Microsoft 'Vista Capable' Settlement Cost Could Be Over $8 Billion

bk- writes with news that documents from the "Vista Capable" class-action lawsuit against Microsoft indicate the software giant could be on the hook for as much as $8.52 billion in upgrade costs. "[University of Washington economist Keith] Leffler came up with his total upgrade costs by calculating how much it would cost to upgrade each of the 19.4 million PCs with 1 GB of memory and graphics cards or onboard chipsets able to run Aero, according to Keizer. Leffler put the maximum cost of upgrading the desktops at $155, while positing that the notebooks' integrated graphics would be more tricky to replace and would cost between $245 and $590 per unit. The total price tag for Microsoft would thus range from $3.92 billion to $8.52 billion and in some cases would include complete replacements of notebooks that could not be feasibly upgraded, Leffler testified. Microsoft in its response argued that giving litigants 'a free upgrade to Premium-ready PCs would provide a windfall to millions.'"

Comments

Microsoft Stock?

[Cormophyte]

Anyone? I'll take bits of string, bug collections, and good will in trade. Just, please, get me off this train.

Re:Microsoft Stock?

[tinpipes]

Will you take my old Fedora Core 4 install disks?

Re:Microsoft Stock?

[stfvon007]

Ill take 100,000 shares. Im out of toilet paper.

Re:Microsoft Stock?

[Slippery Pete]

I'll trade you my Circuit City stock.

At least with CC, they had the decency to lie to you right your face versus hiding behind a sticker.

Obligatory The Simpsons Reference...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nelson points at Steve and says: HAHA!

This would be first post, but I'm using Windows Vista on a Gateway.

why just Microsoft?

[nurb432]

Hardware makers should be on the hook as well.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[TubeSteak]

Hardware makers should be on the hook as well.

Microsoft is the one that had the final word on labeling standards for "Vista capable".

Hardware makers lobbied hard to get the sticker applied to hardware that couldn't support Aero & Microsoft caved.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[emailandthings]

So dont upgrade!... and have M$ keep fixing XP until 2012+ That should be the judge's order. Fact is M$ Vista adds 0 value to me, my company, or your country's GDP..

Re:why just Microsoft?

[thetoadwarrior]

No, its Microsoft program that determines if the sticker can go on the PC.

Sure hardware people asked for it. But it's the same as if your friend tells you that you should con people out of money. You choose to do it so it's your fault.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Meshach]

I don't think that a judge has authority to order MS to change their release dates. A judge can just order them to make restitution to customers who have been misled.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

keep fixing XP until 2012+ That should be the judge's order

XP is already scheduled to receive security updates until 2014.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[drinkypoo]

Hardware makers lobbied hard to get the sticker applied to hardware that couldn't support Aero & Microsoft caved.

The Hardware makers should be at least as responsible, because they are the ones putting the stickers on the system.

I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy (well, most places) but fighting unfairness with unfairness is a little bitch move.

Microsoft didn't put the stickers on the computers. Hold the integrators responsible. At least as responsible as Microsoft, maybe more.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[vux984]

Sure hardware people asked for it. But it's the same as if your friend tells you that you should con people out of money. You choose to do it so it's your fault.

I disagree with your analogy. To me its:

My friends that want to con people out of money by selling them junk endorsed by a celebrity harware reviewer, (i.e. me). But I won't endorse their junk... so they piss and moan for a while, and I cave.

They then stick my endorsement on their junk, and the customer gets ripped off by my friends.

They then sue my ass for endorsing their junk, because I lied when I said it was good. Should I be on the hook? Yeah, I lied. But my friends are at the very least equal partners in this con; not only was it their idea, but they are the ones who actually sold the junk, and they did so deliberately and intentionally knowing it was junk.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[amclay]

Mod parent up, he makes a very good point.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[nurb432]

If they lobbied to get the stickers against Microsoft's intent.. that would mean less responsibility for Microsoft.

Either way, they all should share responsibly, and any judgments should be spread around.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. They were complacent in the process.

Perhaps.

I agree. They were complicit in the process.

But I fixed that for you anyway.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[RattFink]

They then stick my endorsement on their junk, and the customer gets ripped off by my friends.

There is a big difference between endorsing something and making a guarantee of fitness towards a certain task. Saying your friend's snake oil is great and I like it is perfectly fine but telling people it'll cure cancer will get you in a world of trouble.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[thetoadwarrior]

It affects you more and destroys your credibility. You shouldn't have caved.

By your logic the US should be helping pay out to rebuild Gaza since we make it possible for Israel to do what they do and probably even gave them the white phosphorus they used illegally.

Just because don't want to take personal responsibility any more doesn't mean they're not at fault when they do something wrong.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[click2005]

I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy (well, most places) but fighting unfairness with unfairness is a little bitch move.

As a company they should be penalised for misleading their customers. The public bought PCs that MS said could run Vista. If those PCs cant, its ultimately Microsoft's fault and they should be made to pay the difference. I'm guessing it'll end up as a settlement of x billion worth of MS products & vouchers.

Microsoft didn't put the stickers on the computers. Hold the integrators responsible. At least as responsible as Microsoft, maybe more.

No, but as the GP pointed out, MS decided what the minimum specs were for Vista. Even if they changed them for Intel chipsets, its still their responsibility.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Renraku]

Endorsements usually don't carry much, if any, liability. You can endorse sham-wow all you want but shouldn't be sued because it doesn't work. Its all opinion.

If any of you have ever used a 'Vista capable' computer that this article describes you'll realize that they're Vista capable just like a Honda Civic is capable of towing a flatbed full of logs.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[RightSaidFred99]

These machines do indeed run Vista. So.. what are we arguing about, again?

Re:why just Microsoft?

[quickOnTheUptake]

The HW manufactures may have physically put the stickers on, but M$ decided which computers got it. Vista was an MS trademark. They gave out the specs on what could be labeled vista compatible. Obviously they didn't just send the OEM's boxes of stickers and say "merry christmas".
In fact, if you go here you can see the internal memos and email wherein M$ decides what hardware can get the "compatible" sticker.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Korin43]

When you market something as "capable of running Windows Vista", you don't generally mean "it'll start up eventually and if you're really patient you can use programs for it". "Capable of running Windows Vista" means, in a normal person's mind, that it runs Vista similarly to how it's shown in the ad (with Aero, not super slow,etc.).

Re:why just Microsoft?

[RightSaidFred99]

What ad? Capable of running Windows Vista means "it will install Windows Vista and you can run whatever programs your computer has the resources for". That's it.

What ever happened to doing research, as a consumer, before making a purchase?

What, you mean if I buy a Honda Civic at the cheapest price I can it won't look like the tricked out one in the ad?! Crazy!

What, you mean if I drive like I normally drive my cars this new car I buy will get 3-5 fewer mpg than advertised! I'm suing!

What, you mean this low-end laptop I bought won't run Office, Internet Explorer with 10 tabs open, and Microsoft Excel in Vista with all the useless user interface candy with 512M of memory?! That's crazy talk, I'm going to sue!

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Ash Vince]

Actually Intel lobbied to get this changed as it was their crap onboard notebook graphics that were the issue. A lot of hardware makers were pissed off as it meant they sold far less of their premium notebooks than they were predicting so had a surplus they had to sell cheap.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Dogtanian]

Microsoft is the one that had the final word on labeling standards for "Vista capable".

Does this mean that they're "Vista culpable"?

Re:why just Microsoft?

[sjames]

Let's say I am a hardware manufacturer. I lobby MS to do what's necessary to have one of my lower midrange machines be allowed to have the Vista capable sticker on it. At that time, only MS is able to actually load Vista onto the hardware because it is not a released product.

A month later, I get a bulletin form MS saying that I can put the Vista capable sticker on that model. That is, MS has promised ME the hardware manufacturer that Vista will run properly on that machine. I have no idea how they did that, but it's their product and I have to take their word for it until I can buy a copy myself and try it.

Why should I be held responsible if MS lied to the consumer AND to me?

The hardware manufacturers are only to blame if they put the sticker on machines that did not meet MS's criteria.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[hairyfeet]

But they don't. That's the problem. From MSFT's own press releases and ads all they talked about was Aero. Everywhere you saw Aero this and Aero that. Hell if you read the emails you would know that there were higher ups in management complaining that they were burned as well. Why? Because they bought "Vista Capable" and didn't know that they wouldn't get Aero. So if guys within the company itself got burned, what chance did the non tech consumer have?

And let us be honest here: Vista Basic is the "Cleetus the slack jawed yokel" of the Vista line. It is just too crippled. Pretty much all Vista Basic gives you is the annoyance of UAC without any of the pretty. No wonder the customers aren't happy campers. I'm personally shocked that they aren't selling Vista Basic for less than $50 just to move some product. Maybe they didn't make enough copies to make it worth selling, who knows. I do know that talking to the guys at places like BB and Staples that Vista Basic just sits there and rots on the shelf. While none of the Vista line is moving in large numbers according to them Vista Basic doesn't move any at all. Nobody wants it.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Necroman]

He misses one key point in the analogy. So vux984 lets his friend put his endorsement on his friends product. The one key part is that vux984 will make money on every system his friend sells. vux984 has a vested interest in having his friend sell as many systems as possible.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[ion.simon.c]

Pretty much all Vista Basic gives you is the annoyance of UAC without any of the pretty.

Folks like you and I know that UAC is a step up from XP in full-on Administrator mode. :)

I'm personally shocked that they aren't selling Vista Basic for less than $50 just to move some product.

Me too.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[sjames]

The problem with that is that MS wasn't a celebrity endorser, they were the people who actually developed Vista. That is, the only entity that had any way of knowing what would and would not work. They were also the only entity capable of altering Aero to be functional on lower end hardware.

The hardware manufacturers said "make it work on xyz hardware!". A bit later, MS said "OK, done! It's certified to work on xyz now!".

At that point, only MS could know that they didn't do squat to make it work on xyz.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Dogtanian]

I disagree with your analogy. To me its: My friends that want to con people out of money by selling them junk endorsed by a celebrity harware reviewer, (i.e. me). But I [etc, etc]

I don't get this- can you please stick to the tried-and-tested misleading analogies comparing complex sociological and political issues to automobiles? Thanks!

Re:why just Microsoft?

[causality]

What ad? Capable of running Windows Vista means "it will install Windows Vista and you can run whatever programs your computer has the resources for". That's it.

What ever happened to doing research, as a consumer, before making a purchase?

It's like when Bill Hicks was alive and was talking about how we, collectively, are at about an 8th grade emotional level, particularly in the USA. Only mature people are willing and able to take responsibility for their actions, which would include recognizing why purchasing what you do not understand opens you up to this sort of failure and that this consideration is completely separate and independent from the question of whether the other guy misrepresented anything.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Cally]

The stickers were physically slapped on the plastic by the OEMs, sure, but the right to do so was in Microsoft's gift. It was their right to give or withhold the right to apply the Vista Ready sticker to hardware of a given spec. The badges were - are - a proxy for Microsoft's direct assurance to the purchaser that their product will work on the hardware. It didn't. Microsoft screwed up. (There was an hhuge furore internally when certain senior management figures stitched up other senior management figures.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[LilGuy]

But it actually does work, surprisingly...

My mother-in-law has like 10 of them, which we all had a good laugh about when we last visited for christmas. Then my sister knocked a full glass of wine over onto her rug, and that sucker pulled most of the wine out, and with a little carpet cleaner you couldn't tell it had ever happened.

I was pretty amazed... though I'm sure the same could've been done with about a roll of paper towels.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[AliasMarlowe]

I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy

Poster: Can I be moderated as "interesting" please?
Slashdot: No. Sod off.
Poster: Look, I hate Microsoft as much as anyone!
Slashdot: If you want to be interesting, you'll have to really hate Microsoft.
Poster: I do!
Slashdot: Oh yeah? How much?
Poster: A lot!
Slashdot: OK, you're +5 interesting.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Narpak]

I reckon a serious investigation should be launched. The fact of the matter here is that Microsoft, and any hardware manufacturer involved; have together sold a product promising features it turns out not to have. As I see it from a certain perspective you could say that this is about how much a company is allowed to lie or mislead to sell their product. IF Microsoft or the manufacturer were aware that these computers wouldn't support Vista, or probably wouldn't support Vista; then it is fraud and they should be punished accordingly.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Adambomb]

This is redundant as it appears in a bunch of other comments, but given the amount of redundancy of the error i'll give this one another go.

Note that the problem with the Vista Capable program was that it was labeling systems BEFORE VISTA WAS AVAILABLE.

The hardware vendors did NOT have the means to test anything and although they may have 'bullied' microsoft into lowering the spec requirement, the onus was on microsoft to tell them "uh no, that just wont work.".

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we were the peoples electronic freedom front.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[torkus]

Really, so even though tons of people illegally got beta copies from p2p and plenty of others legitimately got copies...HP, Compaq, Dell, and so on were totally unable to get a copy to try on their hardware? Sounds more like people should be going after the hardware manufacturers for compensation and those manufacturers might go after MS to put some bit of it back in their pocket.

But...since our wonderful legal system makes it much more profitable to dump all the blame on a single entity instead of multiple MS gets all the blame here. No lawyer wants to sue every hardware manufacturer that put a vista ready sticker on their computers.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then Microsoft should sue the hardware makers. Whether or not the hardware makers wronged Microsoft, Microsoft is the only one who wronged the consumer.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[amclay]

My guess that's where the "shared responsibility" comes in. Sure, Microsoft was responsible. However, everyone could of built ABOVE THE MINIMUM, and no one would have known. Just because something hits minimum, does not mean that it's usable.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[sjames]

So you claim the hardware vendors negligently obeyed the law by not downloading a copy of Vista with p2p? Or is it that they negligently believed MS's claims that the kinks in the beta (including performance issues) would be fixed for the final release?

One and only one entity here promised in no uncertain terms that those machines would run Vista. That would be Microsoft. Had a hardware vendor stuck that sticker on a machine that didn't meet the criteria from MS, then it would be on them to make it right.

Do you also hold the retailers for failing to peel those stickers off?

Re:why just Microsoft?

[penguinbrat]

Your friends were still selling what they claimed to be selling - a P4 with 512mb of RAM, if they were able to convince **YOU** to say that your stuff would run on it, and you knew it wouldn't, well that's your problem - not theirs...

You going to walk off a cliff if one of them thought it was safe, when you knew full and well it wasn't?

Re:why just Microsoft?

[ConceptJunkie]

The phrase you are looking for is "could have".

Furthermore, if Microsoft states a minimum platform requirement, this should mean that an average person would find the computer usable with Vista. I bought a low-end laptop for my wife. I added an extra gig of RAM before I even turned the machine on... meaning it had 1.5 GB. It was literally the slowest computer I've ever used, and that counts an Amiga 500. You could double-click on the Firefox icon and it would sit for 30 seconds before you'd even get an hourglass icon, and another 30-60 seconds before the browser was usable (and it was so slow as to be maddening).

This shows the utter contempt that Microsoft has for their users. Gateway is partially responsible, but frankly I imagine they were strongarmed into totally sabotaging their products, because no sane person would choose to do this.

Microsoft has shown they have nothing but hatred for their users. We, as customers, are being punished because they are a monopoly and are ticked off that customers actually expect value for their money. This is why I contend that Microsoft literally has nothing to offer any more and is nothing but a drain on society and a drain on the industry.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[petermgreen]

I'm sure those PC manufacturers have access to the betas and release candidates a long time in advance of the actual release. Hell windows 7 is already in public beta.

If they didn't know theese machines were incapable of running aero which was one of the most advertised features of vista then frankly they were incompetant. I find it fare more likely that they played along because the alternatives were either losing the "vista capable" marketing sticker or being more expensive than thier competitors.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[petermgreen]

The problem is the definition of support vista.

Theese machinees could run vista, they just couldn't do so very well. In particular aero one of vista's most advertised features could not be used on them.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[petermgreen]

The hardware vendors did NOT have the means to test anything
On what information do you base this claim

Wikipedia claims

"After Longhorn was named Windows Vista in July 2005, an unprecedented beta-test program was started, involving hundreds of thousands of volunteers and companies. In September of that year, Microsoft started releasing regular Community Technology Previews (CTP) to beta testers. The first of these was distributed at the 2005 Microsoft Professional Developers Conference, and was subsequently released to beta testers and Microsoft Developer Network subscribers."

I'm finding it hard to find an introduction date for windows vista capable I found a PC world article from april 2006 saying it was about to appear next month though the fact it was dated april 1st makes me a little suspicious.

If we accept these dates and make the reasonable assumption that these big vendors could afford msdn subscriptions then yes they did have the opertunity to test these machines with vista albiet a beta version.

BTW these machines COULD run vista, they just couldn't run it very well and couldn't run aero.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[vux984]

if they were able to convince **YOU** to say that your stuff would run on it, and you knew it wouldn't, well that's your problem - not theirs...

Trouble is, after they convinced me to say that, they turned around and sold it to others based on whey they had convinced me to say. They STILL knew it wasn't true. They were still in on the con.

Microsoft isn't innocent here, but the OEMS aren't either.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[XcepticZP]

Firefox doesn't load nearly as fast as Internet Explorer. Not just on my PC, but on every PC I've tried this on. Granted, I haven't compared the speeds between IE and Firefox on an Amiga 500. But that's because you're such a seasoned veteran of the computing industry and knew better than to buy a low end laptop with the brand new OS that you should have read about while it was still in beta!

As for your post, well. I find it pretty amusing actually. You write this long post, making us think that you know what you're talking about. Yet at the same time you fell for this Vista-capable business and now you're whining about it. It's just as much your fault for buying the low-end laptop without researching it first as it is Microsoft's for thinking people like you didn't exist.

Heck, you could have been a real genius and tried that laptop at the shop! Assuming they had it on display, or you asked a sales assistant to get one for you to try! But wait, you're a seasoned veteran of the computer industry (because you had an Amiga 500), so you didn't bother with all that non-nerd-business of going to the computer store and talking to a sales assistant. No, you knew everything you had to know about Vista (not) and knew everything about computers (because you're a seasoned veteran of the computer industry) so you probably opted to instead just order her laptop online.

You went the cheap route and now you're whining to us about it. Then you add iHate Microsoft to your post and expect everyone to give you brownie points!

Re:why just Microsoft?

[vux984]

So you claim the hardware vendors negligently obeyed the law by not downloading a copy of Vista with p2p?

No. He's pointing out that Vista was readily available WELL in advance of its launch, and that even lowly basement dwellers could get a copy. The big OEMs had PLENTY of advance access to pre-release Vista, in order to develop drivers, develop platforms and products, etc.

They knew FULL WELL what their 'Vista Capable' PCs were actually capable of. They KNEW Aero wasn't going to work. They KNEW they were going to need more RAM.

One and only one entity here promised in no uncertain terms that those machines would run Vista. That would be Microsoft.

1) Microsoft initially said those machines wouldn't run Vista.
2) The OEMs said, hey but we have a lot of these already in stock and we'd have to lower there prices if we couldn't say they were vista capable, surely you could say they run Vista! And then they proceed to put a lot of pressure on Microsoft.
3) Microsoft finally caves, and says, ok, yeah, sure they will run Vista Basic. In so far as there is nothing stopping someone from installing it. It will boot and run.

4) The OEMs gleefully apply "Vista Capable" stickers, knowing full well that consumers aren't going to be impressed with Vista Basic, sans Aero, and starved for RAM, but hey the consumer won't know they've been screwed for another 6-10 months... it's not like they'll be able to return it then.

Yes, Microsoft is responsible for what they did. But the OEMs were in on the con too, and should also be held responsible.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[deimtee]

I've seen judgements that involve many things besides straight restitution.
Are you trying to tell a judge he can't do something?
I bet the judge can do that if he wants too. In fact, I double dare him.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[ozmanjusri]

Actually, everyone here knows the phrase "I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy" is a tag intended for the Crispin Porter + Bogusky database.

It means a successful astroturf has been posted and the Mechanical Turk operator gets their 65c.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[hairyfeet]

While I agree that they need to be selling Vista Basic for a low price to move product(I would say $30-40) I honestly am not sure UAC helps anybody. Let us all be honest here. Let us cut the marketing BS and the tech blogger BS and get down to the nitty gritty, okay? UAC will NOT stop the rate of infection of Windows PCs and frankly while it is probably safer than "full on admin mode" I'd like to see some real world tests with users to back that up.

Why am I so skeptical? Because being a PC repairman I have watched dumbasses open password protected zip files just for the carrot that some malware writer has waved in front of their face. There is a GOOD reason why Windows is the biggest pile of bugs and malware, and honestly it ain't because of MSFT. It is because Windows has WAY too many users that I wouldn't trust to walk and chew gum, much less take security into consideration. It all comes down to the dancing bunny problem. You can put up all the UAC roadblocks that you want and if the malware writer waves the right carrot in front of their face a dumbass will be more than happy to give them the passwords so they can have the carrot.

It is like that security test they did awhile back where folks were willing to give their passwords to the office machines for a candy bar. Or that test they did to get into a company that bragged on their security practices. How did they get in? By dropping flash drives in the parking lot which the users happily brought in and plugged into their machines. So trying to blame MSFT for viruses and worms is like blaming the SUV manufacturer because some woman runs over a family of 5 while doing 70 and playing with her cell phone. You will NEVER make Windows secure, simply because there are way too many stupid Windows users. Switch those stupid users to OSX or Linux and watch the infections on those platforms soar. Because all the malware writers have to do is wave the right carrot and all your great security is turned into shit by the user. That is why we PC repairman simply smile and use expressions like PEBKAC and ID10T. Because we know it will NEVER change.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most didn't want Vista capable, as it only helped those who didn't upgrade their lines.

Many companies have a bigger lawsuit against Microsoft for giving companies that used Vista basic on subpar machines a competitive boost, violating the agreements with companies that had Vista machines that could run Aero.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[ion.simon.c]

I agree that clueless or wilfully ignorant users will damage systems. I'm not talking about them when I say that UAC is a step up. I'm talking about technically ept (or "Power Users") when I'm talking about UAC. We get the relative safety of an unprivileged user account, and the convenience of an automatically spawned "Run As..." prompt when we try to do something that requires elevated privs. (Bear in mind that I've used Vista for a total of thirty minutes. My knowledge of what UAC does may be inaccurate. Please correct my misconceptions.)

Frankly, there's nothing that we can do -short of making a stripped and locked down email and internet browsing machine- to protect computer systems from the "average user". (I have a "computing is too damn hard, they just want a fucking appliance" rant that I'm sure you don't care to hear.) :)

Re:why just Microsoft?

[stbill79]

While none of the Vista line is moving in large numbers according to them Vista Basic doesn't move any at all. Nobody wants it.

Those of us that already have XP discs ready for the downgrade are happy to purchase a computer with Vista Basic since it's the cheapest available when customizing a new computer!

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Khyber]

Actually if a judge thought about it long enough he could force Microsoft to remove all DRM capability from Vista if he decided it was a threat to personal security or if it could be used to defraud customers.

Just like a judge could order EA to recall all copies of Spore and release a new version without SecuROM in it.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Fjandr]

They then sue my ass for endorsing their junk, because I lied when I said it was good. Should I be on the hook?

Firtly, I'm no fan of Microsoft. XP will likely be the last operating system I use of theirs with any regularity.

That said, the certification program isn't an endorsement by the manufacturers. It's an endorsement by Microsoft of the manufacturer's suitability to run their product. If any testing was done, it seems more likely that it would be Microsoft receiving hardware samples to install and run their as-yet-unreleased product onto for testing. Even more likely is that they simply based the certification on benchmark numbers to keep costs down. Meet a minimum CPU speed and RAM amount as determined by Microsoft and you're golden.

Who knows though, maybe each hardware manufacturer was tasked with installing and testing the software on each machine to be certified. I didn't and don't care enough (at all, actually) about the program to take the time to look at their requirements, so this is entirely speculation on my part.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Fjandr]

Blah for being tired and hitting submit without proofing.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[rdebath]

Exactly, so there's NO FUCKING WAY you are going to go into BB and buy Vista Basic Retail Version.

BTW: You're not happy about it either, you don't want to buy a new OS, you want FREEwindows or FREElinux or FREEdos

Re:why just Microsoft?

[bestalexguy]

Vista adds 0 value to me

Sounds like you're lucky.

I guess my added value is far below zero point. Let's see some negative points

If current Explorer's view doesn't include the columns I need, I'll have to scroll through dozens of column names; MS didn't neglect the funny part: some columns have the same name! (Italian version-awful)

One of the reasons why I have Vista on my laptop instead of Linux is Vista's supposedly superior hardware management. Then one day the touchpad on my Acer 5520 lost its peculiar features, evolving into a clumsy mouse. I tried to reinstall the drivers, then to contact Acer support. Yes, I know you know what they suggested, I knew it too but I had to ask. Problem not solved

Network Management applets, both Vista's and Acer developed, repeatedly freeze.
Copying files is a nightmare. Sometimes the copy takes forever or gets stuck to the point I have to kill explorer process. I'm sure Vista is doing lots of cool things behind the curtains with my filesystem. And this is the point. Microsoft keeps forcing me to buy new functionalities I'm not asking for, removing and devastating the previous fundamental ones. For me this is not just inconvenient, it's horrifying.

Sometimes all the interactions with the system are knocked out. Keyboard, mouse, video display, loudspeakers. The drive and network activity LEDs keep happily dancing. Exactly the kind of problems I hoped Windows evolution would eliminate, or at least a clear, guided solution path should be offered.

Bottom line: I don't give a damn about Aero and fancy stuff. I want a system which does not let me down in the middle of a banking transaction. I want hardware, not software failures. I want to be able to (re)install peripherals with a deterministic procedure. I want diagnostic/troubleshooting to be the most advanced piece of SW on the system, not the video candies. If there are too many functionalities to be able to support them all, stop adding them for Christ's sake!

All this is what I wanted 15 years ago, and still is not delivered by MS. And before telling me to move to Linux or Mac, please, call my bank (IE required) and my customers who are happily upgrading their documents to non-OpenOffice-compatible Office 2007 document formats. Yes, users are to blame, too.

These issued will be properly addressed by Windows 7? I doubt that. The best I can say about it is it's fast (sure, it's just been installed!)

Re:why just Microsoft?

[vux984]

It's an endorsement by Microsoft of the manufacturer's suitability to run their product. If any testing was done, it seems more likely that it would be Microsoft receiving hardware samples to install and run their as-yet-unreleased product onto for testing.

Even if that's what happened, Microsoft said, "NO, this hardware isn't good enough", and the OEMs said, "But we have truckloads of it, and people won't buy it if they know it isn't good enough, how about you lower your standards a bit..."

Point is the OEMs were in on the con. They approached microsoft and petitioned and pressured them to lower the requirements to qualify for certification. They knew full well that this would result in machines that would be 'disappointing'.

So yes, Microsoft is responsible, but the OEMs are too. They were in on the con. It was even their idea.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Cowmonaut]

The problem here was that a LOT of the "Vista Capable" computers couldn't run *notepad* at a reasonable pace. 512MB is like trying to run XP on 128MB, but worse do to the extra video card requirements. If you had the hardware, Vista is pretty decent (now), but "Vista Capable" is a total marketing scam.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[hairyfeet]

Aaah.....but you see there is a catch 22 there, and the catch is this: the power users ain't the ones being infected. You see the power users know what "run as" is, they know about programs like autopatcher that lets them keep all the patches and must haves like Java and Flash on a DVD to install BEFORE letting the machine loose on the net, they actually bother TO patch, and use a firewall and AV, etc.

I think in all the years I have worked PC repair I've seen power users maybe half a dozen times in my shop. And in EVERY case they knew what they were about to try was dodgy, but they went for it anyway because the malware writer waved the right carrot. Now I can't comment on long term use of UAC, simply because my 3.6GHz P4 with 2GB of RAM and a 7600GS ran so damned slow on Vista I was using a 733MHz with WinXP just to get away from the thing, but I can tell you that one of the big things around here is to have me kill UAC. The users can't STAND the thing, because it irritates the living hell out of you. Those that have kept it seem to just click "allow" on everything so it is pointless. MSFT just sucks when it comes to privileges, especially compared to Linux which almost never bugged me for escalation when I was running Xandros 4.

But I would still like to see, say a 6 month test on "real world" average Windows users before I would put any weight at all to UAC. Because I bet the majority who haven't killed UAC outright(or paid guys like me good money to go back to XP) have simply become trained to hit allow no matter what the thing says. Because after watching a couple of Vista users and the speed at which they click allow I know those warnings could say "We've come for your daughters Chuck. Can we have them?" and they would click "Sure thing. Have fun!" which of course makes UAC nothing more than security theater instead of actual security.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Fjandr]

If that were the case then they should also be held liable. Too bad it would take another civil lawsuit to get them on the hook though.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where your analogy with the "friends" breaks down when applied to this case is that your "friends" did not meet your endorsement requirements, and labeled it without fulfilling the endorsement requirements.

Because the hardware vendors DID have Microsoft's approval, your analogy does NOT make sense when applied to this case.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[ion.simon.c]

Hmm.
Lemmy reiterate:
I'm not talking about the ordinary users. I'm talking about the "Power Users". For the purposes of this conversation, I don't give a flying fuck about the ordinary user. They don't exist in this world.

Do you understand where I'm coming from now?

Re:why just Microsoft?

[drinkypoo]

Man, if I got money every time I defended some aspect of Windows (you can't defend it as a whole, only as a hole) then I'd... well, I'd have a little money. I keep wondering how I get one of these astroturfing jobs, but perhaps they don't offer them to people with standards.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[phulegart]

Just to assist in your clarification... so YOU understand where you are really coming from...

If you are talking about Power Users, in the sense of users who actually are in the know and can intelligently handle their systems properly... then you might as well be talking about Linux or Mac users... since as a Power User you are in as small of a minority as Linux users or Mac users... in comparison to the Average Joe user that you don't give a flying fuck about.

Because it isn't like the majority of Vista users are Power Users. They are the exception to the rule... not the rule.

And the huge numbers behind the "I-don't-give-a-flying-fuck-about-you" user base give the malware/spyware writers a target that is impossible to miss. As has been pointed out, these easily led users will click on anything to get what they want. Now, sure... there are Power Users out there who would not be fooled by such tactics... just as there are computer users who decided that going to Linux was easier than dealing with HAVING to know everything they had to know to avoid the pitfalls of using a MS product.

Take the Power Users out, and treat them differently. It doesn't matter. Windows will still be made for (almost) the lowest common denominator. Why does Windows even need to be "pretty"? Why doesn't MS sell the basic OS, no pretty at all? Then, the beautification software can be an extra. People *did* go out and buy Microsoft Plus! to add that kind of beautification to Win98, you know. Why isn't the essential OS sold as a true Basic package, then like most products, offer Extras.

No, instead we have an Idiot Base, as big as the Power User Base, that runs out to purchase Vista Ultimate, because they believe it has to be the Ultimate OS, not because they actually need any of the Business tools added to Home Premium (which is all Ultimate is... Home Premium and Business... that and BitLocker and Windows Movie Maker HD). Instead, they should be buying the basic OS, then adding the tools they want. MS knows it's user base is largely ignorant and counts on that. Malware and Spyware writers know that the majority of the Windows user base is ignorant AND the largest computer user base out there... and THEY count on that.

So ok. It is acknowledged that YOU are talking about the Power Users. Note, that that user base can be largely ignored, since it is having little to no effect on the status of the rest of the Windows users

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Hardware makers should be at least as responsible, because they are the ones putting the stickers on the system.

Ok, so what you are saying is: if I buy a car that says it runs on Exxon gasoline, and Exxon says they sell gas that will work in a gasoline engine, but proceeds to fill their pumps with Diesel... that it's the CAR company's fault?

The hardware makers were told that XX system would run Vista. MS gave them false information, it is therefore purely Microsoft at fault.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[QuietObserver]

I'm not going to say I exactly disagree with your original analogy; I do agree that the vendors should be held accountable for urging Microsoft to allow the "Vista Capable" sticker to appear on machines that weren't capable, but there is something I think should be taken into consideration. Microsoft has a history of offering versions of Windows that provide specifications below what the OS is actually capable of performing decently under, but prior to Vista, every version was capable of providing users with the advertised look.

I remember when XP was released, they issued system requirements that were about half or a third what the system actually required to operate adequately, but I don't recall hearing of anyone who couldn't use the "Fisher-Price" desktop effects, despite the performance issues, when operating at minimum requirements (I worked as a Microsoft Support Technician at the time XP was released). Vista, on the other hand, was completely incapable of supporting Microsoft's new Aero desktop and many of the other features Microsoft advertised when installed on hardware that met the so-called minimum requirements, yet Microsoft still sold Vista as being the look as much as the system, so personally, I feel they are doubly responsible for propagating the lie of what "Vista Capable" meant.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[ion.simon.c]

Why does Windows even need to be "pretty"?

'Cause the Idiot User buys shiny things. :D I think that there's an entire semester in most Marketing degrees that's devoted to making shiny things for morons. ;)

Anyway. We've strayed off from the beaten path here.

1) I know that IU's are targeted by MSFT.
2) I know that IU's are targeted by malware writers.
3) I know that MSFT makes their products flashy so that they appeal to the IU's sensibilities.
4) I know that the majority of users are clueless. (Frankly, we should be producing products for them that don't require them to have a clue, but that's another rant.)

Having said that,

5) It's a crying shame that MSFT doesn't ship a $20/seat bare-bones un-flashy Email-Video-and-Web-Browsing OS.
6) I know that it's not the PU's who drive the majority of Windows UI development.

I think that we're both on the same page, here. :)

Also, LOL @ yer sig.

Free upgrade to windows 7 instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they can just give them all free copies of windows 7 cause this is a court case and Windows 7 or 8 should be out by the time its all done

Well.

[ZorbaTHut]

Microsoft in its response argued that giving litigants 'a free upgrade to Premium-ready PCs would provide a windfall to millions.'

I guess you shouldn't have lied, then. Let this be a lesson to you.

Re:Well.

[torkus]

Should they be held responsible? Yes. For the cost of the operating system that's not compatible. The computer itself is just fine - they got exactly the hardware they paid for - no more, no less.

Make MS give them a free upgrade/sidegrade/downgrade to a working operating system compatible with their hardware. The idea that MS should pay for hardware upgrades is plain old silly.

Re:Well.

[quickOnTheUptake]

yeah it has to be one of the dumbest defenses ever conceived by lawyers: "Ruling against us would be a big benefit to the other side at our expense"

Re:Well.

[nosferatu1001]

Erm - so they lie to you, saying the machine will be perfectly capable of running Feature X, and when it doesn't you think they should only have to give you the money Feature X cost?

Wow. Whats silly again?

They lied to shift hardware. To avoid pissing off Intel. They therefore need to give you WHAT YOU PAID FOR - you paid for a machine that was stated it could run Aero capably, so you should get that. No more No less.

Maybe then corporations won't lie in order to shift old hardware?

Re:Well.

[neumayr]

The computer itself is just fine - they got exactly the hardware they paid for - no more, no less.

But that hardware was advertised as something else. The customer can't be expected to know if they're being lied to by looking at the specs.
They wanted Vista, it said it can run Vista on the computer's box, and it didn't work. Just giving them some other OS is silly, suggesting it is arrogant.

Re:Well.

[jimicus]

They lied to shift hardware. To avoid pissing off Intel. They therefore need to give you WHAT YOU PAID FOR - you paid for a machine that was stated it could run Aero capably, so you should get that. No more No less.

Here in the UK, that'd be the retailer's problem. After all, it was they who sold you the product (complete with Vista capable sticker), it's their problem if it later transpires it isn't Vista capable. (In the real world, you'd almost certainly have no end of trouble getting a refund or a free upgrade in a case like this, but that's not really the point)

I'm surprised that this isn't the case in the US, frankly. What's the point in retailers if they're not responsible for the products they retail?

Re:Well.

[kimvette]

The root problem is that Joe Sixpack was misled and purchased said hardware based on that Microsoft-authorised "Vista Capable" decal.

Re:Well.

[Anonymous Coward]

no

the REAL root problem is that Joe Sixpack is TOO STUPID to do any kind of research AT ALL before he or she buys a technolgy product.

The ENTIRE "Vista Capable" versus "Vista Premium" debacle isn't that the computers advertised couldn't run Vista, it's that they couldn't run any of the PREMIUM versions of Vista WITH all the fancy GUI features enabled.

they will run the base OS just fine, with all of the GUI fanciness turned off.

However, Joe Sixpack is a moron and a sheep. So he wouldn't know the difference between the versions and just makes an ASSUMPTION that he gets all the goods when he buys his new computer.

The whole Intel debate is slightly separate in that Intel wanted to have computers with their onboard video chips rated as Vista PREMIUM capable, not just Vista Capable.
So is MS now supposed to not trust the hardware makers when they are told by said hardware vendor that this particular flavor of product WILL run the fanciness?
Are they supposed to go out and test every possible variation?
Or instead, are they supposed to ask the hardware vendors if their hardware meets this minimum level, and when the hardware vendor comes back and says "no, but your level is set to high because we tested it, and we can run your stuff with our products" is MS now supposed to not believe them?

Joe Sixpack will spend three weeks researching the different size rim options to put on his truck/car/motorcycle, but wont spend more than 20 seconds looking at the "ooo shiny" computer before he points, clicks and buys, or points grunts and buys it.

Blaming MS as the ONLY company at fault here is moronic at best and most likely comes from people whose thoughts are merely parroted from groupthink at all times anyway.

Re:Well.

[chill]

No, you're wrong.

The original meaning of the "Vista Capable" sticker was that the hardware could be UPGRADED to handle every feature of Vista. "Vista Ready" meant that it could handle it (Aero & WDDM) as is, without upgrades.

Much of the hardware labeled "Vista Capable" could NOT be upgraded to handle WDDM and Aero. Specifically, Intel 915 and 915GM chipsets were not WDDM capable and WOULD NEVER BE. Intel wanted Microsoft to delay the program until they got their next chipset out, about 5 months. That one would be WDDM capable. Microsoft, instead, just lowered the specs for the program and told Intel it was basically "just a sticker on the box". HP was absolutely furious with this tactic, since their stuff was all ready.

In short, the marketing department flat out lied to people. Microsoft SHOULD be on the hook for providing those people with "Vista Capable" hardware with the proper upgrades that they promised would happen. In the case of Intel 915GM laptops, that means a new laptop since you can't upgrade the chipset.

A slap on the wrist won't give MS or anyone else pause before pulling this sort of stunt again. They need a good kick in the groin and enough pain to make them understand that profiting from outright fraud will not be tolerated.

Re:Well.

[kimvette]

So is MS now supposed to not trust the hardware makers when they are told by said hardware vendor that this particular flavor of product WILL run the fanciness?

When Microsoft allows those authorised stickers they are certifying that the hardware with those logos will in fact meet the requirements. With all of the hoopla about the new desktop with the 3D features (which are a crock. I run Compiz-Fusion and THAT environment has 3D effects. A single scrolling 3D task switcher != 3D desktop, IMHO) Joe Sixpack is led to believe that they will be able to reap those benefits with the Microsoft endorsement.

Have you ANY experience with the Windows Logo and other similar programs? You have to meet a set of requirements in order to be allowed to display those logos. There is a certification process and everything.

Should Joe Sixpack have to read the specs, or should Joe Sixpack be able to rely on the what Microsoft's PR is announcing?

It's the latter. It's similar to auto PR. I won't buy a new GM, ever (I might consider used), because they publicly announced they would support a certain car with parts availability, tech support, etc. for a minimum of 20 years after production ends, and they were discontinuing parts left and right before the warranties ran out - including critical safety and emissions parts, AND they never, ever copped to the manufacturing defects which resulted in delaminating windshields. If I ever need and ignition module or catalytic converter, I'm screwed - they are not available new from GM at any price. :( So, I am voting with my wallet and buying either Ford or foreign (most likely toyota for normal cars, Porsche or Lotus if I ever buy another sportscar) from now on.

People should do the same to Microsoft - if they will not live up to what they obligated themselves to through their PR and advertising channels, then they should vote with their wallets and choose Apple or Linux or another non-Microsoft solution. Hit Microsoft where it hurts, and that is what this suit is about. It's not about getting "free" hardware - it is all about holding Microsoft up to their obligations.

Re:Well.

[damien_kane]

If I go into best buy and buy a PC on the consideration that the clerk said it'll run Photoshop CS4, but it won't, should Adobe then be responsible for buying me a new computer so that I can run their software?
No.

Had I already bought CS4, they should provide a free downgrade to CS2 or 3 that will run, but no hardware should be surprised.
It's my own fault for buying the lesser hardware.

Same deal with MS... Provide a XP license and install media, perhaps even a rebate of the difference between a Vista license and an XP license, and let the consumer deal with their OEM supplier with respect to "being cheated" on their hardware purchase.

Re:Well.

[ScrewMaster]

while positing that the notebooks' integrated graphics would be more tricky to replace and would cost between $245 and $590 per unit.

The idea that MS should pay for hardware upgrades is plain old silly.

I like that bit about it being tricky to replace a laptop's graphics chip. That's a somewhat disingenuous: it's actually really easy.

You just replace the laptop.

Re:Well.

[torkus]

Joe sixpack should maybe do a little research before spending his money. God forbid a consumer take responsibility for his/her actions. I'm so sick of everyone wanting a hand-out because they're too lazy to even *think* for themselves much less learn or understand something.

Besides, most retail places have laptops on display for you to look at or mess with. It's simple enough to 'test drive' one and realize it's not fast enough for what you want to do.

Re:Well.

[AK Marc]

I'm surprised that this isn't the case in the US, frankly. What's the point in retailers if they're not responsible for the products they retail?

They are. In an ideal world, everyone would sue the person they bought it from, and they would sue up the line until it got to the person that stamped "Vista Capable" on it, which would be Microsoft. So yes, from a consumer's point of view, the person that screwed them was the person that sold it to them, but then, the retailer either applied the sticker because Microsoft said to, or they bought it with the sticker already on it, so from the retailer's point of view, they were screwed as well, ultimately by Microsoft.

So suing Microsoft cuts out the middle man.

Re:Well.

[Greyfox]

To be fair to Microsoft, they never thought they'd actually get caught.

Re:Well.

[torkus]

Yes, a consumer who blindly and broadly interprets a sticker should be given something for nothing. That's what you're suggesting after all.

If you want to argue consumers should be given what they paid for...well that's listed on the box. Unfortunately there's a conflict as the hardware specs explicitly detail what's in the box and a 'vista capable' sticker vaugely implies they're capable of doing something they're not. Well, partially - because vista will actually run, but not all the features will be available. Did the sticker say 'aero capable'? Did a follow-up manual inside the box say it would boot in x seconds, run benchmark y at a certain speed, run the UI with these exact features? No. None of that was explicitly guaranteed.

In the end, the computer HARDWARE is exactly as specified. The software you might call defective - so give consumers a refund or replacement for the defective part. I fail to see why a company should be liable for more than their ill-gotten profits. If MS made $50 per computer (even gross, generally net is used for damages) then fine them that much and refund it to the consumers.

So again, the idea the a software OEM should be liable for hardware sold at retail is SILLY.

Re:Well.

[ZorbaTHut]

But if Adobe went around telling everyone that the minimum requirements would be X, and asked people to put stickers on things saying it would run CS4, and then changed the requirements at the last minute . . . then, yeah, I think suing Adobe would be appropriate.

Re:Well.

[Tacvek]

They lied to shift hardware. To avoid pissing off Intel. They therefore need to give you WHAT YOU PAID FOR - you paid for a machine that was stated it could run Aero capably, so you should get that. No more No less.

Here in the UK, that'd be the retailer's problem. After all, it was they who sold you the product (complete with Vista capable sticker), it's their problem if it later transpires it isn't Vista capable. (In the real world, you'd almost certainly have no end of trouble getting a refund or a free upgrade in a case like this, but that's not really the point)

I'm surprised that this isn't the case in the US, frankly. What's the point in retailers if they're not responsible for the products they retail?

In most cases a the point of retailers is that they are they only way to get a product new without buying it in bulk. To buy from the manufacturer usually requires an enormous order, usually exceeding what 30 retailers could move in a year. So in most markets only distributors buy from the manufacturer. To buy from the distributor usually requires a purchase around the size that an average retailer could move in a year. Only by buying from a retailer can you buy just one.

Not all markets are like this. The computer market is a major example of a case where consumers can by directly from the manufacturer in small quantities. But try buying a razor directly from the manufacturer sometime.

Re:Well.

[10101001 10101001]

Sounds great. So, I'll sell you a car without an engine. Just because you saw an advertisement of the car moving doesn't mean the engine isn't extra. I'll sell you Starcraft without a CD Key. Sure, you can't use the game, but there wasn't a sticker that said "is more valuable than a door stop". Or, I'll advertise to you a Big Mac, but when it comes to when you open the box, it'll be missing the beef patties. I mean, the menu didn't *say* there would be beef patties in the product. Just give a refund on the missing part, and let the consumer be stuck with the rest for their stupidity.

Yes, let's just ignore the obvious misconception that was being pushed with "vista capable". Or try to pretend that Microsoft-approved labels used as Microsoft intended aren't at all related to a responsibility on Microsoft's part not to defraud. Does that mean I think handing out hardware to fulfill the promise is the right answer? Not probably (having the option to return the whole machine for the original retail price, minimally, sounds better). But certainly a system where a company can defraud you with the minimal risk of having to, after a time, return money for a few defective parts encourages intentionally making expensive things with a few crucial, cheap, broken parts. At that level, fraud laws have been effectively bypassed, and that's definitely not the solution.

Re:Well.

[Shados]

Its a bit different, but the point still stands. Its Adobe certifying that CS4 will run on the PC, and it DOES, except it runs slow and 2 filters don't work at all. Still runs CS4 just fine and 99% of the features work (though a lot of the 1% are the new features). Still, can't really say that photoshop CS4 doesn't work...

So still, Adobe shouldn't be held liable.

At worse Microsoft here could just give people coupons for Windows 7 or something. It -will- run fine with Aero on, on these computers. Im sure it would make everyone happy.

Re:Well.

[torkus]

A car without an engine can not be used as intended at all (though you could live in it i suppose!). Starcraft without a CD key can not be played.

It's not like these computers sat on a shelf unused just because areo didn't run. I'm not saying the sticker wasn't unclear and the process was done correctly but the computers are still USABLE.

Re:Well.

[Stan92057]

My thought is to pay only the ones that upgraded to another version of vista or tried to because they are the only ones that got screwed. Remember the people that bought Vista Home bought them because they were cheaper and didn't want a higher version of vista. How many home users will upgrade through software upgrades? Not many by what i have been reading. MS are going to win on a technicality because the computers can run Vista though just home Vista

Re:Well.

[ScrewMaster]

So, I am voting with my wallet and buying either Ford or foreign (most likely toyota for normal cars, Porsche or Lotus if I ever buy another sportscar) from now on.

Well, honestly I wouldn't feel too sorry for you even if GM screwed you on a catalytic converter. Mainly because you obviously have a bigger wallet than the rest of us.

Re:Well.

[Odin's Raven]

Make MS give them a free upgrade/sidegrade/downgrade to a working operating system compatible with their hardware.

So MS has to send everyone a free Linux CD? :-)

Re:Well.

[poopdeville]

Funny, I gave it a try. http://www.gillette.com/en-US/#/shopnow/ is promising, but they redirect to an apparently affiliated pharmacy.

Re:Well.

[Earthquake Retrofit]

I'm surprised that this isn't the case in the US, frankly. What's the point in retailers if they're not responsible for the products they retail? They are. In an ideal world, everyone would sue the person they bought it from, and they would sue up the line until it got to the person that stamped "Vista Capable" on it, which would be Microsoft. So yes, from a consumer's point of view, the person that screwed them was the person that sold it to them, but then, the retailer either applied the sticker because Microsoft said to, or they bought it with the sticker already on it, so from the retailer's point of view, they were screwed as well, ultimately by Microsoft. So suing Microsoft cuts out the middle man.

I got my HP in November of 2006. I had already heard scary stories about Vista, so I wanted to buy a fast box before XP was no longer available. It's got the Vista Capable sticker but only 1 gig of ram and Nvidia graphics. The kid at BigBox gave me a coupon that I could have used to get Vista when it was released. He also was quite clear that Vista was crap and I would, at the least, need to double the ram then too. So that retailer was not at fault in my mind. Now I had (and have) no intention of using Vista. It would be wrong of me to join the class-action. Right?

Re:Well.

[LO0G]

Actually that's not quite true. Those "capable" machines with the low end Intel graphic card (915?) aren't capable of running glass, even on Win7. In fact, that's the crux of the lawsuit - apparently Intel pushed Microsoft to relax the logo requirements to allow the 915 cards even though it wouldn't support glass. Microsoft caved to Intel's requirement.

The only option for customers with the intel 915 chipset is a new video card, which might be difficult on a laptop.

Re:Well.

[LO0G]

Actually it's a several hundred page document which lays out what makes a machine eligible for the premium SKU. And that document is on the web for any customer who wants to read it :).

Re:Well.

[Shados]

No, thats just the thing: Windows 7 Beta doesn't have the feature yet, but they are implementing a software renderer that will be able to run Aero regardless of videocard, using CPU alone. Thats why I mentioned that.

Re:Well.

[ScrewMaster]

Flamebait? Idiot ... it was a joke, son. Christ, grow a sense of humor.

Re:Well.

[Antony-Kyre]

I agree. For the hardware? No. For the software? Yes. Analogy time.

Imagine buying a bed before moving to your new apartment. Unfortunately, the bed is bigger than advertised and doesn't fit into your bedroom. (It's a small apartment.) So, do you return the bed (software), or get a bigger apartment (hardware)?

In my opinion, Microsoft should offer a full refund for those wishing to return Vista, and partial compensation for those who had to upgrade hardware. But, what kind of compensation for a hardware upgrade?

The cost alone of buying new hardware? Is that what they are talking about? How about taking the new hardware value, and subtract the old hardware value, and compensate people that way. After all, that old hardware still has value. It's not complete junk, you know.

You know, another option, and one more I think people would be happy with, is to offer them a free copy of Windows XP. After all, I think it only costs Microsoft something like $30 (don't ask me how I got that figure) for each license of XP. Furthermore, XP would work on the hardware they bought.

Re:Well.

[swillden]

Just giving them some other OS is silly, suggesting it is arrogant.

Oh, I don't know about that. It's a pretty common solution in my experience -- when vendors can't make good on their promises, they often fix it by giving you something better than what you paid for.

So, giving the people a copy of XP instead of Vista seems like an excellent solution.

Re:Well.

[10101001 10101001]

A car without an engine can not be used as intended at all (though you could live in it i suppose!).

One can put one's own engine in it and drive it. It's presumptive that the intent of the car purchase was driving.

Starcraft without a CD key can not be played.

It could still be used as a coaster. And you could possibly still look at the movies and the music on the disc.

It's not like these computers sat on a shelf unused just because areo didn't run.

Um, what makes you presume that? It's quite possible that one needs Aero to run something and the machine is entirely useless to the purchaser without it.

I'm not saying the sticker wasn't unclear and the process was done correctly but the computers are still USABLE.

Just because you can find a use for a system or a car shell or a CD-keyless Starcraft CD doesn't negate the fraud commited or somehow undo the legitimacy of people deserving some option for recourse. I might not agree with the actual recourse suggested by the plantiff, but equally one can simple excuse fraud with the argument that the items sold are inherently useless in all functionality.

To that end, perhaps a better example would have been a pickup truck with a low-power engine capable of transport a maximal of two people and no extra load with advertisements showing the carrying of four people, a full load, and towing a boat. I truthfully don't know what's the best fair answer to such circumstances.

Re:Well.

[Khyber]

Or if you're one of the smart ones to buy a laptop with an MXM slot you could just open the laptop up and toss in a new card.

HP carries a few.

Re:Well.

[ScrewMaster]

Or if you're one of the smart ones to buy a laptop with an MXM slot you could just open the laptop up and toss in a new card.

HP carries a few.

Yeah, I know ... but out of the millions of people who buy laptops every year, how many would even know what that is?

Re:Well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. And your testimony would clear the retailer too.

Re:Well.

[Khyber]

More would know if only the companies would ADVERTISE it.

But see, their marketing and engineering departments are so out of touch that the GOOD features get swept away by stupid SPECS.

What's sauce for the goose...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft in its response argued that giving litigants 'a free upgrade to Premium-ready PCs would provide a windfall to millions.'/quote]

Unlike providing a windfall by lying about operating system capabilities.

what would be the cost to refund

[wjh31]

what if they re-funded the cost of an OEM version of vista to everyone, and provided a free downgrade to XP, or up to 7, im sure that would cost less than $400 per PC, and seems an especially more practical alternative to upgrading the laptops.

considering the value of a new laptop with 1GB ram and an aero-capable intel chipset these days, i wonder how many people would bother to get it changed once you factor in the hassle of sending off your laptop, waiting on the new one, setting it up, transfering the data etc...

its reasonable to hold microsoft accountable for what is clearly misleading, but retailers/manufacturers are equally responsible for putting the sticker on if they knew their hardware couldnt run it acceptabley, even if MS said it would.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[Meshach]

I have to agree with you that OEM vendors should bear a share of the responsibility.

OEM do piles of testing and development to install their "tools" / malware onto the machines. They must have known that the OS was not capable.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[Joce640k]

Nope. This lawsuit refers to machines which were sold with XP installed but with a sticker saying "Vista Capable" on them (and often a voucher for the Vista upgrade).

Vista because it wasn't available at the time so they couldn't test machines with it.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[Meshach]

Vista wasn't available to general people but I would think/hope that OEM had access to some alpha/beta/per-release version to test their tools against. Since MS makes piles of money from OEM vendors I would think they would help them out.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[zergl]

Vista wasn't available to general people but I would think/hope that OEM had access to some alpha/beta/per-release version to test their tools against. Since MS makes piles of money from OEM vendors I would think they would help them out.

And as we all know, pre-release versions of software behave exactly like the final product and any benchmark results from the pre-release are completely accurate because there won't be any more performance tuning.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[Joce640k]

Things like working graphics drivers were few and far between even after Vista was launched.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[Anonymous Coward]

Big OEM's like Dell were working with Vista literally 2 years before RTM releases. Do you think they don't work closely together?

In fact, Dell/HP/Lenovo/Etc actually have teams on-site at MS full time to test each incremental build.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[perlchild]

But they didn't buy an OEM version of Vista, they bought "Vista-capable" equipment. Your idea works only if they had to buy vista seperately. All those customers were lied to simply because they were buying a bundle, of parts that was supposed to work together, and didn't. Now you're going to reimburse them the one part that didn't work, and tell them "well the other parts don't work together with A, so we refunded A" But I bought A and B together, because they were certified to work together. And on the other hand, the logo program is Trademark Microsoft, if Microsoft opposed the idea, they should have sued to get it taken off. They didn't so Microsoft was tacitly approving.

The whole point of the logo is to say that Microsoft, who makes Vista, says the combination of the hardware is sufficient to run Vista, so the people who see the logo know that they can buy it with a clear conscience.

Microsoft doesn't have to have a logo program, they choose to do so because it benefits them. When they mishandle it, they have to be punished. In a real customer-centric market, Microsoft would have to pay damages for the time spent reinstalling/restoring data too.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[Anonymous Coward]

An XP downgrade would require wiping hard drives which is an unsavory option for many. For most that would be a lose-lose situation:
 
  1) format your hard drive and loose any installed programs (which could cost DRM licenses not to mention) or
 
  2) Forgo a downgrade to keep sub-standard hardware for Vista. This costs Microsoft and hardware vendors nothing.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[Cally]

considering the value of a new laptop with 1GB ram and an aero-capable intel chipset these days, i wonder how many people would bother to get it changed once you factor in the hassle of sending off your laptop, waiting on the new one, setting it up, transfering the data etc...

Got a family? Mortgage? Job? Where's you income compared to the median? ($48,000 in 2006, if you're interested; NB that's per /household/.) It might be easy for you to toss down a few hundred bucks for a new laptop, but most of us are not in that position.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[Centurion5]

I thought of a solution that would hold M$ and Hardware Vendors responsible and provide restitution to their victims. Force M$ and the vendor to provide XP downgrade disks WITH proper drivers to their victims.

I would be satisfied with XP working on the two computers, 1 desktop and 1 laptop, that I was provided only Vista for. Neither have drivers that are XP compatible. A steep discount on the Windows 7 would be a nice gesture too. Win7 is faster on my laptop but the headphone jack stopped working. Cen5

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[Keramos]

what if they re-funded the cost of an OEM version of vista to everyone, and provided a free downgrade to XP, or up to 7,

What makes you think Windows 7 would run on the hardware involved? It's not some lightweight OS, regardles of the hype. It's just less sucky than Vista is/was and has similar hardware requirements (being basically Vista 1.5). I suppose that when they stop beating you with the steel pipe filled with lead and start beating you with just the steel pipe instead, you've got the tendency to say "Oh, that feels so much better".

I think being forced to provide a free copy of Win XP would be somewhat ironic given it's likely there was some motive as well to boost Vista ship numbers as well as placate the hardware makers. Of course, since those PCs have been unable to function properly since they were purchased (the whole point of the suit) it would not seem unreasonable that full support for XP be mandated for an equal period :-)

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[unleashedgamers]

I went out and bought a full Vista Ultimate and all I get is the price of an OEM version?

If (and I did) I bought a 'Vista Capable' computer that I was TOLD would work with Vista and then went out and spent $499 on Windows Ultimate because I was assured it would work but only get $200ish back because "Oops, we thought it would work... Our bad!"

I think this is still fraud. I want
A) A computer that is 'Vista Capable'
or
B) A refund for the Windows Vista that I was told would work but cant return because I had to open it to install it to find out it didn't work.

I'll even go without compensation for the hours I wasted of my time to Backup my documents, install Vista, restore documents, find out it wont work, backup documents again, install the XP that the computer came with and finally restore documents yet again.

This is why I think I tend to enjoy Mac OS X, Linux and Solaris a little bit more than Windows, no hassles.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[mgblst]

You are ignorant. If I bought a computer to run Vista, for whatever stupid reason I might have, then I want to run Vista, not Window XP. Why is this such a difficult concept for people here to understand.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[sponga]

They could start off by not loading them with those crappy weak Intel graphics cards.

So many laptops I have come across those slow weak graphics cards and it's loaded with Vista, Intels drivers did not seem to improve it either.

Intel must have been giving these guys all great deals with these video/sound cards built in that could never be upgraded.
Seems manufacturers were trying to save a buck with those all-in-one motherboards, cheap laptops are nice these days though for basic uses.

Does these 8 billion take into account...

[anss123]

...the Vista Premium license? I'm assuming these laptops/desktops came with Windows XP or Vista Basic, which means the user have to buy Vista Premium to be affected by this.

For $8 billion MS can probably make Aero run on 513 MB RAM and Pixel Shader 1.0 hardware.

Re:Does these 8 billion take into account...

[Anonymous Coward]

MS can probably make Aero run on 513 MB RAM

So you'd just need to find/add a 1MB DIMM?

Re:Does these 8 billion take into account...

[Narnie]

For $8 billion MS can probably make Aero run on 513 MB RAM and Pixel Shader 1.0 hardware.

I hope MS really takes notice of this for Windows7. Users are expecting to run premium content (Areo) on budget hardware, I think it would be worth Microsoft's time to clean up their code and make such enhancements as lightweight as possible. Either make the code run on everything or educate the end user on the real hardware requirements that make the shiny bits work.

IMHO, I feel that MS failed to educate the end user that the flashy stuff that they were seeing with Vista was Aero and Aero required a minimum chipsets X,Y,Z. Hardware vendors didn't help because they don't often advertise which low end components are installed in a laptop or if they are able to run things like Aero.

Perhaps Windows7 will be P3 compatible and will require a whopping 128mb of ram to prevent any stupid litigation.

Re:Does these 8 billion take into account...

[RightSaidFred99]

I really would like for my $12,000 car to get 55mpg and have 320 HP. It ain't gonna happen, though.

Re:Does these 8 billion take into account...

[UnknowingFool]

For $8 billion MS can probably make Aero run on 513 MB RAM and Pixel Shader 1.0 hardware.

It's not that simple. Aero won't run on Intel 915 chipsets because there is no WDDM driver. Aero needs a WDDM driver. Intel will not release a WDDM driver for 915 because one of the requirements of the driver is the chip must have a Hardware Scheduler which the 915 does not have. I'm not a chip engineer but it seems to me that a Hardware Scheduler was something that is built into the chip and not something that can be simulated by software. Incidentally the 915 does support Pixel Shader 2.0.

Intel could redesign the 915 with a Hardware Scheduler and re-release it. However most of integrated video chipsets are soldered onto the MB and not easily replaced. It would be far easier for the consumer to replace the MB than to retrofit the 915.

Re:Does these 8 billion take into account...

[torkus]

I hate car analogies but you're dead on. After all, they show an Altima driving like a race car with GPS and full leather in one commercial, then sayhow it gets amazing gas mileage in another, while starting at the low, low price of $18k.

Granted 18K gets you neigher the 275HP nor hybrid engine but people generally aren't so stupid as to walk into a dealership and buy the first car on the lot in the color they want expecting everything int he commercial. Why are computers so different?

Re:Does these 8 billion take into account...

[im_thatoneguy]

The numbers in the story are bullshit.

$150 to upgrade a desktop to 1GB of RAM and a DX9 video card?

At OEM bulk rates I could probably do it for less than $20. (New Egg has a $20 video card and $6 for the RAM).

As to laptops.

$300-$500 to upgrade a laptop?

Pass. You can get refurb laptops for $300 that are better all around and run Aero just fine.

The costs projected are massively inflated. I'm no 'expert witness'. But I would put the actual costs at

$20 for a desktop and $200 for a laptop. Then lets say that the average 20% of all class action plaintiffs actually claim you need to cut that 8 billion down to like 100 million.

Re:Does these 8 billion take into account...

[b4dc0d3r]

Cars have been around a while, very few people alive did not grow up with cars.

Anyone older than 25 has a good chance of having no computer around growing up and definitely no buying experience, and no advice being handed down from Dad. If they did buy a computer, it did what they wanted it to do. It loaded web pages and sent e-mail and ran AOL 5.0.

Now this flashy thing comes out and it says this flashy UI is what you're going to get. Vista Capable means it's going to work.

Of all of this, can you point to anything that would indicate that average consumers have any experience buying something and it not working? We've had that maybe with a printer not being compatible, or needing a different USB cable, or serial instead of parallel, but that's an add-on. The core OS, which is the interface of the computer, does not do what both Microsoft and the OEM together claimed, and there is no expectation that the consumer should have known better.

Re:Does these 8 billion take into account...

[Anonymous Coward]

My other computer (an Archimedes A310) has four 256KB SIMMs for a total of 1MB. I'd be happy to sell them to you and I'll even give you a sticker guaranteeing that they'll work in your PC. Just don't sue me when^h^h^h^h if they don't.

Another viewpoint:

[Smidge207]

Well, to me, *lone voice on the wilderness* Vista Capable doesn't definitively mean Vista Ultimate Capable and I think the difference between Vista Capable and Vista Premium should have been clear.

It does seem to be nitpicking to suggest that Vista Capable means Ultimate and not Basic. Additionally, there was a lot of information kicking about explaining Vista's system requirements at the time this campaign was running so I think these people need to take a bit of responsibility for their own decisions - for instance, there's no excuse for someone moaning that their graphics card doesn't support Aero when MS had made the requirements for Aero perfectly clear.

Finally, considering the fact that Vista hadn't even been released when these stickers first started coming out the phrase "buyer beware" springs to mind...

=Smidge=

Re:Another viewpoint:

[TheRaven64]

Well, to me, *lone voice on the wilderness* Vista Capable doesn't definitively mean Vista Ultimate Capable

No, to you informed geek Vista Capable doesn't necessarily mean Vista-with-Aero capable. The average user sees the TV adverts for Vista where the only feature they really talk about is Aero, sees 'Vista Capable' and assumes that the two are connected. This is what we call bait-and-switch at worst, misleading advertising at best.

Re:Another viewpoint:

[ClosedSource]

Actually, I doubt that most computer buyers saw any Vista ads and probably didn't even know what Aero was. It's the informed geek and their lawyer friends who did the bulk of complaining.

Re:Another viewpoint:

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about "Vista Special" and "Vista Basic" and "Vista Basic Office" and "Vista Ultimate Special" and "Vista Super Premium" and ...

Re:Another viewpoint:

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, it's the marketer's duty to make sure uninformed buyers are informed of every single possible detail of their purchase. I mean, I can go buy any "HDTV" and play my XBOX 360 or PS3 at full 1080p60 resolution, right? Oh... you mean I can't necessarily?

The product they bought says "vista capable" and it is capable of running Vista. End of story.

Re:Another viewpoint:

[thetoadwarrior]

Yeah because Microsoft's marketing is aimed at ensuring no one sees their ads.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aL3rfuKwMDI

This advert shows Aero in use but it doesn't call it Aero nor does it say not all versions can do everything. It advertises Vista as if it's one product but in reality it's numerous versions and consequences to which version you buy.

You're right the average user is a bit thick and doesn't know what aero is but they did see that advert and would assume simply buying vista will give them the same experience.

Re:Another viewpoint:

[ClosedSource]

Again, I don't think many people saw these ads. They just needed to buy a computer and it came with Vista.

As for showing Vista in it's best incarnation, how is that different than what video game makers do. If a game is available in DS, XBOX 360, and PS3, do they show you the DS version in the commercial?

Re:Another viewpoint:

[thetoadwarrior]

Not always but then again EA recently got into trouble for using 360 footage of Tiger Woods to advertise the Wii version.

Re:Another viewpoint:

[10101001 10101001]

So, you're suggesting Microsoft engaged in a campaign to advertise a variety of systems as "Vista Capable" to the one group most capable of recognizing that Microsoft was lying to them? It had nothing to do with trying to trick people, informed or not, into buying hardware now instead of considering another platform (Mac OS X) back when Vista was taking so long to be released (and, btw, that's why it was "Vista Capable" not "Vista installed" or whatever)?

Btw, yes, the informed geeks and their lawyers were the ones who did the bulk of complaining. Why? Because most uninformed people are used to being screwed. When something bad happens to them, most just shrug it off as "I must have been mistaken". Their informed friends can belittle them for not knowing about "minimum system requirements" or "of course it doesn't run aero, that pretty thing you saw". The people that tend to complain with any credence are the ones who actually know enough about the subject to make valid complaints. Next up you'll note that accountants and tax laywers are the people who most complaint about questionable tax laws.

Re:Another viewpoint:

[gbjbaanb]

So, you're suggesting Microsoft engaged in a campaign to advertise a variety of systems as "Vista Capable" to the one group most capable of recognizing that Microsoft was lying to them?

that'll be Microsoft windows product management Vice-Presidents then.

Re:Another viewpoint:

[unleashedgamers]

Along with quite a few complaints coming from the employee's of Microsoft itself.

More Likely...

[lobiusmoop]

The litigants will be offered a 'free' copy of lower-end-friendly XP Pro to upgrade to, maybe a copy of Office thrown in too. Cost to Microsoft = $0.

Re:More Likely...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cost to MS: $80000 (shipping and handling)
Benefit to MS: $4-8B tax writeoff

Re:More Likely...

[im_thatoneguy]

That's a good plan. But I'm still confused by the $250 figure.

Vista is STILL VISTA without the pretty Aero effects. Just because your window isn't translucent doesn't make it any less Vista.

I can buy a "Crysis Capable" computer that meets the low end system requirements but not be able to play with full AA at 1080p with all effects turned on.

Furthermore I've run Vista on a system with 1GB of RAM and an integrated graphics chip. It was slow. But it ran. And I've run vista on a computer with 2GB of RAM, a low end Core 2 Duo and cheap AGP video card. It ran fine but not as fast as my quad core i7. At what point is a computer "Too slow".

Microsoft knowingly lowered its targets for what it considered an acceptable user experience--- and payed the price in spades through bad reviews and user backlash. But it did install. It did boot. It did run applications which provided drivers (which is pretty much every piece of hardware made in the last 5 years.)

I would like toe see the empirical definition of what constitutes a vista Incapable machine. Especially because my Athlon 2600XP with a 1GB of ram handled it fine.

Re:More Likely...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty graphics are a feature; if a product is advertised with them, then the manufacturer is liable if the consumer receives something else.

Car analogy time:
Imagine looking through an official Ferrari dealer's book at pictures of the Ferrari F430 you're going to buy, and your newly purchased F430 shows up with the body panels and upholstery of a Scion xB instead of those in the pictures. You ask the dealer about it, and they say you can flip a switch to make it look like it does in the pictures -- but if you do, the car can't run.

Re:More Likely...

[im_thatoneguy]

Imagine looking through an official Ferrari dealer's book at pictures of the Ferrari F430 you're going to buy, and your newly purchased F430 shows up with the body panels and upholstery of a Scion xB instead of those in the pictures. You ask the dealer about it, and they say you can flip a switch to make it look like it does in the pictures -- but if you do, the car can't run.

No it's like going down to the dealership and asking if you can legally drive a Ferarri F430 around town. The dealer replies. "Of course!"

8 months later you take delivery of your shiny new Ferrari and tear out of the dealership. The engine roars as you race down the freeway at 180mph. Hundreds of horsepower roaring as you fly past a speed trap. The police lights come on. You pull over and they impound your car.

Furious you return to the dealership after a night in prison.

"You told me I could use the car on local roads!"
"You can. I didn't say you could use all the features of your car on the roads though."
"False advertising it says Top Speed 200mph!"
"Yes but there are limitations to our road system which don't let you use that feature."

"Vista Capable. It's capable of running Vista when you buy a copy of Vista." Not every feature is expected to work on every computer. Vista also supports wireless networking. If my computer doesn't include a wireless network card is Microsoft failing to deliver a feature of Vista?

Vista includes DVR software. If I don't have a TV tuner are they failing to deliver a feature of Vista?

Vista includes DVD player software. If my OEM doesn't include a DVD drive are they failing to deliver a feature?

I really really really don't see how Microsoft did anything illegal by allowing OEMs to take a shit on their image. I tried out an 800mhz 8" touchscreen UMPC which shipped with Vista. It was the first computer that I could definitively say was too slow to run Vista. But I wouldn't have blamed Microsoft for it. It booted. It loaded applications. It even had Aero. It was just slow. That's a bad computing experience not a failed computing experience.

Here is another F430 analogy. Two for the price of one!

You see an F430 on Craigs List:

F430! Perfect factory paint! Runs great! Starts without a hitch! 150HP engine.
$30,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!

You buy it over the phone. You take it home and it is slow, barely makes it up a hill and takes 10 seconds to get up the hill.

You sue the guy. "YOU SOLD ME AN F430 and it's terribly slow! It's nothing like what I see on TV." "I told you in the ad. It was a 150 HP engine. I had to swap it out for another engine after the original developed a crack in the block."

You buy a cheap crappy computer. You get a cheap slow experience. Welcome to life.

Re:More Likely...

[PitaBred]

Anything with an Intel 915 graphics chip is incapable of using all the features of Vista. Nothing to do with the CPU, everything about the graphical capabilities.

As much as I hate Microsoft

[rolfwind]

the majority of time I saw Vista running dog slow on a computer out of the box was either the Aero setting cranked up on a integrated graphics chip or the bloatware included by the OEM (Acer, I'm looking at you). Both of these cases are OEM's fault - I stated in the past that this is probably one of the reasons MS will lose marketshare - lack of quality control over OEM distributors.

Apple, otoh, usually gives you a nice, clean box to run with. Linux doesn't have bloatware yet, although if it gets more popular, the free nature of it will allow manufacturers to include useless junk as well.

Re:As much as I hate Microsoft

[pimpimpim]

the ubuntu preinstalled on my dell came with a yahoo toolbar in firefox (and yahoo as homepage) and a dell video chat application. There are also several links to yahoo websites and to last.fm, but since it's just a link I can't call it bloatware, still bloat, though.

ms

[Skatox]

take that MS

Did PentiumII computers get tagged "Vista ready?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone please explain what king of computers have people bought that can't run Vista? Ok, I admit 1GB may be just not enough, but what kind of graphics cards do these computers have ? My current laptop has an integrated GMA 950 and a 1.33Ghz CPU and is still able to run Vista with Aero.

No irony there, then.

[Bozovision]

Microsoft in its response argued that giving litigants 'a free upgrade to Premium-ready PCs would provide a windfall to millions.

Whereas, of course, others would argue that the litigants provided a windfall of billions to Microsoft by purchasing Vista on a Vista Capable machine.

Re:No irony there, then.

[plopez]

RIght on. Wish I had some mod points to give you.

Re:No irony there, then.

[artor3]

Microsoft in its response argued that giving litigants 'a free upgrade to Premium-ready PCs would provide a windfall to millions.

Whereas, of course, others would argue that the litigants provided a windfall of billions to Microsoft by purchasing Vista on a Vista Capable machine.

One could argue that, but one would be utterly wrong, since the vast majority of "Vista Capable" machines would have had XP had they not been so labeled.

Re:No irony there, then.

[Anonymous Coward]

does nobody understand that these computers DID have WindowsXP on them?

The ones marked "Vista Capable" or "Vista Preimuim Capable" didn't come with Vista loaded on them.

THEY CAME WITH XP LOADED ONTO THEM, AND SOMEONE HAD TO UPGRADE THEM TO VISTA.

For fucks sake.

Well damn...

[Narnie]

If I had known this would have happened, I would have bought a shitty laptop when Vista came out, bitched about it's performance, installed linux, and then score a free laptop upgrade post class action lawsuit.

Now I can only bitch about Vista performance and install linux.

Notice to Sourceforge: Kill off Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

A much better website: http://www.madonna.com

Notice to Sourceforge, Inc. management: Close down Slashdot, sell the domain to a squatter, and focus on your core competency: Sourceforge. It needs a lot of work.

Slashdot no longer serves a unique purpose. The forum is a mess of buggy AJAX, it is irrelevant, the editors have no talent, and the news sucks!

News for Nerds. Stuff That Matters. NOT!

It's not news, it's not written by journalists and it's not stuff that matters. The only true part about their tagline is that it's for nerds. Stupid ones. Ones who are probably wearing some lame t-shirt from ThinkGeek with a stupid expression like "All your haXoRz are belong to us."

This thread about the 2.4.18 kernel release is a typical Slashdot news item. Idiocy, misinformation, testosterone-poisoned posturing, technology punditry, arrogance, bad logic: just another day in Slashdot-land.

The classic exchange is one Slashdotter complaining about ACs (people posting as Anonymous Cowards, i.e., not registered) and another Slashdotter blasting him for being so stupid and then outlining the steps need to get a for-all-intents-and-purposes anonymous Hotmail account and registering on Slashdot with a bogus name.
Lame personalities

Some of the Slashdot people have personality cults which is weird because they are incredibly lame. Every single poll seems to have a reference to a character named CowboyNeal. One of the founders/editors, Rob Malda, goes by the handle CmdrTaco, and his posts are incredibly shallow and stupid (although admittedly not much more than those of the other editors).

Every Slashdot-hater will claim to have a particularly dark place in their hearts for a certain individual, but frankly, they're all about the same. I ran into them in the Linux pavilion of Comdex a couple of years ago and they're a truly sorry bunch of humans. Just more proof that if you had the choice to be smart or lucky, you're much better off being lucky.
The problem with online forums: Why Slashdot isn't different than the rest

Admittedly, Slashdot's lameness isn't unique. As a matter of fact, it's normal. The main problem with online communities is that they do not scale well. While engineers argue about whether or not MySQL-backed sites can handle significant traffic, etc., they are really missing the point. Even if the software can handle it, the community can't.

Throwing more hardware at it doesn't help the problem. Nor does throwing more software. Nor does throwing more moderation. Nor does adding big warning messages to "please search the archives before posting a question." People get tired of hearing the same old questions over and over. What was once a place where new and innovative discussions sprang up every day is now a place where the same ten questions get asked over and over. Many of the most valuable contributors are the first to leave, just like talented employees bailing out of a foundering corporation.

The only hope is to pick a topic that is so esoteric that growth is extremely limited. Splitting up a community into sub-communities is also a possibility, but one that doesn't always work. If done too late, the majority of the most valuable contributors will have already left. Splitting a big blob of noise will result in many little blobs of noise. If done too early, there might not be sufficient energy/critical mass to nurture the newly-founded subcommunities.
What makes FC different?

The, uh, community citizens at F---edCompany.com contribute about the same quality of knowledge as your average forum participant, but unlike Slashdotters, A.) they aren't as arrogant, B.) they all seem to realize where they're posting (i.e., after all, the website is called F---edCompany.com), and C.) Pud (the founder/editor) knows he's a lucky idiot.
The very worst part about online forums

For the newcomer, a vibrant, high-traffic online forum seems like the El Dorado of information. It's not. It's a Pandora's Box, but even worse. The biggest single probl

Re:Notice to Sourceforge: Kill off Slashdot!

[Goaway]

I'd mod you up, but thanks to Slashdot's groupthink enforcement mechanism, metamoderation, I am no longer allowed to moderate.

Re:Notice to Sourceforge: Kill off Slashdot!

[larry bagina]

Last week or so, slashdot seemed to introduce ajax on the index2.pl front page. It doesn't work on the iphone/ipod touch -- the front shows the top banner and the bottom copyright banner, with no articles in between. Well, maybe I can go the the preferences page and make a few tweaks... nope. You can't actually update your preferences in mobile safari.

If you want to see slashdot stories and you're unfortunate enough to be stuck with the index2.pl, you need to go to the search page for a listing.

Epic failure, guys.

Re:Notice to Sourceforge: Kill off Slashdot!

[Alsee]

I'd mod you up

The previous post was an anonymous crapflood whining that Slashdot "is irrelevant, the editors have no talent, and the news sucks!". The rest of the post just goes downhill from there. It is blatantly offtopic, it very may well be a deliberate troll, and even at +1 Funny it is overrated.

but thanks to Slashdot's groupthink enforcement mechanism, metamoderation, I am no longer allowed to moderate.

Surprise surprise, considering the above.

But in any case, your post is currently sitting at +4 Interesting, so I will respond to it semi seriously. Ok, are you (1) deliberately trolling for the Slashdot-discussion-sucks point of the original anonymous crapflood? Or are you (2) just whining for the sake of whining? Or do you (3) have something productive to contribute? Because I for one find the Slashdot moderation and metamod system invaluable. Imperfect yes, but invaluable. I read a lot of Slashdot, I value the posts, but the only thing making it manageable is using the imperfect mod system to read at +3 most of the time.

If (1) you were Trolling, congratulations on baiting in a couple of frustrated mods, and thereby baiting in my post. See my final paragraph on that.
If (2) you're whining for the sake of whining, awwwwwww poor baby. The system is indeed imperfect, but if the system smacked you down there is a strong chance you deserved it, even if you don't think so. And even if you didn't deserve it, oh well. The system is valuable and works pretty well, albeit imperfectly. You are heartily invited to move on to option 3.
If (3) you think the system unfairly smacked you down, and you have any sort of productive suggestion on how to fix it, swell! Try posting that instead of a naked whine.

And to the mods, in my opinion my own post is offtopic and I don't mind if you mod it as such. I really don't care if my post is modded down to -1, but please first mod down the worthless whine post above and the grandparent Slashdot_sucks crapflood. I really don't need the karma. I get dozens and dozens of upmods for each downmod(usually for making a botched attempt at humor). Mod the crap out of sight, and then if you like mod this out of sight along with it.

-

Re:Notice to Sourceforge: Kill off Slashdot!

[Dallas Caley]

regarding everything you said, i agree. and i am not just posting this to hear the sound of my own voice (or keyboard as it were)

It just occurred to me though that there should be a way to only view the positive modded posts, this way you wouldn't have to wade through all the stupid comments that people make and you would only see the posts that someone else actaully thought were good.

or even better, what if you could chose to read all the +1 Funny or all the +1 interesting (or whatever other types of mods there are) as separate threads

um yeah, thats about as much of this thought as i can get out right now in my hungover state of mind

Oh and one last though regarding the anonymous crapflood post, For all the time you wasted writing that post had you ever stopped to think "Hey what can i do to fix these problems" My guess would be no, all you wanted to do is whine and complain about the system. You sir are worthless.

Another concern

[eck011219]

You know, I love a good Microsoft pummeling as much as the next guy, but my concern is that MS is just now starting to come around to a slightly more rational way of thinking about its customers. I'm cautiously optimistic about Windows 7 in this regard.

But if you cut an $8 billion hole in Microsoft, you run the risk of making them frantic to patch that hole. And as we know, they have some pretty well-developed skills for being really aggressive at the expense of the end user.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be penalized (and consumers shouldn't be compensated), but this was also the fault of the hardware manufacturers who pushed so hard on Microsoft to get the sticker on their products. Spread the blame more equitably across ALL guilty parties, and you may avoid any one entity getting that caged-animal mentality that only ends up hurting the consumer.

Re:Another concern

[Joce640k]

No, it's the fault of Microsoft for setting such a ridiculously high hardware requirement for the "basic" desktop graphics.

It wasn't needed (eg. Mac/Compiz do much more with much less), it was a political move by an over-arrogant Microsoft believing the "DX10-only" thing would force upgrades from XP.

Which didn't happen.

Re:Another concern

[penguinbrat]

I seriously doubt DELL was approaching Microsoft with - "Come on man, I know your OS can't run on our hardware but can't you give us these stickers anyway?", I would presume to guess that is was more along the lines of DELL telling them that their stuff would not run right, and that they needed to fix it - Microsoft just opted to just give them the sticker instead.

You know, I love a good Microsoft pummeling as much as the next guy, but my concern is that MS is just now starting to come around to a slightly more rational way of thinking about its customers. I'm cautiously optimistic about Windows 7 in this regard.

And? They have been pushing their customers around for decades, and just because they are BEING forced, both legally and finally by their customers to get their act together (possibly to late) - you really want to say, "that's okay - there, there..."

But if you cut an $8 billion hole in Microsoft, you run the risk of making them frantic to patch that hole. And as we know, they have some pretty well-developed skills for being really aggressive at the expense of the end user.

2 wrongs don't equal a right, it never has...

Re:Another concern

[rohan972]

But if you cut an $8 billion hole in Microsoft, you run the risk of making them frantic to patch that hole. And as we know, they have some pretty well-developed skills for being really aggressive at the expense of the end user.

So you're saying if a bully steals your lunch don't have him punished in case he hurts you? That might be a temporary survival tactic suitable for a small schoolchild but it's the totally wrong thinking when deciding how to apply the law to corporations in the courts. This idea of don't stop the bully being a bully because they're a bully is what encourages them in their behaviour and advances the absolute rule of corporations. If the court has to deliberately avoid making just decisions for fear of retaliation from a company then it is time for the courts to step up to the fight and get that company compliant with the law or destroyed.

Re:Another concern

[dangitman]

You know, I love a good Microsoft pummeling as much as the next guy, but my concern is that MS is just now starting to come around to a slightly more rational way of thinking about its customers.

Why? Because they've been seeding the media with propaganda about Windows 7? They haven't changed one bit. Do you really think they are going to abandon things like WGA and activation?

so what now is vista capable

[wjh31]

this must surely come with a new definition of what is vista capable. so what is it? which chipsets count as vista capable now?

What is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

How stupid is this lawsuit?

These people could use Vista, just not with all the graphical "enchancements".

If you were to buy a computer game that came with a set of hardware requirements that you just met, You wouldn't then turn around and moan about how you couldn't run it in full HD with all the highest settings.

You could still play the game, but at lower settings. But you aren't happy with that, you meet the requirements and demand that you be able to play with all the settings to maximum, so you take them to court.

What would the result be? You would be laughed out of court.

This is no different to "Vista Capable". They can use Vista perfectly fine, but not necessarily with all the bells and whistles.

Re:What is the problem?

[Joce640k]

But ... the sticker on the box said it would. If you bought a TV with a "Hi-Def" sticker which turned out not to be hi-def then you'd be pissed too.

Re:What is the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should be able to use Vista as they wish. I sell you a car that has no wheels. Now, if you can tie it to a horse and have the horse pull the "car" down the street, you could use it. Hey, I'm even giving you the horse for free! You just have to get used to it. You don't need an engine and wheels and the car is in perfect working condition, as it can easily take you to the supermarket. But I'll advertise it as a car.

If the hardware was "Vista capable," it should have been CAPABLE, not "barely capable of running with minimum settings." Technically speaking, you're right, but humans aren't made of 0s and 1s and it's also pretty clear that they tried to con people into buying the hardware, because the customers weren't informed properly of what "Vista capable" meant. Also, saying "it won't run with all the bells and whistles" wouldn't have covered them, either, only something like "it will barely run it" would have. Not telling the whole truth is a common, known way of deceiving people.

You're just acting like a jackass and taking things literally instead of considering that the hardware makers and Microsoft used human feelings to make people buy those computers.

=T.

Re:What is the problem?

[Glendale2x]

It happens a lot, actually. Many of the cheap HD displays say 1080p but have a 1024x768 screen when it should be 1920x1080 to really be 1080p.

Re:What is the problem?

[sssssss27]

A lot of TVs are sold as HD capable and by that they mean can accept a HD signal and convert it down to SD.

Re:What is the problem?

[Pentium100]

Well, there are "HD-ready" and "HD compatible" TVs...

Aiming at the wrong targets

[Computershack]

They're suing the wrong people. MS made it perfectly clear what was in Basic. It's the OEMs and lying fucks in the shops that should be the ones being sued.

Re:Aiming at the wrong targets

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft programmed Vista in BASIC? Everything makes so much sense now...

Re:Aiming at the wrong targets

[quickOnTheUptake]

They didn't though. These stickers were being put up before Vista was on the market, and M$ had adopted the policy of not hyping Vista to keep its holiday (XP) sales up. The information was not being made readily available, and this wasn't just the retailers, it was M$ policy.

This is trivial for Microsoft

[bogaboga]

In case Microsoft really has to pay up, it would be trivial, and here's why. Microsoft will ask for leniency in light of "current economic times," then go ahead and hike license costs for those who will buy Windows 7/Vista.

Given that Microsoft's revenues are in the tens of billions of dollars, this will not be that hard to recoup. So brace yourselves for a higher Microsoft tax in years to come.
 

Re:This is trivial for Microsoft

[David Gerard]

That hiking of license costs is likely to be unfeasible. Note that they credit their most recent failure to meet financial targets to netbooks, i.e. $0 XP on netbooks to keep Linux out. Linux isn't going away. Suddenly there's competition in the OEM OS market, and Microsoft can only get away with charging for an OS what it's actually worth as a product.

Re:Haha yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Say what you will, but I'll use Linux on my servers when I want to start losing money. Get the facts, people.

So, how's it feel to be astroturfing for a buggy whip manufacturer well after the introduction of automobiles? Pay well?

Open-source is nothing more nor less than the commoditization of software. Commodities sell for pretty much the marginal costs to produce another copy. The marginal cost to produce another copy of software is zero.

Microsoft is fighting a losing battle. No one WANTS to pay for software.

Re:Haha yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I have saved my company 10's or 100's of thousands of $ just by switching to Linux and dropping MS and Sun. MS can post what they want on a site but my budget don't lie.

WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

so i have two friends urging me to kill you and they keep at me your analogy would me its there fault ONLY when i actually kill you?
no it is your choice and yours alone no matter what to do that act. Should you fail at your obligations of being sane and rational you will and are accountable to the full extent of the law

The most likely outcome is...

[gillbates]

Having followed class action suits before, the outcome most likely is that the lawyers will get paid exorbitant fees, and the plaintiffs will get discount coupons for their next Windows upgrade.

Discount coupons and vouchers are the way almost all class action suits are resolved. Very seldom do the plaintiffs actually recover monetary damages.

Re:The most likely outcome is...

[ClosedSource]

I agree. This is all about legal fees.

Re:The most likely outcome is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most lawyers get paid a percentage of the value they settle on (usually 28-36%) for class-action cases.

Re:The most likely outcome is...

[symbolset]

You forgot about the settlement including a charitable donation of software licenses to schools, which of course they get to use to wipe out all of their tax liability at zero cost.

Brilliant, really. Microsoft is turning getting sued into a profit center.

Re:The most likely outcome is...

[Anonymous Coward]

It still punishes the bad actor though even if it just goes to lawyers legal fees.

Re:Haha yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Bill, didn't know you purused /.

haha tag?

[MULTICS_$MAN]

Come on, get with it.

But like everything, this can be turned against MS

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because hardware manufacturers thought that it was very hard to sell anything that wasn't vista capable since the moment Vista came out. Why did MS design a system that couldn't be ran on a large part of semi-modern hardware anyways?

Re:Haha yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how's it feel to be astroturfing for a buggy whip manufacturer well after the introduction of automobiles? Pay well?

If somebody's getting paid to make stupid posts on Slashdot, then I'd imagine it feels pretty good. What, are you high?

--
Don't feed the trolls - when an AC says something stupid, let it slide.

the fault of the hw manufacturers ..

[rs232]

"this was also the fault of the hardware manufacturers who pushed so hard on Microsoft to get the sticker on their products"

Like where, according to Microsoft insider Rob Enderle the push came from MS over the protests of Intel and others, unless you know differently.

'sitting on the OEM typically is not effective at making a problem like this go away'

Re:the fault of the hw manufacturers ..

[Zak3056]

Looking at page 16 if the 1120mails.pdf, it looks as if intel pressed for the 915 to be branded "vista capable" and MS finally caved. That seems to be in line with what the GP claimed.

Kind of agree with MS here...

[Darundal]

...those figures for upgrades seem kind of inflated. These are all systems that were "certified" to be Vista (Basic) Capable, so it shouldn't cost that much for a 512mb ram stick and an el-cheapo graphics card for a desktop. If his estimates included installation by a "trained professional" then I would still be willing to bet it would be significantly lower, because they would probably work out a major group discount with a company (probably Best Buy) which would still bring the cost significantly lower. For laptops, I have no idea, although I would be willing to bet that costs would be individually lower than he quoted too (willing to bet that most of them have integrated capable of Aero, just not enough RAM), although some systems would have to be replaced. If that was how damages to be awarded were to be determined, of course. Considering this is a class action suit, what will probably happen is they will make a coupon available for X amount of money off your next purchase of MS software, and probably some other product as well.

Re:Kind of agree with MS here...

[Joce640k]

The summary says $155. How is that "unreasonable" for a DIMM and an el-cheapo graphics card?

Laptops would need the motherboard replacing. Good luck with that...

Re:Kind of agree with MS here...

[Alsee]

I don't think Aero-capable "el-cheapo graphics card"s even existed around the time of Vista's release. Aero cards require decent 3-D capabilities and horsepower and RAM, specific NEW capabilities for the new DirectX standard, and the video card specification requires all sorts of idiot hardware redesign for a whole shitload of new video DRM enforcement and stringent testing and certification of all of the new hardware and software DRM security, and on and on and on.

No, I don't think there were any "el-cheapo" Aero video cards. Aero compatibility requires an entirely NEW design of an entirely new class of video card with abnormally strict and expensive design and certification requirements.

Does anyone have a price figure for a bottom end Aero-capable video card that was available within say 6 months of Vista's release? And the current lowest price for such a card?

The article puts the maximum cost of upgrading a PC at $155. That sounds extremely plausible to me for RAM+AeroVideo+installation.

-

Re:Kind of agree with MS here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone have a price figure for a bottom end Aero-capable video card that was available within say 6 months of Vista's release? And the current lowest price for such a card?

The oldest Aero-capable video cards are the Geforce FX (released 2003), the ATI/AMD Radeon 9700 (released 2002) or the Intel GMA 950 (released 2005).

In late 2006/early 2007 when Vista was hitting the consumer market, these cards were selling for US$60-$80. These days you can pick up something Aero capable for maybe US$30.

Re:Kind of agree with MS here...

[Darundal]

Your comment would be relevant if any of this was about when Vista came out. It isn't.

Re:Haha yeah.

[meist3r]

I'd mod you "Funny" just for posting that link on Slashdot ... then again I don't have any mod points just now and by "Funny" I meant "Flamebait".

First post!

[Anonymous Coward]

F1RST P0ST!

Next in line for Bail-out: MicroSoft.

[SupremoMan]

As much as they deserve to get hit with this cost, I can see them going to congress asking for bailout. Which would probably cause quite a few Slashdoters to explode in rage. Especially if they got a bailout.

Re:Next in line for Bail-out: MicroSoft.

[David Gerard]

Predicted by me in early January.

Crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire Vista OS-cum-fiasco is so much more ridiculous than Windows ME, it's boggling my mind!!

blame the OEMs

[rs232]

"Both of these cases are OEM's fault - I stated in the past that this is probably one of the reasons MS will lose marketshare - lack of quality control over OEM distributors"

From other sources the whole 'Vista Capable' debacle was an attempt by Microsoft to . The rest of the OEMs had to then be brought on board.

Again they shoot themselves in the foot...

[Joce640k]

A window compositor only needs very basic hardware to do its thing, eg. Linux/Compiz can do it on a TNT2.

Vista was made "D3D10 only" for political reasons, not technical reasons - to try and force upgrades from XP via Vista-only games. Aero certainly didn't need such powerful hardware (Compiz does way more effects with less hardware).

The "force gamers to upgrade" thing didn't happen, most games companies are still writing for D3D9.

So ... Aero is now coming back to bite Microsoft in the ass with a vengence. It's hard to find any sympathy for Microsoft, it's their own greed and arrogance which caused this.

Re:Again they shoot themselves in the foot...

[anss123]

Vista was made "D3D10 only" for political reasons, not technical reasons

Aero needs pixel shader 2.0 hardware and 128+ RAM (I think), not Dx10.

A window compositor only needs very basic hardware to do its thing, eg. Linux/Compiz can do it on a TNT2.

Actually you don't need hardware for window composition, Mac OS X did it in software up to 10.5 One problem Areo face is the need to run GDI, overlay and whatever else crufty APIs are left over from older Windows variants. What this does to the engineering I'm not sure, but if those old APIs give direct frame buffer access I guess things can get tricky fast.

Re:Again they shoot themselves in the foot...

[im_thatoneguy]

No. Aero didn't need to be D3D10 only. That's why it's not a system requirement.

It runs just fine on D3D9 hardware (and I presume D3D8 hardware as well.

Re:Again they shoot themselves in the foot...

[Joce640k]

| Aero needs pixel shader 2.0 hardware and 128+ RAM (I think), not Dx10.

So what graphics chips doesn't it run on?

I seem to remember Intel 815 being singled out but my Eee PC has an Intel 815 chip and meets those specs (under XP).

Still, the main point stands. Aero shouldn't need massive power and could degrade gracefully on lesser chips instead of being all/nothing.

While we're at it ... is it just me or is Aero completely underwhelming anyway? All I see is transparent window borders, a 3D task switcher and a little zoom effect when windows appear. You could probably do that in software if you wanted to.

What's the fuss ... and where does all the graphics requirement go?

[shrug]

Re:Again they shoot themselves in the foot...

[anss123]

So what graphics chips doesn't it run on?

Having used Aero for a year I've also wondered about that, both points. Though Compiz, Beryl or whatever they end up calling it is not exactly production worthy yet. I'm not sure if Apple has activated Quartz Extreme in Mac OS X, but it was off in 10.4

Aero was in that sense actually first out of the gate with hardware accelerated composition.

While we're at it ... is it just me or is Aero completely underwhelming anyway? All I see is transparent window borders, a 3D task switcher and a little zoom effect when windows appear. You could probably do that in software if you wanted to.

The best thing about Aero, for me, is that it fixes most redrawing bugs that has plagued Windows since version 1.0. Most people don't notice them, but they've always annoyed me so Aero has been a nice upgrade just for that.

It also fix annoyances such as limited overlays (I think most GFX cards only has two overlays these days, just try playing three videos at the same time and see if they're filtered), screen capture problems (if you see it in Aero you can make a screenshot off it, which is great for stuff like VNC and remote desktop) and of course tearing (I've always hated that about Windows, try shaking a window to see it)

April 1?

[MichaelFurey]

The "Vista Capable" labeling campaign began on April 1, 2006.

Oh well, probably just one of those harmless April Fools' jokes...

accomplice

[Anonymous Coward]

They then sue my ass for endorsing their junk, because I lied when I said it was good. Should I be on the hook? Yeah, I lied. But my friends are at the very least equal partners in this con; not only was it their idea, but they are the ones who actually sold the junk, and they did so deliberately and intentionally knowing it was junk.

And you knew it was junk; that makes you an accessory to the fraud.

It would be different if your friends (OEMs) lied to (MS) about what their hardware could do. Then you would be as much a victim as the public.

That is not the case here.

Is Microsoft settling this?

[d_jedi]

Talking about how much it would cost to do so suggests this?

As far as I'm concerned, MS should win this case - I haven't seen anything that would suggest MS defrauded customers.. only that some uneducated customers had expectations different of what Vista Capable meant from what it actually did. I have not seen anything that - since the program was publicly announced - suggests the certification requirements changed.

MS clearly spelled out what "Vista Capable" and "Premium Ready" meant. If customers chose not to read this information, it is nobody's fault but their own.

Re:Is Microsoft settling this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have not seen anything that - since the program was publicly announced - suggests the certification requirements changed.

That's a nice little weasel phrase you've got in there to try to shift the blame to customers.

Did you read the PDFs of Microsoft's internal emails that were released some months back? The emails that revealed that Intel was doing heavy lobbying to have a subpar chipset of theirs counted as "Vista Capable" just because they had a glut of them and didn't want to be stuck with inventory they wouldn't be able to sell? The emails that reveal that despite the strenuous objections of many Microsofties, Microsoft ultimately caved to Intel's wishes, and thus machines that had no business being touted as "Vista Capable" were in fact labeled as such?

Microsoft rolled over to make Intel happy, and as a result consumers were sold PCs that Microsoft knew were too feeble to deliver the Vista experience as shown in Microsoft's Vista marketing.

I don't really see any way Microsoft will win this case-- I'm betting they settle.

Re:Is Microsoft settling this?

[jimicus]

MS clearly spelled out what "Vista Capable" and "Premium Ready" meant. If customers chose not to read this information, it is nobody's fault but their own.

I think part of the problem is that Vista was an attempt at market segmentation taken to extreme ends - certainly to an extent that hasn't really been seen in consumer operating systems in the past.

That might not have been so much of a problem had Microsoft not made "how it looks" one of the features that divides Vista Basic from the others in the range. After all, "how it looks" is probably all that most people will ever notice.

Re:Is Microsoft settling this?

[gbjbaanb]

I thought HP was a plaintiff - when they applied, Vista Ready meant "Aero ready". Later, after they had marketed their correspondingly expensive machines, Intel asked for the bar to be lowered.

That's bad enough, but if you read http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoft/2008403670_microsoft18.html">some reports, its a load of MS executives who think the downgrade was misleading too.

Re:Haha yeah.

[LilGuy]

B-b-b-b-but what about geico?

Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys

[LilGuy]

For starters, Bill Gates isn't running the company anymore.

And that's pretty bad business. See, the minions and peons of a country are the only ones who are shamed and goaded into being "patriotic". Corporations cannot be bothered by such sentiments or they will wither and die, or so the common sense of today would suggest.

OP is retarded

[Kuciwalker]

Why the hell would MS be on the hook for *upgrading the laptop*? Rather, they would just have to refund the price of Windows, which OEM is like $25 / machine. That makes it a few hundred million, tops.

Re:OP is retarded

[Shados]

They could even potentially do something even cheaper IMO: Assuming they lose (and thats a big IF...the lawsuit stands on the fact that stuff like Aero "makes" Vista...so Vista Basic isn't Vista or something...), they could give a free upgrade to Windows 7 (which WILL run with Aero on these crap lap-tops and other shitty computers, because of WARP10 and other such things). That would probably be cheaper in the long run for MS, because its fairly unlikely that a seizable amount of these people would upgrade anyway, and it would be free marketing, AND people would get something better than Vista Premium... win win win.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Intel's involvement

[troll8901]

Today I've learned a new word. Thank you.

Anyway, we were talking about Intel's involvement in the HP's Fury At Vista Capable Downgrade discussion.

If Intel were involved, I wonder if Microsoft would advertise "Works equally well on Intel or AMD CPUs" just to piss off Intel. Wishful thinking, ah well. :)

Such Admiration

[soloport]

I have three points left and wanted to mod you up, but I wanted to submit this post (telling you how much I wanted to mod you up) even more.

Re:Haha yeah.

[Bearhouse]

Oh c'mon. Windows server works very well, so does BSD/Linux... The old argument was that you could not get professional support, trained staff or robust add-ins and applications for Linux - no longer true...

So you pays your money, (or not, meh), and takes your chance.

This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[gregorio]

The only complaint of this frivolous lawsuit is the fact that Vista Basic does not contain "the actual features considered as Vista-defining such as Aero and other features". This is just about a bunch of lawyers trying to get shitloads of money from a class action suit.

There is no deception here. The computers labeled as "Vista Capable" were, in fact, able of running Vista Basic. They were not labeled "Aero Capable" or anything like that.

I used to own a "Designed for Microsoft Windows 2000" workstation. Should I sue Microsoft for not being able to run Windows 2000 Advanced Server at full clustering capabilities? Anyone buying any piece of hardware is responsible of knowing that they might not be able to run the most advanced version any product family. What's next? Suing EA or Valve for not being able to run Crysis at full settings using the minimum system specs? I mean, 1900x1200 with 4xAA and advanced shading is what I consider "the Crysis defining features".

Even if the computers were labeled as "Aero compatible" and Microsoft called the new Windowing theme as "Aero" (with or without the transparency), there would be no reason for a lawsuit. But they didn't. They called these computers "Vista Capable" and they were, in fact, capable of running a version of Windows Vista.

I'm sorry but even though sometimes Microsoft gives me the creeps, lawyers can be even worse. And class action suit lawyers are the worst ones of all, they're just looking for a jackpot suit so they can retire and buy a boat.

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[thesupraman]

So I assume then that you would not mind if you bought a new car, then afterwards found out that you could not drive it on the freeway because it was not able to get past 40 and started falling appart if you tried?

There were adds showing off 'Vista' primarily as aero, but then when it shipped, there was vista basic, which in no way resembled the 'Vista' people has got excited about, and bought computers claiming to support.

Its close to a delayed bait-and-switch - unload old machines based on a promise, then say 'oops, time to upgrade!'

Microsoft didnt sell the old machines, but they did provide the opportunity here.

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[_avs_007]

How is not running Aero the same as the car falling apart? Vista capable, means able to run Vista, which these computers can... In fact, the Intel Chipset CAN run aero, and it did in the beta, MS just decided to make WDDM a requirement for Aero.

But that aside... How are the hardware vendors responsible for this? You guys do realize that even if you have the highest end graphics card, Aero will TURN ITSELF OFF as soon as you run any application that does overlays, right? That means i the user buys Vista with top of the line everything, then they install their media player from their capture card, it's possible that Aero will stop working.

This is why I doubt you'll get the HW vendors to take any blame, because Aero in and of itself is half baked at the software level. (At least until Windows 7, which does support overlays)

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[StormReaver]

"There is no deception here. The computers labeled as "Vista Capable" were, in fact, able of running Vista Basic."

If Microsoft's stickers said something to the effect of "Vista Basic Capable", then Microsoft would probably have been okay. But Microsoft wanted to eat at both ends of the trough, owners of low end machines, and owners of high end machines, knowing full well that customers would see a huge difference between Vista Basic and "The Vista That Does Stuff". Microsoft also realized that their customers would revolt if they knew ahead of time that "The Vista That Does Stuff" required a major computer upgrade.

Hence, Microsoft came up with a deceptive campaign that took advantage of people's natural tendency to automatically fill ambiguous information gaps with whatever conclusion is subtly suggested to them. It was therefore intended by Microsoft that "Vista Capable" would be interpreted by the masses as meaning "able to run the advertised features of 'The Vista That Does Stuff.'"

While Microsoft deserves every bit of the potential $8B settlement costs (and more), hardware sellers were very willingly complicit in the whole charade, and should also bare a commensurate legal sanction.

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I see an ad for Crysis I dont see the game running at 640x480 with everything turned off. No. They show it running with everything turned on. Same as MS. MS is a software vendor and not the OEM.

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[shentino]

It depends.

If the machines were preinstalled with a configuration that the hardware couldn't sustain, I'd consider that a breach of warranty.

Otherwise, the relation between what MS demoed for vista, and what was actually possible, may depend on if MS provided adequate disclaimers (that fine print crap at the bottom of the screen).

However this trial goes, I hope (likely in vain) that science and logic dominate the evidence, the arguments, and the presentations.

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[PitaBred]

Microsoft never advertised Aero, though. They advertised Windows Vista, and showed how pretty it looked. The vast majority of consumers barely know there are different versions of Vista, much less the differences between them, and if something has a sticker saying it'll run Vista, then it should be able to run what is advertised as Vista.

Going with your example, Crysis will run as a full game with all the features on any system with at least the minimum specs. You get to play every level, every enemy, nothing is left out. That is not what happened with Vista... you can't run all of the Vista content with a "Vista Capable" PC, even slowed down. It's just impossible. And that's the issue.

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[Skal Tura]

And the people believing an Smart with 1.1l engine was going to be as fast as Corvette with their 5.6l V8 engine was being utterly completely stupid and oblivious to the reality.

That's also the reason why US appliances have stickers like 'Beware: Do not drop coffee on yourself, it might be hot!' or 'Do not put cats into microwave' or McDonald's not being able to sell ultra large meals because people just HAD TO eat it at all and HAD TO get the largest possible meal, and then they became fat. No friggin' way, you can get FAT IF YOU EAT A LOT? oO; Didn't know that.

Seriously tho: What's up with these people? Are they so detached from reality they can't see beyond their actions what might be the consequences?

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[Skal Tura]

Except Crysis too, like all games, are being advertised with full eyecandy enabled, and possibly even photoshopped to look EVEN BETTER, the reality however is that they never look that good, atleast playable aswell on highend hardware.

GRID is maybe one of the worst examples of that: Look at how AWESOME the previews look? Well, on PC you can only dream of that, infact, on PC it doesn't look anything like spectacular, and the graphics were a key selling point.

Infact, GRID didn't even have options to enable all the eyecandy on the adverts, and when you for example had the lighting effects at their default for your hardware: Try to drive the 24h Le Mans, tough luck -> when it gets dark, forget about playability. And that was on hardware which was the fastest money could buy at the time.

Anyone smelling false advertising?

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incorrect. I have an HP Entertainment laptop with WinXP Mediacenter edition. This was 3 months prior to Vista's release. This laptop has a sticker which states "Windows Vista Capable" it does not specify a certain version of Vista. I am sure that Vista Basic is not equal to XP Mediacenter. So this laptop cannot be upgraded to an equivalent Vista version without hardware upgrades.

In addition, a friend purchased a similar HP laptop with Vista and some of the hardware simply did not work. It took about 6 months for HP to get him drivers that would operate the built in web cam.

So yea I think the lawsuit is valid and people should be compensated.

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[b4dc0d3r]

You're confusing up the intended audience of a product. The ads show "This is vista" with Aero. OEMs say "Buy this, it runs that new Vista you've seen." At no point does anyone say, directly to the average consumer, "Some computers won't look like the Vista that was advertised." There's the problem, because the advertising led people to believe something that's not true.

The Crysis defining features you mention are largely just more detail, while the Aero interface is supposed to be an entirely new way of doing things. The 'minimum specs' printed on a game box have been around for long enough that people who buy games know to look for them, while Vista is a brand new product. In the past, if Microsoft said this is what the OS looks like, you either get it out of the box or with a few seconds of tweaking. There shouldn't be any gotcha requirements. Saying a computer comes with that AOL you've seen, while not shipping with a modem or ethernet port, is more like what happened. Yes it is capable of running AOL, but it won't do anything that you've seen, just set some options.

You bought a workstation, you said so yourself, it should not be used as a server, and people buying servers would know that. Windows 2000 was also a business class OS, not marketed to home users. People buying Vista are everyday users who know that it turns on and responds when it clicks.

Finally, you're missing the point of class action suits. They typically involve a lot of work and time, and if you lose you get nothing. So someone has to come forward and decide there is enough of a chance to win and take a risk. Then they have to do a lot of work to prove the case deserves to be class action.

Think about the recent RIAA defeats - they sailed for how many years before someone decided to stand up and win that first decision? Now everyone has a history of legal decisions which make it easier to defend themselves. Regardless of whether it's class action or individual, if the company loses they can probably be sued by someone else for the same thing, so it makes more sense to stop whatever it was they were doing. Someone decides it's worth it, and fights on behalf of everyone to make it stop. I'd buy that person a beer, and if it comes down to every person affected by that ruling buying the guy a beer (a prize worh hundreds or millions of dollars) it's worth it to me. Remember, if they do win it means they were being harmed (had standing) and the company was doing something wrong. Someone invents asbestos and gets rich selling it, deserves to pay part of that to cover health costs, and the first person to prove it is the hero.

Remember the McDonald's hot coffee lady? She really was very badly burned, and honestly I cannot make a cup of coffee that hot at home because the bag and the mug cool down boiling water quickly. Insulated paper cups don't transfer heat until you touch them, so there is no reason to think she would have second guessed how hot the coffee was. Since there is no commonly in use beverage temperature gauge other than your lips and tongue, it makes sense to ask McDonald's to pay for care and also change the way they brew and serve coffee.

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[gregorio]

You are incorrect. I have an HP Entertainment laptop with WinXP Mediacenter edition. This was 3 months prior to Vista's release. This laptop has a sticker which states "Windows Vista Capable" it does not specify a certain version of Vista. I am sure that Vista Basic is not equal to XP Mediacenter. So this laptop cannot be upgraded to an equivalent Vista version without hardware upgrades.

It's your fault for reading "Capable of running a version of Vista comparable to XP Media Center" instead of "Capable of running Windows Vista".

You can't expect to get the sporty-like Honda Civic from the TV Ad for the basic price. It's your duty to act like an educated consumer and make informed decisions. If you really cared about the "Vista thingy" on that specific notebook, it means that you knew, in fact, what was this Vista thing all about. Is it a single product or has it different versions with different capabilities? It's up to you to check that out.

In addition, a friend purchased a similar HP laptop with Vista and some of the hardware simply did not work. It took about 6 months for HP to get him drivers that would operate the built in web cam.

There is no addition here. This is just an anecdote about a defective product line.

So yea I think the lawsuit is valid and people should be compensated.

You only say that because you hate Microsoft.

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[gregorio]

Microsoft never advertised Aero, though. They advertised Windows Vista, and showed how pretty it looked. The vast majority of consumers barely know there are different versions of Vista, much less the differences between them, and if something has a sticker saying it'll run Vista, then it should be able to run what is advertised as Vista.

Vista has three editions: Basic, Premium and Ultimate. If you know what "Vista" is when you're shopping for a new notebook, you should also know about the options related to the purchase of the said product. If you're a consumer that "barely knows the options of buying Vista" then you should not be using the Vista characteristic as a defining factor of your purchase option, as you're obviously misinformed about the subject. It's all about personal responsability.

Honda is advertising sporty-like Civics on TV all the time. Yet everybody knows that the base price listed at the ad will not allow you to purchase the exciting and pretty version that's being shown at that specific ad. It's a fact of life that products have cheap + simple and expensive + full-featured versions.

This lawsuit only exists because the lawyers mediating it are going to make shitloads of cash in the process. Not because people were hurt as consumers.

Going with your example, Crysis will run as a full game with all the features on any system with at least the minimum specs. You get to play every level, every enemy, nothing is left out. That is not what happened with Vista... you can't run all of the Vista content with a "Vista Capable" PC, even slowed down. It's just impossible. And that's the issue.

Crysis will not look as good as in the back of the game box when running on a PC that meets the recommended specs, let alone a PC comparable only to the minimum specs. This is not a problem because consumers are expected to know that PC games are prone to restrictions when their machine is not good enough.

Knowing that your PC must be really good to run a brand new game is part of being a well-informed consumer for that market. People should be responsible for their actions.

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[gregorio]

So I assume then that you would not mind if you bought a new car, then afterwards found out that you could not drive it on the freeway because it was not able to get past 40 and started falling appart if you tried?

You're comparing a defective product with the confusion between the capabilities of three editions of a product that weren't even mentioned at the said sticker. Vista Basic will not crash the user's computer and will not limit the usefulness of the user's machine. It's only Vista without a specific set of features that are exclusive to more expensive versions of the same product.

If you do give a shit about Vista when you're buying a new PC, it's up to you to know what the Vista thingy mentioned at the sticker is really about. If you don't really know about Vista, then it's not deception, it's just a misinformed purchase.

It's just like a Honda TV Ad showing a sporty 25k USD Honda Civic running on a nice road, telling that the product's price "start from 16k USD". Nobody expects to get the most expensive version for the least expensive price. Only lawyers can sell that idea to people because will make shitloads of money if the minimum quantity of people sign in for the lawsuit.

There were adds showing off 'Vista' primarily as aero, but then when it shipped, there was vista basic, which in no way resembled the 'Vista' people has got excited about, and bought computers claiming to support.

Yeah, and you really don't start smiling and cheering at pretty people when you go shopping at the Gap, and a shitty italian-named drink at Starbucks will not make you a smart and happy notebook-using NY resident. And my 15k USD Honda does not look as good at the sport edition that got me all excited about having a Honda.

That's life. Making a good purchase is your own responsability.

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[gregorio]

Hence, Microsoft came up with a deceptive campaign that took advantage of people's natural tendency to automatically fill ambiguous information gaps with whatever conclusion is subtly suggested to them. It was therefore intended by Microsoft that "Vista Capable" would be interpreted by the masses as meaning "able to run the advertised features of 'The Vista That Does Stuff.'"

What a crybaby. It's just like the sporty version of Honda Civic presented at the TV Ads: everybody knows that the basic version costs less and the most expensive one costs more. Not even top class retards expect to get the most expensive version, shown at the TV Ad, for the small price quoted at "starting from XYZ USD" at the Ad.

Only Microsoft Haters and class action lawyers believe that shit.

While Microsoft deserves every bit of the potential $8B settlement costs

Yes, they deserve. Because you hate them.

You're the typical open-source geek: You believe that your ideology will certainly save the universe because it's superior both on moral and technical grounds. Yet, to achieve the desired victory, anything is desired: from abusing the legal system to "make things even and get them what they deserve" to plain old group beatings.

Talk about being right and superior....

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[gregorio]

You're confusing up the intended audience of a product. The ads show "This is vista" with Aero. OEMs say "Buy this, it runs that new Vista you've seen." At no point does anyone say, directly to the average consumer, "Some computers won't look like the Vista that was advertised." There's the problem, because the advertising led people to believe something that's not true.

You're preaching a double standard. Most product families are based on versions, all of them using the same name such as "Civic" or "Bravia", where the expensive ones are more capable than the cheaper ones. And the Ads will always show you the most expensive items when mentioning the entire product line.

You can also say that "At no point does anyone say, directly to the average consumer, 'Some versions of Honda Civic won't look like the sporty Honda Civic that was advertised'. There's the problem, because the advertising led people to believe something that's not true.". Do you know why people never complain about that? Because cheap and expensive versions of stuff is a basic fact of life. It's up to you to inform yourself when making a purchase.

The Crysis defining features you mention are largely just more detail, while the Aero interface is supposed to be an entirely new way of doing things.

Actually, Aero will only add transparency to windows. The "way of doing things" is still present at Vista Basic.

Remember the McDonald's hot coffee lady? [...] Since there is no commonly in use beverage temperature gauge other than your lips and tongue.

Yeah, expect that she actually gauged the temperature with her vagina. Nice of you bringing this case up: It strengthens my position on the stupidity of the Vista sticker lawsuit.

Re:This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[Uberbah]

What a crybaby.

What an elitist jackass.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Who wants a f*cking sticker anyway?

[Cannelloni]

Who wants a f*cking sticker on his or her new computer anyway? The whole thing is laughable and completely absurd. Customers didn't ask for Vista, it was shoved down their throats. I hope Microsoft dies horribly some day soon, because it deserves to. Who needs Windows these days anyway?

Re:Who wants a f*cking sticker anyway?

[Darkk]

Just hope the business you work for isn't 100% dependent on windows otherwise you'd be out of the job.

Re:Who wants a f*cking sticker anyway?

[Cannelloni]

We don't use Windows at all. No need for it.

I was one of the ones suckered

[miserere nobis]

Man, I knew I should have turned off the Aero features before asking my Vista-capable computer whether entropy could be reversed. Darn thing has been frozen ever since. Now I'm stuck waiting for Microsoft to pay out $8 billion before I can find out the answer. If only I'd used Vista Home Basic instead.

Re:Haha yeah.

[commodore64_love]

I'll give you 50 cents for every dollars worth of MS stock.

As for the trial:

What will happen is the same thing happens in most of these cases. Microsoft will settle and provide a "consumer redress" arrangement, and then start handing-out $20 checks to whoever applies before Dec 31, 2009. The end.

Note to self:

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy lots of INTC!

I don't know if Intel had any idea that things would play out the way they did when they convinced Microsoft management to go against the recommendation it's own product managers and break their promises to their other OEM partners like HP. All just so Intel's quarterly earnings wouldn't take hit by not being able to move a lot of laptops with shitty underpowered graphics adapters. But now Intel is really sitting pretty if Microsoft loses. If they did anticipate the outcome of this class action lawsuite, then they are undoubtedly the most badass mofo's in the industry in they way the punked Microsoft.

Costs of RAM and graphics upgrades $50-80

[billstewart]

2GB DDR2 memory costs about $20/stick at Fry's. Real El-Cheapo graphics cards cost $29 and run DirectX 9, and there are $29 cards that have 128MB and run DirectX 10, but I can't tell if they have WDDM driver support or not. There are a lot of cards in the $50 range that have 512MB and WDDM-capable chip sets, and I assume MS can get the things in bulk at prices that'll match Fry's+rebate. Most of the more expensive graphics cards seem to be PCI-Express, which might be a limitation on some systems, but most of those probably don't claim to be Vista-capable.

So for a desktop that uses DDR2, $50-80 should be enough. SO-DIMM DDR2 RAM is similarly priced, but obviously upgrading laptop graphics is as you say, not easy.

My interpretation of Vista's marketing all along has been that they were clear about having a range of products with different requirements, and that the basic version would require a RAM upgrade, while the shiny version would require RAM and graphics upgrades, and that it'd run like a dog unless you had a faster-than-minimum CPU, so they told you from the beginning that there'd be some bait&switch to watch out for.

Re:Haha yeah.

[ScrewMaster]

I'd mod you "Funny" just for posting that link on Slashdot ... then again I don't have any mod points just now and by "Funny" I meant "Flamebait".

+5 Dimbulb would be more appropriate, I think.

M$ Marketing Department is at fault for this mess

[Darkk]

Microsoft's Marketing Department is at fault for this fiasco.

They thought maybe they'd come up with the multi-tiered operating system by having basic, home, ultimate, business and enterprise with no clear cut as to what the differences and hardware requirements are. It's all marketing's idea of making money for those who have little clue as to what they are buying. Customers figured the $499 PC will run Vista Ultimate in it's full potential if they upgrade to that version later since Vista does have the ability to upgrade whatever versions you paid for. Only to find out the $200 software upgrade to Ultimate to enable Areo would severely degrade their windows experience and need to spend ANOTHER $200+ on hardware upgrades if it can be upgraded at all. So ya customers are pissed off because they were mislead by this marketing tactic.

Microsoft should have stuck to the basics like Basic, Ultimate and Business. That's IT!

No versions like home-lite, home-basic, home-brew, home-fuzzy or any of that nonsense because it just confuses people with little clue about the hardware they currently own or in the process of buying.

Ah well, sucks to be Microsoft right now. Hopefully they won't pull the same crap with Windows 7 with this multi-tiered bullshit.

Re:Did PentiumII computers get tagged "Vista ready

[Tacvek]

The most common inexpensive laptop graphics chip is the Intel 915 chip. That chip is so worthless it is not even funny. A computer with that chipset cannot even play the Sims 2 without issue, and that game by no means a graphics intensive game.

Laptops with that graphics chip cannot run Aero. The only other real issue is the one gigabyte issue. Vista does not work well at all with anything less than 2 GB. But at the beginning, many people bought "vista ready" computers that had that worthless graphics chip and only 1 GIG of RAM.

Those computers could not possible run Aero.

Re:Did PentiumII computers get tagged "Vista ready

[Tacvek]

Crud. I of course meant "Vista Capable", not "Vista Ready".

Many is worse than one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft in its response argued that giving litigants 'a free upgrade to Premium-ready PCs would provide a windfall to millions.'"

So it's bad if millions are victims, but it is OK if one company benefits from lying? Quantity is bad?

does anyone actually believe this crap?

[timmarhy]

yeah right, MS is going to buy us all a 1 gig stick of ram. ffs people use your brains, MS is at best going to refund the cost of vista from your PC or send you a copy of windows XP.

if this happens, it will be the year of the linux desktop with duke nukem forever being released simultanously by steve jobs while monkeys fly out his ass.

Re:does anyone actually believe this crap?

[windsurfer619]

...duke nukem forever being released simultanously by steve jobs while monkeys fly out his ass.

You're modded +1 interesting because some fanboy somewhere thought it would be an interesting Apple product.

Re:Haha yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one HAS to play for software.

Not cash anyway. Depending on the product, payment might be in time (amortized over millions of users, like Firefox), bug reports, etc. This is still substantially better than a proprietary solution, as those often also require time, bug reports (that usually don't get a response), etc., on top of the "price".

advertised by the retailer

[Trepidity]

It was Dell inducing me to purchase a computer using "Vista ready" in their advertising, not Microsoft. Now Microsoft might have duped them by having poor specs in their sticker program, but that's a matter between Dell and Microsoft---the matter for me is that Dell sold me a computer with a false advertising claim on it.

Re:advertised by the retailer

[Ixokai]

The problem is that Microsoft determined the rules for when people could advertise according to a certain sticker: Microsoft set the rules for the stickers and were the sole party able to determine the usage of those stickers.

Microsoft then bankrolled large advertising campaigns to promote Vista and its stickers; yes certain retailers participated and included their use in their own advertising -- but only according to the rules Microsoft set.

In the marketplace there was an established history about such stickers being provided by Microsoft under Microsoft guidance; the "XP Ready" stickers when XP came out. The marketplace had been taught, primarily by Microsoft's own PR machine, that these stickers were a reliable way to determine capability with the OS that Microsoft released.

Then late in the game, Microsoft changed the story. The "Vista Capable" sticker didn't really mean what was generally understood for it to mean; the "Vista Capable" program being /entirely/ controlled by /Microsoft/.

Sure there was a "Vista Ready" sticker also available but there it was not at all clear to users the difference between the two. And throughout all the advertising that Microsoft put out, Aero was everywhere so much that to most people Vista = Aero.

It's true, a educated and motivated user could go out and find the difference and gather the information needed to know what kind of machine they'd need to run the Vista that they all though they'd be running. But that doesn't change the fact that this /certification/ program -- administered by Microsoft and under the advertising umbrella of Microsoft -- misled people.

a lot are cash these days

[Trepidity]

I agree that the lion's share of money generally goes to the lawyers (and sometimes the original class-representative litigants), but for the past decade or so in the U.S. after some reforms, most settlements are in cash, not vouchers or coupons. They are, however, usually not a large amount of cash. For example, I got a check for about $11 from some California state class-action lawsuit against record labels for price-fixing; the Grand Theft Auto settlement gave purchasers are a choice of a replacement disc or $5-35 cash depending on what damages they asserted and/or had documentation of; and a recent iPod settlement will pay out $15-25 cash.

it's about a factor of 5 too high

[Trepidity]

Perhaps you have't looked lately but DIMMs and el-cheapo graphics cards are both around "free" these days. As in, a 512-mb DIMM costs less than a sandwich. El-cheapo graphics cards that can run Aero are about $25, bringing our total to just under $35.

Re:Haha yeah.

[poopdeville]

I'll give you 50 cents for every dollars worth of MS stock.

When? I might be interested in selling a futures contract with MS underlying.

Worst managed company in the world . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

If Microsoft was honest and stayed within their own world of software they would be profitable and even respected. Still, they insist on invading parts of the world they know nothing about or being dishonest about what is needed to run their products.

The company should fire Ballmer and Gates and get back to basics and a level of integrity that people can respect.

Whose liability?

[Lonewolf666]

You have a good point, but in your analogy you should not get out of paying for the damages.
I think the concept of "joint and several liability" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability) should apply here. As I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if a court would make you pay on that basis, but it seems fair to me.

Re:Whose liability?

[vux984]

You have a good point, but in your analogy you should not get out of paying for the damages. Agreed. I stated up front that I think Microsoft has some liability. But the OEMs share in that responsibility.

Might not help Microsoft

[Lonewolf666]

So let's assume the OEM supplier is responsible for misleading the customer. Customers sue the OEM supplier and win in court. Then the OEM supplier, who was mislead by false hardware specs for the "Vista capable" logo, sues Microsoft to recover his damages. Same result, just with more lawsuits.

Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys

[wellingj]

And that's pretty bad business. See, the minions and peons of a country are the only ones who are shamed and goaded into being "patriotic". Corporations cannot be bothered by such sentiments or they will wither and die, or so the common sense of today would suggest.

It's true. But only because of the modern misconception of patriotism. From the Wiki

Patriotism is commonly defined as love of and/or devotion to one's country. The word comes from the Latin, patria, and Greek patritha. However, "patriotism," or the love of one's country, has come to have different meanings over time. Thus, the meaning of patriotism can be highly dependent upon context, geography and philosophy.

Although used in certain vernaculars as a synonym for nationalism, nationalism is not considered an inherent part of patriotism. Among the ancient Greeks, patriotism of notions concerning language, religious traditions, ethics, law and devotion to the common good, rather than pure identification with a nation-state. Scholar J. Peter Euben writes that for the Greek philosopher Socrates, "patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does and would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be."

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, the notion of patriotism continued to be separate from the notion of nationalism. Instead, patriotism was defined as devotion to humanity and beneficence. For example, providing charity, criticizing slavery, and denouncing excessive penal laws were all considered patriotic. In both ancient and modern visions of patriotism, individual responsibility to fellow citizens is an inherent component of patriotism.

Many contemporary notions of patriotism are influenced by 19th century ideas about nationalism. During the 19th century, "being patriotic" became increasingly conflated with nationalism, and even jingoism. However, some notions of contemporary patriotism reject nationalism in favor of a more classic version of the idea of patriotism which includes social responsibility.

I don't believe that welfare is patriotic, nor is buying American made products simply because they are American. I believe patriotism is the love of the ideals and customs that make your country great. So I think Socrates had the best idea about what Patriotism really is about. All that other stuff is simply mistaking one individual's version of Patriotism for another's. And in the USA, where the opinion of the individual is allowed free reign, there are going to be many versions of patriotism. But the key to remember is that your patriotism is not my patriotism in a free society.

I for once must side with Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Vista capable means just that. The core OS can be operated on the machine. That in no way specifies if it can run more advanced features included with the OS.

It is up to the consumer to educate his/her self and to understand the minimum requirements vs preferable requirements. Just as it is up to the consumer to know what hardware is included in the computer they purchase and what the capabilities of said hardware is.

Why has it become such a habit of our society to encourage stupidity. Wake up people!

Re:But like everything, this can be turned against

[MightyMartian]

Because MS and the hardware manufacturers are members of an evil alliance which tries to force you to buy new equipment to get the benefits of new software. The one nice thing about the failed economy is that it is absolutely going to destroy their business plans.

Re:Haha yeah.

[mgblst]

The best thing you could do would be to write up a report on what you did, how much it saves, and some specifics.

That's a lot of money.

[john.picard]

Eight billion United States Dollars? That's a lot of money. Let's demonstrate just how much money it is. If you received $8,000,000,000.00 on the day that Jesus Christ was born, and you spent $10,000.00 every single day until now, you'd still have plenty of money left. Especially if you had all this money in an interest bearing government-guaranteed account. Unfortunately, whichever government guaranteed it when you began no longer exists by now. To sum up, it's a lot of money.

Re:That's a lot of money.

[lordSaurontheGreat]

$8bn USD is a lot less than it used to be.

Re:Haha yeah.

[jnork]

Get the facts, people.

... For certain values of "fact".

http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit033.html

Have you a stake in Microsoft, then? Or just an application that requires Windows? I'll certainly agree that *nix isn't for everybody -- anybody who claims otherwise is just as bad as any Microsoft apologist. But you give the impression that you feel that Windows is better for everybody, without qualification.

anonymous coward

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a number of people bring me BRAND NEW laptops last summer which took 45 minutes to boot Windows Vista. They had the absolute minimum processor and memory to run this bloated OS and were completely unusable. They were slower than my PC from 2000 running XP. Far slower.

I hope that these unfortunate customers who were tricked by promises and low prices get their money.

should we really be destroying US companies now?

[cydblack]

I don't like Microsoft. However, in case anyone hasn't noticed, the US economy just collapsed. We are in a major recession, posting the worst economic indicators since 1945, and with some economists painting an even darker picture drawing parallels that foreshadow another Great Depression. Now I know monopolies are evil and such but...am I the only person who is thinking that right now just might not be the right time to be attacking US companies and trying to tear them down with massive class action suits? Perhaps once everyone has a job again and isn't going to lose their house, then maybe we could worry about this? I'll be the first to admit I was on the front lines frothing at the mouth to tear down Microsoft when the anti-trust litigation was going on years ago, but right now isn't the time people. Perspective is needed here.

Class Action Lawsuit for the Illiterate

[Ralish]

For me this lawsuit is just absurd, it's a battle of semantics, and one which the conclusion should be obvious from the outset: a complete waste of time.

When someone tells me that my system is "capable" of running something, my assumption isn't: "Oh, well, clearly I can run this product and use every feature available at maximum throughput." Rather, I think: "I can run this, but the performance is unlikely to be optimal and I probably can't run everything it offers."

"Capable" for me is just MS corporate speak for something roughly analoguous to "Minimum System Requirements". Whereas, the "Premium" label is roughly equivalent to "Recommended System Requirements". This isn't some massive distortion of the english language, it's patently obvious to anyone who understands what the word capable means. My system is capable of running Crysis, that doesn't imply I can run it at 1920x1200 with 16xAA and all detail settings maxed.

And, when you look at the lawsuit, the things they are complaining don't work are in my view no way integral to the functioning of the OS: Aero? ....Flip3D?! For gods sake, it's eye-candy; in the broader picture, it's insignificant, and in no way fundamentally important to the operation of the OS. Some lawyers are asking the question is Vista Home Basic really even Vista "proper". Well, yes, it is. It shares the same new kernel, improved security architecture, code rewrites, etc... as the other (higher priced) editions of Vista.

I think it's unfortunate that MS lowered the requirements for what is required to gain the Vista Capable certification, but I don't believe that they have misled people as a result. What they have done is damaged their image, but the way they have done so is in my view not due to any illegal activity (in this case).

I Need New Hardware to Upgrade to VISTA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn -- I just upgraded to XP and now I need new hardware for VISTA goodness?

Microsoft would never make me do that! I'll wait for the newer, slimmer, bloatfree Windows 7.

better hold off on those INTC shares...

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy lots of INTC!

On the other hand, msft feeling punked by intel, being the badasses that they are might just stick it back to intel, by requiring that the money they are gonna be forced to choke up be spent on graphics cards, dram, and any notebooks "upgraded" to netbooks with low margin atom processors with nvidia's ION platform.

I'm sure that would do wonders for INTC shares...

Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys

[mahadiga]

But the key to remember is that your patriotism is not my patriotism in a free society.

Patriotism is Oxymoron in Globalized World

Re:Haha yeah.

[beckerist]

wtf? is that domain really owned by microsoft? suddenly I feel scared.....

Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys

[khellendros1984]

Nationalism is an oxymoron in a truly globalized world, but not patriotism.

Re:Haha yeah.

[Herby Sagues]

This article does not deserve to be in /. Claiming that a company must pay for the upgrade of hardware sold by other companies because THEY claimed the hardware was able to run its products is absurd. There's no legal or logical basis for it. If Microsoft is found guilty of deceiving customers, it might be asked to pay for some restitution, return the license money or something around that. IF it is found guilty, as all these machines were able to run Vista, they were simply not able to use some features that depended on hardware not available in the devices. But calculating settlement costs as the hardware upgrade price is simply ridiculous. They are bluffing in order to get a more substantial settlement. Nothing more than that.

Limit of Liability

[gobbligook]

I don't think that Microsoft can be held liable for more money than what they _earned_ from the sale of the computer with the vista capable sticker. The limit of their liability should be the value of the operating system. The class action should be collecting the hardware replacement from the manufacturers.

HP/Toshiba/Sony etc. are not in the business of selling Vista, but they knew that sticker would drive sales from people who otherwise would have waited to purchase their new hardware.

Re:Haha yeah.

[lordSaurontheGreat]

You take a chance no matter what bucket of bits you pick.

One will keep you up at night on the phone with tech support (or at least listening to their hold music) and the other will keep you up late at night reading the documentation and emailing the original developers.

I'll let you guess which one is which.

See?

[lordSaurontheGreat]

See? This is what happens when you don't build your computer by hand, by yourself! You get shafted with crapware and stupid stickers!

The lawsuit is really because the stickers weren't holographic. You'd think that after all that hub-bub and marketing they'd at least shell out the money for those famous Redmond holographic stickers. THAT'S what people pay for!

Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys

[master_p]

The Wikipedia article is total nonsense. Patriotism has always meant to 'love my country', and that includes criticism of my country if I see that my country is wrong.

It's only in the last few years with the wicked Bush administration that patriotism reversed to 'hush, don't say anything, support our troops'.

Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys

[wellingj]

It will only be in the next few years with the wicked Obama administration that patriotism reverses to 'hush, don't say anything, support our centrally controlled economy'.

The mentality is already there.

What the f* is this?

[Skal Tura]

Really, microsoft being 'punished' for pushing the envelope?

While the Vista Capable thing was a PR-disaster, however the fact remains: They pushed the envelope and it needs fresher hardware. It's not like Vista demands are skyhigh at all: Even a 200$ PC can handle it.

Should Windows XP run on hardware from 1995? NO. Why should Vista run on hardware from 2000 then? NO Reason.

Despite all the BS, Vista is actually quite capable OS if the downsides aren't a deal breaker. I use Windows XP Pro 64-bit on my home machine, and comparison on Vista Pro 64bit Laptop:

Home workstation: QX9650 (Extreme, Quad Core 3Ghz), 4Gb DDR2, GeForce 8800 Ultra SLI, S-ATA II HDDs

Versus work laptop: T2530 or something, Dual Core ~2.6Ghz, 4Gb DDR2, and 120Gb 2.5" HDD, Quadro graphics.

The Vista laptop is way more responsive after loading than the WXP 64Bit, only where Vista isn't more responsive is when loading. With the laptop i use dual screen setup aswell, both on high resolutions (around 1600x1000, widescreen) and on my home computer single monitor at 1280x1024.

Admittably, Vista has it's problems (especially with dual monitor setup, it 'forgetting' the settings over and over again, each and every day when using HDMI connector), but they aren't deal breakers for me.

Comparisons made on fresh installs. and i get more work done on the Vista laptop than on my home computer.

So yes, 'Vista Capable' marketing was a total flop, but i don't see why the hell Microsoft should guarantee Vista running on old hardware? Vista Capable was probably meant to give a guarantee to customers that this computer is capable of running it, to make decisions easier, but was spinned out of control by the marketing dept.

Even with Linux you cannot run latest Ubuntu (normal desktop version) as smooth as the first Ubuntu on hardware from say 2000. Same with Fedora/Red Hat/Centos/Debian etc.

You want slicker feel UI, and more responsive? More eyecandy, more features? Well, it comes with a price, and the price is better hardware.

And no, no amount of hardware is going to make you feel like your computer is fast enough, you will always crave for more. And yes, that's 100% from experience from running half of the time on the past 8-9 years top of the line hardware.

Defining "capable"

[Nerdposeur]

The original meaning of the "Vista Capable" sticker was that the hardware could be UPGRADED to handle every feature of Vista. "Vista Ready" meant that it could handle it (Aero & WDDM) as is, without upgrades.

Really? Wow. Did they include a very clear explanation with that sticker? Because to me, "capable" would naturally mean "able to do something," not "could theoretically be modified to be able to do something."

"This baby is combat-capable, sir! He just needs a couple of decades of growth and a couple years of training first!"

Re:Haha yeah.

[grolaw]

Microsoft supplied those standards.

A solution for Microsoft!

[downix]

Offer each of the people a free upgrade to Windows 7!

Cannot upgrade notebook graphics

[Glasswire]

...notebooks' integrated graphics would be more tricky to replace and would cost between $245 and $590 per unit.
Both integrated (in the chipset) and discrete (separate graphics chip) are generally 'down' on the board - meaning they're soldered on. You can't even replace the board as a a replacement board has the same non-Aero-capable components and no manufacturer makes a more modern notebook board that would be a drop in replacement. (Not to mention the massive labor costs)
If (which I doubt) a fix like this was ever mandated, it would simply be a big award of money to buy replacement laptops - with the original OEMs no doubt lobbying for a requirement that the end-user much purchase another one of THEIR notebooks.
Won't happen though, partially because everyone in the industry is terrified of a precedent of replacement of whole system in the event of proven non-performance-to-spec and they will fight like hell to keep that from happening. Best case scenario is some kind of rebate value coupon (or as one other poster more sagely suggested possible refund of replacement of OS value)

Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys

[ultranova]

But the key to remember is that your patriotism is not my patriotism in a free society.

This makes the whole concept of patriotism utterly meaningless, since the sentence "I'm patriotic" can mean absolutely anything, and thus conveys no information. Words are only useful if they have a commonly agreed meaning; everyone redefining patriotism to mean whatever they want it to mean makes the word useless. This is true even in a free society.

Now excuse me, I need to go be patriotic in a toilet.

If Microsoft will have to shell out any amount...

[walter_f]

... between $3.92 billion and $8.52 billion, MS shareholders will hopefully go after these braindead execs in Redmond's "Brass Etage" for damages.

You get what you pay for!

[guitarpy]

Microsoft's sticker says "VISTA CAPABLE" which is exactly what a computer with 512MB of RAM and a graphics card without a wddm driver, pixel shader 2.0, and 128mb of ram itself is...YOU CAN INSTALL VISTA...you simply can't run Aero, which was definately explained in the fine print...that's why they have the sticker that says Premium Ready for the computers which can run home premium or ultimate...I'm not saying that the above 512MB computer will run vista well but it is CAPABLE of running it which is all the sticker said. I enjoy a great Microsoft bashing as much as the next guy, but I hate frivolous lawsuits more than most, and the people suing Microsoft over this need to quit whining and realize that they bought the cheapest thing they could possibly run vista on, and not expect to get all the bells and whistles. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR FROM THE ODD JOB MAN

Re:Well. who lied?

[WindShadow]

To what extent is the retailer responsible to verify vendor claims? Does the spec say 2.2GHz CPU? Is the retailer required to check that? So if the unit says "VISTA capable" is the retailer on the hook for trusting the manufacturer?

Trust your budget?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't know if you've saved 10,000 or many 100,000+, then forgive me for not having much faith in your budget figures. It could just as easily work out to be 100,000 worse off!

Capable vs. Ready

[WindShadow]

I believe that VISTA capable means that it can be upgraded, and VISTA ready means good to go as is. If that's the case the buyer didn't get the message.

Re:Well. who lied?

[jimicus]

That's a very good question.

Legally, the buyer has entered into a contract with the retailer and it's the retailer's problem to ensure the buyer gets what they think they're getting.

IANAL, but AFAIK if the retailer bought a bunch of products in good faith, sold them on and then found a massive return rate, it would be down to the retailer to chase their supplier. As a rule of thumb, however, the more money there is involved the harder it is to get a refund or replacement - so I can't imagine a retailer could simply call up their supplier and demand a credit note for £thousands.

You have not worked with the MS sticker program

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The integrators don't just stick on whatever sticker they choose.

The integrator has to submit test units to Microsoft certified labs who charge a testing/certification fee to run a Microsoft specified set of tests that certifies the the unit is worthy of having the sticker. In other words, MS said it is OK to put whatever sticker an a particular device. As part of this, Microsoft should have done all the driver tests etc. so when MS blame the integrators for bad drivers etc then that's also a bit hollow: they passed MS tests and MS said that they are OK.

It is never a good time to do the right thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Supposing that Microsoft is totally in the wrong over this, does the economic situation justify letting them off? If so, then when I am short of a few bucks then you would be OK about me helping myself to your car, right? (To introduce a car analogy.)

But Microsoft is not in fact one of the companies who have lost billions through bad mortgages. They have had poor sales of their new flagship product of course, but I don't think they are actually broke yet. But that is the risk you take in the market, and evidently the market does not choose Vista at this time. (Apart from the poor dudes who couldn't make it work on their underpowered machines and are now taking part in this lawsuit.)

So personally I would prefer to see justice done, whatever that turns out to be. I suspect it would not involve quite the order of payout suggested in the summary. As with an ordinary criminal case, the court should establish first the actual offence and the magnitude of the harm done, then determine where the responsibility lies, (which might well include the OEMs) then determine an appropriate sentence. The latter would normally take into account the circumstances of the offender.

Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys

[wellingj]

Maybe to you it makes the word useless, but it still does not make the patriotic sentiment any less valuable to those citizens that know their own patriotism. A rose by any other name...

On the other hand why do you feel the need to have a such a black and white view of patriotism? This is just a guess, but maybe you want every one to have the same kind of patriotism as you do? Last I checked, Patriotism is not exactly the kind of thing you want to be quantifying anyways unless you are after shaming the citizenry into doing something. Which is exactly what the government would like to do, and is how we end up with 1984.

Here try this one on for size. If patriotism is "love of your country" in the simplest terms, tell me what love is in the first place.

Love my...wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans, please!
You don't 'love' a country, for fuck's sake. You appreciate it. Participate in it. Maybe even defend it - if it deserves to be defended...but 'love' it? WTF? Did I miss the mandatory kool-aid? Christ...