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
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?
Um, I didn't see you at the meeting, but it was decided that moving from XP to Vista is a downgrade, not an upgrade.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Judge granted a class action status to a lawsuit of customers against a company selling an "under a thousand dollars" TV for $999.95
I've used Linux for some years now, and almost every time I try to run a program with WINE, I get surprised at how well it actually works. There are bugs, of course, but I find that WINE is an exceptional piece of software and it works well with a lot of things...
A proud member of the Onion-in-Hand alliance
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!
Wine gets a new release out just about every two weeks, consistently. I'd say that's pretty fast, and you could always just CVS/SVN/whatever they're using.
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.
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.
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
No, but they do expect to be able to use all features. My laptop is Vista Capable (bought it because of the sticker, but not for the reasons you might think), but it cannot run Aero. Hence, it cannot run Vista Ultimate with all features on, hence you can't really call it "Vista Capable".
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
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".
Why not? Taking the definition of capable ("Permitting an action to be performed" or "Having capacity or ability") then can your machine run Vista? No, not "can it run Vista with all the flashy bits", but can it run Vista without falling in a heap? (Excluding any normal Windows crashes but instead aiming at "will it install and run and be functional to some degree")
Okay, so it is slightly under-handed to make people expect Aero when they're going to get core Vista, but that's just marketing. I'm sure there would have been machines around the release of XP that could handle old-style window decorations but not the fancy MS themes as well (which was potentially a blessing with the XP windows) and this is the same situation - you can run the OS, your machine is capable of running the core OS, it just isn't capable of eye candy.
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.
Well, that's just shows that the problem is their version policy, isn't it? The fact that "Vista" is an encompassing brandname for a whole bunch of different OSes with different capabilities makes it extremely hard to say what "Vista" is. As anyone, I'd expect it to meet the requirements to run "Vista Ultimate" with everything on, because it's "Vista".
It's not "just marketing", it is plainly misleading... that's the whole problem. I run Linux on mine anyway, and that was the reason I bought it. The sticker to me meant, "Cheap computer where I can run Linux on". ;-)
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
No, that's a problem with the customer's assumption of the version policy ;) I wouldn't touch Vista anyway (my wife has it on her laptop and it is okay but not great) but if I saw "Vista capable" I would read it as "it is about capable of running Vista". If I saw "Vista Ready" then I'd read it as "it can handle more Vista or be decently quick while doing it" and if I saw "Vista Premium Ready" then I'd assume it could run Ultimate with everything.
Vista Ultimate isn't Vista. The lowest common denominator of all versions of Vista is Vista. That means Vista Home Basic is Vista, where as everything else is "Vista plus extras". Yes, the multiple versions made it worse, but then how can half a dozen or more versions ever make it better?
Give it time, Google is already paying for work on getting Photoshop to run better in it. You might also check out Xen or VMware. Having helped a number of friends and customers migrate to SuSE (now pre-installed by Lenovo) and Ubuntu (now pre-installed by Dell), I'm impressed at the advances being made in desktop GNU/Linux.
Back to the main topic, though, at least for a moment: Personally, I'm glad to hear that the class action status was approved; Microsoft needs to be smacked into not deliberately misleading customers into thinking a product will do ____ when it clearly won't. (See also PlaysForSure on Zune.) I only know one person who actually seems to like Vista, and it's mostly because he doesn't realize that his >$900 laptop doesn't need to run like Gnome on a sub-600MHz Pentium.
Aaah, but you forger one thing: you are an informed customer. (Just as I am, I knew 100% what I was getting) Computers and IT is most probably your job (just as it is mine) and we simply have to know these things. However, Joe Sixpack doesn't have these advantages.
It's sometimes very hard to think as someone not in our trade. Also, it was very unclear (at the point when those computers were sold) what target version would actually run.
Oh, and for the record: I have never see "Vista Ready" stickers. Do they even exist? I peel the stickers from my computers upon purchase. I don't understand why people what those ugly stickers on their machines. Yuck....
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
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
But the important point is why did Joe Sixpack expect to run everything including all of the flashy bits? Does Joe Sixpack expect to buy any game off the shelf (including Crysis) and run it on full res with all of the effects or does he expect to have to make do with older games/lower settings? And even if he does buy it and not get full, doesn't he get effectively laughed out of the shop and told "I'm sorry sir, but it has minimum requirements listed"?
I don't know much about cars, but if I saw "150mph capable" on a Fiat Punto then I'd think "yeah, maybe on a test track but I'm never getting that in real life, I'll make do with the realistic 70mph on the motorway". Or on a plane you see "two mile altitude capable" (or something huge - I don't know flight altitudes) and you expect that you're going to need oxygen and might struggle at it (if you can ever make it) because conditions will need to be right and the marketing/testing people will have pushed it right to the edge to make it seem better.
I'm having problems with analogies here as nothing is quite the same. With software it is easy to have a core and then have additional features, but real-world equipment that I have less expertise in is more absolute.
As for Vista Ready, IIRC they came out first and the company my dad works at bought some (they develop software so they had to check how badly Vista broke it).
Reminds me of Microsoft Works
Two different things: in one case he gets hardware with the promise that the software will run, with the latter, he buys software and disregarded the minimum system requirements. Quite a difference.... It's the "promise" that hasn't been held. Since we're now in bad-car-analogies (which I have been trying to avoid, buy you started it), it's a bit like buying a car and getting the promise that you will be able to run it on ethanol when ethanol is "released". However, when ethanol is "released", you notice that in reality all you can do is run E15. They didn't lie, you can run it on ethanol, you just need 85% of regular gas anyway.
As said, I've been trying to avoid car analogies because at this point, I'm simply going to say: yes, I would expect that Punto to run 150mph on a motorway. I have a 247kmh rated car, and I did that, on a motorway. I would have been extremely disappointed if it wouldn't hold up. My wife has a more reasonable car, and I think it's rated 170kmh. I haven't tested it yet, but on clear roads 170kmh is easy to attain. You don't do this crap when there is much traffic *and* you damn well hope that there are no cops underway or your license is bust.
My second car was capable of 200kmh, you only needed 10minutes to attain it. ;-) However, it did it.... With Vista, Aero will simply not run. Not even at 1fps. I hope you see the difference.
Anyway, gotta run.... 't was nice arguing with you.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
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
Okay, so it was the other way around. To be a bit more accurate it is like buying a PC labelled "Crysis capable" and then trying to sue when you find "capable" means "it can run it, but without full detail, without maximum resolution, without bloom lighting effects etc". You're still capable of running it, just not with all of the flash (only in this case you didn't shell out a larger amount for the game without trying to understand what you're getting, which I don't think most of these people are doing).
Or, one I'm slightly more familiar with, it is like if Bethesda had incorporated an equivalent of the Old-blivion mod into their game so that graphics cards without the later Pixel Shader 2 technology could run it and then someone had sold "Oblivion capable" machines. An older and slower graphics would still be capable of running the Old-blivion version, but you wouldn't get all of the enhancements from the later technologies. I think some DirectX 10 stuff may be similar.
As for the car analogy, sorry, but it had to get in somewhere! I still think that there would be cars that are listed at a certain speed that wouldn't normally be possible (close, perhaps, but not exact). If you're testing a car and getting numbers for stats for it then you would (amongst other things) get optimal track conditions, ensure the car is perfectly tuned, fit the best tyres, tweak any performance that doesn't involve overhauling the engine, put in just enough of the highest grade fuel, etc. Once you've done that then you're still using the car you're selling, but in real world conditions then you need the same 'upgrades' to get what the marketing people want you to think you're getting (if you take a naive interpretation).
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.
The stickers only mentioned Vista. Nothing about Basic. The FTC had ordered msft in 2001 not to engage in such deceptive practices. Why would anybody assume that "Vista" does not mean "Vista" ?
What is hard to understand? It's like advertising that a car will 40mpg, and "forgetting" to mention that only applies if the car is going down a steep hill.
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?
You lie.
Vista, and XP both play DVDs out of the box. My shiny Ubuntu install wont do that.
I know some of that has to be politics. I tried to change the defaults of XEmacs that I hated the most and well, I got a lot of rotten fruit and other unmentionable things sent my way.
I also do not know what these guys who are suing are thinking of. Even the Microsoft fanbois who post here admit that initial releases are always buggier and slower than previous ones and the wise wait until SP2 to "upgrade".
Don't be condescending - I've used linux since my first install of RH 5.0. I've compiled from the ground up. I'd be prepared to pit my qualifications against yours.
'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.
You lie.
Neither Vista or XP do so without 3rd party software.
Jeruvy
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.
Not sure about VISTA. But, take XP PRO SP2. DVD playback software? No, not on the distribution CD. I installed something I purchased called "Power DVD".
Linux (Fedora) at least had something I could download for free ("non-free" programs, a version of mplayer that plays DVDs). Power DVD actually cost me real money.
Now, I suspect that HP/Dell/??? supplies that DVD software with the computer (along with a bunch of other software). I, however, started with a retail copy of XP PRO SP2.
I cannot comment on VISTA at this time...
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061