Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
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?
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
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.
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.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
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.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
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."
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.