Ballmer Ordered To Testify In 'Vista Capable' Case

alphadogg writes "A federal judge in Seattle has ordered Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to testify in a class action lawsuit against Microsoft that alleges the company misled consumers in a marketing campaign for its Windows Vista operating system in which computers sold with an older Microsoft OS were labeled 'Vista Capable' when in fact they could only run a basic version of Vista. Ballmer has unique personal knowledge of facts surrounding the case, therefore he must face questioning, Judge Marsha Pechman of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle ruled, according to court documents released late Friday."

Comments

Ballmer in court

[rallymatte]

I wonder if they allow chair-throwing in court these days.
If they do, I think Microsoft stands a pretty good chance.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Andr T.]

What about monkey-dancing? The judge will be amazed!

Re:Ballmer in court

[FinchWorld]

Judge: Uh, I hate to interrupt your fun, boys, but I got a few complaints this case is crooked.
Ballmer: [laughs] And how.
Judge: Gee, I'd hate to close you down. Maybe we can reach a little, uh, understanding here. [Holds out the palm of his hand and motions his fingers so as to suggest that this is a bribe]
Ballmer: I understand.
Bill: Um, hey, Ballmer, I-- I think he wants--
Ballmer: Not right now, Bill. Monkey Boy is talking to a Judge.
Judge: Uh, let me put it this way. I'm looking for my friend Bill. [nods as he says Bill] Have you seen any Bills around here? [nods]
Ballmer: Yes. [points at Bill] He's Bill.
Judge: [groans] I-- Listen carefully, and watch me wink as I speak, okay?
Ballmer: Okay.
Judge: The guy I'm really looking for--wink--is Mr. Bribe--wink, wink. [holds out hand again]
Ballmer: It's a lightweight operating system.
Jusge: All right, that's it, I'm shutting this shit down.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Anonymous Coward]

all rise .... and duck!

Re:Ballmer in court

[Ethanol-fueled]

No, there's only bench-throwing in a courtroom setting, which is why Ballmer should be wheeled in inside a monkey cage so he can't get loose and cause trouble. He'll also need a fresh change of newspaper so he won't have anything to fling at hapless jurors.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Coraon]

and here I was expecting when the lawyers have him in the box and ask him who's at fault him to say 'developers' like 50+ times...

Re:Ballmer in court

[Kagura]

I wonder if they allow chair-throwing in court these days.
If they do, I think Microsoft stands a pretty good chance.

Unfortunately for him, Ballmer is being kept in a special plastic prison. All chairs have been replaced by ultra-light-weight plastic versions that will cause little harm if thrown. And as an added contingency measure, the chairs have been bolted down in the special courtroom. Unless a blue shape-shifter smuggles in a chair, it looks like he is stuck here permanently.

Re:Ballmer in court

[jeffasselin]

I just had the image of Ballmer being brought in the courtroom in full Hannibal Lecter setup :-)

Re:Ballmer in court

[AioKits]

It's a good thing Jusge broke in at the end to put an end to all this corruption!

Re:Ballmer in court

[Dystopian Rebel]

Prosecution: Following all the evidence that we have seen, in which many different customers and partners of Microsoft mention discussing the problems with you, do you maintain that you had no knowledge of these problems?

Ballmer: Erg... ugh... errg!

Judge: MISTER Ballmer! You have been warned before. I will find you in contempt of this court if you continue your attempts to dislodge the seat in the witness stand.

Ballmer: [Sits down, sweaty. Sighs.]

Judge: Answer the question, Mr Ballmer.
MISTER BALLMER! Why are you painting your face blue?!

Ballmer: I'm a PC and... I have just crashed.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough with the chair throwing. It's getting old!

Re:Ballmer in court

[ubrgeek]

Judge: Mr. Ballmer, will you please take the stand?

Ballmer: Sure. Where do you want it to land?

Re:Ballmer in court

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Jusge (Played by S L Jackson), was fed up with the mother****ing corruption in this mother****ing case.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Goffee71]

I await the movie version with interest, perhaps with a pro-wrestler playing the part of Stevie.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Anonymous Coward]

Jusge for supreme court!!

Replace Scalia!!

Re:Ballmer in court

[DoofusOfDeath]

I wonder if they allow chair-throwing in court these days.

If they do, I think Microsoft stands a pretty good chance.

The judge rules from the bench. She'd fsck'ing p3wn him.

Re:Ballmer in court

[ByOhTek]

I know that is intended as humor, but even so, would a bribe really be necessary in this situation? Yes, the OS has reduced "form"unality, but is there really a loss of function? You lose the superfluous Aero interface, but that doesn't make the OS unusable (IMO, quite the opposite). Is feature that allows you to do a task missing? This lawsuit seems silly. It's like taking a guy who's gone on a killing spree, with rock-solid evidence supporting this, and then hitting the guy/gal with concealed weapons charges, and nothing else (note, the weapon may not have been concealed, and in this case, probably wasn't).

Re:Ballmer in court

[Poltras]

Hey! You gotta chair-ish some humor around. As long as it's on topic...

Re:Ballmer in court

[kpainter]

Ballmer: Perhaps you would be interested in this "Vista Capable" computer?

Re:Ballmer in court

[Joebert]

Just wait until the judge decides to throw the book at Ballmer.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Anonymous Coward]

congratulations, you are the 1 millionth person to make a "Steve Ballmer throwing a chair" joke.

Your prize is a whole page of snarky comments.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Walpurgiss]

It isn't only about losing Aero. A guy I work with got a new HP last year that came with vista basic, and it is completely unusably slow. It says vista capable on the case, but 2 tabs open in firefox (for them, its ebay and gmail) and try to do anything else = unresponsive.

Same thing after I figured it was spyware/malware related and reverted from the system restore partition HP provides (since you don't get disc media anymore)

Vista Capable at the low end of the spectrum is at best a complete lie.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Walpurgiss]

That band's website is gone, replaced by a domain name squatter.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO

Re:Ballmer in court

[Hognoxious]

I think it's been OK sofa.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Anonymous Coward]

all rise .... and duck!

You'd do it for Randalf Scott!

Re:Ballmer in court

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I wonder if they allow chair-throwing in court these days.

Even SNL would have passed on that joke.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Mateo_LeFou]

"but that doesn't make the OS unusable"

That's not what is contended.

Re:Ballmer in court

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Just wait until the judge decides to throw the book at Ballmer.

Oh yes, cos that cliche's less old than Ballmer's chair throwing. Why don't you work out a way to say "I can see my house from here!" in there, too?

Re:Ballmer in court

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what she said !

Re:Ballmer in court

[ConceptJunkie]

In the last movie, Ballmer was played by Bender!

Re:Ballmer in court

[mysticgoat]

Yeah, give the chair-throwing a rest.

What I think will be more interesting is the potty mouth remarks. I doubt the monkey dancer can get through more than 30 minutes of deposition without letting his sh*t and f*ck vocabulary get loose. And of course he may be required to quote himself verbatim.

Could be interesting. As much fun maybe as the Nixon [expletive deleted] tapes.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Atti K.]

I'm sure he'll bring some developers developers developers, developers developers developers, developers developers developers with him.

Re:Ballmer in court

[daveime]

So it's Microsoft's fault that Firefox is a bloated memory hog ?

Re:Ballmer in court

[Anonymous Coward]

put linux on it.

Re:Ballmer in court

[chrish]

That may be true (it certainly was with Firefox 2), but it's MS's fault that Vista Capable machines have enough RAM to run Vista, pretty much without any additional applications.

Throw in the shovelware crap (all of it auto-starting and installing tray icons and who knows what else) that consumer machines get "for free" and you're doomed.

Re:Ballmer in court

[Walpurgiss]

I did for my sister's machine, which runes ubuntu like a pro (AthlonXP 1700ish, like 5 years old at least) It does fine.

But the HP computer I posted about above, the people are so computer illiterate it hurts to try to explain the difference between documents in a folder and web pages, that the internet is not all on their computer, and that CDs aren't the same as DVDs.

Putting on linux would put me in an even worse support position than I'm in now.

And as a precaution...

[Constantine XVI]

...all courtroom furniture will be bolted down.

Re:And as a precaution...

[jkrise]

It would be far simpler to handcuff Ballmer instead.

Re:And as a precaution...

[TemporalBeing]

Then he just goes flying with the chair...

Re:And as a precaution...

[Atriqus]

Just bolts? You sure that's enough?

hazard pay?

[Binder]

I certainly hope the judge grants the jury an anti chair cage around the jury box.

Hmm

[u38cg]

Although I agree with the justice of going after them for misleading statements, I reckon all-in-all these people are better off, having got a PC with XP rather than being forced to wrestle the leviathan.

Re:Hmm

[daviee]

At the end, it still comes with and runs a version of Vista.

There are true marketing scams, but IMO, this is not one of them.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

wrestle the leviathan.

That sounds like a lovely euphemism for an action that's... well... more pleasurable than dealing with Vista that's for sure.

Re:Hmm

[UnknowingFool]

The sad irony is that MS lowered the standards to get Vista onto machines that could not support Aero. The original assumption that no one would buy these machines if consumers knew that they could not upgrade from XP to Vista. Considering the negative experiences that many of them consumers had on these machines, many of them don't want Vista nowadays.

Re:Hmm

[SpiderClan]

Unless they're trying to wrestle said leviathan anyway, but using under-powered machines to do it.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the punchline, "they're fun to ride, but don't let your friends catch you on one?"

Re:Hmm

[Mr. Underbridge]

Although I agree with the justice of going after them for misleading statements, I reckon all-in-all these people are better off, having got a PC with XP rather than being forced to wrestle the leviathan.

...except the point is that the point of the lawsuit is that people intending to run Vista bought the computers, and found to their chagrin that they couldn't run it. Which means they were wrestling the leviathan, just with even poorer weapons.

I do feel for them. I have a laptop I bought in April, 4GB RAM, and Vista (preinstalled) has always just been obscenely slow when doing anything like logging in, switching users, etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

Re:Hmm

[TheLinuxSRC]

At the end, it still comes with and runs a version of Vista.

Actually these machines *didn't* come with a version of Vista. They came with a sticker claiming they are capable of running Vista with no specific of which version of Vista they would be capable of running. As a result, this sticker meant different things to MS marketroids than it did to consumers who found the stickers misleading; hence the lawsuit.

Re:Hmm

[Cowmonaut]

My laptop with 2GB RAM has no issues with Vista Ultimate x64. It does have an AMD64 Turion dual core though.

It came with Vista Home Basic pre-installed which DID run dog slow during everything. I'm pretty sure Microsoft, for whatever reason, purposely crippled the lower versions. Lord knows I've seen similar things happen when people misconfigure their GPO settings or make bad Registry changes manually.

Re:Hmm

[idontgno]

For certain small values of "Vista". And a sufficiently tolerant definition of "runs".

Re:Hmm

[TTURabble]

Wrong, this is classic bait and switch.

You bait them with pretty pictures and a new user interface, then you switch it out with something that looks and feels just like XP. Even their new marketing campaign (mojave) pushes the UI with the "participants" talking about how great everything looks. I have yet to see a vista commercial that talks about the technical merits of the operating system, because your average user doesn't understand or care about indexed search or file systems etc.

Re:Hmm

[Ephemeriis]

Although I agree with the justice of going after them for misleading statements, I reckon all-in-all these people are better off, having got a PC with XP rather than being forced to wrestle the leviathan.

I think you misunderstand.

This isn't about whether a computer shipped with Vista or XP, this is about how a computer was labeled.

Microsoft has a qualification process that decides what sticker you're allowed to put on your PC. If your machine meets the requirements you are allowed to brand your computer as "Vista Capable".

Microsoft intentionally lowered the requirements for their sticker program in order to include computers that probably should not have qualified.

This means that there are people out there who bought computers intending to run Vista on them, and thought that the machine was capable of running Vista, and were then disappointed to find out that they could only run a very limited version of Vista.

You can certainly argue that XP is a better OS than Vista, and I don't think you'll see a whole lot of people disagreeing with you around here. But the fact of the matter is that people expected something that they weren't getting.

Re:Hmm

[Ephemeriis]

The sad irony is that MS lowered the standards to get Vista onto machines that could not support Aero. The original assumption that no one would buy these machines if consumers knew that they could not upgrade from XP to Vista. Considering the negative experiences that many of them consumers had on these machines, many of them don't want Vista nowadays.

This is certainly true.

I've got a Vista machine at home... 64-bit, dual core, 4 gigs of RAM... Runs fine. I might very well be better off with some other choice of OS, but I don't have any genuine issues running Vista. It is at least functional.

I've seen clients bring in Vista machines that are barely functional. They complain about how slow the machine is, how hard it is to do any work. These machines have the bare minimum hardware necessary to boot the OS. They've got 1 GB or less of RAM, a crappy on-board GPU, and some kind of underpowered budget CPU. And these people are miserable with Vista.

If Microsoft had required manufacturers to ship computers with decent hardware you wouldn't be seeing nearly as many people complaining about Vista.

Re:Hmm

[canajin56]

It also fooled MS employees. One of the damning e-mails was a VP who bought a Vista capable laptop and was pissed it couldn't run Vista in a usable way.

Re:Hmm

[plague3106]

Funny, I bought a Viao laptop with only 2GB of RAM, and Vista Business. I wiped it of course and installed a fresh copy of Business, which I later upgraded to Ultimate. It runs just fine, she's had no complaints. I've used it as well.

Re:Hmm

[Rary]

I have a laptop I bought in April, 4GB RAM, and Vista (preinstalled) has always just been obscenely slow when doing anything like logging in, switching users, etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

I suspect this is not purely a problem with Vista, as I have not experienced any obscenely slow activity on my laptop with 2GB RAM running Vista Home Basic, nor on an older desktop (XP 2800) with 2GB RAM running Vista Ultimate.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I was referring more to the Leviathan's sea-serpent-like shape and the idea of wrestling with a phallus... preferably one's own.

Re:Hmm

[flyingfsck]

Yup, if someone brings me one of those to fix, I install Linux with ExPee in a VM and seamless RDP from Linux for specific Windows applications. That works like a charm, but it takes a lot of dedication to set it up and get it all to work.

Re:Hmm

[hedwards]

This is something that they've been doing for years. Even notice that in Win XP there are an awful lot of greyed out checkboxes? Or how the help files often include information about the Pro version when you're using the Home version?

It's a pain in the ass, and it really ought not to be tolerated. I'm fine with them stripping features from home or adding them to the more expensive version, but the less expensive versions ought to properly function. None of that sabotaging security features bullshit either.

The question now is whether they went too far with the confusion.

Re:Hmm

[nabsltd]

If Microsoft had required manufacturers to ship computers with decent hardware you wouldn't be seeing nearly as many people complaining about Vista.

On the other hand, if Microsoft hadn't bloated Vista to the point of unusability on the average hardware being sold at the time, there would be even less people complaining.

A machine with a 2-2.8GHz CPU and 512MB-1GB of RAM was pretty much the middle of the road when Vista was launched, so it should run just fine on that configuration. With Aero, you'll need a decent graphics card, but you shouldn't need 4GB of RAM or a 3.4GHz processor just to run the basic system.

Re:Hmm

[mseidl]

I have a laptop I bought in April, 4GB RAM, and Vista (preinstalled) has always just been obscenely slow when doing anything like logging in, switching users, etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

Have you tried to reconfigure, optimize and recompile your kernel?

Re:Hmm

[sjames]

Inevitable car analogies:

This car is ready to be entered in the Indy 500!

Well, actually it has a top speed of 35 MPH and can't even vaguely qualify, but you CAN enter it!

Off road ready!

Your driveway isn't technically a road and it can go there as long as it's not too steep. Just floor it, you'll eventually creep up to the garage.

Comfortably seats six (infants)

Anti-lock brakes (as long as you're not going more than 5 MPH).

Faster than any computer on the planet (in 1945)

Sound fair?

Re:Hmm

[PitaBred]

Might halfway be the blame of the manufacturer for their crappy default image then? I've never seen a preinstalled Vista I've liked, and because of that, I simply refuse to use it.

Re:Hmm

[Paradise Pete]

When you look upon your customers as suckers and sheep to be sheared, these types of decisions start to appear rational.

Re:Hmm

[hairyfeet]

And whose fault is that? I'll tell you who, MSFT! Since Vista has come out they have been trying to shove it down the OEMs throats knowing that a good portion of the machines they are selling couldn't run the damned thing, but instead of doing the smart thing and keeping Vista for the "premium" machines they shoved it out there for PCs that don't have a fourth of what it takes to even give a shitty Vista "experience". And then they killed XP. Smart move, MSFT!

Let us be honest here: Joe and Jane average ain't buying gamer rigs. They are buying whatever is on sale at Best Buy, Walmart, etc. And there are still plenty of Single core Celerons, Semprons, and Pentiums being sold. They just recently started carrying more than 512Mb of RAM in the low end machines! So if MSFT wants to know who is to blame for the "Vista sucks the big wet titty" attitude that is out there they can look in the mirror. Between shoving the thing on single core machines(IMHO Vista sucks ass on anything less than a dual with 2Gb, at least what I have seen of the OEM machines that have crossed my desk) and totally screwing backwards compatibility which was the reason folks went with MSFT in the first place, not even counting the slow as a slug DRM issue, the only one to blame for all the Vista hatred is MSFT.

I just hope they get their collective shit together for Win7 because I am frankly tired of having to hunt XP drivers for the OEM machines that come my way. And even with WinME I never had so many people look at me like I let a huge fart in front of them when I offer Vista as an option on a new build. I think the teen girl whose dad had me build her a PC this summer summed it up more succinctly than I ever could when I offered Vista as a choice when she said "EEEEEEWWWWW!". So sorry MSFT, but you knew the "Vista capable" scam was just that, a scam to please your old pal Intel. If there is anyone there left with a brain you will pay up before anymore emails that make you look like complete asses comes out.

Re:Hmm

[Jaysyn]

Then Vista & XP would be competing even more than they are now. Microsoft hates competition.

Re:Hmm

[Shagg]

If Microsoft had required manufacturers to ship computers with decent hardware you wouldn't be seeing nearly as many people complaining about Vista.

On the other hand, if Microsoft hadn't bloated Vista to the point of unusability on the average hardware being sold at the time, there would be even less people complaining.

Replace "Vista" with whatever the latest version of Windows is, and that's pretty much true for all of them at the time they're released. The only shocking part is that some people seem to be surprised by this.

Re:Hmm

[socrplayr813]

Link to the summary: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/12/1658249

and the article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080211-vista-capable-scheme-was-panned-at-microsoft.html

Mike Nash, currently a corporate vice president for Windows product management, wrote in an e-mail, "I PERSONALLY got burnt. ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine." Jim Allchin, then the co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, wrote in another e-mail, "We really botched this. ... You guys have to do a better job with our customers."

Re:Hmm

[timeOday]

At the end, it still comes with and runs a version of Vista.

Too bad they didn't put that on the PC sticker: "Special-Gimped-Version-of-Vista-Compatible!"

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? My experience with Vista (X86-64 version) has been quite the opposite. It runs very quickly on my computer, but of course, I have a high end system (2.6 GHz CPU, GeForce GPU, 4 GB RAM).

Re:Hmm

[Culture20]

I do feel for them. I have a laptop I bought in April, 4GB RAM, and Vista (preinstalled) has always just been obscenely slow when doing anything like logging in, switching users, etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

Your problem has been formated bold and italicized. You're not fighting Windows, you're fighting vendor-ware.

Re:Hmm

[mordred99]

I will bite. Read lifehacker and learn to speed up your vista system. It will tell you what to turn off and what not. While MS is to blame for some of it, they are not to blame for all of it. Remember - people on this site, were bitching for years (a decade ago) that MS could configure their OS for optimal settings, and then manufacturers could not change them. They sued and won the right to configure their own base images. Now they give you crapware laden pieces of shit which are horribly misconfigured, it is pathetic.

Secondly, MS does not purposely hamstring a version of the OS. They can leave off features which are available in the upper tiered OS versions. I don't think any of it has to do with performance from reading the list. They are all applications.

Third, if you want to get your system running well, do a fresh install, uninstall all the crapware, turn off the extra services, etc. Then you will get a good system. My work PC came with a disk of vista, it was re-imaged with XP so I took the license home and installed it. It flew on my system. Same basic specs you had. It was comparable to XP. Now it won't benchmark the same, but I am talking user experience. Double click on excel, and it loaded in 3 seconds, just like it does on my XP box. All I did was turn off some of the crap that goes on behind the scenes, and just wastes memory and processing.

Re:Hmm

[jawtheshark]

with ExPee in a VM

Assuming you mean Windows XP... Where did you get a valid license? At the pirate bay?

Re:Hmm

[oreaq]

I take three!

Re:Hmm

[jawtheshark]

My work PC came with a disk of vista, it was re-imaged with XP so I took the license home and installed it.

Was it an OEM license for your work PC? If yes, then, sorry, you can't do that. Your Vista machine is for all intents and purposes illegal.

Re:Hmm

[DavidD_CA]

I have yet to see a vista commercial that talks about the technical merits of the operating system, because your average user doesn't understand or care about indexed search or file systems etc

Which is exactly why you won't see a commercial touting those features. Sure, they are there and plenty more. Administrators find dealing with Vista far easier than XP, hardware/peripheral issues aside for the time-being.

But your average grandma who thinks that Office 2007 and Vista are the same thing? No, they want pretty features like DVR functionality and easier photo sharing.

Re:Hmm

[Just Some Guy]

I have yet to see a vista commercial that talks about the technical merits of the operating system, because your average user doesn't understand or care about indexed search or file systems etc.

Even more, I haven't seen a Vista/Mojave commercial that mentions anything other than the applications running on it, any of which could also run on XP. "I can edit photos? Cool!"

Re:Hmm

[mordred99]

No clue .. got the disk and the license code off my work PC on the sticker. The company said we can do that as we will not go to Vista until we get an EA and site license from MS. How can you tell? Old MS licenses used to have xxxx-OEM-xxx-xxxxx as the license keys ;)

Re:Hmm

[Just Some Guy]

I've seen clients bring in Vista machines that are barely functional. They complain about how slow the machine is, how hard it is to do any work. These machines have the bare minimum hardware necessary to boot the OS. They've got 1 GB or less of RAM, a crappy on-board GPU, and some kind of underpowered budget CPU. And these people are miserable with Vista.

Really? I have a laptop with a dual-core 2.3GHz Turion and 2GB of RAM. I've verified that it isn't launching 100 unnecessary startup programs and Decrapifier is happy with it. And yet, launching programs is like watching paint dry. It is subjectively much less responsive than my old Athlon 1400 machine with 1GB of PC133 RAM running XP.

Re:Hmm

[roc97007]

And for certain narrow definitions of "faster".

Re:Hmm

[jawtheshark]

Hey, don't look at me. I don't know. I just know that an OEM license is non-transferable. Alas, when the sticker is on the case of the computer, it usually is a OEM license.

The license keys of a retail version are either on the CD case or on a separate paper (with hologram and all). At least those that I've seen.

I'm pretty sure that your company is in pretty big trouble if Microsoft finds out about this. (If it's an official policy of the company, otherwise it's you that is "to blame")

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, Vista is the latest version of Windows that's on the market. Anyway, I disagree with your point. I was running Win2000 pro and upgraded to Xp Pro on my machines and suffered no detectable performance penalties. Microsoft is certainly capable of releasing an upgrade OS that doesn't require major hardware upgrades to retain the same level of performance.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

They would complain about the cost of upgrading instead. Vista would still be a flop, but at least the customer wouldn't feel lied to and the need to sue.

Of course, every version of Windows has been claimed to be "faster than ever!" when we all know that the reverse is true. Upgrading from XP to Vista is the first time most of the general public have experienced this Microsoft trick, and now they've seen it, MS are living on borrowed time.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

After stripping out every possible *feature* from Vista, disabling everything unnecessary, I managed to get a machine with 512MB of RAM and a Sempron 3400+ with a Geforce 6150 SE working semi-decently.
It's nowhere near as good as XP or 2000 would have been, but after months of work-time, I managed to get it to do something useful.

Re:Hmm

[Tubal-Cain]

-2x faster!

Re:Hmm

[Tubal-Cain]

A friend of mine just pulled XP OEM licenses off of ~20 machines before we ship them out with 2K.

Re:Hmm

[jawtheshark]

Yes, and I photographed 15 XP licenses in a classroom where all machines ran Win2000. Still, using them is pirating, (Never managed to use them, since they seem to be locked to HP installation media)

Re:Hmm

[Mateo_LeFou]

you can edit photos on XP, sure, but you can't get the "Vista Memories Experience (TM)"

Re:Hmm

[Threni]

> They came with a sticker claiming they are capable of running Vista with no
> specific of which version of Vista they would be capable of running.

So? They can run Vista, so it's not misleading. They don't have to be able to run all versions for the statement to be true. Next you'll be complaining that games marketed as being for PCs don't run on an old shitty Windows 98SE box. They don't run on all PCs, but they run on PCs. This is a logic thing as much as a technical thing.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Weren't you tring to say "Special-Photoshopped-Version-of-Vista-Compatible?"

Re:Hmm

[Mystra_x64]

I keep hearing this "sucks the big wet titty" more and more lately. Is this some kind of geek's ultimate dream?

Re:Hmm

[ReedYoung]

I have yet to see a vista commercial that talks about the technical merits of the operating system, because your average user doesn't understand or care about indexed search or file systems etc.

I'm thinking of the functional comparisons of common tasks in the "I'm a Mac" ads, and I disagree that user indifference is the reason Vista commercials don't examine technical merits. My "average user" does care about indexed search and file systems, if those are useful, meaning that "performance gains" show up in the tasks the end user is already doing, as opposed to introducing a new task, no matter how fast it is. They don't care to take 30 hours poring through KBs and white papers for the marginal performance gains Microsoft typically offers from whatever is their newest, shiniest "innovation."

Re:Hmm

[windex82]

I can't tell in this case but maybe not. Most contract/break-fix shops are some level of microsoft partner. Place I used to work could do the same thing.

Being a partner has perks, for example the Microsoft action pack. A package of nearly every CD you could need to repair a Microsoft server with any Microsoft software configuration. The action pack included things like SQL Server, Exchange 5.0 - 2007, every imaginable oem/retail/vol combination of office 2003 and 2007, Vista, XP, Server 2003 and 2008, that awful proxy server/gateway/content filter/firewall software... (I've been lucky enough to forget the name but not the pain it has caused so many...)

You were also allowed free usage of any license for testing purposes, they all came with a perfectly valid and no activation required cd-key (except for office, the keys would require validation (which all conformed to the other rules; where re-installs become valid again after 6 months, 3 installs and you need to do phone validation, (which you can do any number of times without question no matter what your calling about) and the vol version expects you to use your valid volume key.

Our production equipment all required licenses as did office. For our machines we had retail copies of windows so no oem lock, and generally the first task of a new hire was to put their computer and arrange their desk/office how they see fit, so no OEM to deal with anyway...

Seems you could argue that its not the companies computer and therefore invalid or that it was for more than just merely testing but it could also be said that as an employee you are tasked with staying up on vista and have to approve patches and whatnot so it is in fact a test machine, that you happen to use full time because you need to test it...

The new Microsoft key validation isn't all as bad as its made out to be. I've never had to wait more then 2 minutes on hold. The only issues I can say I've had was when I requested the wrong key. I needed to keys and swapped which key I needed for which machine. Just had to call back and request the opp key, but that was my fault. They now allow you to try out any software they provide for 30-90 days fully functioning for free, as long as it uses the new activation system. This includes software like Exchange.

And I've only ran into one machine in all my time that had any issues activating but what really happened was spyware.. when the machine has a repair install completed (cleaning destroyed the OS) it wanted activated and would pass but would forget after any reboot. Clean reinstall fixed everything of course.

Re:Hmm

[rtechie]

And whose fault is that? I'll tell you who, MSFT!

No, it was the OEMs. The OEMs said that they were going to flat-out ignore the Vista badge rules unless Microsoft provided branding for non-Areo systems. In other words, they were just going to put the "Vista Ready" badge on all their systems whether or not they could run Aero. If they could install Vista they considered that system "ready to run Vista". The OEMs were very worried that with Vista available nobody would want to buy ANY system, even a $500 entry-level box, running the "old" XP operating system. Especially if that box couldn't ever be upgraded to Vista.

The logos morphed from one "Vista Ready" badge which meant the PC could run Aero to a "Vista Capable" badge which meant it couldn't run Aero and the "Vista Home Premium Ready" badge for those PCs that COULD run Aero. The two badges are virtually identical and this both confused and disappointed users.

So MS really don't have a choice on this one other than discarding the certification system.

Just like the issue with drivers, this isn't MS' fault. OEMs had the driver kits over 5 years before Vista launched. They had FIVE YEARS, in some cases as many as EIGHT, to update their drivers. This often amounted to adding exactly one line of code to the XP driver. Of course, they'd still have to QA the new driver and many OEMs were too lazy to do that so they just left the device "unsupported".

Re:Hmm

[rtechie]

It's a scam.

"Vista Capable" without Aero is tremendously misleading.

It was crammed down their throat by the OEMs, but MS knew from day 1 that "Vista Capable" would cause problems.

Re:Hmm

[hairyfeet]

Look up "MSFT changes driver model on Vista before release" or something to that effect. I'm afraid I have a cold and my Google Fu goes right to pot when I am off. But IIRC they changed the driver model between RC1 and RC2 and pretty much broke every damned driver that came before(I know that Intel had a working WDM 915 driver for RC1 that won't work on later versions) so the manufacturers rightly got pissed and refused to bother until they were damned good and ready.

And you do know the MSFT controls what the OEMs put on their machines with pricing, don't you? Again you'll have to look it up but I remember reading that the reason we saw a flood of Vista Home Basic and Premium is that they cost the OEMs cheaper than XP home because MSFT wanted to wean folks off of XP and drive Vista adoption rates so it would look good in their ads. Unfortunately for the customers and the idiots that thought up OEM pricing it caused the OEMs to dump Vista on machines that never should have had it. And frankly I can't blame them. The OEM game is cutthroat even in the best of times and last I heard Dell makes a grand total of $8 on their low end machines. So every dime they can save on the OS is money they can keep as profit or use to undercut the competition.

And have you seen the specs they are calling "Vista capable" NOW? Do you honestly think a 1Ghz Celeron with 512Mb of RAM will run Vista in any usable shape or form? Hell have you tried a 2Ghz Celeron with 2Gb of RAM with Vista? I have and it sure isn't pretty. Anything less than a dual core with 2Gb of RAM is just horrible. I have never seen in all my years such bloat in an OS. I have several SMB customers that have XP Pro on 600-900MHz with 512MB of RAM and they are quite usable. I personally have a 733MHz donated to me by a client that has XP Pro on 384Mb of RAM,and after turning off the useless junk it is quite enjoyable to do basic office work on. With every MS OS before you could add more RAM to a current machine and be usable. With Vista there are a ton of machines being sold right at this very moment that all the RAM in the world ain't gonna help with that pig. Don't forget the Celeron and Sempron is still quite popular with the Best Buy and Wally world shoppers.

I'm sorry but I have to lay this strictly at MSFT's feet. And I have been a lifelong user of MSFT products and a Vista Beta tester so I really did want it to be good. But between the bloat, the slow as hell DRM, the loss of backward compatibility(WTF? That was your big selling point MSFT!), the need to throw out nearly all your hardware, etc I simply cannot in good conscious recommend Vista to any of my customers. It is simply more headaches than it is worth.

Re:Hmm

[mysticgoat]

It's simpler to just install Ubuntu.

Unless, of course, the thing that you are calling a computer is really just a toy for playing games. Then you are definitely better off staying with Microsoft products. Where even the spreadsheet and word processor are just loaded to the gills with bright, shiny, useless baubles that can Dazzle and Amaze.

Re:Hmm

[mrboyd]

Running XP in a VM on linux will require less resources than Vista?? You should get that thing you're smoking checked it's probably weed.

Re:Hmm

[mordred99]

Who says I have not done that. Ubuntu 8.10 runs the base OS which runs Vista in a VM. It is a quad core with 4GB RAM. I run the OS for everything, but use Vista to get back to work via VPN (required to have an MS OS). Since work pays me, and my Cable Modem costs for support, I figure I can have a VM running which will support this :)

Re:Hmm

[Cowmonaut]

1: I know how to speed up my system. The installation "image" was nothing of the sort, all the "crapware" is on a seperate disc. DELL ships a separate OS disc now, and it uses the Vista installer (same installer as on my Vista Ultimate x64 disc) at least that's what it looks like. There are no applications on the install from that disc that are not on my Vista Ultimate disc, though things like Remote Desktop are missing.

2: Like I said in my post, all the changes I've read are nothing performance related supposedly. All I know is there IS a performance difference. If I hadn't put Windows XP x64 on the laptop (drivers are hard to find and I got the hardware all working) or if I had some image software I'd do benchmarks.

3: Look mate. If I had time anymore to do the legwork, I'd benchmark the damn thing on 3 different systems and link you the results. Hell, I'd have a YouTube video of it as well. I've been tweaking systems since I was in high school. If you know what to turn off, you can get some OS' to really fly on hardware its not supposed to. Hell, for some GAMES you can get them to run on settings and hardware that aren't supposed to mix (my favorite was getting Doom3 when it came out to run on Ultra High on a crappy e-machine with an Nvidia FX5200 and 512 RAM while maintaining 45-60 fps).

Truth is, I just don't have the time to give you the hard data but I know what I'm talking about. Same exact hardware, just comparing default install to install. No manufacturer crapware, that came on seperate discs (Cyberlink's DVD player, Roxio DE for burning discs, and a separate DELL Driver disc that has all the stuff available from the DELL website for download, including optionals that were not installed in the first place when I first got it). Absolutely jack special and Ultimate x64 runs smoother and faster WITH Aero (shared memory) than Home Basic, and I'm talking user experiences.

Also, that seems a long time for Excel to open but I just counted and that's about right. Counted on my desktop though which is set up for playing.

Suggestions to Steve

[mcgrew]

1. Don't throw any chairs. Judges hate it when you throw chairs.
2. Don't say "I'm gonna fucking KILL" anything or anybody. Judges hate that, too.

I know this because of a child support hearing I had to attend in 2004 (I was trying to get child support from my ex-wife). Please don't follow Mr. Johnson's example:

There was a huge black man standing before the judge. Apparently this fellow was unemployed and hadn't been paying his child support.

"Look, Judge, I gots no problem with child support."

"Yes, you do," the judge replied. "You may not have a problem with the idea of child support, but you do have a problem with actually paying it.

There was some nearely subaudible back and forth between the judge and the large man standing before him, when the judge said "Do you think this is a joke, Mister Johnson?"

Mr. Johnson replied quietly, too quiet to hear. The judge repeated, "I'll ask you again, Mr. Johnson," very firmly, "Do you think this is a joke??"

"I gots no fuckin' money!" Johnson replied. "You gonna sent me to jail?"

"Would you like me to cite you for contempt, Mr. Johnson?"

"Fuck you, motherfucker!" Gasps and giggles from the gallery...

"Contempt of court!" the judge ordered. "Take him to jail."

"Fuck you!" Johnson added rather stupidly.

"That's two" the judge said.

"Fuck you! Eat shit cocksucker!"

"That's three."

"Kiss my big black ass, motherfucker. Fuck you!"

"That's four!"

"Suck my dick bitch!"

By the time he got to eight, Mr. Johnson was being led out in handcuffs.

Don't let that happen to you, Mr. ballmer!

Re:Suggestions to Steve

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

The prospect of Mr. Ballmer sitting in a cell chewing on a pillow would indeed be karmic since Microsoft's customers have been assuming the position ever since Vista was released. Cue the banjo music.

Re:Suggestions to Steve

[mcgrew]

Bleh, a perfectly good on-topic comment modded offtopic. I want the old metamoderation system back, where mods were modded "fair" and "unfair" and if you got metamodded "unfair" you didn't get future mod points.

THIS comment is offtopic. The GP is not.

Re:Suggestions to Steve

[Hal_Porter]

THIS comment is offtopic.

The mods got it right this time. Actually I think the moderators are doing a very good job, under very difficult circumstances.

Re:Suggestions to Steve

[mcgrew]

It was about Balmer and court. How was it off topic?

Re:Suggestions to Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop whining and take your licks like a man.

Rename the company

[Yvan256]

In the five comments, three are about flying chairs.

I think it's think to rename the company to Microchair, Chairsoft, or something.

Or maybe help fund SpaceX, with the condition to make their next spacecraft chair-shaped.

Re:Rename the company

[Huntr]

It might be easier to rename /. to Obsesseddot or Notreallyallthatfunnydot.

just kidding, slashdotters!

So?

[FredFredrickson]

Although it seems misleading.. Vista Basic is still vista. Why is this still going on?

Because people feel like Aero was a major selling feature? And that without Aero, Vista is not distinguisable from XP? I'd say that the difference is major, and is very much public knowledge, much to Microsoft's chagrin.

So what's the argument? That MS's ad campaign led you to believe anything over the "vista-sucks" hype? I don't think so.

Re:So?

[FredFredrickson]

I mean distinguishable, not sure how that other.. uh .. word happened.

Re:So?

[yumyum]

The whole issue surrounds the agreements made between MS and HP. HP claims that the change in machine requirements was done in bad faith, through the influence of Intel. It has nothing to do with labels or branding.

Re:So?

[jeffasselin]

Initially, the "Vista Capable" logo meant that you'd be ready to use Aero, and able to run Home Premium or better using all its features. Then, due to pressures from OEMs and Intel among others, the requirements for "Vista Capable" changed to "can have some version of Vista installed", which pretty much meant that many of those machines can barely have Vista Home Basic installed, let alone give you a usable system, and they certainly cannot use Aero.

The gist of the argument is that Microsoft changed the requirements and definition of what "Vista Capable" meant along the way, misleading customers about what it really meant.

For Microsoft, from my point of view (I've followed the computing industry for 25 years or so now), it's business as usual and nothing that surprises me. I'm used to taking any recommendations they make and double it, and used to seeing them lie, cheat, deceive, coerce, defraud and generally do anything they can get away with in order to increase their profits and enhance their control of the computing industry.

Caveat emptor I say, but a lot of people aren't interested in doing research and make informed decisions, they'd rather believe the companies selling them this stuff, or the sales drones at the local big surface shop.

Re:So?

[UnknowingFool]

You must be new here. :P

Here's the point of the plaintiffs: Vista is advertised to have all these nice features. Aero was one of them. Vista Basic does not run Aero because the machines cannot support it. It was not evident to most consumers that Vista Basic was the most stripped down version that could not do this because it was in the fine print. It didn't matter the cost of the machine per se. It was the video chipset that mattered. Mike Nash, VP of MS, bought a $2,100 computer that could not run Aero.

Re:So?

[UnknowingFool]

Yes, but this is the first time I recall that OEMs sold machines that were seriously underpowered. The difference between XP Home and XP Pro requirements were small. In previous versions, if you upgraded an old machine, you had to double the MS requirements but most new machines met the requirements. In this case, you had a whole lot of new machines that could only run Vista Basic. Add this to whole mess of other problems Vista had at launch and it adds to the negative image of MS.

Re:So?

[Enderandrew]

Does Vista have some major tangible benefit evident to the average consumer besides Aero?

Re:So?

[CSHARP123]

I am really amazed at the inept of the legal department of Microsoft. People in this country sue for petty things and it is a known way to circumvent the deceptive marketing tactics with disclaimers in tiny fonts that no one could read. Why didn't Microsoft legal department came up a disclaimer that said Aero interface requires Supercomputer to run. I guess this case would have folded long time back.

Re:So?

[Penguinoflight]

Machines in question were in fact nowhere near new. Intel's 915 chipset for example (which was one of the chips later allowed under "vista capable") was released all the way back in June of 2004. Even Nvidia's geforce 5-series supports the WDDM (A chip which was released way back in 2002). Microsoft simply caved due to intel pressure. Why would you run a brand new operating system on hardware that isn't competitive with 4-year-old hardware?

Re:So?

[TheLinuxSRC]

Aero is a "major tangible benefit"?

Re:So?

[FredFredrickson]

That's my point- it doesn't offer benefits at all. It does offer a difference, however.

I'm arguing that the claim aero made Vista is false. Vista is different than XP in tons of other ways as well. Not better, just different. Mostly worse.

But to claim without aero, it's not vista, is just plainly false. If, without aero, the software ran better, faster, less hangups, and more compatible, I'd say that then, without Aero, it's not actually vista. Now you have an argument.

But the things that make Vista special are true in all versions:
-It's slow
It's incompatible with EVERYTHING
-It's a resource hog.

I fail to see how Aero makes any difference.

The claim is that MS changed their internal standards from AERO capable to just plain basic capable. As far as I'm concerned, Being vista capable means just that. Vista also supports tons of features that I can't take advantage of without particular hardware. I can't use the floppy disk capabilities without a floppy drive. I can't take advantage. I can't take advantage of the extras and bitlocker without upgrading to the Ultimate Edition.

So the fact that Aero was people's favorite feature does not in fact prove that it was in fact what made vista "vista." And therefore anything labeled Vista capable doesn't neccessarily need to run a particular feature to still be vista. People just liked the eye candy and didn't research before purchasing.

Only on an MS bashing site are people claiming something illegal may have happened. Unethical? Probably. Not done with customers in mind, of course. Enough to make you switch to linux or max, absolutely. I certainly don't trust them after this.

But to say their marketing tricked everyone, as opposed to the fact- people wanted to believe the cheapest gave them all the features, and decided not to inform themselves before buying? That's just stupid.

Re:So?

[idontgno]

I bet Microsoft's legal eagles would have been up to the task, but Microsoft's marketing would have insisted that the disclaimer be thoroughly buried* (to not detract from the "Vista on YOUR computer!" message).

*By "thoroughly buried", written in the most obscured legalese, than translated to Attic Greek, transliterated phonetically into Mandarin Chinese, ROT-13'd, printed in navy blue ink on royal blue paper, glued shut, and locked "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."

Re:So?

[jkrise]

But according to one Mr. Josh Bancroft, I remember that the Intel 915 was indeed capable of doing the Aero as well... and that Vista Beta actually ran Aero on the 915. This changed when Vista was actually released though.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2007/04/02/video-why-intel-915-graphics-dont-have-a-wddm-driver-for-vista/

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=451104&cid=22395296

Re:So?

[marcosdumay]

At least, it is major and tangible. Does Vista have something that is major and tangible besides Aero?

Re:So?

[thewils]

Does Vista have something that is major and tangible besides Aero

There's the UAC, and the roads, public order and don't forget the aqueduct.

Re:So?

[Ephemeriis]

Although it seems misleading.. Vista Basic is still vista. Why is this still going on?

Because people feel like Aero was a major selling feature? And that without Aero, Vista is not distinguisable from XP? I'd say that the difference is major, and is very much public knowledge, much to Microsoft's chagrin.

So what's the argument? That MS's ad campaign led you to believe anything over the "vista-sucks" hype? I don't think so.

Initially, "Vista Capable" meant that you'd be able to run pretty much any flavor of Vista you might want to. It meant that you could run Aero and all the other shiny stuff.

Microsoft then redefined "Vista Capable" to mean simply capable of running the most basic version of Vista - not all the shiny stuff.

Further, the minimum requirements to get a "Vista capable" sticker are truly minimal. I'm not sure I'd even want to run XP on some of the systems that qualify. I've been recommending 1GB RAM or more for XP installs for a while now. So these systems are underpowered by just about any measure.

Finally, most of Microsoft's advertising focused on the shiny new features. There were lots of commercials showing the fancy new visual effects. They were intentionally trying to make it look at least as good as Mac OS X. Lots of people bought computers expecting those pretty visual effects, and didn't get them. As far as these folks are concerned they didn't get the OS they thought they were buying.

Re:So?

[Mistshadow2k4]

Caveat emptor I say, but a lot of people aren't interested in doing research and make informed decisions, they'd rather believe the companies selling them this stuff, or the sales drones at the local big surface shop.

While I agree, I think you've missed an important point: by law, they're not supposed to have to.

Re:So?

[Ephemeriis]

Yes, but this is the first time I recall that OEMs sold machines that were seriously underpowered. The difference between XP Home and XP Pro requirements were small. In previous versions, if you upgraded an old machine, you had to double the MS requirements but most new machines met the requirements. In this case, you had a whole lot of new machines that could only run Vista Basic. Add this to whole mess of other problems Vista had at launch and it adds to the negative image of MS.

I disagree.

I've seen entirely too many XP machines for sale with only 256 MB RAM. Sure, technically that's more than enough... But in reality it is horribly underpowered.

Load up the OS, throw on some sort of antivirus, fire up a web browser and email client... Now try to get some work done. Your machine will crawl.

We've always told our clients that 512 MB is really the minimum RAM to be productive, and I've been recommending 1 GB or more for a while now. Especially if folks want to do anything even remotely interesting on their computers.

Re:So?

[Sparks23]

Aero was /advertised as such/, which is part of the point here. The issue isn't the actual functionality of stuff in Vista Business or Ultimate; the issue is the misleading expectations Microsoft allowed.

Microsoft went, "Look! Here is our new shiny OS, Vista! Vista can play movies! Vista has shiny UI! Vista can sing and dance and make you coffee! And look, because this will be coming out soon, we've even labeled computers for you so you'll know which ones are ready for the Vista Experience!"

Consumers went, "Yay! Thank you, Microsoft! This makes my life easier! I, a non-technical consumer who do not wish to have to worry about hardware specifications but do wish to enjoy the benefits of this OS you are telling me about, have gone and bought one of your conveniently labeled computers!"

Then Vista comes out and the consumers try to run Vista Ultimate or Vista Business or whatever, and discover their computer can't. And Microsoft goes, "Oh... yeah, /that/ computer? That one is kind of a piece of junk. That has a crappy Intel chip which can only run this lower-end version. This version doesn't have shiny UI, only plays movies that are 3 years old, and the singing and dancing part only includes musical numbers from Bollywood films. And while this version of Vista can still make you coffee, the coffee can only be decaf with artificial creamer. Didn't you read all the fine print specifications on the Vista box?"

And the consumers go, "WTF BBQ I paid $2600 for this laptop! You said this would run Vista! There's a label right on the computer! I bought this because I didn't want to have to worry about figuring out what hardware my computer had and whether that was enough for various Vista stuff! I bought this computer /specifically/ since the computer says it can run Vista!"

Microsoft goes, "Well, that computer /does/ run Vista! Just not the same version of Vista we were telling you about earlier, that's all. Not our fault you got confused about that."

And the consumers go, "LAWSUIT!"

Re:So?

[BradleyUffner]

Vista Basic does not run Aero because the machines cannot support it.

No. Vista basic does not run Aero because it is not included in Vista Basic. My 4gb, quad core x64 based system is capable of using Aero, but if i install vista basic on it I still wont have aero. But Vista Basic IS a version of Vista. If that machine can boot and run Vista basic than it is a vista capable system, this lawsuit should be thrown out.

Re:So?

[pseudonomous]

Becuase you can! ... oh, I guess you can't.

Re:So?

[UnknowingFool]

I've seen entirely too many XP machines for sale with only 256 MB RAM. Sure, technically that's more than enough... But in reality it is horribly underpowered.

True, but that can easily fixed by adding more memory. Technically, people can upgrade a desktop with non-Aero video cards but in most cases, they can't add a new video card to a laptop.

Re:So?

[cayenne8]

"But to claim without aero, it's not vista, is just plainly false. If, without aero, the software ran better, faster, less hangups, and more compatible, I'd say that then, without Aero, it's not actually vista. Now you have an argument."

But do remember, to Joe AvgPublic, the new visual stuff/look is about the only thing they notice on a computer, and therefore to them, THAT is in effect what is new about vista and diff. it from XP.

They won't know, and often won't care about the underlying stuff.

Re:So?

[DoofusOfDeath]

But to claim without aero, it's not vista, is just plainly false.

If Microsoft advertisements implied that anything called "Vista" would come with the Aero interface, then that's essentially a defining attribute of Vista. From that perspective, if something lacks the Aero interface, it's not what MS ads referred to as Vista.

Re:So?

[PitaBred]

Microsoft advertised that Vista = Aero. Except to techies, there were no ads that didn't expound on how graphically amazing Vista was. And when people bought a "Vista Capable" PC, that pretty much implies that it will run all versions of Vista. You don't buy a "highway capable" car to find it tops out at 55mph, do you?

Re:So?

[pizzach]

It's a bit of a game. If Aero wasn't such a resource hog, the nicer graphics would have made the now mostly hated interface changes more palatable. This is the first time anyone had to deal with graphics being an extra pay-for feature. Imagine having to do that for an FPS.

Mac OS X has changed what the expectations for interface graphics are. I'm sure a lot of People thought Aero would be something similar to Quartz and such.

Re:So?

[magamiako1]

Except, that the change in requirements came before consumers could actually obtain Vista.

This has nothing to do with "lying, cheating, scamming" this has to do with marketing.

Fact is, you need your products to sell and it needs to be worth buying. The unfortunate part is at the time all of this was going down, you couldn't get a reasonable "Vista" PC. It was OEMs and Intel wanting to push inventory. Their assumption was that once Vista came out, they wouldn't be able to push these PCs.

This is correct.

This sort of thing happens all over the software industry, Microsoft is no different. Do you ever look at a game's minimum system requirements and actually expect it to run decently? You've got to be kidding me. Crysis' minimum requirements include a Geforce 6 series graphics card.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS made two sets of confusing Vista-ready and Vista-capable requirements.
By temporarily allowing non WDDM compliant machines to be labeled "capable", they helped push out a lot of computers that were incompatible with the final device driver requirements.
So many people thought that they were buying something they weren't.

Re:So?

[marcosdumay]

No, not the UAC!!!

Now, well, you asnwered my question. Perfectly so.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a consumer and an industry participant at the time, I was confused by the purposefully vague marketing by both M$ and Intel regarding Vista, but I do recall that the Vista-hype was clearly focused on creating the perception for the average consumer that Vista would deliver a more Mac-like experience ala Aero. The various licensing levels, expense and capablilities seemed to have been needlessly complicated, with the ultimate goal being quick ubiquitous adoption by the general public.

By the time that Vista was 'ready', I, like most people who'd been around the block at least once and weren't in need of new hardware, was willing to wait and let the early-adopters take it in the back for the benefit of eBay and the hometeam. The fact that executives within M$ were confused enough to requisition ill-equipped systems bears out the judgment that John Queue was led down the garden path, and the fact that Intel 'pressured' M$'s marketing & prevaricating team into stretching the already thin veneer covering a multi-year engineering effort with little to show except the requirement of delayed gratification, only serves to remind us that Microsoft's 'Partner' designation can be hazardous to your integrity.

I worked on a marketing team with an UMPC product that failed to come to market, at least in part because the engineers (hardware & software) didn't understand the ramifications of attempting to support Vista, and M$, just before their rollout, was clearly focused on manufacturing perception rather than providing much in the way of meaningful support.

All that having been said, I believe the industry in general has yet to acknowledge their cuplability for aiding and abetting M-$oft's delusional marketing strategy & tactics. It's not as if any of the largest marketshare manufacturers did much to ensure that their customers benefitted from any of the testing and performance evaluation that has to take place in order to design and vett new hardware systems.

As computing systems become more complex, Moore's 'Law' seems less related to reality, to me, and the result of trying to adhere to an artificial schedule of improvement was bound to lead to a Black Swan event of this sort. The limited adoption by corporations, who employed knowledgeable and capable staff responsible for executing their own evaluations, staunched the rate of Vista adoption. Consumers who were dependent upon the incestuously engineered business relationships of manufacturers, advertisers, publishers and eMarketers have few if any sources of unbiased accurate information regarding systems, software or hardware offerings. We are relegated to the courts and deserve due consideration when the truth takes a back seat to the short term profits of behemouth monopolists.

    -- Winner take all politics creates more losers than winners. --

Re:So?

[Khyber]

No, it shouldn't be thrown out. Every beta version of Vista had Aero. Anyone that tried the beta therefore has every right to believe this would be a part of EVERY Vista install. Features in the beta are not present in Home Basic, such as some security features and a shiny GUI. This is bait and switch in every way.

Re:So?

[wirelessbuzzers]

But Vista Basic IS a version of Vista. If that machine can boot and run Vista basic than it is a vista capable system, this lawsuit should be thrown out.

Bullshit. By that reasoning, Microsoft could rename DOS 5 "Vista Old School" and then any 386 or higher would be "Vista Capable".

Re:So?

[jimicus]

Machines in question were in fact nowhere near new. Intel's 915 chipset for example (which was one of the chips later allowed under "vista capable") was released all the way back in June of 2004.

Not the point. Most users with little PC-specific knowledge can't reasonably be expected to know these things.

They certainly can't be expected to drill down into the chipset details for every little model number, look up that chipset, find out when it was released and use this to get a feel for how well the system will perform under Vista. Systems with 915 chipsets were still being sold until relatively recently.

Re:So?

[mots]

I can't use the floppy disk capabilities without a floppy drive.

Yeah, but microsoft doesn't advertise vista with pretty pictures of floppy disk capabilities..

Re:So?

[jimicus]

No. Vista basic does not run Aero because it is not included in Vista Basic. My 4gb, quad core x64 based system is capable of using Aero, but if i install vista basic on it I still wont have aero. But Vista Basic IS a version of Vista. If that machine can boot and run Vista basic than it is a vista capable system, this lawsuit should be thrown out.

Thing is, when you go and buy a car, everyone knows that there are lots of optional extras and what you see in the adverts may not be what you get.

When you buy a printer, the manufacturer usually doesn't make a big thing about features which aren't included - they'll either point you to a higher model if you're looking for something specific or they'll point out that buried in the list of "Optional extras" is the feature you desire - provided you buy the option, of course.

Microsoft, however, were never particularly clear about marketing Vista. They certainly didn't make it abundantly clear that even if you bought the all-singing version, some of the "optional extras" required a significantly more powerful computer than was generally available at the lower end of the market at the time it came out.

Re:So?

[ceoyoyo]

I've got a computer to sell you. It's OS X capable.* I have another you might be interested in as well - Linux ready!**

* OS X capable: runs a stripped down version of Darwin. No GUI.

** Linux ready: runs an embedded version of Linux with no GUI or filesystem.

Re:So?

[ceoyoyo]

Excuse me, I'm off to make some "Beware of the Leopard" signs.

Re:So?

[hairyfeet]

Hell the requirements they are listing for Vista now are pretty much a joke. A 1Ghz CPU with 512Mb of RAM for Basic? BWA HA HA HA! And the same CPU with a gig of RAM and a DX9 card for everything else? BWA HA HA HA HA HA! Come on! We all knew with Xp you'd have to double it, but with Vista you need more like a dual core and 2Gb unless you want to experience "The night of the living thrash" on your HDD.

We all know why they did this: It was because they knew Vista was a bloated hog and didn't want it to look bad next to XP. But instead they set the system requirements WAY too low and huge chunks of the public got burned. And then they add insult to injury by killing XP when there are still plenty of single core CPU machines being sold and let this case go instead of settling which allowed all those damning emails get out. They need to just accept the fact that as far as the public is concerned Vista=WinME II, thanks to their own stupidity, and pay up before any more really damning emails hit the net. If they want to salvage Vista they need to kill Basic, and give the OEMs XP to use on anything lower than a dual core with 2Gb of RAM. I just hope Win7 doesn't suck, otherwise I'm going to have to be dealing with XP "downgrades" for my customers for a LONG time.

Re:So?

[ceoyoyo]

Rather than thrown out, it should be widened. If you take your shiny new OS, throw out all the features and call it "Basic" then that by itself is false advertising.

Hey, let's make "Vista Lean and Mean!" It runs on any PC made in the last twenty years! And we can make more money selling DOS 3.0 than we did the first time around!

Re:So?

[FredFredrickson]

So maybe we've come across the point of the argument. They need more pictures of floppy disks.

Re:So?

[BradleyUffner]

Everything that uses the vista kernel should be considered Vista.

By your logic if I install Ubuntu on a system that can't run xWindows and display the gui then I havent installed Ubuntu.

Re:So?

[BradleyUffner]

hmm.... I remember a variant of http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx being around long before before vista shipped. Microsoft made it very clear that vista home basic did not include Aero.

If i buy a video game and my computer just bearly meets the minimium system requirements I don't get to sue the company that made it when i can't run it with the highest graphics settings.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I'll bite.

Everything that uses the vista kernel should be considered Vista.

By what definition? You mean that the Vista *kernel* is all I need to achieve that amazing "Wow" experience that was the main focal point of Microsofts marketing campaign for Vista? Get a clue.

By your logic if I install Ubuntu on a system that can't run xWindows and display the gui then I havent installed Ubuntu.

Note: it's called X; short for The X Windowing System. Basic reality check first: name one machine currently in operation that can not run X. And don't say server, because those machines are perfectly capable of running X, and not in the Vista Capable sense of the word.

And now to the point: if you tell your friends to try Ubuntu, and all you speak of is that wonderful point-and-click GUI system, and subsequently only install ubuntu-minimal, then no, to them you have not installed Ubuntu.

Just for reference: I'm running the latest Ubuntu, which is about a month old, on a sempron 2000+ with 768MB ram. And it does all the bells and whistles that Vista was touted to have. I have run Ubuntu 8.04 on a Matrox G100 card when my gfx card fried, with only one problem: I lost the ability to connect both of my monitors.

Re:So?

[TruthfulLiar]

Just a random thought, why haven't we been bashing Intel on this? Sure, it was Microsoft which intentionally mislabeled things, but who pushed them? I would think Intel should be at least somewhat culpable on this, since, from the emails, they obviously knew what they were trying to get MS to do... Maybe inciting a crime, or an accomplice?

Re:So?

[DiLLeMaN]

When we impeach Bush, can we do something about Memphis' "King Willie" please?

When the US have chosen a new president, can we do something about your sig please? =]

Re:So?

[petermgreen]

True but XP did run ok with 256MB of ram and all the main features of the OS were availible, it just bogged down a bit if you tried to run too many big apps at once or had too much crapware installed.

Vista on the other hand point blank refuses to give you aero (one of it's most widely marketed features) if you don't have a WDDM graphics chipset/driver. To add insult to injury the vista basic theme is apparently even more of a resource hog than aero is (the classic theme is apparently still a good performer though).

Also ram is easilly upgradable in both laptops and desktops. Graphics is easilly upgradable in desktops but not in laptops.

Re:So?

[petermgreen]

Then Vista comes out and the consumers try to run Vista Ultimate or Vista Business or whatever, and discover their computer can't.
It'll run it just won't enable aero :/

Re:So?

[wirelessbuzzers]

You misunderstand. What I mean is that marketing statements (other than puffery...) should be things that an average, rational member of your target audience would agree to be true. "Running" an OS that Microsoft (or someone else?) calls Vista isn't enough: it has to be the Vista your target audience expects. If most shoppers think Vista == Aero (because that's what MS advertises), you need to support Aero unless you say otherwise. Similarly, if you're marketing to large businesses, "Vista capable" should mean that it runs Vista Pro, with the features that MS claims for Vista Pro.

Otherwise, the sticker is completely vacuous. What's the minimum level of support? A stripped-down GUI with no sound or wireless? A text console? The bootloader?

In the case of Ubuntu, if you put "Ubuntu capable" on a laptop, then yes, it has to run X. I'd be pretty pissed if someone sold me a laptop, told me that Ubuntu runs on it, but they only meant in a text console, and oh the network card and sound don't work either. And it panics on boot unless you set acpi=ht.

On the other hand, if you put "Ubuntu capable" on a Soekris box with no video out, it should be clear to your target audience that you mean Ubuntu Server and that X is not supported.

Disclaimer: "should" above is not a legal term, nor is it RFC 2119 compliant.

Re:So?

[David Gerard]

Indeed. "The big flashy ads giveth, and the fine print taketh away" is pretty much universally regarded in law as deception in advertising.

Re:So?

[David Gerard]

XP is quite livable in 512MB with several hundred MHz of processor. The same for KDE, in my experience. Modern shiny interfaces are fat.

Re:So?

[Risen888]

Only on an MS bashing site are people claiming something illegal may have happened.

Well, except for, y'know, also federal court. But other than that you're exactly right. Or something.

Re:So?

[QuietObserver]

I agree very much with your point. Personally, I thought the decision to not use Hardware Acceleration for the graphics was a very bad idea on Microsoft's part; that's one of the things that makes Aqua/Quartz so fast.

Capable doesn't means complete

[MosesJones]

Part of the issue here is the meaning of the word capable. Balmer has already said that Vista isn't really a capable operating system (or at least wasn't when launched) so surely the argument therefore is that a machine that is incapable of running Vista is therefore getting exactly the same experience (or better) than someone who is actually running Vista.

Thus actually Vista Capable is a comparison between XP and Vista and thus you are better off having XP as that is just as capable as Vista.

Come on are we seriously thinking that Balmer can't talk his way around the word Capable?

Re:Capable doesn't means complete

[twl1973]

Just use the Bill Clinton defense: It depends on your definition of the word "is".

Re:Capable doesn't means complete

[jkrise]

You may be right but to suggest Ballmer is capable of coherent and logical speech is very iffy. His email assigning the blame on Will Poole suggests poor comprehension and grammar.

So while Vista may not be capable, Ballmer definitely is not.

Re:Capable doesn't means complete

[StikyPad]

So Vista is handi-capable?

Re:Capable doesn't means complete

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point. It isn't that the word "capable" can be defined in different ways for different people, it is that Microsoft changed the definition of "Vista Capable" in the middle of the process.

But it still runs Vista. What's the problem?

[chemosh6969]

"were labeled 'Vista Capable' when in fact they could only run a basic version of Vista" So even though it could run Vista, people are mad they couldn't run themes that require more hardware?

Re:But it still runs Vista. What's the problem?

[IceCreamGuy]

So even though it could run Vista, people are mad they couldn't run themes that require more hardware?

Yes. They advertised Vista as having all these cool bells and whistles in terms of the user interface, and when people thought they were getting that and found out that they weren't, they were pissed. Moreover, Microsoft had very specific hardware requirements that they posted to the OEMs. After many of the OEMs busted their asses, spent tons of money, and re-tooled their product lines to meet the requirements, Microsoft changed them last minute (the day before release) for Intel, who had a flagship chipset that didn't meet the certification requirements. That (though of course IANAL) is the real legal issue here; whether Microsoft misled their partners with this whole "Vista Capable" program.

Re:But it still runs Vista. What's the problem?

[plague3106]

So should the suit be that Basic should have included Aero? I don't understand your point.

Cars are sold like this all the time "starting at $X, optional equipment shown."

Re:But it still runs Vista. What's the problem?

[pseudonomous]

No,the point is that a machine INCAPABLE of running Aero should not be labelled as "vista capable". That's the ENTIRE basis of the lawsuit.

Re:But it still runs Vista. What's the problem?

[magamiako1]

pseudo:

You're wrong. Aero is a fuction of the OS, it is not the OS. These machines run Vista, they don't run Aero.

Is Windows Server 2003 Standard not Windows Server 2003 since it doesn't include the Datacenter edition functionality?

Re:But it still runs Vista. What's the problem?

[pseudonomous]

Yes, they do run Vista Home Basic, which is clearly "Vista" since Vista is right in the name, they can't handle the Aero interface which becuase of Hardware limitations, since "Home Basic" doesn't come with Aero anyway, this isn't an issue.

Now I don't know what happens if you try to install one of the fancy versions of Vista, becuase I haven't tried, but maybe you can, you just can't run Aero. Now the hardware is marked as "Vista Capable", and it IS capable of running at least "Vista Home Basic", but some people thought this meant "I can install any version of Vista on this computer and use all the features".

I don't really have an opinion about who's right in this case, I hope Microsoft loses, just becuase I have a grudge against them, but honestly, "Vista Home Basic" is a version of "Vista" so you can certainly argue these computers were "Vista Capable". On the other hand, "Vista Home Premium" is also a version of Vista and, even if you could install it (which I'm not sure is possible) you certainly can't run it with all features enabled. So is a "vista capable" label misleading?

I don't know. But this is what the court case is about deciding, and the KEY disputed point really is about labelling hardware sold w/o a graphics card that can render Aero as "Vista Capable".

Re:But it still runs Vista. What's the problem?

[magamiako1]

As far as Microsoft is concerned, they made a version of Vista that did not include the 3D fancy interface. While perhaps this was ultimately a poor marketing decision, it's certainly not criminal nor damages-worthy.

Either way, in the end, they have already lost. The constant knee dragging by these morons gives them bad press, and they've earned a lot of bad press over nothing. This entire case is stupid. And the worst part is it's being carried on by people who "think" they are educated.

Vista Basic is still Vista.

Vista Capable meant the PC could run Vista.

They can install and run Basic, Premium, Business, or Ultimate. The PC doesn't care. They simply lose features that their PC doesn't have, for example, Aero.

If they install Ultimate, they still get things such as bitlocker. If they install Business, they still get the ability to join domains.

So nobody got shafted here. They are just your every day normal average Joe stupid computer user.

Re:But it still runs Vista. What's the problem?

[ceoyoyo]

That's WHY cars have the "optional equipment shown" disclaimer. MS forgot to put one of those on their Vista capable stickers.

The fact that their original requirements were higher goes to show that even MS themselves thought Vista Capable should mean "will run Aero."

Re:But it still runs Vista. What's the problem?

[plague3106]

Well, the machines CAN run better versions of Vista... just not with Aero.

The original requirements are what MS would have perfered to do.. but just because that's what they originally planned doesn't mean they had to stick to it.

Re:But it still runs Vista. What's the problem?

[ceoyoyo]

It's all really shady. Just because they've sort of gotten away with it before, and because other industries do it doesn't mean it's okay. I'm glad to see a company finally at least being challenged on this kind of practice. A little honesty in advertising would go a long way.

Re:But it still runs Vista. What's the problem?

[plague3106]

What ever happened to personal responsiblity? They can run Vista, just not with Aero. Why is it shadey to expect people to actually do some research before making a large purchase? There's never been honesty in advertising. Have you seen the Lysol commercials? "Disinfect to protect." Except that doing so makes you sicker in the long run.. why aren't you calling them out? Their advertising actually leads to poorer public health. This Vista issue just means you may not be able to use ONE feature of the new OS.. if you want to clean up advertising, there are much more important things than what MS did.

AAARRRRRRRRGHHHH!!!!

[mfh]

{{Throws chair at judge.}}

Re:AAARRRRRRRRGHHHH!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Referring to the judge, Ballmer allegedly said, "Fucking Marsha Pechman is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that woman, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill this court," then resumed trying to persuade the judge to dismiss the case. Ballmer has described the incident as a "gross exaggeration of what actually took place."

Re:AAARRRRRRRRGHHHH!!!!

[dkleinsc]

Steve Ballmer is many things, but he's not a pirate.

Re:AAARRRRRRRRGHHHH!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's debatable

It's not that bad

[Ins0mau]

Well, it DOES run Vista basic. So yeah, it's a little cheeky. But it's not exactly lying. And not TOTALLY misleading either. Although they probably ideally should have been more upfront.

Re:It's not that bad

[canajin56]

Some of them "run" Vista Basic in the same way a P2 266 with 128 MB of ram "run" Windows XP, so no, some of these things labeled as Vista Capable can't even actually run Vista Basic in a usable way. MS's argument is they said it could run Vista. They never said which Vista, and they never said it could run it in a way that was usable!

Premium Ready

[kieblerh]

Microsoft had Vista Capable and Premium Ready as their two qualifiers for Vista. Boxes read "'Vista Capable' when in fact they could only run a basic version of Vista"... oh so if you wanted to run premium you needed the Premium Ready tag? That seems to make sense to me. I dont think microsoft is wrong this time.

Re:Premium Ready

[UnknowingFool]

Here is the Vista Home Basic Requirements:

• 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• 512 MB of system memory
• 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
• Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory
• DVD-ROM drive
• Audio Output
• Internet access (fees may apply)

Here is Vista Premium Requirements:

• 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• 1 GB of system memory
• 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
• Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
  • WDDM Driver
  • 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
  • Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
  • 32 bits per pixel
• DVD-ROM drive
• Audio Output
• Internet access (fees may apply)

Now, the part that separates Aero and not Aero is the WDDM requirement. However MS does not mention anywhere on their page what this exactly means. To an average consumer, they might think that they have to download a driver. There's not even an asterisk, a link, etc. You actually have to search for "WDDM requirement" on the MS site but it doesn't exactly tell you specifically which computers/video cards meet this requirement. Now if they had a list somewhere: "Intel 915 not WDDM compliant, nVidia YYYY and below not compliant" that might have been different. You can download the Upgrade Advisor but only works if you are upgrading an older computer. It would not work on a new computer in the store that you are not in possession of.

Re:Premium Ready

[Tony Hoyle]

Hell, they expect vista to run in 512mb?

'Vista Capable' was essentially meaningless marketing. My last laptop was 'Vista capable' - stickers all over it saying so... just before the RTM of Vista Asus discontinued that model and released one with a TPM chip in it, then said their previous model was unsupported on Vista. Without drivers it was never going to be 'Vista capable' in any real sense, even though it met the technical requirements (and, being a laptop, the ethernet and wireless chipsets were completely nonstandard).

btw. WDDM is a driver model.. Any hardware could be made to use it if someone had enough time to write it. The important bit is the graphics memory and pixel shader support.

Re:Premium Ready

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

And you can't see how that is misleading?

Re:Premium Ready

[Ephemeriis]

Microsoft had Vista Capable and Premium Ready as their two qualifiers for Vista. Boxes read "'Vista Capable' when in fact they could only run a basic version of Vista"... oh so if you wanted to run premium you needed the Premium Ready tag? That seems to make sense to me. I dont think microsoft is wrong this time.

That'd be fine... Except that Microsoft changed the definition of "Vista Capable" midway through. And they certainly didn't advertise the differences between "Capable" and "Premium". And almost all the advertising showed the shiny new Aero stuff... So that's what folks expected to see when they fired up their brand new Vista box...

Imagine going to the jeweler and buying a box of diamonds. After watching all those commercials on TV you're expecting the box to be full of sparkly crystals. Instead the box is full of rough diamonds that look like any other rock. Obviously you'd be a little surprised, if nothing else.

Re:Premium Ready

[UnknowingFool]

btw. WDDM is a driver model.. Any hardware could be made to use it if someone had enough time to write it. The important bit is the graphics memory and pixel shader support.

Not exactly true. Intel's 915 chipset cannot run Aero no matter which driver is used even though it has the memory and the pixel shader support. If Intel could write a driver, they would have done it by now. This blog tells exactly why. The Intel 915 does not have a Hardware Scheduler built in the chip. Newer Intel video chipsets (945, 965) do have a Hardware Scheduler.

Re:Premium Ready

[David Gerard]

See, that Home Basic requirements list looks a lot like what you want to run XP well. Or KDE or GNOME well.

Re:Premium Ready

[David Gerard]

(and, being a laptop, the ethernet and wireless chipsets were completely nonstandard)

See, this is why a laptop with Intel everything is good. Because they take their open-source OS support seriously. Keith Packard and Eric Anholt working on the driver team.

That was Bill Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Clinton was about the definition of sex.

Just had this thought

[Anonymous Coward]

If barrels had been available in Steve's office, what better for "monkey boy" to throw than barrels. Preferably at any little italian man jumping over the barrels.

just when is

[unity100]

microsoft ever wrong. or in wrongdoing.

Re:Quick !!!

[N1AK]

I know you are just one of a hundred people here to make this remark so this isn't anything personal unity100.

Can /.ers please get over the Balmer = Chairs mentality, it's been done so far past death on Slashdot and stopped being remotely clever ages ago. Everyone knows about the incident, everyones had a laugh at it, now all it achieves is to hide any informative material or fresh funny material from being seen.

words words words

[Quiet_Desperation]

Vista-capable.

Is that a euphemism like "handicapable" instead of handicapped?

Talk about your PC language...

Re:words words words

[qualidafial]

I'm Vistacapable, you insensitive clod!

Re:words words words

[hesaigo999ca]

If i could only mod you up +5 funny

And in advertising, aero=Vista

[phorm]

Another point to ponder is what Microsoft was leading people to see as "Vista" at that time. Pretty much all the advertisements and hype of Vista featured Aero (obviously it would sell better that way). Thus, the image that MS created was a Vista with Aero, which is not what people ended up getting or being able to run in the end.

Re:Hmm (CORRECTION)

[Rary]

Correction to my previous post:

...my laptop with 2GB RAM running Vista Home Basic...

I meant Vista Home Premium, not Basic.

wow

[leuk_he]

in advertising:

vista = wow

wow = areo interface

vista capable = vista "home basic" = not wow

in nerd:
Keep using XP. v1sta sux0rs

In laywer sp3ak:
Class action on big pockets of MS.

Have you used one of these?

[ACMENEWSLLC]

My sister has an Acer laptop which is Vista Capable - it came with Vista Basic installed. It's the lowest end Acer laptop you can purchase (not sure of model.)

I used the thing the day she got it, before she had a chance to bloat it with stuff. The thing is gawd awefully slow. I'm remembering back in the 386 days when I got Windows 95 to run on an old PC. You click on START and within 30-120 seconds, the start menu appears. You click on the submenu, and within about 30 seconds it appears. You click on an icon, and between 30-200 seconds the application will actually load.

It works. It runs Vista. Is this a usable computer, in your opinion? You should see how slow it is now that she has software installed on it.

How much room will there be in this courtroom?

[Pozican]

Will there be enough room in the courtroom for his monkey dance???

Teh job's not done...

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Vista doesn't run!;)

Microsoft's degenerate corporate culture has finally caught up to them. Another fine example of a Microsoft 'standard,' eh?

Good luck in court, Ballmer. I don't think da judge is going to be intimidated by your bad, bad self-image.

Microsoft should make good...

[argent]

Microsoft should simply offer a free upgrade to Windows XP for everyone who bought a computer with Vista installed that couldn't handle it.

Vista Culp^H^H^H^HCapable

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who read the headline as 'Vista CULPable'?

If we applied this logic to games....

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I complain(sue) when a game doesn't run zippy-quick on a system that meets(or barely exceeds) the stated minimum requirements?
"But I like it when the roads have that always-wet look and reflect everything to an unnatural degree! But it runs too slow like that! *goes sue happy* How dare you market a game with motion blured commercials that my system can't even manage!"
Is the Aero interface really worth suing over?! Isn't there any reasonable computer user left who thinks... "a simple google search would of enlightened these suckers"???
I have a measly 2.4 Ghz Northwood with a NV7600 and 1 GB of RAM. Aero runs slightly worse than the XP interface(same hardware). I still disable both and go with Windows Classic(order of magnitude more responsive). I'm sure these systems are (more than) capable of running Vista under Classic interface. I guess someone would have to teach(read: do it for) them.
Final thought: I r teh st00pid! Giv meh m$$ney plox. I can haz laur suite?!

The only reason the judge is having him called

[Killer Orca]

Is so he can finally get someone to give him a straight answer about where that any key is.

I can see Ballmer now

[Chas]

Bouncing up and down on the judge's desk, facing the courtroom screaming "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!"

Re:I can see Ballmer now

[Joebert]

I think it would work a lot better if he hired the Godaddy girl to take his place in doing that, if for nothing else, so I can say "Those are some developers alright".

Vista and court

[Vamman]

Whose suing Intel for their locked down onboard video adapters -- when it was proven that they can run Aero in Vista Betas (but the driver capability was later removed)? Thats the lawsuit that should have happened!

Re:Vista and court

[pseudonomous]

It worked, but not very well, when the requirement was dropped from the sticker, of course Intel saw no reason to actually make it work well-enough to release. Sueing over this would be like sueing ... I don't know, let's say Apple for producing iPods that you can't install rockbox on. Just becuase you produce hardware that theoretically can support some feature, doesn't put you under any LEGAL obligation to provide drivers for that functionality. Of course, you're more than welcome to get pissed off at Intel and stop buying thier products.

Re:Vista and court

[Vamman]

My point was that Intel misled as much as everyone else did. Intel should have released a WDDM driver for 915G/GM. There is a WDDM S3 driver and the S3 sucks ass. Lame Intel!

Re:Vista and court

[UnknowingFool]

Intel cannot release a WDDM driver for the 915; otherwise it would have. Basically the Intel 915 lacks a Hardware Scheduler on the chip level and cannot meet the WDDM requirements. The WDDM requirements came out after Intel had already built 915 chips.

Re:Vista and court

[Vamman]

They could have released the WDDM without the hardware scheduler. Could they not?

Re:Vista and court

[UnknowingFool]

They could release a driver but having a Hardware Scheduler is technically part of the WDDM specification so any driver would not pass the WDDM tests.

How many chairs does it take

[hesaigo999ca]

Are the chairs at least going to be bolted down in that court room?

What is the big deal here?

[mlawrence]

The computers were labeled as "Vista Capable" when in fact they could only run a basic version? SO WHAT??? I'm pushing 40, and although I'm "Sex Capable", most women don't expect the more advanced features such as more than once an hour.

Re:Quick !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it's a fucking slashdot meme now. It'll never die, though it may be replaced as a favorite (like the Developers! meme) if Ballmer says or does something else that slashdotters can mock him for.

BTW, Microsoft could easily deflect some of the ridicule directed at them if they would make a self-deprecating joke out of it. As someone who intensely dislikes Microsoft (mainly for their business practices rather than their products), I think it would be rather cool if Microsoft released a free screen saver similar to the flying toasters one, but instead with flying chairs hurtling across the screen sometimes crashing through a Microsoft Windows logo.

Ladies and Gentlemen... STEVE!.. BALMER!!

[hrimhari]

WOOOOOOOO!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
Lawyers!! Lawyers!! Lawyers!!
*pant* *pant* *wheeze*

Own worst enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's off topic, but I thought I'd share. After reading all this about Vista Capable computers I thought I'd take a look at Vista. I'll freely admit I've never used it, though I have avoided it like the plague because of the bad press. Actually, I've not had much to do with Windows in about 3 years... anyway, I just bought myself a shiny new HP laptop. It came without an OS, so of course the first thing I did was shove Linux on. It's apparently capable of running Vista, so I thought - what the hell, why not have a look. After all, it's only fair. However, I don't want to shell out $xx.xx for a copy without knowing if a) it works b) it's worth the cash, so I thought maybe Microsoft had a limited trial version on their website. 30 days, for example. If I liked it, I'd buy it. But nope, no trial version at all. And I can't install a bought copy and return it if I don't like it either. Consumer rights my ass. But there's hope - there's an on-line tour... that, however, only works if you have an active-x capable machine, i.e. windows. So if I want to try Microsoft software, I have to have a Microsoft operating system. Really selling me on the interoperability there guys. Seriously. No wonder people get pissed at Microsoft. The customer's really just an unflushed turd as far as they're concerned. I hope they lose this case, get a hefty fine and buck up their ideas. (I've said that before, alas)

Computer Games

[m8nkey]

How is this different from the recommended system specs PC games have displayed on thier boxes? These are frequently well under par for reasonable performance and always have been.

call me crazy but...

[rilian4]

If the computers in question can run a basic version of Vista...does that not make them "capable" of running vista? I hate Vista as much as the next guy and I think Microshaft was probably deceptive in the marketing campaign but I feel like I must be missing something here.

The fat lady has not yet sung

[thethibs]

I suspect that this case will reach a turn when someone points out that

1. no one involved bought a PC or a copy of Vista from Microsoft,
2. Microsoft set lower limits for Vista-Capable and Premium-Capable, but not upper limits,
3. OEMs like Dell configured and sold underpowered "Vista Capable" PC's knowing exactly what that meant in terms of performance and features, and
4. OEMs like Dell, not Microsoft, stood to gain from any bait-and-switch effects.

To my mind, Microsoft has the deep pockets and they are an easy target, but the wrong people are being sued.

Donky Kong

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one surprised that no one, as of yet, has made a version of Donkey Kong with the graphics changed so that it's Ballmer throwing chairs, rather than Kong throwing barrels?

Because that's what I picture every time we talk about Chairman Ballmer...

That or maybe a Doom mod where the chainsaw has been replaced with a chair and you run around trying to kill Google.

Re:Donky Kong

[QRDeNameland]

Am I the only one surprised that no one, as of yet, has made a version of Donkey Kong with the graphics changed so that it's Ballmer throwing chairs, rather than Kong throwing barrels?

Monkey Dong?

You know the saying...

[V!NCENT]

Payback's a bitch...

Re:Ballmer in court? He shd be in Detroit.

[aqk]

fuk it.

We need someone like Ballmer to throw a chair- or two - or three++ or even three# at those Detroit dorks who fly in to Washington.
.
Let MS buy a car company or two. And turn around all those crappy jokes- "If MS was a car company, etc..."

Hello.. Bill Gates? BUY GM or Ford! The price is right, right now!
Couldn't be any worse than it is now. And let Ballmer beat a few of them to death with a chair.

.

Re:Quick !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if I had a Beowolf cluster of chairs...da-bum! We are just waiting for the best snappy answers to stupid chairs quote...

No, you bought 1 GB RAM but paid for 4

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a laptop I bought in April, 4GB RAM, and Vista (preinstalled) has always just been obscenely slow when doing anything like logging in, switching users, etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

No, you bought 1 GB RAM but paid for 4. Windows can only use 3 GB and Windows Vista wastes more than 2 GB by itself. That leaves you with 1 GB. Why not use all 4 GB RAM or get turbo speed by swapping DEs.