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