Slashdot Mirror
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'."
Posting from my linux machine, because my new vista capable computer still hasn't completed booting since I bought it back in Aug.
I read the article and still don't get it. Who is claiming what and why is there a lawsuit against Microsoft.
When I was at University, someone I knew had a computer that was capable of running Windows 95.
She was using a 486.
Summation 2
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.
He Is Not A Lawyer.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
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.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
... your own marketing director has no clue about the product he is actually trying to market. Who comes up with those stickers, anyways?
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.
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
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:
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:
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
We are getting closer and closer to the day where I actually feel sorry for Microsoft.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
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...
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?
Yes, I am the one with the legendary sig.
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...
"Good news, everyone!"
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?
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.
I'm fairly sure my old 8088 could "run" Windows 2.0. Does that mean I can call it "Vista capable"?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
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..."
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
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!
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
It comes on 4 DVDs.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.