Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Moves To Quash Case, End E-mail Revelations
CWmike writes "Microsoft asked a federal judge yesterday to end the class-action lawsuit that has been the source of a treasure trove of embarrassing insider e-mails covering everything from managers badmouthing Intel to others on who worried how Vista would be compared to Apple's Mac OS X in 2005. In seeking to end the case, Microsoft argues the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the lowest-priced version of Windows Vista was not the 'real' Vista, or showed that users paid more for PCs prior to the new operating system's launch because of the Vista Capable campaign."
Your obvious bias aside, this is a court case that is trying to prove that Microsoft has misled customers to their detriment. They haven't yet tried to prove there is any detriment to the consumer, and are struggling to prove that they were being deliberately misleading.
I'm not sure why you'd think going to Apple would be any better. You get the exact same business tactics, just a slightly more stylish computer.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
I worked retail during the period "Vista ready" hit the shelves and only a very small handful of machines meet what our team of salespeople would consider to be truly capable of running vista. The whole thing was a total scam to sell as many computers as possible during the typical iteration lull; when a new product is about to release, nobody typically wants the old one. The seriously funny part of Vista's release is how few people wanted it, but MSFT acted like everyone was going to love it, thus proving how out of touch they are with reality. The new Seinfeld ads prove this to be true. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
...of selectively disabling features in a software product and selling a product at a lower price. It's a bit different for things in the real world, where there's a real physical cost involved with adding extra do-dads and features to products. But in software, it's just flipping a few bits to remove features you've already developed. The crazy thing is, it actually costs *more* to do this, as the company now has multiple versions of the product to package, distribute, and support.
I'd much prefer the game industry's model of "premium versions" of a game containing extra bonuses. The core product is the same, but if you want to pay for it, you can get a few extras, maybe a "making of" DVD, or a CD containing the soundtrack, books and figurines, stuff like that.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I sincerely hope MS get their feet held to the fire over this.
As an ex-IBMer, I have wondered for years why Microsoft is not drowning in antitrust cases (or the modern fashionable class actions). For the 13 years the second A-T case against IBM ran, every employee signed off the Business Conduct Guidelines every year, and knew that a breach of the BCG was cause for instant dismissal.
MS doesn't seem to think unethical behaviour is even noticed.
"Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
"The evidence refutes Plaintiffs' claims that Windows Vista Home Basic cannot 'fairly' be called Windows Vista," Microsoft said in the motion for summary judgment.
And yet their own internal communications talk about what a piece of crap it is, and how the "Vista capable" thing will blow up in their face, mislead consumers, etc etc.
Ultimate-ly (smirk smirk), the lawyers are going to be the ones to hash out these definitions, and it'll be a damn shame if "the big lie" technique succeeds, but factually speaking, Microsoft did intentionally mislead consumers.
While I disagree with the delivery the message is spot on and whoever modded you troll will meet meta moderation hell at some point.
Microsoft has gone way too far, the SCO thing, all the proven criminal stuff from the past... It's really a pity that the breakup didn't happen, it would have been a much better climate in software land if it had.
It's really ironic how Neelie Smit-Kroes (one of the most shameless examples of cronyism in dutch politics) is one of the few people on the planet that seems to have the guts to stand up to Microsoft.
MP3 Search Engine
Oh come on you dumb mods, why can't you recognize sarcasm?
Your obvious bias aside, this is a court case that is trying to prove that Microsoft has misled customers to their detriment. They haven't yet tried to prove there is any detriment to the consumer, and are struggling to prove that they were being deliberately misleading.
I'm usually not one to jump on the Anti-Microsoft hype machine (I don't think Vista is nearly as bad as people say it is - I use Vista 64-bit at work and it's great). But it *does* require a machine with a bit of horsepower to run it well. It's pretty obvious that Microsoft was willing to sacrifice a few customers to stay in good graces with Intel. Are you going to tell me that a consumer who purchased a machine with a "Vista-ready" sticker would seriously have expected or understood that it could only run the most basic version of Vista?
As shallow as it may seem to some, interface is big part of the computing experience. A consumer is going to be reminded of the fact that they have a "sub-standard" version of the OS every time they look at their screen. I know it would bother me, especially if it was sold under false pretenses.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
You get the exact same business tactics, just a slightly more stylish computer.
Last I checked Apple didn't offer any cases in brushed aluminum =(
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Microsoft today issued a plea through its network of objective opinion-shapers: Don't let the journalists near it.
"We understand that many journalists use Macs," said CNet marketing marketer Don Reisinger. "This means they necessarily suckle at the Satanic rear passage of Steve Jobs. We cannot countenance their bias. Journalists are responsible for all those signs outside computer shops offering to replace Vista with XP. When was the last time you saw the entire technology field stop and wait for an announcement from any other company besides Apple? It's so unfair!"
Smears and slanders also come from obsessive overweight nerdy Mac-using Linux geek troublemakers who run "benchmarks" and "tests." "It's horrifying bias from the 'reality'-based community," said ZDNet marketing marketer Mary Jo Enderle. "We understand that, just because Vista was 40% slower than XP, the nattering nabobs of negativism are already writing that it's 'not enough of an improvement.' It's so unfair!"
"Mactards are like concentration camp guards," said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield, "brutalising 'I'm A PC' users and" [This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator. Replies may also be deleted.]
"The only reason Vista failed was because Microsoft planned for it to fail," said Reisinger in an earlier ad-banner troll post. "It was a fantastically subtle double-bluff! They did the honorable thing in the face of the vile calumnies spread by Apple. It's so unfair!"
http://rocknerd.co.uk
twitter?
Fucking idiots.
I'm not sure exactly the same is justified.
One thing Apple has always been very clear about, perhaps even a little too conservative, is the minimum system requirements for their products. Often those requirements are actually above a usable minimum, whereupon they take quite a bit of flack until someone hacks out the hardware check.
Apple actually found itself in very similar circumstances with the release of... can't remember which one. Tiger I think. Anyway, the new Quartz Extreme extensions wouldn't all run on older video cards. So what did they do? They were up front about it, but they also made Quartz degrade gracefully. Actually, the only reliable way we could tell was to drop a widget on Dashboard and see if there were any screen ripples.
...if it isn't Vista? XP Service Pack 3a?
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Perhaps you can offer to be an expert witness if this case goes on.
Are you going to tell me that a consumer who purchased a machine with a "Vista-ready" sticker would seriously have expected or understood that it could only run the most basic version of Vista?
If they informed themselves, yes. Even before RTM of Vista, Beta versions very widely available, even through official channels for end users. The documentation for the Vista-Capable logos are also out there, for download directly from Microsoft.
Of course, this all assumes that the people who purchased such a machine actually had the technical knowledge on how to plan for an OS upgrade, which doesn't really fit "consumer" - i don't know anyone i would describe as an IT consumer that can do OS upgrades.
I'm not sure why you'd think going to Apple would be any better. You get the exact same business tactics, just a slightly more stylish computer.
This is an absolutely true statement, but it overlooks one thing: the unfair advantage that is monopoly status and industry entrenchment.
I support open source because it's hard to leverage unfairly, but when I have to choose between Microsoft and Apple I choose Apple because they're the underdog.
When Microsoft's market share reaches 50% or less on desktop OSes and browsers, I'll re-evaluate my stance. They have the same business practices as Apple, but they have far more power until the ecosystem evens out, so they are capable of much more abuse.
Since Apple controls its product line, the responsible thing to do would be to make sure that all of their current products supported CoreImage-- essentially, floating point fragment shaders.
I'm not sure if Apple offers a machine that does not. It shouldn't.
The Vista ready program was designed to assure customers that they would be able to buy a computer that Vista would run well on. In the pre-Vista era, Aero was certainly hyped. It's not inconceivable that some poor hapless soles bought new computers in the expectation that they would be able to use Aero, when it came out and were sorely disappointed when they found out that they could not.
Now that Vista has been released, you can demo a prospective purchase in the store, find out that the interface is not as lickable as you were led to expect, and move on. Or you can read reviews, and note the line "Not powerful enough to run Vista". But prior to release, it was all about trust, fine print, and careful research.
From ieee.org, and other places: Unfortunately, 158 pages of internal Microsoft emails by employees like Michael Nash, a Microsoft vice president who oversees Windows product management, tends to undercut Microsoft's insistence that there was nothing misleading with Vista. Nash wrote that he "personally got burned" by buying a laptop that was labeled as Windows Vista Capable: "I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine." If their advertising can fool a VP then it surely can fool the plaintiffs. I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
Is Microsoft going to defend itself by insinuating that little old ladies should have informed themselves by reading reviews of beta software, rather than by reading the label and believing what the clueless Best Buy drone told her?
I hope so. That is a court case I would watch.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Windows ISVs used to laughing at the confusion caused by a plethora of Linux distributions have been orphaned by Microsoft. That's really the problem. You can't market Vista head to head against anything, because, there's all of these editions. You can't develop for anything but Vista Cheapo Edition, because, the market is now fragmented.
Quite honestly Microsoft would have been better served to wait a year to ship Vista, get more drivers out there, and have only -one- edition and for all computers. Then, they could turn around and go head to against Mac and Linux and compete with a single message. Hardware partners would have been happier to get newer computers out there, and developers could take advantage of the features of Vista premium without worrying about them.
This is my sig.
In January 2007, I bought such a "Vista Capable" computer and I'm usually not the one to defend Microsoft. However, on the box of the machine there was a sticker saying "Vista Capable", but the text next to it clearly identified the fact that it wouldn't run Aero and that it will be Vista Home Basic at best. [Relevant Journal Entry]. It was very clear to me: I can read....
That said, that machine was never meant to run a Microsoft product. The preloaded version of Windows XP MCE (the journal entry says Windows XP Home, but I was wrong), lived on it for a few months and then made place to Ubuntu.
Yes, indeed, just going by the sticker was quite misleading.... Actually reading the fine print was not. But then, I am a computer Geek and did understand what the fine print said.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
When Apple released Quartz Extreme they did not sell a machine that didn't support it. But they had sold machines in the past that didn't, and knew such machines were in use.
Vista is a vast improvement over XP.
Just about all the problems with it are from people using inferior hardware. You can't run XP on a commodore64 either.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Maybe Microsoft hasn't met her price yet.
True. But commodore64's weren't being sold with "XP Ready" stickers on them before the XP launch either.
anyone who's been reading Slashdot since "Longhorn" started development would know that Microsoft had always intended for Vista to have different levels of UI capabilities depending on the hardware it is running on. that's not news to anyone here, and even without the fine print most Slashdotters wouldn't equate the "Vista Capable/Ready" sticker with "Aero Capable."
however, and this is a pretty big however, we're not the average consumer. unless you're a tech geek, you're not going to know these details about Vista, or know what Aero even is. just like unless you're a car-buff you're probably not going to know what kind of engine your new car has other than that it's a V4/V6/V8. should a car-buyer know the internal workings of the vehicle they are looking to purchase? i think that's debatable. but in this case it's completely besides the point.
consumers were clearly misled in this case with a combination of deceptive actions on the part of Microsoft:
you can't have it both ways. you either advertise your product as clearly having multiple tiers, or you deliver the full "premium" experience which includes all of the features advertised.
and, IANAL, but i don't think fine print by itself is sufficient defense against false advertisement charges. i highly doubt that there's anyone out there who's never missed a line of fine print, either in a contract they're signing, a TV commercial they watched, a magazine ad they glanced over, or (in this case "fast talking") a radio commercial. the very nature of fine print/fast talking makes it impossible, or at least impractical, for an ordinary human-being (as opposed to the radioactively-enhanced type) to catch all of the information businesses try to slip past consumers. just like it's impractical for a consumer to become an expert on every product they're looking to purchase.
"Turing-equivalent to a Vista Ready machine!"
http://rocknerd.co.uk
So wait a minute, IBM lost its ability to do business with the Government because of bribery of EPA officials, plays games with the Open Source community by claiming to be "with them" on Patents, and then tries to patent 'bathroom line standing' and you think the BCG has made IBM an ethical company?
Have you looked at what IBM has done to try and protect their multi-billion dollar mainframe monopoly??
IBM invented the game of placating people and governments. Don't EVER bring IBM up as an ethical standard bearer.
Any side of a case can look like a slam dunk when you only read the brief for that side. I suspect that the attorneys for the class action side have a different view.
Maybe Microsoft hasn't met her price yet.
Not for want of trying.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
I'm not sure why you'd think going to Apple would be any better. You get the exact same business tactics, just a slightly more stylish computer.
Get back to us when Apple are leveraging a monopoly to stop other companies selling any non-Apple OS. And are convicted of such.
Or did you mean that other sort of "exactly," the sort which means "in the broad category of things I don't approve of, but which encompasses a massive range?"
I'm not sure why you'd think going to Apple would be any better. You get the exact same business tactics, just a slightly more stylish computer.
Now say that with a straight face! Apple and Microsoft do NOT employ the same business strategies in any way; they cannot, because they are the 5-10% player, and microsoft is the 90-95% player. Therefore - as the evidence shows:
1) Microsoft's ONLY strategy is abuse of monopoly through lock-in;
2) Apple's ONLY strategy is to innovate and have the better product (nice that you acknowledge the hardware is better. It sure is. As a Mac user for more than 20 years, I can confirm the hardware is the best available.)
All available facts support both of the above contentions.
you had me at #!
Search for "Fedora 10" on thepiratebay.org. Good seeders exist! SHA1SUM checks out; GPG sigs are good.
Or wait three days and get it from a more reliable source.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Of course, as a hardware manufacturer, it's in Apple's best interest to convince their users that in order to upgrade their software, they need to buy a shiny new box. Hence overstating system requirements as you note. So their decisions are just as avaricious, there are just different motivating factors.
I know of at least one Windows 98 machine still in use, and repair G3 OS 9.2--OS 10.2 iMacs at work (even a OS7 PowerMac came in once).
You need to cut the cord at some point.
n/t
So a person . . . let's take for example, Mike Nash, VP of Microsoft . . . buys a $2,100 computer. He upgrades to Vista from XP and complains that "he personally got burned" and his computer is now so unusable he calls is a "$2,100 email machine". Now this isn't just an average consumer. He even got internal MS help and they couldn't fix his machine. So the time spent with support, the endless headaches of Vista not working properly, and a new computer that isn't usable, you don't call these misleading or detrimental to a consumer?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Now I picture one of those TV Court rooms with Judge Judy or the like yelling at the Microsoft person.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
You forgot "assholes".
I'm curious about this fine print myself. I purchased a Dell Inspiron E1505 with a "Vista Capable" sticker on it. It has no such fine print and I know for a fact that it wasn't on the website when I ordered it.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
I can get back to you with Apple leveraging it's MP3 player monopoly to push it's own DRM and iTunes store, which happens to be completely and deliberately incompatible with everything else on the market.
Is that too inconvenient a truth?
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Is that too inconvenient a truth?
Inconvenient for you, it's not a truth. Apple doesn't force any of their iPod owners into using their store. iPods will play any MP3 or AAC file just fine, no DRM required.
Furthermore, Apple is actively seeking to remove DRM from their store, and was the first mainstream store to call for it. If they were a monopoly, and were trying to lock their users in, would they really clamor for the ability to remove the only artificial lock in the whole system?
Apple's philosophy is to compete on quality. They use open formats just about across the board. They give their users a way to export just about everything. The only lock-in is in people actually wanting Apple's products.
It's even simpler than that. Just consider the fact that MS lowered their standards for "Vista Capable" at the request of Intel. This is strong evidence that there was once a choice made as to what would be a reasonable level of capability to be called "Vista Capable", and it was lowered below that level. This whole case is that "Vista Capable" is below a reasonable level. It damn near proves itself. The only real counter-argument would be if the original standard was set too high, which given how poorly Vista runs on low-end "Vista Capable" systems, that's a pretty difficult position to defend.
not as lickable as you were led to expect
I found it lickable enough
Early versions of Aqua, MacOSX's widget set, were described as lickable because many of the elements resembled jellybeans. A nod to the term eye candy, perhaps?
Of course. But from the customer's point of view, they end up with a little more hardware than perhaps they actually needed, instead of a little less. Thing is, in this case it's Price is Right rules. If you're under, it's game over.
Where does Apple force you to use their DRM and iTunes store?
The iPod is compatible with Apple's own implementation of mp4 audio (AAC), the DRM'ed version of that (AAC protected) and several other codecs that you can choose to use - wav, aif, mp3 etc. The only format it doesn't support is WMV, but Apple doesn't sell WMV files, so that's ok.
Assuming you choose to use the iTunes music store for your purchases (note: just because you use an iPod doesn't mean you have to use the store), you can either buy some tracks with no DRM (not all are available this way, but many are) or you can buy them with DRM and then use iTunes itself to burn them to CD, which you can then rerip into your format of choice - even ogg vorbis if you feel like it (not that the iPod will play that out of the box, but you get my point).
iTunes can trivially defeat the minimal DRM on the tracks you can purchase if you like from the iTunes store. No special tricks, no third party software. You burn to CD, you re-rip. Ok, so you lose some quality by re-encoding if you want to do this, but the point is, you can do this if you really want. You can even rip the CD you just made on a windows box, into WMV format and put those tracks you bought on the iTunes music store, from apple, onto your Zune.
Or am I not talking to either of the two people who bought a Zune?
The iPod doesn't play WMV protected files - but I hardly think that's Apple's fault (you really think MS would allow them to use the format?). It will play other files from competing music stores that don't use WMV though.
Or, y'know, just go to a store and buy a CD - it works with them.
"Microsoft argues the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the lowest-priced version of Windows Vista was not the 'real' Vista, "
I sure as hell can. The beta versions of Vista had more features than Vista Home Basic.
I still have copies of the betas that can be compared to Vista Home Basic.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Sure, they don't force you to buy music from iTunes, sure, but they do control the way the user generally uses it. iPods appeal the most to the non-technical crowd, who probably don't know, for example, that the Amazon mp3 store exists. iTunes is much more a store than a music player. I'm not saying its unfair, but its not like its the most open system either. It's like MS doesn't force you to use WMP or IE, its just what's most likely going to happen for the average user.
Also, if Apple REALLY wanted a DRM free store, then it would be. Amazon REALLY wanted it, and they have it, and Apple has far more pull in the digital music front than Amazon does.
By the way, neither mp3 or aac formats are open. Both require a patent license for manufacturers and developers. ogg is open, and Apple does not support it at all as far as I know (it was definitely incompatible with iTunes in the recent past).
Finally, Apple's philosophy is to make money. That is the be all and end all for companies. NEVER romanticize this. I will give Apple that they have a great skill at image control, but they are just as ruthless as Microsoft when it comes to making money, MS just got the upper hand first so Apple can play the less evil underdog.
My bias: I use Linux (usually Ubuntu) for leisure/small tasks, XP and Vista 64bit for gaming/study/real work, and OSX at my part time job as a creative person, and honestly, I like OSX the least by far. I also disapprove of the abuse of the word irony.
Apple forces you to use iTunes, and that's enough - what percentage of people will load up iTunes and just decide to buy from that store because it's more convenient? I don't think that's an insignificant percentage.
Further to that, just because the DRM is trivial for you to defeat, that doesn't mean that:
a) You're not technically in breach of the DMCA, no matter how much or little you care about it*, nor
b) That we should ignore the less technical who are still buying songs from the iTunes store with no knowledge that if they switch away from Apple, their legally purchased music library is utterly useless.
*Double negative, bitches!
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
a) You're not technically in breach of the DMCA, no matter how much or little you care about it*, nor
b) That we should ignore the less technical who are still buying songs from the iTunes store with no knowledge that if they switch away from Apple, their legally purchased music library is utterly useless.
Well, for part a, that would be Apple in breach of the DMCA, unless it's somehow a crime to circumvent the DRM Apple places on their tracks using a piece of software that Apple provides and advertises about, telling you with a step by step guide, how to make music CDs with no DRM from the music you just bought.
As far as part b goes. Apple *encourages* you, with a big warning notice that it puts up, to back up your purchases from the iTunes music store either by burning the songs to CD, or by other means such as Time Machine or your own backup method of choice.
Apple make it as easy as possible to make a CD in iTunes. If you are computer literate enough to be able to purchase the songs in the first place, then you are computer literate enough to make CD backups of that same music and use it with non-Apple products, or even just to make CD backups free from DRM (assuming that the tracks they bought weren't already DRM free tunes from the iTunes store.
It was on the cardboard box (which also had a "Vista Capable sticker"), not on the machine itself. Just for clarification. I also live in the EU, which is perhaps why they covered their asses.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
True, but if the fine print said "$XYZ won't work", the customer should be able to comprehend that when he'll put Vista on that machine, he won't get the full experience.... even if he doesn't know what $XYZ means.
I was not clear enough: the Vista Capable sticker, including the fine print was on the exterior of the cardboard box containing the computer which I could inspect as long as I wanted since I bought it in a shopping mall. What I call fine print as also quite large, like 10pt Arial or so, but on a cardboard box that looks small.
I still regret to this day that I didn't copy the fine print and/or photographed it in order to see what it was like. For me it was hilarious because to me it said "crap machine (for Vista), don't buy it".
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Apple forces you to use iTunes, and that's enough - what percentage of people will load up iTunes and just decide to buy from that store because it's more convenient? I don't think that's an insignificant percentage.
Does Microsoft allow you to drag and drop files on the Zune without installing their proprietary software? Do they even make a Mac version of the Zune software? Can I play my Microsoft-owned Playsforsure files on my iPod or Zune, or can I play my purchased Zune music on any other player?
kind of holing your argument that they don't like DRM.
... than the 128mb Celerons "designed for Windows XP" systems that were sold by every major PC maker when XP first came out?
Those systems run XP worse than even the minimal "Vista Capable" systems run Vista.
Different just because they got "caught" this time conspiring with Intel? Surprise! They've been doing just that, spurring each other's product sales through forced obsolescence, since DAY ONE.
No detriment to the customer? The very existence of Microsoft is a detriment to the world!
The sooner that MS dies off, the better for everybody!
That's why 95% of the worlds MP3 players only run Apple software. And since Apple has always had full control of the rights to all the music it sells, it has always been able to sell them any way they want. Plus, since you can't possibly use it without buying all your music from I-tunes, they have completely locked you in to their product. Man, I wish they'd get rid of the annoying pop up ad that asks if I want to import my music whenever I put a CD in my computer. Like I'm gonna pay for that.
I'm only going to support businesses whose philosophy is something other than to make money. Like Flooz.com.
Oh, wait, your analogy sucks.
This sentence no verb.
I wasted $5000 on Vista capable machines tooling up for Vista development. It wasn't until I couln't run Aero that I stumbled across the concept of Vista Capable. Then I went to the Microsoft web site and searched for Vista Capable. That is when the term "Core Experience" first came to light. When I searched for Core Experience, that is when I found out about the "Premium Ready" stickers that I had not previously seen. For some weeks the VIsta Capable machines were for sale before any of the Premium Ready stickers arrived. Had both stickers been visible, we might have asked what the difference was, but it was a bait and switch. One of those, It dawns on you" situations. If the sticker had said, "Vista Capable, runs the Core Experience", we might have had a fair chance at figuring it out, but thst was not how it went down. We were ripped off.
apparently, in Microsoft's eyes, "capable" merely means being able to boot to a minimum gui... whether you could actually run software on top of it without it being a painful disc/memory swapfest is bye the bye... it managed to boot up the minimum gui, therefore it must have been "Vista Capable"...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
well, let's just say that Microsoft isn't the only one using these tactics. they're just being singled out at the moment because they've got a class-action lawsuit on their hands. the use of fine print by businesses has always been a controversial legal issue, and credit card companies and lenders are traditionally the biggest abusers of this type of deceit, using fine print to engage in bait-and-switch tactics.
but just because we've gotten accustomed to getting the wool pulled over our eyes in this way doesn't mean that it's right. that's why consumer advocacy groups have long pushed for greater honesty in advertising. there were even two laws passed (in the U.S.) against the use of fine print in bate-and-switch marketing campaigns, but these were overturned by the SCOTUS in the 90's and led to even more deceptive advertising practices.
Sure, they don't force you to buy music from iTunes, sure, but they do control the way the user generally uses it. iPods appeal the most to the non-technical crowd, who probably don't know, for example, that the Amazon mp3 store exists. iTunes is much more a store than a music player. I'm not saying its unfair, but its not like its the most open system either. It's like MS doesn't force you to use WMP or IE, its just what's most likely going to happen for the average user.
MS engaged in practices that made it difficult to use MP3s in WMP, and made it difficult to use Netscape on the web. Apple does nothing to make it difficult to not use iTunes.
And yes, Apple tightly controls the iPod user experience. That's why it's so well liked.
Also, if Apple REALLY wanted a DRM free store, then it would be. Amazon REALLY wanted it, and they have it, and Apple has far more pull in the digital music front than Amazon does.
You can be damned sure they really want it. They're not going to give up the viability of their store to get it. The labels gave Amazon the DRM-free store first, because they are afraid of Apple's dominance in the online music market. Jobs was the first industry leader to call for an end to DRM on music. The iTunes Music Store was the first mainstream store to offer DRM-free music, at the time, Jobs stated that he wanted all the other labels on board as well, and music industry insiders are reporting Apple is currently negotiating DRM-free music from the remaining major labels.
By the way, neither mp3 or aac formats are open. Both require a patent license for manufacturers and developers. ogg is open, and Apple does not support it at all as far as I know (it was definitely incompatible with iTunes in the recent past).
They are open. They are not free. There's a difference.
Finally, Apple's philosophy is to make money. That is the be all and end all for companies. NEVER romanticize this
I never have. Apple's method for making money is to make products that provide the best user-experience around. MS's method is to get their products used as widely as possible, quality-be-damned. Canonical's and RedHat's method is to provide the most free and open system they can, and charge for support. Google's is "2. ???". It's not being romantic to see the various methods used by different companies.
I also disapprove of the abuse of the word irony.
'May contain' does not mean 'does contain'. Unless of course you were being ironic. However, in case I've some sort of quota to fill, disregard the entirety of my post up to this point and replace it with:
I'm glad you agree.
"i don't think fine print by itself is sufficient defense against false advertisement charges"
Probably true, and clearly needs to be fixed:
There should be a EULA you have to click through, by touching a square on your TV, before you can see the ad.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Nothing truer ever said.
OS Bashing is lamesauce. All operating systems have their place.
I use Vista Ultimate X64 and Vista Premium on another laptop. Both my laptops are decent machines, a gig of ram minimum, dual core processors, etc.
But, Vista works well, just as well as Ubuntu on my "public" machine, even moreso, since I don't have all the wireless issues, etc. that I do on Ubuntu (yeah, it's normal to have to find a driver, then find a hacked version of the cards firmware, or have to run FWCutter to pull ROM off my wireless card. No, really, it's totally normal....).
If your machine won't run a current OS, it's time to upgrade.... IF YOU NEED A CURRENT OS. Otherwise, for most people, XP was, and still is, just fine.
I didn't upgrade per se, I ended up purchasing two laptops within the last year for different reasons.
--Toll_Free
That was also the first "production ready" release of OS X, at least according to the experiences of my studio. We tested 10.0 and 10.1 and began migrating at 10.2 Jaguar. 10.3 Panther was even better - performance noticeably improved on G3 machines.
Microsoft's talent lies in greed, fraud and extortion, not software engineering; the comparison with Apple proves that better than anything else.
you had me at #!
Seriously we had bottom-of-the-barrel Celeron Acers with like 512 ram that were Vista Ready! They took each of them like 5-10min to get the desktop to a usable state. Maybe 4min to the desktop but with all the background apps loading these machines took forever, and we had to turn everything off the demo to get them to even work at all for a customer demo.
I sold every customer away from them but you have no idea how many wanted them. The penny-pinching customers who don't trust anyone would listen to me and then after about 10minutes of me discussing their needs and stuff, they would buy the machines anyway because someone they knew said it was a good deal. It's tough to get rapport with some folks you know... LOL
You try to help in retail and you have so much resistance working against you. I figure if I can save some people some hassle it's worthwhile. I had a thumbdrive of links to tuning websites I would email anyone who wanted them... and we offered specially updated systems for people too at the time, but it was too expensive for some folks. I just tried to help whoever I could get through the Vista Ready campaign. It was a big struggle.
This campaign was as much the fault of all the manufacturers, as it was MSFT's. They used it as an excuse to clear out old inventory at higher prices, because they had the sticker.
Read any video game box, and minimum system requirements offer the WORST POSSIBLE user experience. The manufacturers looked at the minimum system requirements published by MSFT for running Vista with all features TURNED OFF. Then any system that could support THOSE specs, was considered to be Vista ready.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
b) That we should ignore the less technical who are still buying songs from the iTunes store with no knowledge that if they switch away from Apple, their legally purchased music library is utterly useless.
Right, because they certainly aren't reminded by the software that they should back up their music library to CD... oh wait, never mind.
Stealing UIs from Xerox and Creative?
The kool-aid is strong with you, it seems.
Oh for the love of god, stop drinking your own kool-aid. Repeat after me: Apple BOUGHT the UI rights from Xerox because Xerox couldn't find anybody else who wanted it. Really.
I won't get into the rights and wrongs of your point, except to note that your version of "the exact same business tactics" actually means "quite different business tactics used to reach a different goal."
If you're going to use terms like "exact same" you should at least be certain that the situations are identical.
People keep saying Apple are the same as Microsoft. Well, no, they're not. Apple's a hardware company while Microsoft is a software company. That alone changes how they can and cannot be the same.
If you're going to argue on semantics, then I can't complain - I'm pretty pedantic myself, so.
Conceded :)
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
b) That we should ignore the less technical who are still buying songs from the iTunes store with no knowledge that if they switch away from Apple, their legally purchased music library is utterly useless.
A few points on this bit:
* There was no purchase - people licence the music. It's an important point, and while people generally don't like or want restrictive licences, it needs to be understood that it is a licence.
* It's a good thing in the long term if people move to another player and realise their DRM-wrapped music won't play. It's not good for the person, but the situation will help force companies away from DRM.
As shallow as it may seem to some, interface is big part of the computing experience.
I agree completely with you. In fact, I'll do you one better. Most people knowledgeable enough to buy a computer that is Vista capable but lacking enough knowledge to have anything to go on except for a "Vista ready" sticker will first and foremost miss the slick interface. For the common check my email and surf for gardening tips/golf shoes/porn schmo, interface is pretty much, well, everything.
I never upgraded either just brought a new laptop with Vista. I wouldn't upgrade an XP machine to Vista because there is little point, especially with old hardware.
I find it interesting that allot of the people who bad mouth Vista have never actually run it.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
As an Idiot Corp, they've done pretty well. There was a time when I recommended M$. But the more trouble they got in, the more uncomfortable I became in my support. I think the day that M$ Management ignored their Humility was the day I switched to Linux. When Mr. Torvalds submitted his personal curiosity, I saw in Linux what M$ was once. I don't think M$ can go back, they have to much to lose. Success does that to people. In the long run, I don't think M$ can really do this, I believe that they are the Defendants, and the amount of evidence is so overwhelming that its existence cannot be denied; with a straight face.
I bought mini that will not run QE (no ripples for me) in oct 2005, Tiger came out about half a year earlier. So they DID sell QE-incapable machines after they had released QE.
However, that's mostly "ripples on Dashboard", and a semi-translucent title bar since Leopard. I don't miss it in the OS itself. It doesn't look radically different, in fact, I'm wondering what day-to-day OS stuff is different apart from the aforementioned menu bar and Dashboard ripples.
/var/run/twitter.sock is a twitter socket puppet.
I'm not sure why you'd think going to Apple would be any better. You get the exact same business tactics, just a slightly more stylish computer.
I keep hearing this, but I don't think that it's true. Apple and Microsoft have very different personalities and goals (beyond making money). This is not to say that Apple is good and Microsoft is evil, but that there are many more kinds of evil than Microsoft demonstrates.
un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED