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