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."
I wonder if they allow chair-throwing in court these days.
If they do, I think Microsoft stands a pretty good chance.
...all courtroom furniture will be bolted down.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
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.
[FUCK BETA]
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:
Don't let that happen to you, Mr. ballmer!
Free Martian Whores!
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.
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.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
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?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
{{Throws chair at judge.}}
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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.
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.
microsoft ever wrong. or in wrongdoing.
Read radical news here
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.
I know you are just one of a hundred people here to make this remark so this isn't anything personal unity100.
/.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.
Can
Vista-capable.
Is that a euphemism like "handicapable" instead of handicapped?
Talk about your PC language...
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.
Correction to my previous post:
...my laptop with 2GB RAM running Vista Home Basic...
I meant Vista Home Premium, not Basic.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
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.
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."
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.
Microsoft should simply offer a free upgrade to Windows XP for everyone who bought a computer with Vista installed that couldn't handle it.
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?!
Is so he can finally get someone to give him a straight answer about where that any key is.
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.
Bouncing up and down on the judge's desk, facing the courtroom screaming "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!"
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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?
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.
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".
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.
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.
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!
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."
WOOOOOOOO!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
Lawyers!! Lawyers!! Lawyers!!
*pant* *pant* *wheeze*
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
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.
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)
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.
I suspect that this case will reach a turn when someone points out that
To my mind, Microsoft has the deep pockets and they are an easy target, but the wrong people are being sued.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
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?
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
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.
.
- aqk
F U
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.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
They could have released the WDDM without the hardware scheduler. Could they not?
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.