal, certainly push the boundaries of the law.

Not just in the computer field. Recently I have noticed quite a few soft drinks which proclaim in big letters "No artificial flavourings", then state (in much smaller letters) that they contain Saccharin and/or Aspartame.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[Belial6]

This has been hitting my radar lately as well. It seems that any truth in advertising laws that may have ever existed, are out the window. Just this week, I saw a Comcast commercial that was going on about "On-Demand". In very clear audio, while showing the On-Demand menus on the screen, they stated multiple times that "On-Demand is free". At the bottom of the screen, there was small text that said "Content will impose additional charges." Now, I know what the text said because I saw the same commercial later on a 32" screen. When I originally watched the commercial on the 20" TV in my office, the text was simply unreadable. It was barely readable on the 32" screen.

The other one that always gets me is car commercials. 90% of all car commercials show the vehicle being used in an illegal manner with often unreadble text at the bottom stating "Closed course. Professional driver." Yes, they have the sometimes readable disclaimer, but clearly the commercials are specifically designed to show people how the vehicle is really great at doing illegal things. While usually it is a vehicle driving too fast on twisty mountain roads, there was actually one running for a while where a car was driving way too fast, through city streets with traffic cones chasing it. The commercial actually had a part showing a pedestrian jumping into a dumpster to avoid being run down! This doesn't seem any different than if a rat poison company was a running commercial showing a wife putting rat poison in her husbands dinner while talking about life insurance payout, but having sometimes readable small text stating "Imitation Poison. Professional Chef.".

Given the number of people that get killed using the vehicles exactly as advertised, I don't see how this has never been addressed.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[Blkdeath]

The other one that always gets me is car commercials. 90% of all car commercials show the vehicle being used in an illegal manner with often unreadble text at the bottom stating "Closed course. Professional driver." Yes, they have the sometimes readable disclaimer, but clearly the commercials are specifically designed to show people how the vehicle is really great at doing illegal things. While usually it is a vehicle driving too fast on twisty mountain roads, there was actually one running for a while where a car was driving way too fast, through city streets with traffic cones chasing it. The commercial actually had a part showing a pedestrian jumping into a dumpster to avoid being run down!

We had a taste of this in Canada. Mitsubishi were running commercials for the all-new 2008 Lancer showing off some of the rally and street tuner heritage of Mitsubishi which included closed-course "street" races as well as some off-road rally racing. They took a lot of flak over that from various bleeding heart agencies but it was oft pointed out that Honda, who run ads showcasing their safety and 'green' vehicles are the brand most notorious for street tuning and illegal racing (it was a Honda Civic and a Ford Mustang who caused the death of a truck driver on Highway 400 northbound that prompted the crack-down on street racing and related adverts).

Sometimes the hype about advertising is just hype, and the illegal maneuvers you speak of are there to showcase the cars fun driving/handling characteristics. Now, if a car commercial shows a car doing something it's clearly not capable of then we'd have a closer (famous Slashdot) car analogy on our hands, but, we don't.

Re:Caveat Emptor

[Belial6]

It is actually not an analogy, as I am not asking you to think of something like it was a car. I am actually talking about car commercials. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a car is just a car.

It seem clear that your view of when commercial are deceptive is different than mine. There is one important fact that you are missing that makes you wrong. You are missing the fact that my shade of gray is better than your shade of gray. ;)

Re:Caveat Emptor

[phillymjs]

The other one that always gets me is car commercials. 90% of all car commercials show the vehicle being used in an illegal manner with often unreadble text at the bottom stating "Closed course. Professional driver."

A few years back, there was a commercial for some SUV or other where the vehicle was depicted driving vertically up the side of a skyscraper. For some reason, that merited a disclaimer stating that it was a special effect and not actually possible to do that, so don't try.

Conversely, the Chevy ads that ran this summer as a Transformers movie tie-in did not have a disclaimer stating that Chevrolet vehicles do not transform into sentient robots.

Given those two examples, I really have to wonder where the necessity-of-disclaimer line is drawn.

~Philly

Come the day

[PinkyDead]

We are getting closer and closer to the day where I actually feel sorry for Microsoft.

any version of vista.

[leuk_he]

Mr markting man is right. You can run ANY version (well, not always 64 bit...) of vista on a "capable pc. But as the MS page explains you will experience only core functions (=same as "vista basic).

There is no point buying premium, or ultimate on a capable pc, you pay too much ,UNLESS you upgrade hardware later.

I am sure some people here can come up with a better word than "capable".

Re:any version of vista.

[Lispy]

I'd suggest: bearable

Vista capable

[Anonymous Coward]

means you can put Vista DVD in the drive.

Häxan Surtant

[threaded]

Way to go: mention a character from an old Swedish Christmas TV show that not even many Swedes outside Stockholm actually watched. Guess it's up there with the obscurity of what Vista capable actually means, or not, for example. ;-)

"Vista Confusing Even To Microsoft"

[jkrise]

sounds much better and simpler. Is branding the only thing confusing about Vista? Hardware requirements, Multiple versions, User Access Control, DRM, New Features, Service Pack Release Date, Activation, Remote SwitchOff, Genuine (Dis)Advantage... etc.; the list is long of things very vague and confusing about Vista. Not just the Branding.

Right before Christmas.

[PieterBr]

The way I remember it: It's almost Christmas. -Windows Vista is Delayed. -Computerbuilders fear lower sales right before Christmas. -Microsoft introduces logo. -Consumers buy PC hoping to upgrade when Vista comes out. Vista comes out. -Consumers upgrade to Vista but can't use features they wanted to use with their new pc. -Consumer have to pull out the cash for yet another hardware upgrade. -Double profit?

Re:Right before Christmas.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... -Consumer have to pull out the cash for yet another hardware upgrade. -Double profit?"

-Consumer gets Vista running on upgraded machine. -Consumer doesn't like it. -Consumer buys and downgrades to XP.

**TRIPLE PROFIT BONUS!!**

oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone said something and retracted it.....

Not even the most militant Amiga site does follow the development of their favorit OS like slashdot follws Vista, makes one wonder...

Microsoft Marketing Telling Tall Tales .... again

[nfractal]

Nothing new actually. But to be fair those poor marketing guys get saddled with actually trying to sell the stuff and all they get from the Developers is pure gloss, (admittedly they ain't that well versed beyond a few buzzwords).

Case in point - all that brouhaha about XP3 SP3 increasing performance by about 10-12% being much much faster than Vista, and believe me no one there knows what the fuck they did to get that. The Vista development people would be shitting stones by now trying to replicate the same performance as XP when the poor sods there themselves are in the dark.

I'm sure pretty soon Microsoft will come out with an explanation which might explain oh, about a 0.1% percent perf. improvement but if you'd look closely what they say will actually be full of holes. This is just to avoid getting negatively mentioned by the likes of nytimes and wsj and their ilk. ( not to mention /. ! )

It bothers me

[Martian_Kyo]

that an operating system should consume so much resources. If I buy a Windows Vista Capable computer, it means I can run windows vista.....just as long as I don't run Notepad at the same time. Operating system should be just a platform to run other programs, it should aim to consume less resources, thus leaving it for applications to consume. This is not news, I know...but I shouldn't a Gig of Ram just start up my system. OS by itself is a useless thing, I don't use a computer because its OS I use the computer because the applications that can run on a particular OS. I think computing has become too OS centered. I know bunch of people who have these really neat Opearting systems, with all the widget and gadgets and security policies but when I ask them 'what do you use the computer for?'....the usual answer is 'well I surf ...and check e-mail'... I think there is a Linus (or somebody else) quote about this...which sums it up better then me. There is a reason why OS isn't called an application....because in all reality it cannot be applied anywhere.

Re:It bothers me

[mindwanderer]

Disable SuperFetch if you want more free RAM, though I see no reason why you should want to (unless you have less than 2 gigs of RAM). SuperFetch will preload your favourite programs to make the OS feel snappier, but it will free that memory should another program need it (like say, a game).

Re:It bothers me

[naetuir]

[macfanboi]
This is exactly what I try to tell people when they start talking about how wonderful Windows is, and how it can be adjusted to -exactly what you want-, because there are so many different switches and dials and buttons to effect a change in the pretty color of the desktop, so and so forth. You can have you own hardware, mod it up, throw eight pipes with water into your computer case. Make it glow. Change out all your hardware...

While what they're not getting, is that they're not getting anything done. That's why I like my Mac, in a nutshell. Yes, there's lock in, yes, you have to take their hardware. That makes the choices simple, and you get to actually do stuff, rather than tweak stuff, all the time. Worry less about the OS, more about your task.
[/macfanboi]

That said, I think they should qualify their "Vista Capable" sticker. They could have the big bold letters "Vista Capable" with another set beneath it like.. "Home" or "Premium" in smaller print, or in another typeset. That sort of thing. Would make it far less confusing.

I've Never Understood Microsoft's "Home" Concept

[aquatone282]

Why sell a crippled version of your operating system? Even if the average user may not think she needs the more advanced features, chances are another application she may install will, and then the user is left angry and confused.

But on the other hand, this may be a good thing - it was when I discovered I couldn't install an Oracle database on XP Home edition that I began to explore Linux.

Average Man Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

It all goes back to the Average Man Theory. What would the average Mom, Dad, Grandparent that buys a home computer from Wal-Mart, Dell, Office Depot think when they see "Vista Capable" listed boldly on the front of the "Brand Spanking New" computer they just purchased? Would they think that it would run part Vista but not other parts? Would they think it would barely perform? The term capable was used so that vendors could say that "Vista is not loaded on the machine but you'll get a copy sent to you when it comes out". It was completely known what "capable" would do in the market place. It would keep people purchasing computers, give Vista "feet" but provide a need for an upgrade of both in a few years. Companies spend millions on data that tells them exactly what people will perceive certain terms to mean. Capable was picked because it would be perceived exactly has they wished.

Re:Average Man Theory

[pintpusher]

They don't want to know what the public will think these terms mean. They want to know what terms will make people spend their money. Subsequently they've found out what people thought it would mean and are currently reaping the "rewards" of that.

More and more MS is looking clueless on this. They made some moves designed to get people to buy as a way to shore up a product that was failing before it even launched. Now they've found out that the words they used to get people to buy were also creating an expectation that MS couldn't deliver. Now people feel they've been duped. The bullet has indeed landed in the foot.

aRRR!!

[Tsukasah]

Once again, M$ screws up, we pay the consequences. Especially when my grandma got a new computer that said "capable of running vista" it couldnt even run glass or what ever. 1gb of RAM, on-board video & audio, and a centerion processor... Also, Final Fantasy 11 hardly worked! Go look at the specs yourself! >.... So my other grandma got a "Vista Capable" computer with an NVIDIA 8800, and an Intel Quad Core processor and 4 gb of RAM. I really need to learn how to type more fluently... but meh its too early for that.

Re:aRRR!!

[basscomm]

Especially when my grandma got a new computer that said "capable of running vista" it couldnt even run glass or what ever ... Also, Final Fantasy 11 hardly worked!

Wait, your grandma plays Final Fantasy XI? Mine doesn't even know how to turn a computer on.

Re:aRRR!!

[Tsukasah]

No no no, I play FFXI. Lol. All my grandma does is check her email on Windows Mail(big mistake there), and play soliatire. That's really it. Oh, and she checks my grades online.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Microsoft already had a unix

[titten]

Namely Xenix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix

Microsoft Word (at the time 'Multi-Tool Word') was developed on Xenix... Unix was used in the Microsoft organization up until Win95 was released, and NT was supposed to be a better Unix than Unix (which is why they focused so much on Posix compliance).

Also, Internet Explorer used to run on Unix (X on Solaris/HP-UX): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_for_UNIX

Certain?

[encoderer]

Are you certain about your hypothetical you added at the end? Because all in all, there isn't a terrible difference between Home Basic and Home Premium. Most likely, it was machines listed as Vista Capable that couldn't run Ultimate.

And I have to say that I'd side with Microsoft here. I mean, when it comes down to it, if the PC can run any version of Windows Vista then it's CAPABLE of running Vista. Maybe it would be nice to have more info given to consumers, maybe a compatibility sticker on the bottom of the laptop, or even on the top lid of the laptop that's able to be easily peeled off.

I don't think that it would be a benefit to consumers to only label PC's capable of running Ultimate as "Vista Capable." It would perhaps lead consumers, on average, to buy more expensive machines than they need.

Re:Certain?

[Neeth]

You could argue the other way round. A computer capable of running Vista, will run Vista, right? And Vista Ultimate is Vista, right? But Vista Ultimate can not be used. So you can't use Vista on a Vista capable computer. But the sticker says so.
Now, I agree with you that informing the consumers would have been nice. But would they have bought the computer when it said that it was only capable of running the most basic Vista?

Re:Certain?

[aaronl]

The point is that "Vista Capable" doesn't say "Vista Capable for a subset of the features of Vista", the implication is that if I buy a copy of Vista, it will work. This has very clearly not been the case. If you have a system labeled "Vista Capable" and go to the store, and buy six out of seven versions of Vista, it may not work properly.

Also, there *is* quite a bit of difference between Home Basic and Home Premium. This is to say that Home Basic is completely missing nearly every advertised function and feature of the platform. Home Basic doesn't have Aero, all the mobility support for laptops, SideShow, scheduled backups, fax support, DVD Maker, Movie Maker, Media Center, and a bunch of other things. Vista is advertised as supporting all of those things, with no mention of version distinction outside of tiny small print.

Even if you to their web site, and browser the Vista pages, it is misleading. There a pages dedicated to footnotes, exceptions to system requirements, an A-V list of poorly documented version differences, etc. I still haven't found a page that describes what the "Core Experiences of Windows Vista", which they continually mention, even are.

In other words, Microsoft seems to knowingly mislead consumers. They were aware of the differences, and did not adequately inform purchasers of it. They certainly appear to be misleading through deceptive labeling and advertising.

Re:Certain?

[NickFortune]

And I have to say that I'd side with Microsoft here. I mean, when it comes down to it, if the PC can run any version of Windows Vista then it's CAPABLE of running Vista.

Introducing VISTA NULL! All it does is wipe your hard drive and put up a big sign saying "your crappy old computer is too old to run our fine software - go buy a new one right now" But it is guaranteed to will run on anything from an 8086 onwards.

There. Now they can use that sticker for anything they like. Send your suggestions to "Steve Ballmer, One Microsoft Way..."

Re:Certain?

[AnyoneEB]

Considering how much trouble I have had setting up Windows XP on SATA (I assume Vista is better at it) and that was not even a very weird HDD setup, a CD which could boot and wipe the hard drive on any x86 computer would be quite impressive.

Re:Certain?

[zaivala]

You don't speak English, you don't speak Technese... what language IS this post? I have tried several times to read it, and found that I could not.

Re:Certain?

[chis101]

When XP came out, SATA was a very weird HDD setup. Vista has no problems installing to SATA without any additional driver disks.

Re:Certain?

[Blkdeath]

Are you certain about your hypothetical you added at the end? Because all in all, there isn't a terrible difference between Home Basic and Home Premium. Most likely, it was machines listed as Vista Capable that couldn't run Ultimate.

And I have to say that I'd side with Microsoft here. I mean, when it comes down to it, if the PC can run any version of Windows Vista then it's CAPABLE of running Vista. Maybe it would be nice to have more info given to consumers, maybe a compatibility sticker on the bottom of the laptop, or even on the top lid of the laptop that's able to be easily peeled off.

I think the big problem here is the consumers who could go out and buy a machine, regardless of cost, that is labeled "Vista Capable". Shortly thereafter they purchase either the Vista Ultimate Upgrade ($299.99 CDN at Future Shop) or even just plain old Vista Ultimate ($499 at Future Shop) because it is "The best edition of Windows Vista with the power, security, and mobility features you need for work, and the entertainment and ease you want for fun. It has everything you need to shift seamlessly between the worlds of play and productivity."

So now that they've dropped well over $300 or $500 (sales taxes inclusive) for this product, opened it, spent 4 hours installing it - now they can't return it because it's open and they have to replace their brand new computer.

I don't think that it would be a benefit to consumers to only label PC's capable of running Ultimate as "Vista Capable." It would perhaps lead consumers, on average, to buy more expensive machines than they need.

This suggestion is IMHO pretty bang-on. It should list XP Home|Pro, Vista Home Basic|Home Premium|Ultimate and rate them on compatability (in full-featured mode) rather than "Yeah, it'll run a form of Vista if you disable all cool stuff that makes Vista Vista" (for whatever definition of 'cool' and 'stuff' you or the marketing people would prefer). The problem here is the disconnect between the marketing of the product and the capabilities required to actually unleash same. I have a pretty darned powerful computer connected to my home theatre system and much to my chagrin it's not up to snuff to run Vista Ultimate - letalone perform up to its multimedia requirements at the same time!

Re:Certain?

[encoderer]

No, that's crap.

Is Vista Home is STILL vista. If it can run Vista, then it's capable of running vista.

I have a pilots license. I'm certified capable to fly a number of different type of aircraft, but that's not enumerated on the license itself. Just because I'm a pilot doesn't mean I can fly an F-22 or a 747.

I'm capable of getting a date. I'm engaged. Just because I'm reasonably attractive doesn't mean I can date Jessica Alba.

These are flawed analogies but they illustrate a larger point: Absolutes are rare. Everyone knows this. Oh, and caveat emptor.

You're just trying to stick it to Microsoft because they said something that has a certain amount of ambiguity to it. The fact is that Home Basic, hell, Windows Vista Living-Out-Of-Car Pre-Basic Edition is STILL VISTA. You say "the implication is that if I buy a copy of Vista, it will work" ... No... The implication is that the PC will run Vista. And it does.

And just like I said in my first post... If Microsoft only put "vista capable" stickers on PC's capable of running Ultimate, you and others here would be complaining that they're just manipulating people into buying more PC than they need.

This is just a classic Slasdhot-sticks-it-to-MSFT thing. I'm cool with that. I'm not the biggest Microsoft fan myself. They're just a company to me, and so is Apple and so is Google. I have no love or animosity for any of those companies. I make judgment calls on their merits, and not as an opportunity to show my fanboy colors.

Re:Certain?

[encoderer]

You're right, I do see how this could cause some consumers problems. But.. this is only a big deal here today because this is Slashdot and they are Microsoft. There are ambiguous, misleading claims all over the place. Bottles of hairspray have "Certified CFC Free" labeled all over them... OF COURSE THEY ARE-- CFC's have been outlawed in the US for almost 30 years. Marketing is marketing.

Caveat Emptor.

Microsoft makes more money by segmenting the market. I get that. I don't hate them for that. They're a corporation. Their only reason for existence is to make money. This is a side-effect of that market segmentation. That's unfortunate. But, the crux of every single hypothetical on this website is "Customer Makes Assumption, Customer Gets Burned." Yet, nobody here is espousing some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

My mom has an HD TV and a regular DVD player. She bought an HD-DVD. It makes complete sense. It truly does. Except, she doesn't have an HD-DVD player. She opened it, Best Buy wouldn't accept the return. My mom made an assumption instead of asking somebody and had to eat $30 because of it. Yes, it's my mother, yes, it's too bad, but no, it's nobodies fault. And if that 30$ DVD was a $300 Vista upgrade, i'd say "Shame on you for not calling me! What are you dropping that kinda money for without planning ahead?"

Re:Certain?

[PitaBred]

You're an apologist, and probably work for Microsoft. Stop being a troll. If their ad exec can't get it straight, how do you actually say with a straight face that you expect the average consumer to be able to tell what the advertising means? Caveat emptor, sure, but that still doesn't let you sell your piss in a bottle and label it "spring water".

Re:Certain?

[Blkdeath]

But, the crux of every single hypothetical on this website is "Customer Makes Assumption, Customer Gets Burned." Yet, nobody here is espousing some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

You've hit a sore spot with me with the idea of personal responsibility. That is an area I wish we had more of nowadays but it's also very difficult nowadays with so much specialized 'stuff' as a part of our every day lives.

Think about the complex purchase decisions you have to make on a day to day basis. I'll start large with your living situation; once you've decided whether it's best to purchase, lease or rent you then have to decide on an area, a configuration and a budget. You should also plan ahead for the next 3-5 years to make sure you're not moving every year as things change. Now you'll need transportation. Are you better off to take public transit, taxi cabs, or purchase a car? If the latter, do you go new or used? Private or dealer? Finance, save the cash or lease? Now that you've got that figured out, what kind of car do you buy? How many doors? Cylinders? Speakers? How many wheels drive the thing? What size should the wheels be? Automatic or manual or manu-matic or sportronic or ...? Well now you've got your ride and your pad you'll want some electronics. Home theatre or simple television? What kind? CRT, plasma or LCD? What size? Wide or full screen? Brand or off-make? To HD or not to HD? HD or Blu-ray? Cable, satellite or antenna? Now on to your computer; PC or Mac? Intel or AMD? How much power do you need? How much should you spend? Order online or in store? White box do-it-yourself or pre-fab? Do you go for the extended warranty? What of accessories? Monitor(s)?

All that stuff under control, your home furnishings need tending to, flooring, drapes, bed clothes, your kitchen needs to be outfitted, you constantly have to amend and supplement your wardrobe. You'll have to pick doctors and dentists and veterinarians for yourself, your children and your pets (you decide who goes where) then you have to take in their advise based on their years of medical school and filter it and apply appropriately.

All through this you've been somehow managing your personal finances including your credit rating. Investments, savings, RRSPs or whatever the American retirement savings equivalent is. You have to file your taxes every year being mindful of not going to prison. Do you do it yourself or hire a company? Which one? Private or store front? If the former, do you do it on paper, do it online or buy software? Which software do you use?

The long and short of it is we're faced with information overload from every direction. Now I'll grant you that it's generally best if you slow down and take stock of your situation and research everything you ever do before going ahead, but as someone who presently does just that I can tell you it frustrates the living daylights out of the people around you. Consequently, it indicates that I'm an extremely conservative (small 'c') person which means this sort of thing doesn't bode well with people who are more outgoing and shall we say impulsive?

It never ceases to amaze me how people go through life not understanding the fundamentals that affect everybody. Forget knowing how the amount, type and speed of RAM affects your desktop experience - but things like not knowing what their credit score is or how their rating is calculated! How many people do you know who believe that if they have no credit their score is perfect, or the people who have all the credit everybody will ever give them and think that makes them golden?

But in the end, where do you draw the line between doing and not doing something based on your understanding of the situation? Am I being overly pedantic in each avenue of my life? Am I missing out on opportunities and experiences because I don't know enough about it before I proceed?

So personal responsibility is a good thing, but on the other side of the coin marketing mater

Re:Certain?

[PitaBred]

Caveat Emptor.

You keep saying that. I don't think you understand the realities of a true capitalist market and the fact that perfect information on the part of the consumer can never be had. Do you just hope that the medicine you get does what you think it should, or do you trust the doctor that prescribed it? There needs to be some level of accountability on the part of the seller as well as the buyer. Your mom got ripped off, and should work up the food chain at Best Buy. They sold her a product that doesn't work, and they need to take it back as it is resalable, and she didn't get the value implicitly promised from the deal.

Re:Certain?

[davester666]

Introducing VISTA NULL! All it does is wipe your hard drive and put up a big sign saying "your crappy old computer is too old to run our fine software - go buy a new one right now" But it is guaranteed to will run on anything from an 8086 onwards.

Sorry, it's too late now to change the name of Vista Ultimate. That just makes everything even more confusing.

Re:Certain?

[aaronl]

I don't really care one way or the other about the company making my software. I'm concerned with price, performance, reliability, etc. I avoided the "Vista Capable" marketing fraud by not being concerned with Vista capability at all. It had already been evaluated and set aside as not suiting my organizational needs. As it turns out, this was a great idea, since Vista still has show-stopper issues, as far as I'm concerned, *and* I didn't get duped into buy less-than-capable hardware for the platform.

A pilots license grants you certain category allowances by the FAA. Depending on the class of your certification and your ratings, you can pilot a range of aircraft under a variety of conditions. A basic private pilots certification does not let you pilot a 747, in the same way that a typical drivers license doesn't let you drive a 35,000lb commercial truck down a public way. It is rather clear what you are certified to pilot, though. You probably only have certification and rating to fly recreational aircraft of a specific class, and might have instrumentation rating.

Vista Home is still Vista, but it is not clear what that means. MS advertising says Vista is the newest and best of all Windows ever, and includes this list of supposedly unbelievable and life-changing new features. Vista Home just doesn't come with any of them, a fact which they have conveniently decided not to mention. Vista Capable means only that the computer can run the absolute core of Vista, which is undefined. It means that I can go buy a copy of Vista, or use my upgrade certificate, and it won't work right if I don't already know more than Microsoft tells me about the "Vista Capable" program.

While caveat emptor is still the only sane way of doing business, and isn't necessarily nice, you still can't deliberately mislead or lie. Try to find what this "core experience" of Windows Vista actually is. I have never been able to find a single reference to a definitive list. Every single mention anywhere I have seen is purposefully and noticeably vague. In other words, you can't actually find out what "Vista Capable" means, because Microsoft doesn't tell you.

That difference, the bit where they don't clarify their vague wording, is a key difference between your pilots certification and the "Vista Capable" program. I can go look up all sorts of interesting things in the FAR Code, and find out exactly what someone can and cannot do involving aircraft, based on their certification. I *can't* go look up exactly what "Vista Capable" means, and what I can and cannot do as a result.

For what it's worth, this has never been an issue before Vista. Something would say "Designed for Windows XP", or for 2000, or 98, and no matter what licensing and such you had, it would work. They would tell you that you can't watch TV without a tuner, that you can't get on the Internet without an Internet connection, and that you needed a 3D video card for 3D graphics. It was all very obvious and well defined. Windows still worked, though, regardless, as long as you met the minimum requirements printed on the box. This is just not the case with Vista, and between their advertisers and marketing people, they have managed to complicate things to such an extent that they are lying and misleading, and they can't even tell.

Re:Certain?

[encoderer]

I don't think you understand the POINT of Caveat Emptor.

The whole POINT is that the consumer will not have "perfect information." That's the "Beware" part in "Buyer Beware" !!

Your Doctor analogy is flawed-- You're paying for expert advice. If you pay somebody for expert advice on buying a computer compatible w/ Vista Ultimate, and the advice is bad, that's a problem, and you have a cause of action against the expert that was paid to advise you. But MARKETING on a product is NOT expert advice. Nor is the name HD-DVD. My mother wasn't swindled, and either were people who bought these laptops in question that were not able to run Vista Ultimate.

They, sadly, made ASSUMPTIONS. In the case of the computer, they made assumptions about a major purchase. They are responsible.

And let's be real here... there are many cases when you're right, the buyer doesn't have the "perfect info" needed to make a perfect decision. But this is not one of those cases. They could have easily printed out specs for the version of Vista they're seeking, and compare them to the computer they're checking out. Or, in the opposite direction, they could easily take the specs of their newly-bought computer and compare them to the Vista version they're checking out. And if they can't do the comparison themselves, there's about a million places online that will offer free help, as well as probably a dozen people in everybody's life who could advise them on this, from children and grandchildren to the IT Dept at work to the guy at the computer store to whatever.

Re:Certain?

[encoderer]

Exactly what I thought. Just a rabid anti-microsoft'er who can't see things objectively.

Your only issue with me is not that I LIKE microsoft (I'm 100% indifferent. They're just another brand name). Your issue is that I don't HATE Microsoft. And that taints every other part of your argument, even parts that may be correct.

Your opinion about Microsoft is no more valid than MICROSOFTS OPINION ABOUT THEMSELVES. In both cases, it's just propaganda.

That's the cost of being a fanboy or, it's grumpy opposite, the flameboy.

Re:Certain?

[encoderer]

I agree with everything you say.

First, you made an informed decision in regard to Vista and what was valuable in your own life. You took personal responsibility for your actions.

Second, You recognize the nuance in, just an example, my FAA license. You recognize that things shouldn't just be taken at face value to mean whatever you assume them to mean. You can, thru a bit of research, determine exactly what I'm qualified for.

And while you're right, there is no ability to look at the "Vista Compatible" badge itself and determine the salient details, the rest of the machines specs are, no doubt, within reach of the badge itself.

There's a very easy remedy to all this, and the remedy also works in THOUSANDS of other cases: Personal responsibility and Caveat Emptor.

I can't believe that people here are all "Wha? Marketing isn't completely obvious and i shouldn't believe ever spurious claim?! wha?!"

Re:Certain?

[toddestan]

I think a better analogy might be that my old 486 can run Linux, but it can't run the latest Ubuntu release.

I'm still a bit confused by all this anyway. I put Vista Ultimate on a laptop that didn't even meet the requirements for Home Basic. Guess what? It worked. Sure, I don't have features like Aero, but it did run.

Re:Certain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you to their web site, and browser the Vista pages, it is misleading. There a pages dedicated to footnotes, exceptions to system requirements, an A-V list of poorly documented version differences, etc. I still haven't found a page that describes what the "Core Experiences of Windows Vista", which they continually mention, even are. I agree that it's more confusing that it should be. When MS says "core experiences" on their Vista Capable page, they should link directly to their Vista Home Basic info pages.

From those pages, it's clear that the "core experiences" of Vista (a.k.a. Vista features included in Home Basic) include "Easier" features like:

• Instant Search
• Internet Explorer 7 with tabbed browsing (also backported to XP)
• Windows Sidebar and gadgets
• Windows Photo Gallery
• Windows Easy Transfer
• new performance self-tuning and diagnostics technologies
• Windows SuperFetch
• new self-healing technology
• new built-in diagnostics

The "core experiences" also include "Safer" features such as:

• Windows Defender (downloadable XP version also available)
• Internet Explorer dynamic security protection
• Internet Explorer anti-phishing technology
• Internet Explorer protected mode
• Parental Controls
• User Account Control
• basic backup features

HD Ready

[KlaymenDK]

Just like my shiny new "HD Ready" tv, for which I will nonetheless need a separate set-top-box when HDTV is eventually rolled out in my country...

Re:HD Ready

[markild]

More like: "HD Ready", as in not "Full HD"

Also, saying it is ready to show HD media does not imply it can receive your country's digital signals (of which there are several types). It's like saying your pc monitor sucks because you need a pc as well (cue for iMac uses to stfu).

Re:HD Ready

[Pojut]

Actually, that is EXACTLY what "HD Ready" means...it can accept a signal from an HD receiver box, process it, and display it in an "HD resolution".

If your TV isn't "HD Ready", that means that it cannot accept and HD signal from a box. If it is "HD Built-In", that means that the HD tuner is built-in to the TV (imagine that)

Re:HD Ready

[ozbird]

Actually, that is EXACTLY what "HD Ready" means...it can accept a signal from an HD receiver box, process it, and display it in an "HD resolution".

For some values of "HD resolution". The Wikipedia entry on "HD Ready" makes for interesting reading; it sound analogous to "Vista Capable" given the wriggle room for marketing weasels.

720p and 1080i are both "HD Ready", but if you want 1080i (Aero) you'd better read the fine print and specifications carefully or you could end up with a 720p (Basic) model.

The text and table differ as to whether 1080p is "HD Ready", but since there is a more specific "HD Ready 1080p" designation, that's what I would look for.

Re:HD Ready

[coolGuyZak]

given the wriggle room for marketing weasels.

I believe this is the main issue for the marketing industry. Marketers should present *facts* as straight-forward as possible. Vista Capable? How about "Vista capability score"? One star - Home Basic. Two Stars - Home Premium. Three Stars - Ultimate. Match the stars on the PC badge to the Vista box. The stars on the computer must be equal or greater than the stars on the OS. Fini.

There's still plenty of room for them, of course. Marketers can continue to expound on all things emotional, and convince me that I really do need 300 new features and an iPadd. (Looking at you, Apple)

Re:Exactly Right

[Andrewkov]

Yeah, but who is claiming the PC is able to run Vista? The PC manufacturer? Or is MS certifying that this model of PC is able to run Vista?

"capable"

[goldaryn]

Croft's explanation was that "'capable'... ...a PC would be able to run any version of the Windows operating system"

..Except ME, obviously.

XP computers, Vista Capable.

[Hektor_Troy]

Quite a lot of PCs were sold with XP and labled as Vista Capable.

This turns out to be a somewhat faulty statement, unless the manufacturer has made sure that there are Vista drivers for all the parts in the computer. Gets even better when the computer came with a voucher for Vista.

Not fun working in a hotline

Re:XP computers, Vista Capable.

[Chili-71]

... unless the manufacturer has made sure that there are Vista drivers for all the parts in the computer...
You may have hit the nail on the head: If the mfgr has drivers for Vista on their hardware, then the hardware MUST BE Vista ready. Right?

what Vista Capable really meant was...

[advocate_one]

only being able to boot the OS up... and that was it... just get it to show the basic desktop... not that you could do anything glitzy with it... launching any program would immediately mean thrashing the disk as the OS started swapping stuff out to make way for what you were trying to run...

however, it was only when you examined the small print on any advertisements for computers that you discovered this fact...

case in point, PCWorld staff would say when questioned about a basic vista capable computer that it was good for booting the OS...

here's what they were saying back in 2006...

"A system that will run Windows Vista may not be capable of using all of its features," he points out. For example, a machine branded "Windows Vista Capable" that is a high-end Media Center PC with superior graphics capabilities will be ready for even the most feature-intensive versions of Vista, Wilcox explains. But if it's a low-cost PC and it has a "Capable" sticker on it, "it will probably run the features of Home Basic but not anything else," he warns.

Vista is turning into Microsoft's "New Coke"

[Jim in Buffalo]

This whole Vista thing reminds me of "New Coke" back in the '80s. I don't think even Bill Cosby can turn this ship away from the rocks.

Re:Vista is turning into Microsoft's "New Coke"

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what are you saying... They'll toss "New Windows" around for a while and then finally go back to "Windows Classic". Meanwhile, they'll release "Diet Windows", using the desktop from "New Windows", but with a different kernel. Finally, years later, they'll come out with "Windows Zero" which features the desktop from "Windows Classic" and the kernel from "Diet Windows"?

(Considering how the "New Coke" flavor lived on as "Diet Coke", it's chilling to think how long Vista's ghost will remain.)

Re:Vista is turning into Microsoft's "New Coke"

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

Then, when everyone hates it, we'll bring back Windows Classic and make billions!

Re:Vista is turning into Microsoft's "New Coke"

[Firethorn]

You might have a point here...

Keep forcing system manufacturers to include Vista, not XP. Offer XP in stores for $99-299.

Extra money!

Car analogy

[timster]

Well, the obvious car analogy is all those pickups and SUVs sold with some "off-road package" or whatever, but which are entirely unsuited to off-road use beyond a dirt road or maybe a beach.

Any version of Windows?

[Cro Magnon]

I'm fairly sure my old 8088 could "run" Windows 2.0. Does that mean I can call it "Vista capable"?

Alternate proposal: ANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an alternate proposal. In order to simplify your suggestion (such as eliminating gender from the term, in case there's another Carly out there), I suggest using "Also Not A Lawyer".

(And might I be the first to tag the story ANAL.)

Maybe capable of running Vista, but not good at it

[scruffy]

I'm capable of doing many tasks, but not good at all of them. From the recent benchmarks discussed on Slashdot, it would appear that Vista-capable should be expanded to Vista-just-barely-capable

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vista-sp1-performance-dud.html

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/windows-xp-sp3-yields-performance-gains.html

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/update-re-testing-vista-w2gb-ram-office.html

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-to-make-vista-run-like-xp-sort-of.html

Linux Capable?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that BadAnalogyGuy has a good point.

Let's say someone buys a computer which says "Linux capable". This is a 386 with 4mb ram.
The user installs (or, tries to) the latest and greatest SuperDistro2000 which requires XGL, and the user can't run it. Who is wrong?

The fact that a "capable" (which usually means non-capable) computer can't run the more powerful crap isn't a problem. The problem is if Microsoft puts a LOCK to, for no real reason, lock people out and force them to use the dullier version even though their machine really IS fully capable of running perhaps even Ultimate.

Microsoft has a history of buying courts, fucking around with people, stealing ideas, applying for gazillions of patents and generally being one of the most disgusting companies in history, but in this case, it's only true of they put a LOCK. If the machine people buy really IS crap, then they shouldn't expect the latest and greatest to run very well, or at all.

And please stop generalizing men (or women for that case matter).

My 2c.

Hah, I even told them

[GregPK]

Mosaic people told them about this issue over 6 months before Vista released. The issue stems from consumer confusion. But they just simply said, "make sure that the retailers know what that sticker means". In this case, they sent out reps, brochures, pamphelets, web training, and made sure that we really got across the message of what vista capable meant. However, there was a sticker that came out a little later with black on it instead of gray. That was "premium ready".

The Message was throughly delivered in what Vista capable meant. Microsoft probably spent over a million dollars delivering that message across to the consumer and retailers. With the turnover rate of retail though. That message might be muddied by now.

Damn your right, excellent reading.

[SmallFurryCreature]

Good one, the premium listing does seem to suggest that you need an x86 processor but not for basic vista.

Bad me for automatically reading 800mhz cpu as x86.

Re:Exactly Right

[cheater512]

What I find amusing is that if Vista wasnt so bloated, it wouldnt be a issue.

Capable...

[Handlarn]

Who would even want to get an OS that has a "your computer is capable of running our OS" campaign going? The word "capable" just hints that the requirements are so high just for the damn OS that I begin to wonder how much power I'll have left when my "Vista capable" machine has loaded the OS.

No, I prefer an OS that my computer is not only capable of running, but can run with flying colors.

Pot-Kettle

[Archangel Michael]

This from a nick of "SmallFurryCreature" ....

more stickers

[BlackSnake112]

Now we are going to have a vista home capable, vista home premium capable, vista enterprise capable, vista ultimate capable stickers. Don't forget the 32 bit and 64 bit version stickers as well. Then we will start seeing people talking about how many 'capable' stickers their computer came with. More stickers == more power. More stickers on your car does not make it go faster. But more vista capable stickers that come on your computer might mean it is faster.

No one was in baseball caps, either.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Screw this! I wanna know when Toshiba and the like are going to go to jail for selling actual laptops with Vista on it with 436M of RAM (512 - 64M for on-board video RAM :rollseyes: )

Oh, a lawyer will say it technically runs, if you don't mind waiting 10 minutes for full startup, and 2 minutes to open Explorer since the HDD is 100% utilized 100% of the time.

Re:No one was in baseball caps, either.

[geekoid]

The laptop seems to be within the specs listed by MS. Toshiba isn't at fault there.

Thank you, Captain Literal

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy your trip down the rabbit hole.

Vista's biting everyone in the ass

[Eil]

I have some first-hand experience with this. I advised my mum to get a new Lenovo computer as her previous machine was beginning to show its age. She bought it at the store, brought it home, and it was immediately unusable out of the box. Most of her old programs didn't work, lots of her peripherals didn't have drivers, and it took minutes to boot while around 30 seconds just to wake up from suspend.

She called me asking for help and I asked her what OS came with it... Vista, of course. I tried to walk her though turning off all the fancy graphics options and services, but even with most of the OS disabled, it was still several times slower than the machine it was meant to replace. I took the weekend off to drive up to her place and install Windows XP on it and everything works perfectly now. Nice and quick, the drivers work fine, and so does all of her old software.

Now, this is admittedly a low-end desktop machine, but Lenovo had no business pre-installing Vista on the thing when Vista is clearly and practically unusable on it. Though I loathe nearly every aspect of Vista and the fact that it works with practically nothing even after being on the market for over year, I have to blame Lenovo more than Microsoft here, since it was ultimately their decision to put Vista on a machine that was clearly not designed for it.

Re:Vista's biting everyone in the ass

[Cro Magnon]

A few months ago my GF's sister asked me about a Vista machine with 512M RAM. I told her flat out that it would be a bad idea to buy that, and expressed my opinion that the vendor should probably be subjected to various tortures for putting Vista on such an underpowered box.

Re:Vista's biting everyone in the ass

[laffer1]

Vista doesn't boot slowly if you have enough RAM. I had it working on a Pentium D 805 with 2.5GB of RAM, 250GB sata hdd and a 7300GS in January. I have since upgraded the cpu to a core 2 duo 2.13Ghz (forget the model.. 4MB cache version), ati x1900, and attempted a memory upgrade to 4GB.

Disaster struck with the memory upgrade. Vista got incredibly slow. It took 22minutes to get to the desktop! The CPU was constantly spiked and I couldn't find out what was using it. TrustedInstaller.exe and a svchost process were using one of the cores, but the other core was an unknown. I'm running x64 vista ultimate so it should be able to handle 4GB of ram on an intel DP965LT motherboard. (it's capable of 8GB max) The memory tested good after 10 hours using memtest. Vista froze up and upon reboot I had no boot sector. Using a vista DVD, i was able to repair the NTFS volume, but the OS is no longer bootable or repairable. At this very moment I'm copying my iTunes videos off the drive using an ubuntu live cd to a Mac running samba.

It's certainly possible something happened with the hard drive or ram, but midnightbsd and ubuntu are working fine so I doubt it's the ram.

I'm an unhappy Vista user. Then again I only bought it for gaming which sucks on it. I'm starting to understand the XP fanboys. (for gaming)

Re:Exactly Right

[PitaBred]

MS certified it and put forward the requirements to be Vista Capable. It's not the manufacturer's fault.

Just one problem

[Weaselmancer]

It comes on 4 DVDs.

Re:Exactly Right

[rtechie]

Bullshit. The manufacturers put the "Vista Capable" sticker on EVERY PC they sold after a certain date in October. Dell, for example, didn't bother to test at all. They knew full well that a 1Ghz CPU, 512 MB of memory, and embedded graphics would give users a lousy experience (even without Aero) and didn't care. They simply wanted to save money, period. About the only way you can blame Microsoft is that they should have made Aero support a requirement for the "Vista Capable" logo, and they DID initially, but they removed that requirement due to pushback from the manufacturers instead switching to two different logos. The we specifically NOT ALLOWED by the manufacturers to put the words "Vista Basic Ready" (the terminology they WANTED to use) on the systems that did not support Aero because the manufacturers whined that they were still technically capable of running Premium.

Microsoft did not mislead anyone

[RecycledElectrons]

It is impossible for Microsoft's lies about VISTA to have mislead anyone - we remember their past lies so well, that anyone using their software gets exactly what they deserve.

Andy Out!

Re:Exactly Right

[Hyperspite]

Wait, you actually work for MS? And you aren't afraid to post on /.? Mad props dude.

Just...

[Anonymous Coward]

upgrade to Windows for Workgroups 3.11, it boots *MUCH* faster and it runs solitaire just perfect!

depends on what you mean by capable

[CyberdogOSX]

i did not have sex with that operating system

Re:depends on what you mean by capable

[shentino]

Nice one there, I almost split my sides open. *stops to laugh for another minute...literally* Don't be so funny, I could die laughing.