Microsoft knowingly deceived customers with Vista?

[Modelworks]

I don't know how this will turn out.
It looks pretty bad when you have emails from Mike Nash saying he himself got burnt.



http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2...customers_with_vista/1

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed last year against Microsoft?for incorrectly labelling machines as "Windows Vista Capable"?have accused the software giant of knowingly lying to consumers to boost sales of the company's latest operating system.

Microsoft decided that, in order to boost sales of Windows XP computers after it announced that Windows Vista would be delayed, it would sell machines sporting "Windows Vista Capable" logos, with the selling point being that these computers were able to be updated to Windows Vista once it was released.

The problem was that machines that displayed this logo were only able to use the entry level version, Windows Vista Home Basic, meaning that many of the most widely-advertised features?such as Aero Glass, Flip3D and Media Center?were unavailable to consumers buying PCs showing the logo.

The suit?that plaintiffs are trying to promote to class-action status?claims that many of the machines bearing the logo were not fully "Vista Capable" as they were not powerful enough to support Vista's advanced features. Indeed, while the contents of the emails remain sealed, a Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter was at the hearing and recorded some of them.

"Even a piece of junk will qualify" for the "Windows Vista Capable" designation, wrote one employee in an email read out by the Plaintiffs. Mike Nash, a vice president in the Windows Product Management group, wrote in an email, "I PERSONALLY got burnt. ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."

Jim Allchin, then the co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, said, "We really botched this. ... You guys have to do a better job with our customers," in another email.

David Bowermaster, a spokesman for Microsoft, naturally played down the significance of the emails, stating, "The e-mails cited in today's hearing are isolated, and in many instances, outdated and really just snippets of a broad and thorough review that took place during the development of the Windows Vista Capable program."

He claimed that, "Throughout this review, Microsoft employees raised concerns and addressed issues with the aim of making this program better for our partners and more valuable for consumers. In the end, we believe we achieved both objectives."

Microsoft's legal team also pointed out that the company had a separate "Premium Ready" sticker programme, which indicated that a computer was able to run fully-featured versions of the OS. Steven Rummage, a lawyer with Davis Wright Tremaine representing Microsoft, argued that the lawsuit didn't merit class-action status because each customer who bought a "Windows Vista Capable" machine had different information at the time of purchase. "We know that there was a wealth of information available to the public," he said. "They have not presented the court with a single document showing what people were told."

Jeffrey Thomas, the plaintiffs' lawyer, countered Rummage's argument stating that the class was united in that all individuals buying "Windows Vista Capable" PCs "did not get what they paid for."

The judge for the case, Marsha Pechman, concluded proceedings by saying she would issue a ruling that will determine whether or not the case has class-action status within ten days.

Do you think Microsoft is in hot water here? Let us know your thoughts on the case in the forums.

 

[KeypoX]

anti vista propaganda , and what an idiot paid 2100 and cant run vista

mysteriousfriend had the sticker vista runs ok but not great

 

[QuixoticOne]

It's another classic case of "shoot all the marketing people, lawyers, managers, sales people" and then you'll have the truth.

Or "Q: how do you tell a marketing person is lying? A: His/her lips are moving."

They deliberately try to foist off meaningless "Designed for XP", "Designed for Vista", "Vista Capable", "WHQL" etc. logos / slogans on products many of which are complete and utter junk and wouldn't be decently capable of working satisfactorily with ANY OS.

Other times they're just so mind numbingly bottom-of-the-barrel under-powered that they wouldn't have made decent XP machines in 2006 to say nothing of reasonable Vista systems in 2007/2008. You really need something like a minimum of 1GB of RAM to run even frugally, and more likely 2-3GB even for modest "Basic Home" use of things like IE7, WMP, Outlook, whatever.

And really a good fairly fast P4 CPU is about the minimum you'd want, more likey a low-mid-range Core2 desktop CPU, and even with that you'd often need an advanced GPU with video decode hardware to even play back HD-video clips smoothly.

And, really, if ALL you want to do is basic email, a little bit of web surfing, write a few documents, you probably didn't need anything better than Win98SE and an 80486. The whole POINT of the rest of the bloat that has happened in hardware / software SINCE Win98 has basically been for more powerful multimedia capabilities, gaming, WYSIWYG type of CAD / page layout, et. al. If you can't do decently advanced multimedia and application usage you certainly aren't getting the full benefit (or any benefit) from an OS like XP / Vista, you could just as well be using NT4, Win2000, or Win98.

Frankly I have almost the highest end practical PC possible running a fully updated (SP1 RTM RC) Vista 64, overclocked Q6600, 8GB RAM, and the thing still runs pathetically slowly doing certain things.

Clarity of user expectations? Please. I've been to Vista developer conferences and followed along the evolution of the OS since BEFORE it launched just over a year ago and I'm STILL trying to figure out what it *REALLY* does i.e. what actually WORKS versus what was overhyped, is broken, got canceled as a feature, hasn't been added yet, needs additional hardware / software that I wouldn't have expected (good luck with BitLocker and SideShow and even ReadyBoost doesn't work with a lot of devices!) etc.

Basically as many people have said it's a gold plated turd of an OS; shiny, new, expensive, beautiful gold plating, but, uh, it's still a turd. Not as stable / functional as XP is for a majority of CORE OS uses (file copying, networking, multimedia), and really no delivery on a lot of the "advanced" features that were supposed to WOW us -- Vista ULTIMATE EXTRAS? Please. DVD authoring? Uh, yeah, mostly doesn't work. Sleep/Hibernate? Uh, yeah, good luck with that; maybe about 3 months after SP1 comes out in March then MAYBE the lucky 10% of the people who don't have broken BIOS / hardware / drivers might get it sort-of-sometimes working.

It's still so limited / broken running on the highest POSSIBLE end bleeding edge hardware, I'd HATE to be the poor schmoe who's trying to run it on the $299 256MB RAM e-Machines abortion of a LEGO / NERFED laptop they got at WalMart with a "Vista Capable" sticker!

 

[AnnonUSA]

And this was not general knowledge?

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: KeypoX
anti vista propaganda , and what an idiot paid 2100 and cant run vista

Some one who didn't do any market research and didn't know anything about PCs when they bought the system.

This is nothing more than anti-vista propaganda from the ignorant. Nearly every time MS releases a new OS, we go through this BS, and every single time the new MS OS is better than the previous, excluding WinME.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: KeypoX
anti vista propaganda , and what an idiot paid 2100 and cant run vista

Some one who didn't do any market research and didn't know anything about PCs when they bought the system.

This is nothing more than anti-vista propaganda from the ignorant. Nearly every time MS releases a new OS, we go through this BS, and every single time the new MS OS is better than the previous, excluding WinME.

What gets me is that he is the vp of MS windows product management.
If he couldn't pick a pc to run vista at the time, then how did they expect anyone else to ?
http://www.microsoft.com/press...xec/mnash/default.mspx


Its not about people going out now and buying a pc.
Its about MS putting the vista ready label on the pc back when vista wasn't even finished.
Then those people that thought they had a pc that would run vista found out the hardware didn't support the features of the final version.

It has nothing to do with vista itself, but the way MS marketed it.

It would be like GM or Ford selling you a car now that they say will run ethanol in the future just as well as gasoline. Then when ethanol arrives you find out you need to go back and have the engine upgraded.

 

[nerp]

Buying a PC based on the stickers on it is a BAD idea.

 

[JustaGeek]

IMO, it is another case of trying to get money out of someone, only because they think they can, or they found a loophole.

Yes, I got the laptop in my sig at Walmart for ~$400 in November 2006. Yes, it has a sticker "Microsoft Vista Capable".

All it took was to add 2GB of RAM (it came with 512MB), and HP has upgraded it to Vista Home Premium for free - totally free, not even a shiping charge, like the others did!

Works perfectly fine.

I would like to see the specs of that $2,100 laptop that can not run Vista.

My little Sempron does it with ease. And it cost $400. Plus ~$100 for new RAM.

 

[lxskllr]

I'm a little conflicted with the whole situation. One one hand, people should research their computer purchases, and make an educated buying decision. On the other hand, MS shouldn't low ball system requirements, and give unreasonable specs for using their O/Ss.

As much as I like Vista, I think a class action smack down might get MS's head in the right place, and they won't make the same mistake the next time around. Vista has a lot of bad press, in large part due to people having it on under powered machines. They traded a short term pay off for long term ill will amongst computer users. All in all I think it's cost them more than they've received in short term money :^/

You can't really expect the average computer user to scour tech forums months in advance, and download beta and RC editions of an O/S to decide for themselves what kind of hardware it takes to run the new O/S. There has to be some amount of trust in the manufacturers and sellers to steer them in the right direction. When that trust is violated, I believe it harms the industry as a whole.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I wonder how recent this is?

http://www.microsoft.com/windo...orupgrade/capable.mspx

A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:

A modern processor (at least 800MHz¹).

512 MB of system memory.

A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.


Windows Vista Premium Ready PCs

Some Windows Vista Capable PCs have been designated Premium Ready. These PCs will provide an even better Windows Vista experience, including the Windows Aero user experience. Features available in specific premium editions of Windows Vista, such as the ability to watch and record live TV, may require additional hardware.

A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor¹).

1 GB of system memory.

Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)², Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.

40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.

DVD-ROM Drive³.

Audio output capability.

Internet access capability.

And the qualifier:

Read all of the Windows Vista Capable footnotes.

 

[VinDSL]

LoL!

All this crap is made in China now - what do you expect?!?!?

Kinda reminds me of the plastic in the pet food, the anti-freeze in the toothpaste, the lead in the baby toys, and the (WARNING! WARNING!) worms in the Valentine candy you'll be giving your loved ones tomorrow...

Ppl just need to be more aware!

It's a sign of the times - the courts can't fix it...

 

[JonnyBlaze]

it would sell machines sporting "Windows Vista Capable" logos,

when did MS start selling machines?

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze
when did MS start selling machines?

Excellent point! I would say that the problem is with the machine OEMs possibly stickering their stuff erroneously.

I installed Vista on an older P4PE mobo machine and it has no problems at all running Ultimate. My Thinkpad T60 came with Vista Business, and I upgraded irt to Ultimate. No problems at all.

I see this as a case where a few numbies made bad choices and reap the rewards of same.

And, as VinDSL said, why do you trust labels on stuff made in China?

 

[Griffinhart]

Sounds like the plaintifs just never read or ask for the actual information about what Vista Capable vs Vista Premium capable meant. If they did and the people that sold them the PC told then that their machines could run Vista with Aero, etc then the ones that sold them the PC are to blamed.

http://technet.microsoft.com/e...owsvista/aa905075.aspx

That was released back in March 2006.