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."
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.
I bought a laptop that came bundled with Vista and it crashed on me numerous times before I got fed up with all the Vista crap and "upgraded" to XP (and later upgraded to Ubuntu). Just because it's never crashed on you doesn't make other people liars. I think you need to get a clue.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
It is not always the case for hardware. Intel chips would often have part of the hardware disabled, because it is cheaper to make one type of chip than two (the 386sx/dx, 486sx,dx, etc...) Cameras as well, can come with hardware that is not supported by the version of software installed, thus disabling part of it.
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
That depends on your definition of "acceptable". WinXP doesn't *need* 1GB. The email machine in my office at work runs WinXP Pro and has 0.25GB installed. It's slow to boot, and initially slow to load Outlook (2003?) and Firefox 3. However, once they've been loaded once, you're good to go.
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)