Print 92 comment(s) - last by Ryanman.. on Apr 10 at 3:37 PM

The little sticker that is causing a world of trouble for Microsoft and Intel.  (Source: DailyTech)
Microsoft executive -- "We set ourselves up"

One of the most iconic images of Microsoft's Windows Vista launch in January 2007 was the small "Windows Vista Capable" stickers on computers months before, reassuring customers that when the new operating system came out, their computers could be updated to the latest and greatest.  Unfortunately for the consumer it appears that the capabilities that these stickers promised were intentionally exaggerated to benefit Microsoft and chipmaker Intel.

A class action suit filed against Microsoft in April 2007 accused Microsoft of intentionally misleading consumers with the stickers, claiming the "Vista Capable" logos on computers that were anything but.  The suit centered around several key points, among which was that the computers sold could not run Windows Vista's more impressive features such as the Aero user interface, and were left with only a bare-bones skeleton of Vista.  The suit forced Microsoft to redefine its definition of what exactly "Vista Capable" meant, which included Microsoft's addition of a disclaimer that some of the PCs bearing the sticker could not run significant Vista features such as Aero.

Meanwhile, the legal case proceeded forward.  Armed with internal emails obtained from Microsoft, the plaintiffs, represented by high-power attorney Jeffrey Tilden of Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, took their case before a U.S. District Judge in order to gain class action status.  In a significant victory for the plaintiffs U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman granted the case class action status, with the primary focus being to determine whether Microsoft intentionally deceived consumers to sell PCs.  The judge also opened the door for the suit to also encompass gripes about the lack of Aero if the plaintiffs found another named plaintiff who bough Vista but was unable to run Aero.

Now in the aftermath of the ruling, the Judge Pechman unsealed 158 pages of Microsoft corporate emails (PDF) that paint a picture Microsoft would rather not have the public see.

Some of these emails featured Microsoft employees candidly describing the program with, "
Even a piece of junk will qualify" for "Vista Capable" designation.  The now famous email from Mike Nash, currently a corporate vice president for Windows product management, states, "I PERSONALLY got burnt ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine." 

Less dramatic, but equally damaging was the email from
Jim Allchin, then the co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, stating grimly, "We really botched this ... You guys have to do a better job with our customers."

The most interesting emails though, turn out to be the new ones.  While a number of key portions of several emails were redacted, the parts that remain paint a picture of intentional deception that Microsoft virtually admitted to in the internal emails.

In the emails Microsoft executives discuss how the Intel 915 Chipset was to initially be deemed incompatible Windows Vista.   The policy was abruptly reversed.  Says one of the executives in charge of the decision, "
In the end, we lowered the requirements to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded.  We are caving to Intel. We worked the last 18 months to drive the [user interface] experience and we are giving this up."

This admission is extremely significant as it precisely describes what was alleged by the class action suit.  Microsoft will have to fight an uphill battle to prove that its employees' email correspondence was inaccurate and misleading.

Other emails make it clear that retailers had voiced frustrations with Microsoft, and were met with stubborn resistance from Microsoft executives due to the policy, which aimed to underhandedly pump up Intel's chipset sales.  Says one Microsoft executive, guiltily, "
I was in Best Buy listening to people and can tell you this did not come clear to customers. We set ourselves up."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Hexus on 2/29/2008 1:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just interested to see how this pans out. Both sides have their good points as well as faults. I just want to look at this from an objective point of view and hear what both sides have to say.

RE: Interesting
By SectionEight on 2/29/2008 2:14:13 PM , Rating: 6
I guess it will all depend on how the word 'capable' is interpreted. It sounds like the machines in question are Vista-capable just like I'm Boston Marathon-capable: I technically have the required equipment, but it's not going to be the greatest of experiences.

RE: Interesting
By Hexus on 2/29/2008 2:21:08 PM , Rating: 5
You sir, deserve a six for that analogy.

RE: Interesting
By spartan014 on 3/3/2008 9:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
It clearly states in the sticker "Designed for WinXP"...!!!

I believe you can say you are
'Designed for 1 Mile Morning jog'


RE: Interesting
By CU on 2/29/2008 3:18:08 PM , Rating: 4
That is correct. It is someones opinion of what capable means. I think MS is fine here unless they are not allowed to help out Intel which they seem to have done. The emails don't change anything for me. It is just like pc games, they always have requirements listed, but most gamers don't really want to play with those requirements. All of these computers could run Vista just with not everything turned on. That is why they have the other sticker. I don't remember what is said though, but it meant it could run Vista with everything turned on.

RE: Interesting
By Ryanman on 2/29/2008 3:34:09 PM , Rating: 5
I agree. That's going to be the real question.
If you're looking at the websters definition, this suit is completely groundless. I don't understand why aeroglass is such a BFD. Who cares? Nobody I know uses it regularly besides myself.
Excepting a lot of the commenters on Dailytech of course, the VAST MAJORITY of people who bought "Vista capable" Dells/HP's prior to Vista's release don't even know how to alt+tab. They use the mouse for everything.
This anger over an inability to display some flashy windows is really blowing my mind right now. I'm sure that we'll all take advantage of this to bone microsoft again, but there are other things they've done that we should focus on.

And wth is up with the VP buying a 2100 dollar machine that can't run Vista?!? How can anyone say that's MS's fault lol. The kid's an idiot.

RE: Interesting
By mindless1 on 2/29/2008 3:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
The big deal is that just about any new system could grunt along running Vista, the whole point of the sticker was to signify something in particular to differentiate in what you're buying.

RE: Interesting
By jtesoro on 2/29/2008 10:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
Apple should have put a Windows Vista Capable sticker on the Mac. Now that would have been something.

RE: Interesting
By SwitchStories on 3/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting
By murphyslabrat on 3/2/2008 9:34:53 PM , Rating: 3
He doesn't work in IT yet.

RE: Interesting
By TimberJon on 3/4/2008 11:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldnt have thought that my 366 celeron was "XP Pro Capable" but it ran it just fine. Almost as good as my Win98SE.

This was a corp handshake over dinner at the Social House in Las Vegas while watching the pirate show behind them.

I was there..

RE: Interesting
By nitrous9200 on 3/1/2008 12:32:11 AM , Rating: 2
The PDF with the internal Microsoft emails show his entire quote reveals he bought an ultra portable Sony TX770P laptop with the Intel 915 chipset, which had the Vista Capable logo but the chipset isn't able to run Aero.

RE: Interesting
By Ryanman on 4/10/2008 3:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
ah I shoulda known it was a laptop

RE: Interesting
By Lobur12n12 on 3/1/2008 12:06:42 AM , Rating: 3
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

RE: Interesting
By Omega215D on 3/2/2008 9:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
I like how the top of the sticker states: "Designed for Windows XP" almost like a disclaimer.

Anyhow you should read the posts on slashdot. They make it seem like Vista is all hell broken loose. I've had issues with Leopard to the point I had to install Vista Basic on my MacBook to get old apps running again and installed more than 1GB to get Leopard to run smoothly.

RE: Interesting
By glenn8 on 2/29/2008 3:58:45 PM , Rating: 5
Personally I think it can go either way as well. It really should depend more on what the expectations were rather than technicalities like the meaning of "capable". You have to think what the point of those stickers were. They are meant to give consumers confidence in buying the hardware right away instead of waiting. Combine this with the fact that Microsoft has been pushing the Aero UI in marketing so consumers would have expectations that they should be able to run Aero on Vista Capable hardware. Anything less would be somewhat misleading.
On the other hand the article mentions a "$2,100 e-mail machine" which I find extremely far fetched.

RE: Interesting
By Steve Guilliot on 2/29/2008 6:09:54 PM , Rating: 1
Expectations must be reasonable, and that completely depends on what "capable" means.

RE: Interesting
By glenn8 on 2/29/2008 6:19:08 PM , Rating: 3
You're not quite understanding what I mean (or I'm misunderstanding what you mean). I'm saying that it's irrelevant what "capable" means, because think of it this way, why are some PCs in the same time frame labeled "Vista Capable" while others aren't? Clearly most of not all PCs available at that time were capable of running Vista in one way or another. When buyers see that sticker they are thinking "oh, I should get the ones with these stickers instead because I will be better prepared to run Vista". MS obviously wanted people to think there was some kind of advantage. From this point of view it is clear that MS intentionally mislead the buyer.

RE: Interesting
By LEGACYMAN on 3/6/2008 11:04:41 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that the stickers were ment to fool customers to buy these computer with the sticker over one that was equal in performance and in some cases would out perform.

Lets get real MS was trying to help Intel make a sale over other platforms or chipsets.

If you were looking a PCs and saw the sticker on it over one that was equally as good but one promised it was vista Ready. Most would assume it could run vista in full but maybe not at top speed. AKA a sale resulted to add to Intels profit.


RE: Interesting
By murphyslabrat on 3/2/2008 9:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Like, for instance, I could say that you are "capable" of being rational.

RE: Interesting
By bodar on 2/29/2008 8:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand the article mentions a "$2,100 e-mail machine" which I find extremely far fetched.

Not if it was a sub-12" portable, especially one of the itty-bitty ones by Sony.

RE: Interesting
By ImSpartacus on 3/1/2008 9:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
In that case he couldn't have expected to do much more than emails.

RE: Interesting
By murphyslabrat on 3/2/2008 9:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's a computer, nothing more and nothing less. If it is labeled as "Windows Vista Capable", it should be able to run one of the primary selling points.

RE: Interesting
By wallijonn on 3/3/2008 12:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
In that case he couldn't have expected to do much more than emails.

Not for $2100. What laptops (because they're usually more expensive than desktops) can you buy today for $2100? At $2100 they had better be the top of the line units. Chances are that when Vista was coming out $2100 bought you a top of the line computer. The suit says that even the top of the line laptops could not run Vista.

It would be akin to the computer sticker saying that the computer can run Crysis but then you find that you can only run it at 3 to 5 fps. at min resolution with AA and all other 'enhancements' turned off.

The question becomes "What is the Vista experience?" and how was it advertised?

RE: Interesting
By sgtdisturbed47 on 3/1/08, Rating: -1
By mxnerd on 2/29/2008 2:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is Microsoft always cut the real hardware requirement in half.

memory minimum
Win95 8M
WIn98 16M
2000 32M
XP 64M
Vista 512M

Can anyone run the OS in these figures?
It's really kind of cheating and absolutely misleading.

Microsoft should beef up the figures at least 50%

By Orpheus333 on 2/29/2008 3:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
People already complain about the min. requirements when a new OS comes out. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

By DASQ on 2/29/2008 3:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
It'll either be "Ugh! That's too low! No way that could run good!" or "Ugh! That's too high! They're forcing me to upgrade unnecessarily!"

By mcnabney on 2/29/2008 3:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
I actually used a Win95 computer that only had 4MB of RAM back in the late 90's and early 00's. It ran Office, Acrobat, Crystal Reports, and a slew of lightweight custom apps that exchanged files with a remote server. It was freaky because it was amazingly stable, constantly changing apps, and was up for over a year continuously without a reboot.

By mindless1 on 2/29/2008 4:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, a decent system can be stable, but having done a lot of experimentation on system memory back in those days I also know it was slow as snot. In the late 90's I was doing professional audio editing, suffering with 64MB having to get up and get a cup of coffee waiting for a simple filter on a single track due to memory paging from so little memory. Today that's a roughly 4 second job.

By willykreim on 3/1/2008 9:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
"a Win95 computer that only had 4MB of RAM back in the late 90's and early 00's. It ran Office, Acrobat, Crystal Reports, and a slew of lightweight custom apps that exchanged files with a remote server. It was freaky because it was amazingly stable, constantly changing apps, and was up for over a year continuously without a reboot."

Bzzzt BS! everyone remembers the infamous bug that made Win 9x crash after 49.7 days of continuous use!.

After 49.7 days of continuous operation, your Windows-based computer may stop responding (hang).

By ajdavis on 3/2/2008 9:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
If you would have read the page you linked to you'd also see there was a fix. And if I remember correctly an air traffic control tower was shut down by this rather unfortunate bug.

By murphyslabrat on 3/2/2008 9:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
I admire your patience.

By taropie on 3/1/2008 2:01:09 AM , Rating: 2
I remembered when i had a copy of XP RC2 i was able to run it rather smoothly on my only pc. That was a Pentium MMX 233 with 64mb ram. Was a tad slower than 98 but still runs everything fine.

By ShadowZERO on 3/1/2008 6:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
I did run Win95 on an 8mb system and upgrade said system to 16mb when I got Win98. It wasn't Ideal, but probably a lot better than XP at 64mb.

By marvdmartian on 3/3/2008 11:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. They did the same thing with XP, and I've seen some machines that might have run 98 or ME just fine, but bogged down trying to run XP........especially after the owner loaded it up with 2 tons of crap in the quick launch area (which, of course, ties up lots of resources).

Typical system I saw: Compaq computer running a 1.3GHz cpu and (get this) 512mb of PC133 ram. Wow. While it might have been capable of running XP, it certainly wasn't designed to run it well, especially with a quick launch area filled with ~20 icons!

Like I advise people looking to buy a computer, especially from Dell (where you can choose between XP & Vista). If you're running XP, 1GB of ram is fine. If you're opting for Vista, load that machine up with at least 2GB, or you'll later wish you had!

By johnsonx on 3/18/2008 1:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
Minimums are just that: MINIMUM. All of those OS's will in fact function with those amounts of memory (and even less). I know I've seen Win2000 running suprisingly well in 24Mb of RAM (not as a general use machine though, but as a dedicated CNC mill controller)

If anything, Microsoft has gotten a little better about that with Vista - I'd say Vista runs alot better in 512Mb than XP does in 64Mb. A 64Mb XP machine is essentially unusable, while a 512Mb Vista machine works fine - a little slower than it would be with 1Gb, but completely usuable. I've found 192Mb is the practical minimum for XP; enough to boot the OS and load a single app without swapping.

The Good Old Days
By Screwuhippie on 2/29/2008 1:36:58 PM , Rating: 2
What ever happened to the good ole days where you could just shred/burn all your papers and it was gone. Once something is "emailed" its a permanent part of ... life.

A smart man once said ... never email anything you don't want the world to see.

RE: The Good Old Days
By KristopherKubicki on 2/29/2008 1:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
Confidential memo policies don't change themselves...

RE: The Good Old Days
By Mitch101 on 2/29/2008 2:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yup shredding/hiding/deleting whatever you want to call it still happens.

White House Must Answer For Missing Emails

RE: The Good Old Days
By Viditor on 3/2/2008 3:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
Or more to the point:

"Paul Otellini, Intel's chief executive, Craig Barrett, chairman, and Sean Maloney, head of worldwide sales and marketing, failed to preserve their e-mail, despite an antitrust lawsuit filed in 2005 against the company by AMD, according to transcripts of a status hearing last week in a U.S. District Court in Delaware"

RE: The Good Old Days
By Screwuhippie on 2/29/2008 2:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yet ...

RE: The Good Old Days
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 2/29/2008 2:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm surprissed that the emails were still around for anyone to see.

The big companies that purge their email servers every 30 days don't do it because they can't afford the storage.

RE: The Good Old Days
By mindless1 on 2/29/2008 3:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps but archiving email also serves a more likely purpose of keeping track of employees internally. You can't realistically have people sitting around doing nothing but reading employee email in (almost) realtime but to a gazillion dollar company, what's a few extra data tapes in the vault?

RE: The Good Old Days
By hcahwk19 on 2/29/2008 4:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
The big issue legally is the court's interpretation of "capable." That basically will make or break this case for both sides.

The internal emails are very important as well. If MS had purposefully deleted them, with the intent to keep them out of the discovery evidence, the plaintiffs would be able to put hearsay evidence from employees as to what those emails contained. That also goes for any hardcopy memorandums or any other evidence that MS would not want people to see. If MS had done it, MS would have to prove it was part of the normal course of business to destroy that evidence, and not just an attempt to avoid it being introduced in court. Even then, the hearsay might still get in based on the destruction of possible evidence.

This class action could end up being very bad for MS and Intel both.

Significant Feature?
By DARGH on 2/29/2008 2:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Since when was a translucent window a significant feature? Smells like money hungry lawyers to me.

RE: Significant Feature?
By boogle on 2/29/2008 4:25:08 PM , Rating: 3
MS themselves made it a significant feature with heavy marketing.

Like with cars, each new revision doesn't result in a massive difference. So usually the manufacturer will pick a few changes and exaggerate them as big features. Often they'll point out the great new styling. MS have done the same, 'look at the new sexy design!'.

RE: Significant Feature?
By PsyRex on 2/29/2008 4:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. This is complete crap. Folks it doesn't say "Vista Fully Capable" does it? No. Wah wah wah, I can't use the Aero feature. Get real. It says "Vista Capable"
That in itself should raise a brow and lead to research. Do your research then you will know what to expect. The Vista Capable sticker is all about running the core features.

RE: Significant Feature?
By noirsoft on 3/1/2008 1:08:19 PM , Rating: 3
Specifically, it didn't say "Vista Premium Ready" -- the stickers that were on the machines sitting right next to those that said "Capable" and were clearly higher-spec and only a complete idiot would have missed it.

MS Did just about everything possible to make it clear to people that Premium Ready meant Aero-ready, and "Capable" meant Basic-ready.

Now, this Intel 915 chipset memo gives a case ot the idiots, which is sad.

A final point, which may seem to contradict some of the above. Aero _is_ an important feature of Vista. It's not the transparency of windows, which is a by-product of the real feature: Desktop Compositing and virtualization of the GPU. This allows for a lower CPU cost when drawing, a more responsive UI, no more windows that have garbage contents if they are stalling, greater numbers of apps using 3d rendering at once, and a host of other graphical improvements beyond translucent borders. I would never buy a computer that was only capable of running Vista Basic. Of course, my Desktop purchased in late 2005 and my Laptop purchased in September of 2006 run Vista Aero just fine, so I'm clearly in the minority of computer purchasers.

RE: Significant Feature?
By murphyslabrat on 3/2/2008 9:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
Specifically, it didn't say "Vista Premium Ready" -- the stickers that were on the machines sitting right next to those that said "Capable" and were clearly higher-spec and only a complete idiot would have missed it.

You sir are likely not an idiot, and I am not an idiot. I am assuming that you, like me, have put a lot of time and effort into an excellent hobby. However, you are overlooking the fact that there are a lot of fellow un-idiots who know next to nothing about computers. They are uninterested in said hobby, and all they see is meaningless numbers and a higher price. Furthermore, in a similarly price-minded fashion, they are sure-as-hell not going to pay for Windows Vista Ultimate, so all they are interested in is the "Vista Capable" sticker.

Of course, my Desktop purchased in late 2005 and my Laptop purchased in September of 2006 run Vista Aero just fine, so I'm clearly in the minority of computer purchasers.

Yes, because you understand the impact of the extra hundred(s) spent for a discreet GPU.

RE: Significant Feature?
By wallijonn on 3/3/2008 12:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
Do your research then you will know what to expect. The Vista Capable sticker is all about running the core features.

That's why there are salesmen at the stores. Chances are great that mom & pop aren't as savvy as you. They walked into a store, saw the sale prices and then the salesman steered them to the "Vista Capable" machine because it is the latest and greatest. Just like Blu-Ray, just like LCD HD TVs, just like refrigerators. The idfference is they are able to see what the TV and refrigerator look like but they couldn't see what their computer would look like. Why? Because the product wasn't out. One therefore bought the hardware on promises and expectations.

Still don't believe this email
By Bioniccrackmonk on 2/29/2008 3:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
"I PERSONALLY got burnt ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."

Give me $2100 to build a new computer and it will run Vista Ultimate flawlessly.

RE: Still don't believe this email
By Ashrac on 2/29/2008 4:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
That struck me as odd too. You would expect someone in his position to have at least a somewhat more then idiot knowledge of computer hardware and how it would run his software.

By murphyslabrat on 3/2/2008 10:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
The real trick is getting it to fit in a '10.9"(W) 0.8" - 1.17"(H) 7.8"(D)' form-factor.

RE: Still don't believe this email
By johnsonx on 3/18/2008 1:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
He's talking about a notebook. The thin-&-light sort. Yes, in 2006 those could cost $2100 and not be able to run Vista Aero. You could spend top dollar to get the fastest available CPU, lots of RAM and a big HD, and still be stuck with a 915 chipset and integrated gfx.

RE: Still don't believe this email
By johnsonx on 3/18/2008 1:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
hey, why am i posting on article that's over two weeks old? how did I get here? who am i?

By PWNettle on 2/29/2008 3:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
I like MS just fine. I don't like how they price Vista because I think it's robbery.

I also happen to have a clue and can read so I know what requirements relate to the various versions of Vista. When I see some cheeseball walmart special PC that's 'Vista ready' I just laugh, because I know it'll barely run the home version. Most of those computers would barely run XP, too - they surely wouldn't run XP to my liking.

Some people act like MS is the only company to ever exaggerate or overly hype their products. It happens in all aspects of marketing and advertising for all products. Some consumers fall for it - some have a clue. Stupid people are taken advantage of by marketing and advertising all day long.

Why single out MS?

By INeedCache on 2/29/2008 5:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
When you are on top, everyone is after you. It has also become trendy to crack on Microsoft. A lot of complaining about Vista comes from people who know nothing about computers and aren't making any effort to learn. It would not take much of a search to find out that Vista (other than Basic) needs 2GB of RAM to run decently. Yet computer manufacturers continue to sell machines with Home Premium and only 1GB of RAM, people buy them and find out it crawls, then they complain about Vista and Microsoft. I wonder why more people don't do a little homework before spending so much money? I research any purchase I make that costs more than about $20.

By dav115 on 3/1/2008 5:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
So true - Only the other day I was on the bus and overheard a conversation about a recently out of warranty laptop, that from what I gathered from the conversation, was not POSTing. One of the people involved in the conversation suddenly took pride in telling his gullible friends that "Windows do it on purpose so that you have to buy a new computer every time the warranty runs out. You should get an Apple". The fact that this person doesn't know the difference between a brand name (Windows) and a multi billionaire company (Microsoft) just shows how much they know about computers...

By stmok on 3/1/2008 11:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
When you are on top, everyone is after you.

Not quite true.

The real issue, is how you got to the top.

When you step-on, deceive, manipulate, lobby, etc on your way to the top, you will have compromised something very important.

That is, your reputation.

Its no different if you were a multi-billion dollar company, a Hollywood actor/actress, a professional sports man/woman, etc.

Reputation is everything. If you consistently do something good, even in harsh times, people will pre-judge you as been a good person to be with. (If you're a company, they'll remain loyal even if you occasionally stuff up).

But if you continually mess up and manipulate perception (make yourself look as if you're a good guy through marketing), its a bit hard for someone to like you. Your honesty and integrity is questioned.

That's how it is. So if you ever want to reach the top, respect and treat others how you want them to treat you. Earn your reputation through integrity. You'll see your statement doesn't apply.

Tecra M7 Owner Burned by "Vista Capable"
By Inkjammer on 2/29/2008 1:51:53 PM , Rating: 4
I have a Toshiba Tecra M7 with a 945PM chipset and an Nvidia Quadro NVS 110M. From all the specs it seemed good, and the Toshiba rep said "Yeah, it will run Aero and be great!". I bought it February last year, got the upgrade copy to Vista which took me four months to get.

Oh, yeah, it runs Aero... but it slows down the entire system to the point of near uselessness. I have to run Basic. I figured the Quadro would be more capable, but I was wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I didn't expect godlike 3D performance from a business/tablet laptop anyway, but I did expect far more than I got (which is: bubkis).

And I hate to say it, I'd go back to XP, but XP Tablet Edition really blows for tablet PCs. If Vista did any one thing right it's native Tablet PC support.

By eye smite on 2/29/2008 2:19:16 PM , Rating: 3
Not to make anyone mad but I'll point out on this comment that this is one of the many reasons people will/have not upgraded to Vista. Has nothing to do with Vista being a bad OS as much as it does with it not doing what MS says it will. Again, not trying to agro anyone, just making an observation.

It Seems Simple To Me
By rasmith260 on 2/29/2008 5:46:12 PM , Rating: 1
“Vista Capable” to me means it’s capable of running the most significant features of the OS and since Microsoft sold it in part by playing up Aero-Glass, I would expect it to be able to do just that at the very least, otherwise what’s the whole point of branding something “Vista Capable” even the most average consumer wouldn’t expect Microsoft to release an OS that a new PC couldn’t run under it’s most minimum of system settings.

While most of us might be technophiles, the average consumer is not, and it seems to me that if high level MICROSOFT EMPLOYEES, like Vice Presidents can’t figure out what Microsoft means when it says “Vista Capable”, how on earth could you expect any normal person to figure it out, and as to the comment about the Aero-Glass feature not being a significant selling point, I would argue that aside from it and Direct X 10 what other significant features did Vista have over XP for the average consumer.

RE: It Seems Simple To Me
By PsyRex on 2/29/2008 6:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
You know, you're probably right. With the "Vista Capable" sticker Microsoft didn't take into account that your average consumer is a dumbass and are incapable of research. Sad really. To me the sticker is vague. In fact, I can't fathom anyone disagreeing the sticker is vague. It's not clear what capable actually means. If something is not clear I do research until I understand it. Not a hard concept. Maybe on the sticker they should have had "For more details go to this website" text underneath "Vista Capable". I don't know, seems a bit extreme.

RE: It Seems Simple To Me
By jtesoro on 2/29/2008 11:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
With the "Vista Capable" sticker Microsoft didn't take into account that your average consumer is a dumbass and are incapable of research.

Actually, the sticker's main point is that it does assume that the average consumer is a dumbass.

RE: It Seems Simple To Me
By PsyRex on 2/29/2008 11:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, Micrsoft should have had a disclaimer on the sticker.

Launch date incorrect in article
By ashishmishra on 2/29/2008 1:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
I believe Vista Launched in Jan 2007 not 2006

RE: Launch date incorrect in article
By KristopherKubicki on 2/29/2008 1:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, this has been corrected

By ashishmishra on 2/29/2008 1:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
That was a lightening fast fix, keep up the good work guys.

Dell Inspiron 1501
By falacy on 2/29/2008 6:03:47 PM , Rating: 3
I picked up two 1501s last summer when Dell had their insane $449 deal for the Sempron/1GB/80GB model special with Vista Home Basic. All I can say is that it's obvious these computers were designed for Windows XP, not Windows Vista. They really shouldn't have been sold with Vista, as the difference in responsiveness is clear.

With a dual-boot Vista and XP:
- Vista takes 14 seconds longer to boot up and 10-30 seconds longer to shutdown (shutdown is odd/random in Vista).
- Vista gives random video errors, where the screen goes to green blocks, but XP (nor Kubuntu) hasn't done that once.
- Open Office takes for-ev-er to open in Vista, but a respectable amount of time in XP.
- Microsoft Works crashes in Vista with errors I cannot recall, but it seems to work fine in XP.
- Moving windows around the screen is choppy in Vista, but smooth in XP (even with 3rd party XP themes enabled).
- World of Warcraft is playable in XP (28-44 FPS), but even with the most up to date drivers WoW sits at 4-10 FPS.
- Power management does not seem to work consistantly in Vista (screen dimming, sometimes does not use the battery settings).
- Vista often crashes when resuming from standby and XP has yet to do so once (Kubuntu isn't any better than Vista in this regard...).

I understand the desire to get everyone into the "latest and greatest" thing, but the truth is that some hardware is just designed and optimized for Windows XP. There's nothing wrong with that, just a fact of life. XP designed hardware should have gotten Windows XP first and Vista a cautioned option, not the other way around. This would have been realistic and people would have accepted it too; People wouldn't expect a 386 to run Windows XP very well, so using Windows 95 would be a better over all experience. Same difference with Vista and XP on the Dell Inspiron 1501 in my experience.

I'd consider using Vista on my Core2 desktop, but as for my laptop that came with Vista: It's just not meant for Vista and I'll stick with XP, as it does work as one would expect. Given how much was taken out of Vista to create Vista Home Basic, I am suprised that it is so noticably "heavier" than XP.

RE: Dell Inspiron 1501
By murphyslabrat on 3/2/2008 10:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
I picked up two 1501s last summer when Dell had their insane $449 deal for the Sempron/1GB/80GB model special with Vista Home Basic.

Same thing, different name. $399 for the Vostro 1000, and it has been "on sale" every time I have checked.

I dont get it!!
By steve1014 on 3/2/2008 5:29:44 PM , Rating: 1
Stop acting like MS did some great injustice to everyone. Try reading up before you upgrade. It says "Vista Capable" not "Vista Proficient" or "Excellent Machine for Vista." Did they lie? No. Is it a little sneaky? Maybe, but if you wanted to have a machine that ran everything Vista offered then you should have looked up info before purchasing it. I think this is ridiculous especially since the only thing I've heard people complain their "Vista Capable" computers couldn't do is run Aero. And they weren't advertised as "Aero Capable" In fact as someone mentioned earlier in these posts; all the "Vista Capable" machines above "Vista Capable" say "Designed for XP." To me it sounds like they are saying this machine is made to run XP but if you want you could put Vista on here and keep it running.

As for all the Mac people on here who love to blast MS for being the devil. Look at your precious Apple and how they rip off consumers everyday. Next time you get a moment go to Apple's website and look at what they charge for 4GB of memory in a MacBook Pro. (I'll save you some time $800) they too are criminal and they feed on the ignorance of the masses who don't know enough to understand that Macs have problems too. I work at a computer support desk at a university and everytime a student walks up with a broken Mac and says "but I thought they never have any problems," I just want to slap Steve Jobs.

RE: I dont get it!!
By wallijonn on 3/3/2008 12:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
Try reading up before you upgrade. It says "Vista Capable" not "Vista Proficient" or "Excellent Machine for Vista."

"Vista Capable" is the only marketing term used. Marketing did not create "Vista Basic" and "Vista Ultimate" stickers any more than they created "Will barely run any better than XP" and "Much Much Better Than XP" stickers. Your comment is therefore relegated to hyperbole.

RE: I dont get it!!
By steve1014 on 3/3/2008 1:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad you caught on to the fact that the statement was an obvious exaggeration.

However, they have no duty to ensure that consumers will be well versed. The purpose of my comment was to express that the statement "Vista Capable" is not lie. The machines were vista capable they just weren't designmed for vista. In fact if you look at the picture at the top of the article it demonstrates my exact point: THE STICKER SAYS "DESIGNED FOR XP!"
I work on computers for a bunch of spoiled kids everyday and I have yet to see a "Vista Capable" machine that would not run Vista. It may not run every feature but if you want something designed for Vista don't buy a computer that says "Designed for XP"

Uh oh....
By brshoemak on 2/29/2008 2:56:49 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft: "We set ourselves up the bomb"

Seriously though, the e-mails are incredibly damning evidence that they knew there was a problem or at most a misperception and essentially guarantee a settlement unless the lawyers at Microsoft can work some kind of magic - which they probably can.

Open GL & 6200 architecture ONLY=ULTIMATE
By thomasxstewart on 3/1/2008 8:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
Beta tested Ultimate & found only one mainboard worked Vista Ultimate, it was 2001 Open GL Asus. All my others simply cut back to NT5, which worked as well as XP, yet NEVER could run NT6.Asus model I mentioned ran NT6 like champ, in June 2006 Vista Ultimate Beta was same as todays' with Ultimate 690/790/X48 leading edge mainboard.

So theres problem, Most people knew it was likely they wouldn't get NT6, yet Microsoft could tell you in advance if your mainboard would, microsoft just wouldn't tell you exact model numbers that worked perfectly, just ones that would work, almost all cutting back to NT5. Something of dissappointmnet for public, yet, it was all disclosed before Vista Ultimate went retail. Its taken over year to get to just few dozen capable mainboards(by reengineering to older 2001 standards), & thats all. Everything else is still going to cut Ultimate back, yet it does work mightie nice, just not as full featured.

PUBLIC, IN OEM BUILDERS SECTION CONFUSED PEOPLE WITH SO MANY "CAPABLE" LEVELS.buyers NOT REALIZING THEY WHERE GETTING RUBE, VISTA NAME WITH XP GUTS in almost all cases, IF MAINBOARD WASN'T ONE OF VERY FEW Ultimate was intitially based upon. It'd take days of research & good understanding of terms to figure out mess. Yet it was accurately reported upon & microsoft knew entire gizmo long before Vista Beta came out. SOFTWARE FIRST, HARDWARE NEXT. Thats todays need:HARDWARE FOR VISTA ULTIMATE.
Its meant return to 6200 card archetecture, then fell back to 6150, fell back again to 6100SE, final starting point for NT6 built in graphics W/ Vista Ultimate by March '7 was ready for public. With ONE Asus micro atx mainboard retailed in March, 2007. ALL OTHERS FAIL.

well, deception? it had to be based on something long predating Ultimates release to pubic in 2007,actually you needed mainboard from 2001 office machine which had no use for Open GL, yet it was included.(Vista software writing starting when XP went retail in 2001) So it seems to meself, that Vista Ultimate started in garage like secrecy, & any further divergence from that one starting point in latter mainboards was Non Ultimate NT6 & just didn't fit ULTIMATES stomach.Wise OWL Knew Better, Yet FEW had such sharp eyes.


By noirsoft on 3/1/2008 5:44:38 PM , Rating: 1
Please put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard, sir.

Doesn't add up.
By Alias1431 on 3/1/2008 6:59:03 AM , Rating: 2
"The now famous email from Mike Nash, currently a corporate vice president for Windows product management, states, "I PERSONALLY got burnt ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."

How the hell do you spend over two thousand dollars on a computer, and it still won't run vista? Did he buy the 30 year extended warranty?

ATI & Nvidia not listed...
By Belard on 3/1/2008 8:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
Those PCs with ATi or Nvidia chipsets didn't have the performance issues of the intel 915 or lower.

A/N have always had more powerful 3D graphic abilities, very weak compared to most add-on cards, but still 3-5x better than intel. When people were looking for a basic-low cost PC, I'd recommend an AMD/ATi/Nvidia setup for the better desktop experince... Face it, for basic functions, any 2ghz PC with XP will do the job, a bit more for vista, as long as it has 2gb of RAM or more.

Seems to me, that intel should be included in the suit. They pushed M$ into lying about the qualifications.

This lawsuit is quite reasonable
By EffKay on 3/3/2008 9:15:51 AM , Rating: 2
I'm reading a lot of comments from DT users, who are by and large very computer literate, that it's the consumer at fault and that they must research more before buying. That's an argument that's alike to: It's the rabbit's fault that it gets eaten by the fox, the rabbit knows it must run so it must just run faster better.

More to the point: How will a person that is only moderately familiar with the OUTSIDE of a PC (never mind the inner workings) be able to learn enough about the latest nuances in the time it takes to make a decision to purchase a PC for an operating system that is not yet released? Do not downplay the fact that complex sciences take YEARs of work and gathering of information to achieve what could be referred to as a informed opinion.

I can just now almost feel some of you edging towards replying with the "Just Google it!" clause?
How will someone that knows very little about computers be able to use a computer to research fringe information about computers that is in a technical computer only jargon and slang written by other computer people that are at times hostile towards those with lesser knowledge?

Simple: They pay their money to someone else to do that work. They ask people in the industry. They ask experts they can find. They ask the sales people at the store. They ask these people that they trust. And if enough of these people say it will work then they go for it BUT they will not spend a lot of money in the likely event that it doesn't work. This is logical isn't it? Why spend $1000+ on a computer for an OS that is not released yet and risk spending a LOT of money on something that may not work and you're stuck with it. The price for having access to cheaper equipment (building a much faster PC up from components) is the hard earned knowledge of what it is and how it works.

An analogy from another industry. Imagine that you buy a new car from a reputable big-name dealership which runs very well on the fuel available to you right now. Right next to it is a sports car that runs FANTASTIC on the same fuel with a likewise large price increase attached. Also you are aware there is a new fuel type coming in that will REPLACE the existing type and that either car should run on it but there will be a performance hit (think Methanol / diesel / Biofuel VS Gasoline / Petroleom).
So you purchase the not too expensive one and hope it will be OK on the new fuel when it arrives but when it does you find out that your "new" car (which you are still paying off) requires significant upgrades to run efficiently since it's engine is built up of components that are several generations of technology old. (Think of finding a carb fed engine in a "new" 2008 car)

Imagine now finding that this was done in order to allow the makers of the engines to gain profit from dumping their old stock instead of investing in proper and appropriate technology platforms. Instead this engine maker used their influence in the industry to change the definition of "acceptable" instead of just doing their job and making a properly acceptable engine available.

If delays are there then so be it and most people will accept it IF it works as advertised when it is available.

Just as Blizzard does (Starcraft 2 anyone), others should release a product when it is ready and working and stable. The bigger you are, the more ready it has to be since you have more trust placed upon you.

People trust that the big guys like Intel and Microsoft will make it work WHEN they say it will.

Trust is the crux of this suit which Microsoft has injured IN COLLUSION with Intel in order to let Intel profit by dumping it's old stock.

All I have to say is...
By TimberJon on 3/4/2008 11:14:07 AM , Rating: 2
Put my name on that Suit as well. I want a cut. It's going to be messy. I can not remember such a megacorp suit that has such blatant bucket of evidence that CONFIRMS! Thats just awesome.

The WoW phrase works even in the corporate world. "Need or Greed". Greed it and you will lose 90% of the time.

It is Capable
By TimberJon on 3/4/2008 11:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
Capable but not Efficient.

PC's are constantly redesigned and improved to increase the efficiency at which we do tasks on the PC that would otherwise take too long to do by hand or by "traditional" methods.

They are saying its "Capable" probably in that the software will allow itself to be installed on a PC with hardware WAY below the recommended bar (which they had a hand in), therefore gaining more market from people who can just upgrade their OS and not the entire PC.

By SiliconAddict on 3/1/2008 4:20:00 AM , Rating: 1
Acceptance to open standards. I've been saying it since they announced it. Trust has to be earned and this once again reinforces the concept that we should trust them as far as we can throw their campus.

By Niteowler on 3/1/2008 12:03:11 PM , Rating: 1
Two facts: This is United States and Microsoft is huge. Microsoft will fib, pay people off, or whatever it takes to cover up their mistakes to the public like most all big company's here do. Courts here hold big company's and people with money to a higher regard. Seriously doubt if some judge would tarnish Microsoft's image since they create so many jobs and revenue. I would be surprised if Microsoft even gets a slap on the wrist.

By GoodBytes on 2/29/08, Rating: 0
By Spivonious on 2/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By chrisld on 2/29/2008 1:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
I hardly think that's an appropriate comment.

Any company that willingly deceives us deserves to get exposed, prosecuted and punished whether Jason like them or not. These companies are not helping us the customers.

RE: ...
By Pezman37 on 2/29/2008 2:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
The phrase: let buyer beware has been around a long long time. That being said, yes, they did deceive us, and this should be brought to light.

RE: ...
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 2/29/2008 2:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
I think his point was that this article doesn't add any important new information from the atricle he posted a couple days ago. Almost everything in this was already said in the first one.

Seems like a pointless update to me too.

RE: ...
By MaulBall789 on 2/29/2008 1:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
Normally I would agree with you. But this has nothing to do with a grudge against Microsoft. These emails are pretty damning on their face. Microsoft must have owed a big time favor to Intel to open themselves up to this foolish a situation.

RE: ...
By aharris on 2/29/2008 2:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, they were just trying to keep the Apple/Intel coop from happening.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki