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."

Comments

Don't Let This Die

[Skeetskeetskeet]

Someone has to take a stand against this idiot corporation...we were taken for a ride for Windows ME, don't let them get away with this piece of shit called Vista. My next computer will be a Mac. Fuck you Gates and Ballmer.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Macthorpe]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[jacquesm]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Dutch Gun]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[negRo_slim]

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 =(

Re:Don't Let This Die

[ceoyoyo]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Almahtar]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Jeremy Erwin]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[spazdor]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[jawtheshark]

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?

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[ceoyoyo]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Dan541]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Microsoft hasn't met her price yet.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[TwilightXaos]

True. But commodore64's weren't being sold with "XP Ready" stickers on them before the XP launch either.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[lysergic.acid]

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:

• first off, the Vista advertising campaign focused entirely on the "Vista Premium" setup, which is why people don't think they're getting the "full Vista experience" with their non-Premium setups.
• secondly, the Vista advertising campaign never even mentions "Premium" or "Vista Premium" but simply presents the product shown as "Windows Vista."
• Microsoft reinforced this notion further by deliberately used a single-tier "Vista Capable" program, which used a single sticker on every Vista machine without distinguishing which ones fully-supported the heavily advertised "Vista Premium" experience.

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[David Gerard]

"Turing-equivalent to a Vista Ready machine!"

Re:Don't Let This Die

[JohnBailey]

Maybe Microsoft hasn't met her price yet.

Not for want of trying.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[GaryPatterson]

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?"

Re:Don't Let This Die

[pyrbrand]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Tubal-Cain]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[UnknowingFool]

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.

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?

Re:Don't Let This Die

[VGPowerlord]

Now I picture one of those TV Court rooms with Judge Judy or the like yelling at the Microsoft person.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[bhiestand]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Macthorpe]

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?

Re:Don't Let This Die

[node 3]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[node 3]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[lusidd]

not as lickable as you were led to expect

I found it lickable enough

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Jeremy Erwin]

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?

Re:Don't Let This Die

[ceoyoyo]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[jo_ham]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[fredcai]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Macthorpe]

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!

Re:Don't Let This Die

[jo_ham]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[jawtheshark]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[jawtheshark]

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".

Re:Don't Let This Die

[TClevenger]

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?

Re:Don't Let This Die

[CrossChris]

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!

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Posting=!Working]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[lysergic.acid]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[node 3]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Mateo_LeFou]

"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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Toll_Free]

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

Re:Don't Let This Die

[I_want_information]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[GaryPatterson]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Macthorpe]

If you're going to argue on semantics, then I can't complain - I'm pretty pedantic myself, so.

Conceded :)

Re:Don't Let This Die

[GaryPatterson]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Cormophyte]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[Dan541]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[LifesABeach]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[DiLLeMaN]

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.

Re:Don't Let This Die

[not-my-real-name]

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.

Good Luck MSFT

[mfh]

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.

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

actually.

power corrupts, but powrpoint corrupts absolutly...

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Honestly, how many of them were capable of running XP well? You need 2GB of ram and you're set on anything, even a celeron...

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.

None of that is really Vista specific. Retail = rats. Black, Brown, White, they're all vermin.

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

actually.

power corrupts, but powrpoint corrupts absolutly...

What does this have to do with vodka?

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[techno-vampire]

Honestly, how many of them were capable of running XP well? You need 2GB of ram and you're set on anything, even a celeron...

That may be true for Windows nowadays, I wouldn't know. I do know that Linux runs just fine on only 1GB or RAM. Why does Windows need so many resources to run acceptably?

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[ion.simon.c]

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.

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

This might be a problem if ram was expensive. Except it's not. The amount of ram it uses is by in large irrelevant because Vista although it uses more ram does more than XP. It might come as a surprise to some people but those things which some people call bloat, others call critical features.

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[shutdown -p now]

Remember when XP was released, too. Back then 256Mb was very adequate, and XP and the MSOffice of the day (2003) ran fine on that.

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[DocHoncho]

after sitting through yet another god-awful powerpoint, you'll probably want to wash your brain out with vodka.

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[sumdumass]

Actually, 256 was more like win98 and win2000. From day one the sweet spot in XP seemed to have been around 512 depending on how taxing your programs would be.

I don't know how many times I did litle more then bring the memory for XP systems up to 512 or better and people thought they had a new machine. Run some spyware tools and clean some of the cruft out and they were tickled pink.

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[WuphonsReach]

Remember when XP was released, too. Back then 256Mb was very adequate, and XP and the MSOffice of the day (2003) ran fine on that.

Nah, 256MB was never enough for WinXP. The rule of thumb back around 2000 was:

128MB for WinNT v4
256MB for Win2000
512MB for WinXP

And things worked a LOT better if you could get XP up to 1GB.

Every Win2k machine that was fitted with only 128MB ran like a dog, same thing for a WinXP box with only 256MB of RAM.

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[shutdown -p now]

The first time I ran XP, it was on 64Mb. That was slow, yes (the official minimum, IIRC). 256 was quite nice, and, back then, quite common, too. If I remember correctly, I only upgraded to 512 in two years or so.

This all of course depends of the software - in that case, little more than MSOffice, Opera (then version 6 IIRC) for web browsing. And of course no adware/malwae crap.

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[shutdown -p now]

Thank you, but I was talking of my own experience, as well. I ran WinNT on 64Mb quite happily, then Win2K on 128Mb, and WinXP on 256Mb. Worked fine. I recall a friend of mine struggling with Win2K on 64Mb, though (he eventually moved to Linux because of that - didn't want to upgrade).

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[sumdumass]

With a fresh install, no service packs, not MS office, XP sails on 512 and runs so much fast then 256 or lower that there is a noticeable difference. Start adding the other programs and your going to see a greater difference in performance. 512 is just the sweet spot for XP, With SP2 and the improvements of memory management, it's a little less obvious but it still is obvious.

Now 256 got the job done, just not as much as 512 though. You probably would have been thrilled if you heard that earlier in your XP experience. It seems as if there is a sweet spot in MS operating systems where you get a noticeable speed increase by adding more memory to a point where it just isn't as apparent that much any more. You might have been perfectly happy with 256, I could probably get buy with it, but I got to a point where I wouldn't build a machine without at least 512 megs ram and often pumped other machines I workered on up to at least 512.

Re:Good Luck MSFT

[killmofasta]

Sir:

after upgrading and tuning hundreds of machines. ( literally hundreds ).

Your thumb ROCKS!
I just took a laptop, that a user dumped, Running XP. Max is 256MB. No more. Fresh load of W2k, and it runs like a champ.

I agree with Mark Russinovich, that Vista is a great kernel. But all the other garbage on top of it, makes the whole package utter crap. Vlite should be the product of the year!

Thanks For Modding It Troll You FAGs

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical Microsoft shill..sucked Ballmer's fat sweaty cock lately you fag?

Re:Thanks For Modding It Troll You FAGs

[cpicon92]

sounds delicious, lol

Re:Thanks For Modding It Troll You FAGs

[nawcom]

Oh come on you dumb mods, why can't you recognize sarcasm?

Re:Thanks For Modding It Troll You FAGs

[Anonymous Coward]

twitter?

I've always hated the practice...

[Dutch Gun]

...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.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[naoursla]

The EU requires Microsoft to release a basic version as part of their antitrust lawsuite. Each feature in the premium versions requires a price attached to it and the premium version has to cost the same as the basic version plus the price of each additional feature. If any discount is given for combining features then it is considered "bundling" and is not allowed.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[dasunst3r]

Are you saying you wanted a Bill Gates-looking punching bag with your Windows Vista Ultimate Edition for when your computer crashes?

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[arkhan_jg]

This only applies to the media player, due to the knock-on effect on web-based video and music of having every windows pc guaranteed to have microsoft's codecs. This is the reason for the -N versions on the vista DVD.

There's no reason microsoft couldn't have split vista into two versions; home and business. All the extra 'ultimate' crap, and turning off aero entirely in basic was just segmenting the market to extract as much money as possible.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the perspective of a supplier of goods/services, prices should be set at the customer's willingness to pay. This is independent of what it costs you to actually produce the good/service, unless of course cost > price. If for a minor amount more development effort you can have a strip-down version that attracts customers with a lower willingness to pay that you would not have otherwise had (without cannibalizing premium revenue), it absolutely makes sense to do so.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[MindlessAutomata]

How do you determine what is a bonus feature and what was removed? Just shift names around and stuff and you can have exactly the same thing with the same effect.

There's really no problem with doing this.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[russsell]

You do realise that your examples of "selectively disabling" and "premium versions" with DVD/CD are pretty much the same thing?

In both scenarios the extra content has been developed. It's just that in one scenario the manufacturer has tweaked a few bits, while in the other they have gone to all the trouble of creating separate physical media.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that remembers the Plus! pack that you could by to "enhance" your Windows 95 and 98?

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[naoursla]

From :

A 2002 settlement that arose out of the US Justice Department's antitrust pursuit of Microsoft "established a comprehensive regulatory scheme that not only resolved past conduct, but also created a detailed compliance structure to address future competitive concerns that might arise," the letter said. "This regulatory scheme insures that Microsoft can continue to add new features into its products but allows both users and computer manufacturers to hide these additional features and use competing products instead."

Any new feature added to Windows has the possibility of being declared "bundling". The EU ruling goes far beyond just adding a media player. Microsoft is very careful about complying with the EU rulings.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[Dutch Gun]

How do you determine what is a bonus feature and what was removed? Just shift names around and stuff and you can have exactly the same thing with the same effect.

There's really no problem with doing this.

I'd differentiate it by asking: Is the core product in the "light" version of the software intentionally crippled? Or, perhaps one could look at it a different way. Is the "standard" product the less expensive or more expensive one (i.e. the one that gets promoted)?

Using my example of the game industry (normal games vs "collector edition" games), you can clearly see that the standard package is the less expensive SKU. However, the game itself in both packages are identical. The "collector edition" boxes contain bonus material that is extraneous to the core product.

In the case of Vista Home, Microsoft decided to strip out features from their "standard" operating system. Why do I consider the Aero glass interface "standard" and not an extra? Microsoft advertised it heavily as a cool, new feature of Vista. And, the fact that its in four of the five versions of Vista would lend credence to this viewpoint.

Naturally, you're correct that it's a matter of perception. But when selling products to consumers, perception matters, right?

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[Dutch Gun]

Are you saying you wanted a Bill Gates-looking punching bag with your Windows Vista Ultimate Edition for when your computer crashes?

I've been developing on Vista for about a year and a half. In all that time, on either my laptop or desktop machine, Vista has never crashed on me. Nowadays, jokes about Microsoft OS instability simply paints you as a) an anti-Microsoft zealot, and/or b) someone who hasn't used Windows in recent years.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Microsoft and its products. But there are also things that Microsoft is really good at. Why make stuff up?

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[inflex]

Sometimes this happens because you bring out a fully featured, single level product with a certain price tag and people are buying it. A little later on you get messages from other interested parties along the lines of "I really like your product - but I don't need features X, Y or Z, could you provide a cheaper product without those features?", and so it happens.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[ConceptJunkie]

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.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[mgblst]

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.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[Anonymous Coward]

And exactly what are the marketing/sales folks supposed to do other than make as much money as possible? What are you fucking communist? Of course they designed it to make money, that's what commercial companies do. They aren't a non-profit for christ's sake. Fucking idiot.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[Informative]

You didn't say what they're good at. You can't mean that it doesn't crash because they're way behind other OSes on that. Do you mean marketing?

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[MindlessAutomata]

Naturally, you're correct that it's a matter of perception. But when selling products to consumers, perception matters, right?

Yes, that's my point. Just market it differently and you make the crippled version be the normal version and all other versions have bonus features and it's the EXACT same thing.

Hell, the stripped-down version might otherwise allow people who couldn't buy the full version a chance at a new, modern operating system. Not sure why they'd choose Vista (lol) but you see my point?

Perception very much does matter, you are correct. But in the instance of law and such, it should take, or at least attempt to take, a more objective view of the matter.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[jlarocco]

...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.

Since when is there no cost to writing software?

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.

How is that different than what you're complaining about? Isn't the "core product" just the "premium version" with the extra bits removed?

It definitely wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft is doing it wrong, but in most cases everybody benefits when people can pay for just the parts they want. The software company sells an extra copy of their software, and the customer gets just the software they need, for less money. I'm really not seeing what there is to complain about.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[node 3]

Except Windows doesn't get cheaper, it gets more expensive.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[Dutch Gun]

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.

Actually, thinking back, I had a somewhat similar experience, but it was XP, not Vista. I got a brand new Dell notebook a few years ago, and it was horribly unstable with all the crap that came pre-installed on it. I had to wipe the drive and re-install XP and the minimal set of drivers. I'm not sure exactly what was making it unstable, but it was rock solid after that. I wonder if you had a similar experience? Pre-installed crapware is a fairly significant problem with Windows-based machines from big-name manufacturers.

You're absolutely right though, that some people have undoubtedly had poor experiences with Vista, so I really shouldn't accuse people of speaking untruths. Still, I've both used and developed on nearly every version of Windows OS, so I can extrapolate general trends by viewing the overall stability of both my machines as well as my co-workers. Generally speaking, I'd guess 95% of the time, any few instabilities I've tracked down has been the fault of buggy 3rd-party drivers, and at this point, Vista is pretty well protected against even those now.

So, I'll revise my assertion. *I* haven't seen any evidence of Windows instability since my switch to NT-based operating systems. Your mileage may vary.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[jo_ham]

This is done with hardware for manufacturing costs and so on, as you state - only one set of tooling needed to make the chips, or the widget or whatever it is your company makes.

Then you can stream it at QA, which I know Intel has done in the past, and put lower quality batches as slower chips, selling them as such. The QA assures that they will work properly at say 1GHz, when it's literally an identical chip to the 1.5GHz in the more expensive box - it just failed QA at that speed.

Not that Intel are innocent of dodgy practices - I'm sure there's some skeletons in that cupboard, it's just a little different to intentionally cripple your software to try and milk the maximum cash out of the public, all the while advertising that the shitty thing they're buying is really the super sexy Aero-enabled, fully-network-working Vista Ultra Ultimate Pro with a free patch of Ballmer's ear hair in each box.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[shutdown -p now]

I've been developing on Vista for about a year and a half. In all that time, on either my laptop or desktop machine, Vista has never crashed on me.

I'm actually one of those weird people who like Vista - I've recently bought a new Thinkpad with Ultimate preloaded, and love it. And yes, it does work without a hitch there. But elsewhere, well... my desktop PC - which is by no means old or low-end - still can't sleep properly (or rather it won't wake up) in Vista, and Hibernate takes about three times as long to happen as it does in XP. Crashes and even an occasional bluescreen did happen. In addition, I've already ran into that well-known issue when Vista suddenly stops recognizing all USB Mass Storage devices you plug into it (Google if you want to read about it, it's easy to find), and had to hunt for a fix which was eerily reminiscent of my Gentoo days.

My conclusion has been this: Vista is a lot like Linux in that either you've got the right hardware for it, and then it just works, and you can actually enjoy the good stuff in it; or you've got the wrong hardware, and then you're in a world of pain. It's somewhat better since SP1 was released, but only somewhat. Today, if you want Vista, your best bet is to specifically buy a new PC that is "Certified for Vista" (that, or do your own hardware compatibility research, once again, like Linux users).

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[zippthorne]

and turning off aero entirely in basic was just segmenting the market to extract as much money as possible

Aero is like wood trim in a luxury car (I love car analogies). It's mostly just pretty, Although I imagine it's possible that someone somewhere might find something about it that improves their efficiency.

Take a look at their product matrix.

The "easy" feature that they hold back from *every* edition except ultimate is encryption. Ok, business has "filesystem encryption" but from the product page, I get the impression that the swap file is unlikely to fall under it.

And yes, I think whole-drive encryption is important, at least on any machine that uses Quicken, TurboTax, or even just homebrewed finances spreadsheets. If your computer is turned off, you shouldn't have to worry about someone being able to steal it AND get your financial information.

It shouldn't be an "Ultimate" feature. "Premium" maybe, since there are plenty of uses for computers that don't require security, but it should definitely be in at least one "home" edition.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[Bungie]

Am I the only one that remembers the Plus! pack that you could by to "enhance" your Windows 95 and 98?

Yeah but Plus! 95 actually did add features like font smoothing and high color icons (later released as a free font smoothing patch), Pinball, LOGO.SYS boot screen, and of course themes. Since all of that was integrated into later Windows releases Plus!98 pretty much just installed themes and a new boot logo.

If people want to complain about different versions of Windows, 95 was even worse! There was "Windows 95", "Windows 95 With Plus!" (aka OSR2), "Windows 95 With USB Support" (OSR2.1) and "Windows 95 with Internet Explorer" (OSR2.5). Each release contained significant features and updates not available in the lower versions (like USB support for example). Even worse was the fact that you couldn't even buy the better featured releases!

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[Laurence0]

What?

The point is that once Vista Ultimate has been produced, then it costs the same amount to stamp out an Ultimate CD as it does to stamp out a Basic CD. In fact, it costs more to produce 50,000 Ultimate CDs and 50,000 Basic CDs than it would to produce 100,000 Ultimate CDs because you have to spend time pruning bits out of Ultimate and managing two different stock items.

In, say, cars, once you've developed the car, it costs more to produce one with sat nav, heated seats, air con and a CD changer than it does to produce one without, justifying the higher price.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[jlarocco]

Once you've developed the software with basic functionality, it costs more to develop the additional functionality, while leaving out the new functionality is as simple as a compiler switch, justifying the higher price.

In any case, I still don't see the "problem". The end user has more options and can buy cheaper software, so what exactly are you complaining about? If you don't like it, just buy the "Ultimate" version of everything and stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us.

Re:I've always hated the practice...

[ConceptJunkie]

There's no doubt the NT kernel is quite solid. It's too bad everything that goes on top of it is one, enormous, monolithic blob and the cherry on top is the buggiest shell ever written, 13 years running: Explorer.

Nevertheless, Microsoft has nothing to offer me any more. They've jumped the shark. I am very happy to never consider their products ever again, knowing that I won't feel like I'm missing something.

It doesn't have to be that way, but it is, and I have no doubts it will continue, especially with the chair-tosser in charge. To Microsoft, users are like germs... beneath contempt. They resent the fact that they can't just stand on our chests and dangle-spit on our faces until we pay them. They resent the fact that we expect value for our money. They resent the mere existence of competition. What gall! To dare intrude on the hegemony that Microsoft created, Microsoft owns, and Microsoft deserves.

Tales from the Past

[CaptainOfSpray]

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.

Re:Tales from the Past

[jacquesm]

Better yet, they've elevated it to an artform. Buying representatives on standards committees, bribing government officials to get rid of FOSS friendly legislation, the list is endless.

When having to choose between monsanto and microsoft as the supreme example of an outright criminal corporation it's a tough choice.

Re:Tales from the Past

[Eukariote]

I sincerely hope MS get their feet held to the fire over this.

Why just MS? They were bribed into lowering their vista ready standards by Intel. Intel should also be punished for trying to keep the market to themselves through such an illegal backroom deal.

Re:Tales from the Past

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact: Microsoft has VERY strict Conduct Guidelines that every employee and manager must comply with. These guidelines do include proper Business Conduct, and cover things such as accepting or handing out bribes (in any form, including "well it was just a nice gesture!" scenarios). They're referred to as "SBC" (Standards of Business Conduct).

These mandatory compliance rules are updated on average twice a year (sometimes more often depending upon what changes), and every employee has to watch a series of videos, take a quiz, and agree to comply with said guidelines else risk immediate termination. Failure to comply with these rules will result in termination and/or legal repercussions, depending upon what the offence was.

These rules have been getting more and more strict as time goes on, probably because of cases like this. Sadly, such guidelines wouldn't be necessary if employees (regardless of their stature/role) acted responsibly and weren't sneaky/shady bastards.

Re:Tales from the Past

[Anonymous Coward]

Their SBC might prevent a few bad employees but does nothing to stop the actions of the company as a whole when it is knowingly taking part in a campaign that deceives the public.

Re:Tales from the Past

[I_want_information]

Was this pre- or post- the "knife the baby" or whatever it was incident that resulted in M$ persuading Compaq I think it was to drop bundling QuickTime after having signed an agreement with Apple to do so?

Re:Tales from the Past

[peragrin]

in order to prove Intel did wrong you have to prove MSFT was wrong and get MSFT to say bad things about Intel. Since Windows Is the only CPU stuck OS anymore pissing off Intel isn't possible for MSFT.

Re:Tales from the Past

[Hanyin]

When having to choose between monsanto and microsoft as the supreme example of an outright criminal corporation it's a tough choice.

I don't know about you but when it comes to corporate monopolies I mind a lot more when it's food having less genetic variety compared to one company's OS being run on every computer; and then there are the dominant terminator seeds that spread to neighboring fields so that regular crops can no longer be grown... at least there's no virus on my Mac that uninstalls OSX and replaces it with Vista.

So I suppose that while *some* of their actions are similar, the bigger criminal is easily Monsanto.

Re:Tales from the Past

[Daengbo]

So ... put MSFT into a cold room for a while, play good cop, bad cop, then offer them a plea bargain. ;)

Re:Tales from the Past

[Daengbo]

Unfortunately, I think only the lower-level employees are required to watch these videos and sign the conduct forms. Based on the e-mails released in this and previous cases, I'd guess that upper management doesn't go near the training room for fear of being struck down by lightning.

Re:Tales from the Past

[node 3]

Fact: Prepending a statement with "Fact:" does not make it so.

Re:Tales from the Past

[wildwood]

When having to choose between monsanto and microsoft as the supreme example of an outright criminal corporation it's a tough choice.

Shouldn't DeBeers be in there somewhere?

Re:Tales from the Past

[Anonymous Coward]

When having to choose between monsanto and microsoft as the supreme example of an outright criminal corporation it's a tough choice.

No, it's not. Have you ever dealt with Monsanto? Microsoft's tactics may not be that different from Monsanto's, but at least computer software is, ultimately, much less relevant than fucking CROPS.

Re:Tales from the Past

[Anonymous Coward]

We do take business conduct training yearly but there are pools of corrupt managers in the company. There is at least 4 I know off in the MBS division as I write this.

OT: Fedora 10 FINAL is available on ThePirateBay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Search for "Fedora 10" on thepiratebay.org.

Good seeders exist! SHA1SUM checks out; GPG sigs are good.

"The big lie" technique

[mattytee]

From TFA:

"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.

Journalists are so unfair to Microsoft

[David Gerard]

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!"

Re:Journalists are so unfair to Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so unfair!

You keep using this phrase. I don't think you know what it means.

Re:Journalists are so unfair to Microsoft

[David Gerard]

The "reality-based" community just don't understand the wonder and beauty of Microsoft products. Some of them even badmouth OOXML! I'm shocked.

5 Versions of Vista?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking idiots.

so what is it then?

[Tastecicles]

...if it isn't Vista? XP Service Pack 3a?

can we get an amen

[zogger]

Perhaps you can offer to be an expert witness if this case goes on.

Vista = $2100 email machine

[Wingsy]

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.

Re:Vista = $2100 email machine

[jawtheshark]

Well, he could run Linux on it and it wouldn't be an email machine ;-)

Re:Vista = $2100 email machine

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. It would be a paperweight!

Actually, I run Debian. You just set yourself up for that one.

Re:Vista = $2100 email machine

[Toll_Free]

What a dumb fuck.

I have a 999 dollar (CostCo) machine that runs Vista Ultimate X64 with NO problems.

Hell, even when I trashed the default install of (Vista Standard X86) and upgraded to Vista Ultimate X64, two reboots and EVERYTHING worked, even my remote control. Took about 90 minutes for the complete install to be done. I couldn't be happier.

If he spent thousands on a laptop, He's an idiot. If he bought a machine and used the default installation of ANY operating system, He's an idiot. And from having supported the board members in a financial and real estate company, I can tell you, if He's a VP or board member, He's an IDIOT.

--Toll_Free

Re:Vista = $2100 email machine

[Bungie]

Nash wrote that he "personally got burned" by buying a laptop that was labeled as Windows Vista Capable

If you're using it for e-mail Vista must be running, and thus the machine is rightly "Vista Capable". So is a P3 with 512MB of RAM but I don't expect it to get a high hardware rating and run Aero. That's like blaming Intel because your Celeron has crappy performance and the "Intel Inside" sticker mislead you.

Re:Vista = $2100 email machine

[UnknowingFool]

The problem is that cost isn't the only factor in determining whether a machine can run Aero or not. Machines can't run Aero if they do not have the correct video chipset. Any machine using the Intel 915 chipset cannot run Aero. These machines tend to be lower priced than others but the chipset appears in higher priced machines as well. It does not matter the default installation as the plaintiffs will prove. Whether he turned on Aero in the default or not, his machine is incapable of running it.

Re:Vista = $2100 email machine

[Toll_Free]

And my point is / was, anyone spending that amount of money on a laptop is an idiot. Factor that in with someone that spends that much money on a laptop that doesn't even research it's capabilities?

I bet He's gonna default on his mortgage, too... BUT, He paid cash for his 3 Escalades.

--Toll_Free

Microsoft's segmentation strategy misses.

[tjstork]

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.

Re:Microsoft's segmentation strategy misses.

[tkrotchko]

They didn't want to have one version. I suspect the Home/Pro version of XP convinced them there was a way to segment the market to maximize profit.

The truth is, as a monopoly, MS is mainly committed to finding ways of charging more for it's products. And to be fair, if I owned MS, I'd do the same thing. It's about maximizing profits, since they really don't have any competition to their desktop monopoly.

Re:Microsoft's segmentation strategy misses.

[cyber-vandal]

Apart from XP that is...

Re:Microsoft's segmentation strategy misses.

[VGPowerlord]

The Home/Pro versions of XP have a historical reasoning, though.

XP Home replaced Windows 98/ME.
XP Professional replaced Windows NT4 Workstation/Windows 2000 Professional.

Now, you could argue that XP should have combined these into one. I agree. However, I wouldn't have though too much of it if they were kept separate versions going into Vista.

Instead, Vista subdivided each of these markets in half:
XP Home to Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium
XP Professional to Vista Business and Vista Enterprise; although Enterprise didn't come until later and is the only version not to be on the same install media as the others.

Then there's Vista Ultimate for people who are naive enough to pay more to have the features of Vista Home Premium and Vista Business plus a few (IMO) useless extras.

Re:Microsoft's segmentation strategy misses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, Ultimate is for the people who just want to download a torrent and not wonder whether they got the right one.

Re:Microsoft's segmentation strategy misses.

[Toll_Free]

You forgot to add the Media Center Editions.

Vista Ultimate ALSO bundles all media center extensions. I like my Ult. install, it is rock solid stable (I reboot monthly, unless something vicious is addressed on Patch Tuesday), my remote control works out of the box (It was a Media Center Laptop originally, has X64 Ultimate on it now).

I think you're right, though. Maybe two versions of server, one for small offices, one for Enterprise systems. A Home version for computers / laptops and a Media Center version would have been enough.

Then again, add Ultimate to get everything for high end laptops. I like having everything, it's nice having the network tools I need without having to mount a drive to a Vista server machine to find them.

--Toll_Free

An ex-IBMer criticizing MSFT Business Ethics?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:An ex-IBMer criticizing MSFT Business Ethics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you looked at what IBM has done to try and protect their multi-billion dollar mainframe monopoly??

Um, do you even know what a monopoly is? (Hint: it's something IBM doesn't have.)

Don't judge the case by this one filing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

bullshit

[toby]

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.

Re:bullshit

[Macthorpe]

2) Apple's ONLY strategy is to innovate and have the better product

Say that with a straight face. Apple repeatedly leverages what control it has to improve it's marketshare without necessarily innovating at all.

Let's see... refusing to license FairPlay to other MP3 players to push iPod/iTunes lock-in, banning applications from their distribution store that 'replicate features' in Apple-owned products, banning any other form of distribution other than their own under the pretense of 'security', engaging in lawsuits against anybody who dares to install their OS on hardware they don't control, forcing their own developers into NDAs to prevent them complainign about any of the above, using Software update to push Safari as a 'security update'... All the while, a good portion of their 'innovations' have been bought or stolen from various places. Xerox, anybody?

Would you like me to go on? I'm pretty sure I could find more. The majority of Apple's innovation nowadays is innovating new ways to keep people tied to their hardware. Anybody who thinks that Apple are better than Microsoft in any regard is suffering from delusions brought on by excessively shiny equipment.

Re:bullshit

[node 3]

2) Apple's ONLY strategy is to innovate and have the better product

Say that with a straight face. Apple repeatedly leverages what control it has to improve it's marketshare without necessarily innovating at all.

Let's see... refusing to license FairPlay to other MP3 players to push iPod/iTunes lock-in, banning applications from their distribution store that 'replicate features' in Apple-owned products, banning any other form of distribution other than their own under the pretense of 'security'

You just don't get it. Apple does these things in order to maintain their high standards. If Apple were to license their systems to others, you'd end up with a mess similar to what Microsoft finds itself in. Sure, there are a lot of quality PCs out there, but there are also a ton of shit PCs. Same with phones. There's a lot of great phone apps for other phones, and a lot of shit apps.

Apple wants their products associated with a certain level of quality, and their actions are consistent with this motive. Microsoft, on the other hand, isn't all that concerned about quality. They are more concerned about market share, and their actions are consistent with this motive.

Re:bullshit

[Macthorpe]

I'm not sure whether you're trolling me or not, but I'm going to bite anyway.

You've picked the examples I provided that are convenient to prove your point, obviously ignoring those that might have a chance of proving you wrong. How does pushing Safari as a security update for iTunes associate Apple products with a certain level of quality? How does silencing developers and users who try and criticise them improve their image? Stealing UIs from Xerox and Creative? Preventing installs of OSX on unsupported hardware? If all they're after is improving their product, there are other ways to move which would do the same thing without happening to increase potential lock-in.

The kool-aid is strong with you, it seems.

Re:bullshit

[jo_ham]

Stealing UIs from Xerox

Whoa there boy, and here we expose the guy with an axe to grind.

I think you meant to say "licensing the UI from Xerox PARC". There was no theft. The two companies entered into a mutually beneficial business arrangement.

You make it sound like when Microsoft renamed the Trash the "Recycle Bin" and put it in the opposite corner of the screen and called it "innovation'.

Re:bullshit

[node 3]

I'm not sure whether you're trolling me or not, but I'm going to bite anyway.

I'm replying to you. I'm not calling you names. I'm not insulting you or saying you're drinking kool-aid and positing that you might be a troll. Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a troll.

You've picked the examples I provided that are convenient to prove your point, obviously ignoring those that might have a chance of proving you wrong.

No, I stopped at a point where I wasn't just quoting your whole post, and without making cuts. But for your points you feel so strongly about, I'll take them on. Let me know if I miss anything.

How does pushing Safari as a security update for iTunes associate Apple products with a certain level of quality?

It doesn't, and that's not what happened. It wasn't marked as a security update, and it was clearly marked (i.e., not hidden). Apple put it as a default update, and when people cried about it, they changed the default to "no". They did the same thing with the mini store. This behavior is consistent with someone guessing at a balance, guessing wrong, and making it right.

In case you missed it, I'll repeat that their initial choice was wrong.

How does silencing developers and users who try and criticise them improve their image?

Name one example. The iPhone NDA wasn't about silencing their critics. It's about Apple being overly cautious. They stated, long before they did lift the NDA, that they were going to. The reason Apple does things like that is because once something is public, it's public. It's really important to them that they get the SDK and APIs right. If it's under NDA, you don't have google searches showing wrong information. This is very much in line with Apple wanting to promote quality.

Stealing UIs from Xerox and Creative?

Neither are true.

Preventing installs of OSX on unsupported hardware?

I already covered this.

If all they're after is improving their product, there are other ways to move which would do the same thing without happening to increase potential lock-in.

Just because there's more than one way to skin a cat, that doesn't mean your way is right. Apple's way is to be extremely cautious about quality and image. Virtually every action they've taken is consistent with this idea.

I'm not saying their way is right, just that it is what it is. One thing that is missing from their way is any sort of monopolistic lock-in. If monopolistic lock-in was their tactic, they're extremely bad at it. They support open standards all throughout every product they sell, and every time they make a choice that people complain about with regards to bundling, they change the default behavior.

Some monopolist!

The kool-aid is strong with you, it seems.

A Clue: not everyone who disagrees with you drinks the kool-aid.

Re:bullshit

[Macthorpe]

I think you meant to say "licensing the UI from Xerox PARC".

Xerox didn't seem to think so. I can't find a mention of a licensing deal, but you seem to know where I would find details.

You make it sound like when Microsoft renamed the Trash the "Recycle Bin" and put it in the opposite corner of the screen and called it "innovation'.

That doesn't even sound relevant to what I said, and it doesn't sound like I'm the one with the axe to grind.

Re:bullshit

[Macthorpe]

Trolling doesn't always mean name-calling. It can be posting things which are demonstrably false to provoke a response.

I understand this isn't the case and apologise without reservation.

It doesn't, and that's not what happened.

My information on this was wrong, so I concede this point.

Name one example.

Pick one of the many times Apple has removed posts from forums complaining about a bug or security issue. Apple are notorious for this, and such has been commented on Slashdot numerous times.

The iPhone NDA was enforced to harshly (in my opinion, of course) to prevent developers from talking about why their applications were removed from the iPhone store.

Neither are true.

I already posted links above regarding alleged infringement from Apple of UI ideas from both Xerox and Creative. The former was dismissed only due to the length of time taken to file and is still argued to this day on who would have been victorious. The latter resulted in Apple being asked to pay to license Creative's patent. Seeing as Creative's MP3 players have been out with the same UI since the Nomad, it becomes hard to believe that they didn't know what they were doing.

They support open standards all throughout every product they sell

This is exaggeration at best. I don't think you can say anything about iPod or iTunes is 'open', and there's a story on the front page right now regarding that very thing. The OS may well be, but nothing over the top of it seems to follow suit.

If monopolistic lock-in was their tactic, they're extremely bad at it.

I disagree. They're very, very good at it. iPod now accounts for about 70% of all MP3 players, and each one of those leverages FairPlay and iTunes and thus lock-in to the iTunes platform. Throw in things like 'accidentally' breaking iTunes on Vista, and suing the arse off anybody who tries to copy music to the iPod in a fashion not authorised by them. I don't see how any of this is better than Microsoft tying a media player to an operating system.

A Clue: not everyone who disagrees with you drinks the kool-aid.

I agree with you, and the insinuation was not deserved. Still, I disagree with you on most of your points, and I think that Apple's MP3 dominance and tying to iTunes is an anti-trust investigation waiting to happen.

Re:bullshit

[node 3]

Pick one of the many times Apple has removed posts from forums complaining about a bug or security issue. Apple are notorious for this, and such has been commented on Slashdot numerous times.

Oh, that. When you mentioned 'silencing developers and [critical] users', it sounded more like lawsuits and C&D's. It's silly on Apple's part, but hardly 'silencing' anyone. This is, however, all in line with Apple's intense focus on controlling their image, which is part of promoting an image of quality. If you want me to call it foolish or silly or whatever, sure, it is. But I can't quite get to the point of hanging them for it since it is their forums, and they aren't going into other forums and taking down posts or suing detractors (somehow your posts slipped through the Apple legal team?).

The iPhone NDA was enforced to harshly (in my opinion, of course) to prevent developers from talking about why their applications were removed from the iPhone store.

I'm pretty sure the iPhone NDA has never been enforced, other than people self-enforcing it. Don't we know about a few apps that have been denied? Don't we know why? Haven't those developers not been sued or even been talked sternly to?

And I agree, it's over-broad. But again, it's Apple trying to control their quality. They want the NDA to keep control over the iPhone development process. They're erring on the side of over-caution because it's easier to keep things in control than to regain control later. This is also why the iPhone 'SDK' was originally just web pages. They knew they wanted to let other developers on board, but they didn't know how to go about it. If you look at the whole process from the beginning to now, and the direction it's heading, you'll see it fits this idea perfectly.

[Xerox and Creative]

Apple purchased the IP from Xerox. That's an absolute absurd example. As for Creative, the lawsuit was settled. I don't go around saying MS 'stole' their GUI from Apple. Having owned a Creative Zen, a Diamond Rio, and a Sony Network Walkman, prior to my first iPod, I can't come close to seeing any merit in such a patent to begin with. Style-wise they were all different. The basics, though, of text menu systems are pretty much the same. You can't really innovate much on the generalities, so I can't really have any sympathy on such a generic patent, just like I can't complain about MS's GUI being so much like Apple's.

This is exaggeration at best. I don't think you can say anything about iPod or iTunes is 'open', and there's a story on the front page right now regarding that very thing. The OS may well be, but nothing over the top of it seems to follow suit.

They support mp3 and aac, all without DRM. They can accept music from any source, and do nothing to lock away your media. That's what I mean by open. The devices themselves are, to varying degrees, closed. My point, however, is that you can go from an iPod to any other brand of MP3 player without any trouble, unless you bought music from the iTunes store, which is never required or implied to be required, and there's no artificial technical limitation intended to promote the iTunes Store.

I disagree. They're very, very good at it. iPod now accounts for about 70% of all MP3 players, and each one of those leverages FairPlay and iTunes and thus lock-in to the iTunes platform.

Already addressed. Apple wants to get rid of DRM from music (and have already done so with one label). It's pretty clear that Apple isn't trying to lock people into the iPod by force. They're doing it be making the iPod what people want. The average iPod only has a handful of DRMd songs on it. Apple knows this. If they stopped making the players people wanted, there's little stopping people from jumping ship. People switched from 8-track to cassette, and from cassette to CD, knowing they'd have to repurchase music. To

Re:OT: Fedora 10 FINAL is available on ThePirateBa

[JohnBailey]

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.

Twitter troll, mod down

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Re:5 Versions of Vista (when none are needed)?

[Informative]

You forgot "assholes".

They need proof??

[Khyber]

"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.

recent /. story shows Jobs wants more DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

kind of holing your argument that they don't like DRM.

How is this any different...

[Anonymous Coward]

... 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.

Re: Regarding the CORE EXPERIENCE

[Douglas Goodall]

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.

all hinges on the definition of "capable"...

[advocate_one]

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"...

Quartz Extreme was "Jaguar", 2002

[toby]

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.

Re:Quartz Extreme was "Jaguar", 2002

[ceoyoyo]

Wow, you're right. It was that long ago. Time flies.

My lab found that 10.0 was more of a beta (Apple really treated it that way as well, including giving it away for free and giving free upgrades to 10.1), 10.1, Jaguar, was the first-run version, which worked pretty well but had some bugs. Panther was a big improvement, as you say, faster across the board.

It was so bad...

[mfh]

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.

Re:It was so bad...

[chrish]

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.

ARGH, I hate that. Relatives, friends, etc. ask me for advice and then ignore it completely to buy some crappy computer and "free" monitor that'll ensure they go blind after watching the machine spend 10 minutes booting. Or my father-in-law who signed up for $35/month dial-up with Bell after I found him a $9.95/month local dial-up place.

Why are you asking for me advice if you're going to ignore it?! You knew I wasn't going to validate your preconceptions by agreeing with your bad choices!

Bullshit & more bullshit...

[I_want_information]

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.