Slashdot Mirror
"Vista Capable" Lawsuit Is Now a Class Action
An anonymous reader notes an update in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporting that the lawsuit against Microsoft's "Windows Vista Capable" marketing campaign has been granted class-action status. We discussed the company's internal misgivings with this campaign a while back. The suit alleges that "...Microsoft unjustly enriched itself by promoting PCs as 'Windows Vista Capable' even when they could only run a bare-bones version of the operating system, called 'Vista Home Basic.'" In the 2006 pre-holiday season, Microsoft had placed "Windows Vista Capable" stickers on machines to keep the sale of Windows XP machines going after Vista was delayed. Microsoft didn't lose out totally in the recent ruling — the article notes that the judge "narrowed the basis on which plaintiffs could move forward with their claims."
Hey, can we really complain that much? They pushed XP right before Vista came out. That means because of that, more people are running XP instead of Vista. How many people do you think really upgraded? And if they did they probably went back to their valid copy of XP after that.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Just barely Vista Capable machines crash with Vista just as quickly as fully maxed out speed demons do. Sometimes faster!
This space available.
Since when is Microsoft selling PC's? Or did they send someone around to go put those stickers on the machines?
I'd have thought the hardware manufacturers would be the ones who didn't want sales to fall.
I remember the same sort of campaign when XP came out. The laptop I bought then had an "XP capable" (or something that sounded similar) sticker on the box, even though it came with ME installed and with a voucher for a cheap XP Home upgrade when it came out. After having upgraded it and having seen the performance under XP, I reformatted it and downgraded. Not to ME, but to Win2000, which it still runs fine.
I hate class action suits. They do next to no good for the consumer save for putting a couple (literally) bucks in the pocket, benefit lawyers almost exclusively and in the end make products cost more. I hate Vista, and I don't care for (and therefor do not use the products produced by) Microsoft but this is going to do little good in the long run.
Vista means view. Nothing in the name about running anything, stability, or whatnot. Narf.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Link is MyMiniCity, please treat post with utter disregard and contempt.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
Anyone else notice it never said it was only "Windows Vista Home Basic capable"
Consumers see these kind of campaigns in every market. From what I recall when ordering computers and operating systems, Microsoft makes it really clear what features each version has and what you need to run that version.
All it tells me is my 'Flash version is outdated.'
It's usually a good thing to run a platform that flash is unsupported on.
What did I miss this time?
I have decided I won't be upgrading from XP to VISTA. When my XP usefullness starts to decline I am moving to Linux. I just hope WINE gets updated faster than it does now.
It runs something even better than Vista... XP. And even better still, you can always install Linux :-)
Judge granted a class action status to a lawsuit of customers against a company selling an "under a thousand dollars" TV for $999.95
What ever happened to researching products before buying them? Is the average consumer so strapped for time that they just purchase the first product to fall under their gaze? My point is that Microsoft had made available information regarding these 'Vista capable' stickers before they started showing up (http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2006/3/31/3421.) The stickers say "Designed for Windows XP", Goddamnit!
From the submission:
In the 2006 pre-holiday season,Yeah, that's real specific. How many holidays are there in a calendar year? And the 'pre' means any non-specific period of time before one of those, just wish the editors could have narrowed down to which one. Any particular reason why whichever holiday was being referenced just wasn't mentioned by name? Anyone? Bueller?
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
1. Honey, should we buy a new computer now?
2. No, Vista is about to come out, we should wait.
3. But this computer over here says "Vista Capable" on it.. we can upgrade when Vista comes out.
4. Ok, let's trust the advertising and buy now.
5. [time passes]
6. [more time passes]
7. [yet, MORE time passes]
8. Honey, Vista has finally come out.
9. You're fucking with me.
10. No really! Let's upgrade.
11. Ok, which of the 400 versions of Vista should we upgrade to?
12. Oh, seems that our machine can only run Vista Basic.
13. Those bastards!! Call the lawyers.
14. Meanwhile, the rest of the world makes it blatantly obvious that *all* version of Vista blow, not just Basic.
15. ???
16. Profit.
This did not really happen.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Microsoft is being sued for something that basically amounts for false advertising over "Windows Vista Capable"...when do we get to sue for false advertising on "enhanced security features"? The only bit they enhanced was the DRM - oh, right, and the annoying pop-up factor. And I thought AOL was dead. Seriously, Vista receives worse press than Bush. Let's take some REAL action here.
After making consumers buy such crap software, Microsoft should have to pay for any PC that only supports that POS OS that is vista....
Recently bought a laptop that came with vita home premium. Look at the "Windows Experience Index", and am getting about 60 percent of what I could be. Brand new laptop, meets all recommended requirements (except video card) for vista ultimate, and I still only get a 60%. I also see computers that are less than a quarter as powerful as that laptop being sold with vista on them. There should be at least a minimum spec increase to certify the hardware as vista enabled. Like you can run XP Pro on as low as a 233 MHz core, with 128 Mb ram, and 1.5 GB of hard drive. It will run, just about as fast as the mold growing in Antarctica. It runs, but you can't do more than idle without it freezing up on you. Therefore, in my opinion, you should change the minimum system requirements so that you could at least open notepad within 5 minutes.
The summary states: ..."
..."
"In the 2006 pre-holiday season, Microsoft had placed "Windows Vista Capable" stickers on machines
The article does NOT say this. Rather, it says:
"The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the 2006 holiday shopping season
Microsoft does not put stickers on the computers, hardware vendors do.
Why do the editors modify the summary, with false information? Is this just to get hits on Slashdot for this story?
I realize that Microsoft bashing is popular on Slashdot, but when people have to resort to bullshit and lies...
There are so many things in this world that fall into this similar pattern, but it's always (mostly) MS that gets hit with it. It annoys me, because the judges that OK these lawsuits don't have a clue about technology (mostly) and are making decisions based on guesses and their 'gut feeling' that day. It scares me because these same judges are dismissing real law, or not allowing things into the courtroom, arbitrarily (and again, depending on their mood)... As an example, I recently purchased a car stereo. It states clearly on the box that it's HD Radio Ready. It doesn't mention that I have to purchase equipment from the same manufacturer, which costs at least 50% more. It's also iPod capable (I don't own an iPod, and haven't tested this feature), but the cable is sold seperately. Another example would be car manufacturers...I've never tested whether my vehicle does 0-60 in 9 seconds, but no one would dream of taking Chrysler, Chevrolet or any of them to task for their obvious failings. I have to admit that I prefer MS products to any of the other OS flavors out there, so I may be a little biased. I just wish everyone would go about their business and leave the lawyers to find new jobs!!
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/07/1911213
"PC World ran the final version of Windows Vista SP1 through a first set of tests last night. Here's the bottom line: 'File copying, one of the main performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly faster. But other tests showed little improvement and, in two tests, our experience was actually a little better without the service pack installed than with it.'"
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
The whole point of me (and maybe some of us) searching for alternatives (OS/2 etc.) and eventually come to know and use Linux is that I (and perhaps others) find "Windows capable" a lie -- not just Vista.
How many did not feel frustrated remembering an old computer could do things a Windows one could not? How many didn't feel restrained by having a tumor-growth-like GUI posing as OS? In which you have to use an entire application to change OS settings? In which capabilities are not available on a system-wide basis but only in a few special apps? In which implementations were weak because no developer could have access to "undocumented" (i.e., secret) features? In which there were taps permitting eavesdropping by some foreign (i.e. American) institution? In which one had to forcefully pirate an app, not because of money but because there was simply NO simple way of paying (paypal and credit card buying didn't exist then)?
And the most evil one: one situation where one does not want to pirate -- that is, violate copyrights -- and everybody does it, because the software maker clearly benefits from the net marketing, and so the one who wants to abide by the law is actually deemed a fool.
It has been argued over and over that a new Windows version is a way of pushing newer hardware onto customers thus effectively sucking their pocket's money. And you know what?
I think I myself warned about these things a thousand times -- only to be scorned. Now Microsoft could walk free from this, IMO, because they can safely say everyone has been warned about all that.
If you were fooled and misled, it's all your fault. Don't blame the lion if you get into its jail and put your head into his mouth. I actually get angry at those people who complain about Vista; I think it's only fair that they lose their money -- no, they should be fined for wasting public money by using justice after choosing themselves to believe in vendor propaganda while calling us "zealots".
Vista Home Basic is basically Vista minus Areo.
So directly comparable to Windows XP Home. It's for people that don't have 3d acceleration, but want the rest.
Therefore it's still Vista, and Vista 'capable' seems like a reasonable tag for me.
throw new NoSignatureException();
I don't understand how this lawsuit will get anywhere. The case is arguing that computers that have Vista Capable logos on them CAN run Vista.
Vista Home Basic is Vista, just a very stripped down version.
If this lawsuit wins, I think I'll need to go and sue EA because my computer meets the minimum sysreqs for Crysis, but it runs poorly at Very High and looks bad at Low.
That is moderated insightful?
This Slashdot story is part of the complaining about Microsoft's abusiveness, and so is the class-action lawsuit. At present, Windows 2000 will be completely killed on 7/13/2010. However, that is only because people complained intensely. The original death date for Windows 2000 Professional was 2007. That's why it is so important to complain.
See a quote from this comment on an earlier Slashdot story: "Microsoft's customers were forced to upgrade to Windows XP because Windows 98 had an unstable file system, an unstable registry, and lots of problems with "DLL Hell" and the "Blue Screen of Death"." There were things that could have been done to make the FAT file system more stable, and Microsoft didn't do that.
Windows 2000 Professional represents a plateau of usefulness. However, most corporations moved from Windows 95 or Windows 98 to Windows XP.
Later in the thread mentioned above, there is another comment with a quote from a December 2003 Seclists article about corporate Windows users: "Inventory data of more than 372,000 PCs - from some 670 companies with between 10 and 49,000 employees - found that more than 80 percent of these companies were still using Windows 98 and/or Windows 95."
The Slashdot moderation system allows moderation only from those who have no interest in participating in the conversation about a story. That brings a lot of moderators to stories in which they have no interest. They simply look for a place to unload their moderation points. Moderators are likely to be ignorant about the issues being discussed.
I don't actually have the Crysis box but every game I seen with a minimum set of requirements on it ALSO listed a recommended spec.
MS with this Vista advertising campaign made a simple mistake, they designed a sticker that was not clear enough about what was promised.
With PC games, a reasonable person would assume that if you see who different specs then it is obvious that this means that the game will look perform less well on this lower hardware. You would only expect it to run well on the recommended spec.
MS left this out, they basically said "This PC can run Vista". No further explenation was given. It is clear how unclear this was by the fact that MS later added extra information on its website to explain what it meant.
Basically MS screwed up. Now it is for the legal to decide wether people should have known better, wether this is all just a simple misunderstanding or wether MS is guilty of false advertising. Considering MS own people have had doubts during the development of this campaign I think MS has a case to answer.
Advertisers always push the truth as far as it can go. Remember the claims that linux can run on a 386? Why sure it can. The kernel. Run a full distro on it and prepare for slideshow hell. Run windows on the minimum amount of memory? Sure you can, just hope you never have to anything remotely tasking.
It is possible that MS marketting went to far in this case. They could have put on the sticker "This PC is Vista Basic ready". They didn't. They didn't for the simple reason that this would have been less attractive to consumers. Personally I think truth is important, yes "The PC is Vista ready" is the truth, but "This PC is Vista Basic ready" is the greater truth. Sometimes even when you are telling the truth you can be lying.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I bought a computer with a "Vista Capable" sticker, which had only 512 MB of RAM. Now, according to Dell, such a configuration is "Great for... Booting the Operating System, without running applications or games".
Which, incidentally, was pretty much all I could do.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
This is absurd. With people behind idiotic lawsuits like this, they have no reason to bitch about costs going up! -Should I sue if I can't install VISTA at all, and it claimed to be VISTA capable, yes -Should I sue because I choose to buy a cheap $600 model and expect that I get all the performance that a $1200 + one has... hell the F* no! There's no common sense behind this in my opinion.
Why not just put a "Turing Machine!!!" sticker on the computer, saying that it can theoretically run any software, via emulation, if you are willing to wait long enough.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Reminds me of Microsoft Works
home can not server up itself under remote desktop.
perhaps not a majority, or even 10% but significant numbers of people would like the ability to rdc into their home machine from work or on the road.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Not too long ago, I decided to install MacOS 10.4 on a crappy little test machine at work, an old 400mhz G4. I was expecting very cut-down graphics and little-to-no effects, but the ancient thing actually picked up my widescreen LCD's native resolution (something Windows still struggles with), and all the smooth eye-candy was intact. Windows slide and fade in and out of view, transparency works like a charm, even the dashboard runs pretty smoothly (slight stuttering during the fade, but nothing terrible).
So why is it that a stinky old 400mhz dinosaur running MacOS can run smoother than a bleeding-edge quad-core dual-graphics beast running Vista ? My graphics cards' pixel shaders could probably emulate that 400mhz Mac faster than real-time.
Microsoft really screwed up with Aero Glass. Vista itself might eventually become a decent shell, just like XP did after SP1/2, but Aero Glass will always suck.
Teenagers in the 90's were writing slicker graphics demos on 486'es than what Vista does on a C2Quad.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
... that the judge orders Microsoft to do all testing for all versions of Vista and all versions of the next OS they market on these computers they identify as "Vista Capable".
It would never happen. Microsoft will test the next OS home version on dual-socket octal-core 4-GHz 64-bit processesors with 16-GB RAM and 4-way RAID-0 SATA-6 drive arrays.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
This may seem stupid, but what is wrong with the "Vista Capable" sticker? The machines could still run vista technically (Yes, only Home Basic, but it's still technically Vista)... Is the qualm that the advert misled consumers into thinking "Vista Capable" meant that they could run Ultimate?
Surely consumers know the different between a bottom line PC that can only run a bottom line OS and a £700/$1400 PC that can run a top of the line OS (although calling Vista Ultimate that is debatable)
I just don't see the issue here, they *could* technically still run Vista, and I'm in no way a fan of Microsoft, I just don't see the issue.
> Not all Vista users are to be blamed. I had absolutely no choice of OS when I got my laptop, I insisted on having XP and HP didn't even reply.
These days Linux does everything Windows does. Ok, in a different way but it does.
It has the same capabilities, people even criticize KDE for being too Windows-like and Gnome for trying to outpace MAC OS X.
And everyone has been warned of this, but most choose to throw money through the window (literally) and then complain about what they'd paid for doesn't work? When it wasn't necessary to even pay for it right from the start?
Well, let me tell you... sit on your corner and start the mantra "you get what you pay for" until the next Windows version comes up. It's bull, but at least it's more effective than complaining.
If you don't want to learn something a little different, you're painting yourself into a corner.
Now, how on Earth is this not your fault?
It's just the old blame-shifting game: if anybody is deceived by msft, it is the fault of the deceived for being stupid. It is never msft's fault.
Sure, the stickers only mentioned Vista. Nothing about Basic. Never mind that the FTC had ordered msft in 2001 not to engage in such deceptive practices.
Honesty is too much to expect from msft. Any msft shill will tell you that. Msft advocates seem to believe that msft should be allowed to lie. According the msft advocates, that is just good 'ol American capitalism. Anybody who objects to msft's standard behavior of lying, cheating, ballot-stuffing, bribing, legal-system abusing, bogus patent filing, FUDding, and so on; is obviously an a commie, anti-American, anti-capitalism, and so on.
By my recollection, you need a computer built more than five years after the Windows OS you want to run. My 2007 work PC still struggles a little with XP. The Windows Vista Capable program should have started in 2011.
Microsoft has lost several court cases on multiple continents over it's unfair business practices and various consumer frauds. to put it into terms of a natural person, it's out on probation. Would you buy a car from someone who's currently on probation for crimes in connection with selling cars?
MS has piles of money and STILL hasn't been able to buy it's way entirely out of trouble even though the prosecution has mysteriously torpedoed itself more than once. They're like the richest man in town that everyone knows has been involved in a lot more crime than he has been convicted of. Many companies known to be doing deals with MS have mysteriously been found dead shortly after.
My advice? Don't marry O.J., don't join Charles Manson's social club, don't borrow money from anyone nicknamed "the butcher" or "the hammer", and don't do business with Microsoft!
If you don't have time to mess with the above, sell the Vista laptop and buy a Mac (or buy a quality preinstalled Linux - but they cost as much as Mac).
They could just install a copy of Linux. Far less heartache.
OK, I am getting tired of this. I am an IT profesional and I work closely with Vista. I know for a fact that the vast majority of people who complain about Vista are completely wrong. Vista does not crash more, it is compatible with anything, (If you think something is not compatible, try running it in "Compatibility Mode"). These machines have no problem runing a bare-bones Vista, the problem only comes when people start trying to run the sidebar, run areo, and God forbide, they surf the web unsafely and their rig gets bogged down with spyware. VISTA WORKS GET OVER IT!
How to get a better working computer:
If the computer you bought doesn't work to your satisfaction, return it to where you bought it, and raise hell until you get a refund!
Remember, you're not Microsoft's customer, You're Dell's, Walmart's, Target's, Best Buy's, whoever you bought the computer from's customer.
THEY are Microsoft's customers. If THEY have to keep refunding THEIR sales, THEY will raise hell with Microsoft, and then Microsoft will either listen, or THEY will switch vendors.
(Notice how many computers ARE being sold with other operating systems now as opposed to say, five years ago? it's actually working the way it is supposed to be!)
As to "OH NOES, but what will I do without a new computer?" Well. wasn't the old one working better than the new one you're complaining about? Use it until you find one that actually works better!
This has been a public service message to Joe and Jill Sixpack. Reminding you that you DO have the right to a full refund if a product doesn't work. No need for a lawyer at all!
The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
Take a look at Dell's web site. Not sure when they started doing it, but they have warning tags in red against the cheaper versions of Vista describing some of the limitations. A machine running Vista home basic seems to be entirely incapable of sharing files with XP (professional and home) machines on the same network (even after wasting the best part of half a day reading Microsoft solution web pages, downloading LLTD, making the workgroup names match, setting Vista to private network mode, etc.)
Nobody is saying that Vista doesn't work. The problem is that msft is advertising computers as being "vista ready" when those particular computers are not vista ready.
> If the computer you bought doesn't work to your satisfaction, return it to where you bought it, and raise hell until you get a refund!
Raise hell all you want, the store may not give you a refund. They may only offer an exchange for the same model, or store credit, or they may not do anything for you.
What if everything was working until you installed Vista's new service pack?
What if you bought an XP that was advertised as "Vista Ready" then you bought Vista, but it did not work, do you think any store will accept opened software?
If msft is making it a standard practice to claim that computer are "Vista Ready" when the computers are not "Vista Ready" then msft certainly deserves to be sued.
Protecting the public from scams is exactly the sort of thing the legal system was designed to do. If msft is lying about PCs being "Vista Ready" then msft certainly deserves to be sued.
If you want some example of genuine wasteful abuse of the legal system consider:
1) The msft sponsored scox-scam, soon to be in it's sixth year. Scox never even owned UNIX, scox never had any case what-so-ever.
2) The acacia lawsuit against redhat. Another case loaded with msft involvement.
You buy a car that is said to get 40mpg. Then you find that somebody neglected to tell that is only if the car is going down a steep hill. Is that really honest?
'User Friendly' nailed it almost 2 years ago! http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20060404 User Friendly Cartoon of April 4,2006
V for Vendetta: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
Ruler. Penis. Done. And don't start with all the "Which do we measure, the underside or top?" stuff.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.