backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 62 comment(s) - last by burlingk.. on Apr 15 at 5:12 AM

A Windows Vista Capable logo in the wild
Lawsuit may have forced Microsoft to change what it means to be Vista Capable

Two weeks ago, Dianne Kelley started a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft alleging the software company is engaging in deceptive practices by branding new computers with a Windows Vista Capable logo even if they couldn't run the all the new operating system’s features.

Although Microsoft strongly refutes Kelley’s claims, the threat of a lawsuit may have triggered the company to change its language on what “Vista Capable” means. As clipped by a blog at the Seattle Times, Microsoft originally described its Windows Vista Capable program as the following (all bold emphasis added by Seattle Times author):

“Through the Windows Vista Capable program, Windows XP-based PCs that are powerful enough to run Windows Vista are now available from leading PC manufacturers worldwide, including Acer Inc., Dell Inc., Fujitsu Limited, Gateway Inc., HP, Lenovo, NEC Corp., Sony Corp., Toshiba and more. The Windows Vista Capable logo is designed to assure customers that the PCs they buy today will be ready for an upgrade to Windows Vista and can run the core experiences of Windows Vista.”

Shortly following the news of the lawsuit, the explanation of the Windows Vista Capable program appeared to have changed to this:

“A new PC running Windows XP that carries the Windows Vista Capable PC logo can run Windows Vista. All editions of Windows Vista will deliver core experiences such as innovations in organizing and finding information, security, and reliability. All Windows Vista Capable PCs will run these core experiences at a minimum. Some features available in the premium editions of Windows Vista — like the new Windows Aero user experience — may require advanced or additional hardware.”

While both the original and updated descriptions mention that Vista Capable means being able to run the “core experience,” the updated passage clearly states those experiences will run at a minimum.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Self-Explanatory
By ScythedBlade on 4/9/2007 9:43:39 AM , Rating: 5
Y'know, the world would probably be a whole lot better if people were instinctively trained to be smarter by removing safety labels and letting them resolve matters on their own.




RE: Self-Explanatory
By Mitch101 on 4/9/2007 10:05:54 AM , Rating: 5
You make the world Idiot proof and the world will make better Idiots.

Windows XP Minimum Requirements:
233 MHz CPU *
64 MB of RAM (may limit performance and some features) *
1.5 GB of available hard disk space *
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

I dont think anyone here would install XP with the minimum specs and I actually think 1.5gb wouldnt be able to handle all the service packs after the install but there is someone out there who will and there is a lawyer who see's Microsoft and is willing to take the case.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By aftlizard01 on 4/9/2007 10:20:01 AM , Rating: 3
When XP came out I did put it on a old 333mhz celeron with 128mb's of ram, it ran faithfully until the middle of last year when the poor thing just gave out.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By Mitch101 on 4/9/2007 10:29:15 AM , Rating: 1
From John Levits in A League of Their Own:
"Well that would be more now wouldnt it!"

Thats a 50% faster CPU and 2x the ram of minimum. Im surprised you didnt go insane if those are your specs before it gave out but it all depends on what you do and the fact remains it will work but I doubt you were running quake 4 on that machine.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By Spartan Niner on 4/9/2007 11:19:51 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the point he was trying to make is that while machines near "minimum" spec will almost always run the software or O/S, their performance will be less than "minimum" to have a reasonably operating system.

Paging Microsoft haters... this frivolous lawsuit is for you.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By Mitch101 on 4/9/2007 11:43:05 AM , Rating: 3
I agree but his specs fall slightly above the line of recommended and is nowhere near the minimum.

Windows XP Recommended:
300 MHz CPU *
128 MB of RAM *
1.5 GB of available hard disk space *
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter with at least 8 MB of video RAM and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Network adapter
Sound card and speakers
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

If I see a game or software item that my machine reaches minimum I dont buy it because I know the experience will be significantly degraded unlike the recommended specification to which is was most probably designed around.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By Christopher1 on 4/9/2007 3:56:21 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see this lawsuit as frivolous, and I am a pretty good Microsoft fanboy when it comes down to it.

Microsoft needs to make their minimums in line with what people would need to run EVERYTHING in the operating system at a reasonable speed, period.
None of this "With some features turned off" BS.

My family just recently bought a new Windows Vista Home Premium PC, and I'm already thinking of upgrading the memory in it because the 1GB it came with, Windows Vista sometimes get bogged down with when I am just running Internet Explorer.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By Volrath06660 on 4/9/2007 4:51:35 PM , Rating: 5
I think you need to go and grab a dictionary off from the wall. Look up the term "minimum".

Agreed, they should state to every tard in the world that while the $300 machine they got is capable of running Vista, it wont run it flat out. However, 90% of the people buying pcs either know this or know somebody who does. It is just a matter of them being sharp enough to ask for help. (Get what you pay for anybody?)

However, saying that they should change the way they post minimum specs for software as being able to run everything is totally wrong. Any game you look at that you try and run with minimum hardware is going to be running at super low res with all the eye candy turned off. I have yet to see another piece of software that is different than this. Microsoft is simply following the currently accepted industry standard. But thankfully there are people who do know better and try and keep the special people from hurting themselves.

I am not a Microsoft fanboy either....I use it because I have no choice. But I do really get sick of people jumping all over the guy who happens to be the biggest at the time with lawsuits that are just exploiting the fact that there are computer illiterates out there.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By aftlizard01 on 4/9/2007 4:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
You would be correct on my point. Also to the other poster it started out as a gaming rig in about 1997 or so but wound up mostly as a word processor and for the internet after about 1999. I could have left 98 on there but I wanted to test out XP on it before my 1ghz t-bird system got it, just to see if it was worth upgrading to XP at the time.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By TimberJon on 4/9/2007 11:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
I had my old faithful 366 celeron OC'd to 520 or so with 640 pc-133 memory. whoohooo high tech stuff, 20GB HDD back in 1999 I think.. Sucker never BSOD'd on me. ever. Ran just about everything I threw at it. XP Pro and all updates and patches. Later upgraded the processor to a P3 866 or something. The rig is still running.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By retrospooty on 4/9/2007 11:40:23 AM , Rating: 2
"You make the world Idiot proof and the world will make better Idiots."

I love that one... a new classic.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By BMFPitt on 4/9/2007 11:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
A classic classic. That's been around since at least the mid 90's.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By walk2k on 4/9/2007 3:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wha? Maybe 1890s...


RE: Self-Explanatory
By Anonymous Freak on 4/9/2007 2:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
I ran XP on a Pentium MMX 266 MHz (not Pentium 2, not Pentium 3, not Pentium M. Pentium MMX,) with 64 MB of RAM, and a 4 GB hard drive just fine for years.

I wouldn't *DARE* run Vista on anything with less than 1 GB of RAM. It is completely, totally unusable with 512 MB of RAM. I was running Vista on my Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (at 4.0 GHz, dual core with hyperthreading,) with 1 GB RAM. It ran just fine. When one DIMM failed, I pulled it out thinking 512 MB is "minimum", I should be fine until I can pick up another. It wasn't. It was completely unusable. I thought maybe the existing DIMM was bad, so I swapped it with a pair of 256 MB DIMMs from another PC (same total memory, but now I was using two known-good DIMMs, and had dual-channel re-enabled.) Still unusably slow. Put it back to 1 GB of RAM, went right back to reasonably fast.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By bighairycamel on 4/9/2007 1:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I believe labels should fall under Darwin’s theory of “Natural Selection”.


RE: Self-Explanatory
By MonkeyPaw on 4/9/2007 3:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
Just as in retail where you don't want a customer that pisses and moans and returns most of their purchases for no particular reason, so should the PC industry be without the people who are just smart enough to know they are missing out, yet too stupid to know why. Last I checked, MS didn't force people to install Vista on their circa 1995 PCs. You'd think that something like installing a 2007 OS on a decrepit old PC would be a painfully obvious no-no, yet here we go, legislating for stupidity again.

MS can counter by unlocking Aero on Home basic, thus allowing grandma's machine to buckle to its knees. I'm sure that would go over well.


Lawyer speak
By aftlizard01 on 4/9/2007 10:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
Really the two things basicly say the same thing, except the latest illustrates a difference for the computer challenged and 'ambulance' chasing lawyer types.

But hey I suppose it would come as a surprise to those ambulance chasing types that my (given to me for free, as I prefer homebuilt) HP with a 4600+ cpu with 6150 nvidia integrated graphics and 1 GB of ram runs Vista premium with all eye candy turned on without a hiccup.




RE: Lawyer speak
By Kuroyama on 4/9/2007 11:16:05 AM , Rating: 1
I disagree. Most people only know what they see on TV, and from reviews or MS ads you'll believe Vista = cool new graphical interface. In fact, there should be distinct "Vista Capable" and "Vista Aero Capable" labels, so the idiot computer buyer (who won't read the Microsoft description anyways) will be certain to realize that computers with Vista Home are lacking in eye candy.

I dislike ambulance chasing lawyers as much as anyone, but in this case I think the new description is a positive outcome of the lawsuit being filed, regardless of whether Microsoft should actually be liable for anything or not.


RE: Lawyer speak
By noirsoft on 4/9/2007 11:25:06 AM , Rating: 4
There already is such a distinction in labels: "Vista Capable" vs "Vista Premium Ready"


RE: Lawyer speak
By Kuroyama on 4/9/2007 11:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
So to Mr. Dumbass they'll think "Vista Capable" means it has the stuff they saw on TV, and "Vista Premium Ready" means it's got some extra stuff I don't need. I think "Vista Home" should be called "Windows Classic" and "Vista Premium" should be called "Vista Home". After all, Aero and Media Center are the only noticeable differences between regular XP & Vista, and those only come with Vista Premium.


RE: Lawyer speak
By BMFPitt on 4/9/2007 11:55:54 AM , Rating: 3
How noticeable is the change from Windows 95 to XP, in your opinion? All they updated was the UI, right?

When the only thing you notice is the GUI, only the GUI has been updated.


RE: Lawyer speak
By Scott66 on 4/9/2007 12:44:46 PM , Rating: 3
Here is a Microsoft example of reality verses customer expectations.
Spending half an hour explaining that Microsoft Windows does not include Microsoft Office. Nowhere does it say that the Office is a part of windows. But people expect it because they are both Microsoft and as far as the customer sees,they are always together (at a friends house, workplace etc.).

Now add the extra wrinkle of the different versions of office and Windows. A person does not have to be an idiot to be confused and to expect more. Now the real fun part is in telling him/her how much office will cost to get publisher and powerpoint.


RE: Lawyer speak
By Volrath06660 on 4/9/2007 4:57:48 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, they updated more than that I think......95 was still FAT32 file organization, with a maximum file size of 1 byte under 4 gigs, while XP is NTFS file organization, with a much much much bigger file size...I am not exactly sure how large.....The UI change was minor in comparison to a file system change.

That is my biggest beef with Vista....it was supposed to have a new file system, but they cheaped out at the end and stayed with NTFS. Now the only selling point is DX 10 and RAM addressing for up to 128 gigs. Good steps, but a new file system would have been nice.


RE: Lawyer speak
By JCheng on 4/9/2007 2:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
Even the new Vista Basic UI is quite different from Windows XP. It's closer to Aero than it is to XP.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_rtm_...


RE: Lawyer speak
By Kuroyama on 4/9/2007 11:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
The new color palette is more pleasing to the eye, but I'm sure someone already has a WinXP layout to do that, and it hardly counts as much of an upgrade. And the sidebar is just a nicer version of an idea that was around in Win98 and never caught on (don't think I like it now either). I've only been using Vista for a week, but it really seems to me like XP with more eye candy, an annoyingly detailed control panel, and directories shuffled around a bit.

As for the XP vs. 98 post, WinXP was much more stable than Win98. I still occasionally use a Win98 laptop and try to avoid the internet with it like the plague, because inevitably it soon locks up.


RE: Lawyer speak
By burlingk on 4/15/2007 2:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think one thing should be pointed out.

"Vista Home" is Vista Premium.
What you keep calling home, is just called "Vista Basic".

I know the rest of your point still stands pretty much, but the distinction is important so that people know what you are talking about.

Of course the name basic does imply something... That it is pretty well basic.


RE: Lawyer speak
By peternelson on 4/10/2007 9:49:42 AM , Rating: 3
Labels aside, the average PC buyer won't know what to ask for. They won't know there are at least two label programs, not to mention the one for software.

We anandtech/dailytech readers know what Aero actually is, but many less knowing will equate vista with aero.

They will ask "can it run vista?"

Or "Does it come with Vista?"

The salesperson will rapidly say "of course it can/does/will" to get the sale.

Strictly speaking he answered their question, but he didn't educate them on how well it would run vista or the known limitations.

Further, many sales people won't even know/appreciate the difference themselves!

So it's not just a Microsoft problem, they have to educate their channels to market and customers. There is POS literature describing the different versions of Vista but AFAIK it doesn't mention the different hardware labels that get stuck on PCs thus consumers remain ignorant. All they know to look for is the magic word "Vista" and assume.

There might be valid legal claims against retailers who "misled" customers as to the capabilities of the hardware, knowingly or unknowingly.


RE: Lawyer speak
By Dactyl on 4/9/2007 3:28:48 PM , Rating: 4
The question is whether MSFT created the impression that Aero Glass was part of the "core experience" of Vista. I think it did.

Simply being able to do everything WinXP could do is the core functionality of Vista, but the Aero Glass goodies are part of the experience that MSFT was selling.


Stupid people will stil bel stupid
By BMFPitt on 4/9/2007 9:51:03 AM , Rating: 5
What? My $299 eMachine won't run Vista with everything? Next thing you're gonna tell me is that my McDonald's coffee is hot...

Anybody who didn't know the difference with the old disclaimer still won't know with the new one, and that has nothing to do with Microsoft.




RE: Stupid people will stil bel stupid
By crimson117 on 4/9/2007 10:08:20 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Anybody who didn't know the difference with the old disclaimer still won't know with the new one, and that has nothing to do with Microsoft.

I disagree. The second version calls out features that will and will not work on a Vista Capable machine. You get the security and organizational benefits of Vista, but you do not get the Aero Interface. Anyone who still doesn't understand can specifically ask "Hey, what's Aero Interface?" and find an answer.


By burlingk on 4/15/2007 2:07:00 AM , Rating: 2
Every Vista box (software package not System) that I have seen has had a check list on the back explaining exactly what is in a given version. The "Core Experience" as they put it (I think the words components seemed to geeky to the guys down in marketing), are all bundled in basic. Basic is what is expected to run on the lesser machines. Even if they do not understand the web page or the advertisement, if they read the box before they buy the software then they should have a clue.

As for those who are purchasing a new system with Vista already installed, the problem there will be mostly with the vender. The vender should know what they are installing, and how well it should work with a given machine. If they are known for consistently not having a clue, then people should shop somewhere else.

(And no, I am not a Vista fan. My preferred OS is a lot less expensive.)


RE: Stupid people will stil bel stupid
By jithvk on 4/9/2007 10:26:04 AM , Rating: 4
Oh, i am happy now.. i thought no one ever read those stupid disclaimers and promises they affix on the front of each and every machine. The only one i can believe is the power rating one the back of the mains connector and nothing else...

i once installed xp on my old 400mhz pentium machine with 64mb ram and 2gb hard disk.. some facts abt that machine after instalation..

booting - 6 mins( on avg )
refresh desktop - abt 1min while i can see the screen been redrawn
start firefox - 3mins
start Adobe Photoshop CS2 ( yes, i tried this also ) - 6mins
worst of all, shutdown - 7mins.

Still, even though the system will show this high rating, its totally usable.. i think thats why Microsoft have provided this much low sys req..


By nah on 4/9/2007 1:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
one of my cousins has been using Xp on his PII 333 Mhz with 64 MB RAM and a 15 GB HDD for 6 years now--interestingly Toms hardware did tests in it's first roundup of CPU tests in 2003/4 where they actually ran some tests on a pentium 100 with 512 MB RAM to compare it with other CPUs performance-- i wish i could find the link


By slacker57 on 4/9/2007 1:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, it's too bad I agree with you, because your subject line is hilariously ironic. (and it doesn't seem to be intentional)

Sorry, man, typos FTW. :)


Manufacturers also at fault
By INeedCache on 4/9/2007 2:37:29 PM , Rating: 4
Blame here, if one is going to assign blame, should at least fall partially on the shoulders of the computer manufacturers. There are lots out there that are skating by on minimum specs just so they can put on a label, or load XP or Vista. There are still lots of laptops, heck desktops, out there sold with only 256 or 512mb of RAM. What a crock. Manufacturers know what kind of computing experiene people will get from a specific machine, yet they still do this garbage and let the entire blame fall to Microsoft. I think there is plenty of blame to go around, including some to the consumer, who should make an attempt at an informed decision. Caveat emptor.




RE: Manufacturers also at fault
By walk2k on 4/9/2007 3:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I agree. OEMs are pretty hot to slap the "VISTA" logo on any new box they sell, regardless of how well it will perform.


RE: Manufacturers also at fault
By Scott66 on 4/9/2007 3:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
Why blame the manufacturers? It is Microsoft that created the specs.


RE: Manufacturers also at fault
By walk2k on 4/9/2007 6:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Blame the manufacturers because they build the systems, they put the cpu/ram/video card combos together, THEY PUT THE OS ON IT, and they test it. They know exactly how well it performs. If it's a sluggish beast, they shouldn't be putting Vista on it, but they do anyway because a computer without Vista won't sell...


RE: Manufacturers also at fault
By burlingk on 4/15/2007 2:15:35 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft may have created the specs (And stated that these specs will run crumby), but it is the reseller that translates that information to the end user as "Your machine will run Vista just fine!"


By Volrath06660 on 4/9/2007 5:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
You are right about the Caveat Emptor.....but it is actually falling, or should fall, with the buyer....they should know, or have someone with them who does know, computers when they go to buy them. The problem is that in todays world, everybody thinks that everyone else has their best interests at heart.....this IS a crock.....look after your own interests, and if that means seeking help when you know nothing about something, then so be it, but dont come crying to the rest of the world expecting a handout when you do something stupid because you thought you were getting a great deal.


Assumptions are the mother of all f**kups.
By RMSistight on 4/9/2007 12:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
As a consumer, I would have found out just what "Windows Vista Capable" really means. I've found out in this world you don't make any assumptions when you buy hardware or software. It's your job as a consumer to find out and research all the details first about a product before paying for it. And if you didn't, well then too bad. Should have been a better, SMARTER consumer.

In my view, Microsoft did nothing wrong and I don't see how you can sue for it. The sticker specifically states that the PC/laptop is "Vista CAPABLE" meaning the machine CAN run Windows Vista. While some machines will not be able to run all the advanced features, nevertheless, the machine still can RUN Windows Vista.

Now if it said something like "Windows Vista Capable Minimum Experience" then ok that shouldn't be a problem. Besides, I never have this problem because I never buy pre-built PCs from businesses.




By RMSistight on 4/9/2007 12:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
Oops. Really "meant".


By Christopher1 on 4/9/2007 3:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well, most people buy pre-built and they have good reason to be angry when it says "Windows Vista Capable"..... and they find out different.


By RMSistight on 4/9/2007 4:37:01 PM , Rating: 3
Well it's the customer's fault for not getting a clear explanation of what "Windows Vista Capable" really meant. It's also the salesperson's fault too for not specifying that a Windows Vista Capable machine doesn't come with all the bells and whistles.

Also, in your comment, based on what we know, the customers didn't find anything different. The machine itself IS, in fact, Windows Vista capable. But that doesn't mean they can run the cool features. So in essence, I believe, Microsoft did nothing wrong. I think the keyword here is "capable". This goes back to my original comment about educating yourself as a consumer and doing your homework before you make a large purchase.


By Volrath06660 on 4/9/2007 5:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
Then most people are getting seriously scr---d. It is cheaper to buy parts and build to get an amazing machine that you dont have to worry about Vista minimum specs, and it is not very hard either. I have built almost a dozen systems now, and I went into the first with little or no knowledge. The motherboard manual walks you through it. While yes, many people still buy prebuilts, those are the people who didnt know any better and wont really miss the extra feaetures until somebody tells them that they miss them.....ie scum sucking lawyers......and really, am i going to have to tell you to look up "capable" too?


Where is the * asterick
By Scott66 on 4/9/2007 1:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
There needs to be the butt covering *.
This is where you read under the asterick.
"Your opinion of the meaning of capable is by no means the same as Microsoft's. We define capable as the following;"

It is at this point the customer figures out s/he needs to start asking questions.




RE: Where is the * asterick
By walk2k on 4/9/2007 1:22:20 PM , Rating: 3
It depends on what your definition of "is" is.


RE: Where is the * asterick
By Scott66 on 4/9/2007 1:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
"is" is a part of "is by no means" not a part of "the meaning of capable"


Typical...
By DEVGRU on 4/9/2007 11:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, you'll never be able to cure stupidity. However, IMHO, Microsoft needs to be slapped for deciding to make 50 versions of an OS, with 50 variations on licensing. :P

(P.S. Its called 'exaggeration' kids!)




RE: Typical...
By rippleyaliens on 4/9/2007 8:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, actually, i got win vista to install on a 512mb machine, and it ran perfectly fine. Even with some basic applications installed. Now when you start adding all the AD-WARE that most computer manufactures add, well,, guess what.

Now with regards to the Aero, SAME thing, i used a radion 9700 pro card, and YAH the aero worked, but no where near the same as the nvidia 7950gx2 i have.

This lawsuit reminds me of the stupid woman, who sued mcDonalds, because her coffee was hot?
Or the retard who looks on the back of a BF 2142 box, sees the graphics, and expects his $300 dell paperweight will play the game at MAX settings?

Does vista install and work on a 512mb machine, YAH.. Adding $80 of ram (1GB) will help, but most people are cheap sheep.
cheap meaning CHEAP, SHeep meening that they will go with the flow versus asking something simple like... Will my machine run this?


RE: Typical...
By noirsoft on 4/11/2007 10:14:11 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think 4 versions are all that much. There were 3 versions of XP.

XP Home -> Vista Home Basic
XP Media Center -> Vista Home Premium
XP Pro -> Vista Business

and they've added Ultimate, which fills a needed niche for those of us who want both Media Center and the advanced netowrking of the Pro series.

I don't count "Vista Starter" since that's not intended for use in the first world, so it's not really an option any consumer will see.


By wetwareinterface on 4/9/2007 10:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
i saw a few comments that seemed to indicate that some dailytech posters don't get it.

the vista basic operating system installs from the same disk as home premium or ultimate only restricting the advanced features. has the same kernal (which isn't windows xp's kernal), has the same desktop sidebar, and general look and feel of vista and all the seperate features are in the same identical locations and are accessed in the same way as the more expensive vista premium and up (with the exception of course of the features that aren't accessible at all due to not being in basic).

so in effect vista basic is vista not "xp with a few tweaks". so therefore vista basic is the minimum vista experience ergo vista capable means if you can run the lowest version of vista which happens to be basic you are still running vista and microsoft is not at fault if you were expecting otherwise.

just because it doesn't have aero doesn't mean it isn't vista. aero is an add on that comes with the more expensive version as is media center, and even more higher end shadow file system and data backup on the business version.

microsoft put out different versions for a reason because vista is a new operating system with new features and a new kernal etc... they made a stripped down version to enable those with crap machines without good 3d cards to be able to run the new os in a stripped down basic version.

and some people seem to be bashing the company for doing it.
microsoft just released a product, partnered with vendors to make sure that cheap systems could run a version and had a labeling program to let consumers know if their machine was going to be able to run the new os from microsoft if they were buying in the interim period just before it was released.

if you wanted to run aero you should know what you want to run. if that is then the case you should know that 3d elements require 3d acceleration to run at a reasonable expectation and with reasonable stability. now if you don't have that hardware who is to blame because you didn't understand what you wanted in the first place? microsoft? hp/dell? or yourself?




By mindless1 on 4/12/2007 9:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
Yes you should know, without having ambiguity like the vista ready badge.

I think you don't get it. Vista is XP with a few tweaks (to GUI), except for the UNDESIRABLE aspects. So essentially I feel Vista basic < XP Home.

It is no offsetting factor that there are multiple versions of vista, that's quite WHY it is so important to stipulate exactly how appropriate any particular PC is, not just a generic badge on it. If we claim a prospective buyer should do the research, then by the same token the badge shouldn't exist at all as it was meant to be an alternate path instead of that research.


By burlingk on 4/15/2007 5:12:35 AM , Rating: 2
Did you not read what he posted?
Have not actually read the Vista packaging?
Have you done any research on Vista at all?

Explain to me, if it is just XP Tweaked, why there have been so many hickups in the process of bringing software up to date to run with it?

Do you know what differentiates one OS from another? It is not the GUI. It is the kernel. I would expect people in this kind of forum to know what a kernel is, and how to seperate it from the GUI.

The interface could be the exact same interface tweaked, retooled, and recompiled, but if the kernel is different, then everything else is going to run different.

Most of the problems that people are experiencing are because they assume it is XP upgraded. It is not. It is like buying a cat, and wondering why it barks funny.

Please people, before you go running your mouths off, look at both sides of the story, not just the bad or good press. Look at the subject of your conversation, and think about it.

The labels I have seen were pretty self explanitory, and the machines that said they were Premium ready were all pretty high end. The ones that said Vista Capable by the time I saw them, already had some version of Vista on them and running, even if it was only Basic.

If you have a low end machine, then make sure it meets the specs, and get basic. Don't install Ultimate and expect it all to play nice with your old hardware.

Believe me, I am no fan of Microsoft, and I happen to like older hardware now and then, but this is getting just plain dumb.

When you post, post with your mind, not with your ego. If you get pissed off by something someone types, then wait till you cool down to respond. Think about facts, not hype. And most of all, if you are going to state that something is a true fact, then make sure that it is first!


The land of lawsuits
By Domicinator on 4/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: The land of lawsuits
By bldckstark on 4/9/2007 12:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It just means you bought a computer with a crappy graphics card.


My buddy went to Worst Buy* wanting to get a computer that would run the latest and greatest flight simulators. I had told him I would love to build that system for him, but he went to Worst Buy* anyway. He told them what he wanted and they sold him an HP Media Center PC, with an upgraded video card. A GeForce 6200 with 512MB of memory. NVidia also works in some gray areas, just like Microsoft. That is like driving a 75hp car with a high dollar Recarro racing seat in it. Totally useless.

*I hate going in Worst Buy - It feels like I am a cop working undercover in a meth lab while I am in there.


RE: The land of lawsuits
By vanka on 4/9/2007 2:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing the card was a 6200 TC (Turbo Cache). It probably has 128 MB frame buffer on board and gets the rest from system memory. So basically it's like a 75 HP car with an imitation Recarro seat made by slave labor in China; sold at a premium of course.


Vista vs Vista
By SmokeRngs on 4/11/2007 2:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
This lawsuit and the changes made to Microsoft's definitions leads to the main problem with Vista and how it's marketed. As most of us know (but much of the general public doesn't know or understand)there are different "versions" of Vista.

Microsoft did this only to make more money. They didn't do this so people could run Vista on old machines. They don't care about that especially since most sales of the OS will be on new OEM machines. The tiered Vista system is just to drag more money out of people. MS hoped that people would get the stripped down versions of Vista and then pony up more money to "upgrade" to the features they thought they were getting.

Considering Vista "Ultimate" is Vista, a Vista capable system should be able to run every "feature" it has. The "Premium" or "Basic" versions just have pieces of the operating system that aren't installed, nothing more.

For example, the systems marked as Windows XP capable were able to run the Luna theme that was the default for XP. They were able to run Windows Media Player to play their media files. They were able to run Internet Explorer to browse the web (if they had an internet connection). Windows Movie Maker would run on the systems. Yes, some things may have been slow, but you could run them.

This is not the same case with Vista. A system sold as Vista capable should be able to run every "feature" of Vista. It may run it slow, but it should be able to run it.

The blame for this falls to Microsoft because they set the guidelines for "Vista Capable". They knew the person coming in off the street to buy a system at a store doesn't know the difference between the versions of Vista.

The "choice" before was between XP Home and XP Pro. Very few average users could tell you any difference between the two. This was mainly because the features in XP Pro were not needed for the average home user. The operating system would act and look the same for either one.

Microsoft's mistake was building Vista as the Ultimate version and then cutting things out of it and still calling them Vista. I still think they should have left it as two versions, Home and Pro with something like the old "Plus" pack as something else you can buy for extra features such as the media center stuff and so on.




RE: Vista vs Vista
By Xietsu on 4/12/2007 6:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft did this only to make more money. They didn't do this so people could run Vista on old machines. They don't care about that especially since most sales of the OS will be on new OEM machines. The tiered Vista system is just to drag more money out of people. MS hoped that people would get the stripped down versions of Vista and then pony up more money to "upgrade" to the features they thought they were getting.

Uh, completely wrong. It is truly irrelevant whatever stance your subjectivity may take -- and especially, in this case, such inept cynicism is laughably wrong. In corporate business, it makes sense to develop a product that caters to varying audience, with price points to match. It is one hundred percent up to the consumer to ensure they purchase the solution that is most optimum for the wants they have. If you are unable to conceptualize these simple ideas, maybe DailyTech isn't the site for you?

Last generation's edition of Microsoft OSes included 3 line-ups, not two -- MCE was one of them. Whether or not Microsoft made a mistake isn't what you are able to tell us, but how its shareholders and board of directors respond to the reversion of a faster refresh.


Amazed
By Cobra Commander on 4/9/2007 10:43:46 AM , Rating: 3
I just can't believe this isn't considered "Frivolous".




Lawsuit is warranted
By mindless1 on 4/9/2007 6:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
When MS advertises features to sell the product, those features should be just as clearly stipulated as NON-SUPPORTED in PCs that can't use them.

Make the logo what it ought to be, a sign the system is ready to deliver the Vista experience, not just a tweaked XP experience.




OMG Not the consumer??
By staypuff69 on 4/11/2007 5:42:02 AM , Rating: 2
Here we go again blaming the corporate world for assuming everyone is even remotely intelligent...

The days of holding other people accountable for our own lack of knowledge should have been over decades ago.... instead we promote the abilities of a customer to say "well I didn't know" and sue anyone if they were too lazy to "shop around"...

This woman should be sued for gross indecency to the human mind... since when did we forget the human language and promote stupidity as the status quo.... capable to me means can do but mediocre at best... Ready means lets go cause it's just waiting for me to use it....

Sure the 18 year old wannabe sales guru that sold it to her should be partly to blame (providing he didn't tell her anyway that it wouldn't run full out)... but honestly when does this BS stop...

YOUR COFFEE IS SERVED HOT YOU MORON DON'T PUT IT BETWEEN YOUR LEGS OR YOU MAY SPILL IT AND BURN YOURSELF....

There needs to be a law that states frivilous lawsuits can be counter sued for utter stupidity.... and the lawyer is included in this lawsuit... you would see way less crap brought into the courts when someone sues others for their own stupidity....

And no MS is not liable for attempting to properly label their product... She's stupid and got caught at it... no lawsuit needed... bring the computer back and pay $400 more for what you really want like 99.9999 % of the rest of the world....

I'm mad now... this woman has wasted 3 hours of my time in all the articles i've read about her stupidity...... I charge $125 / hour... along with pain and suffering she owes me $3 million..... I really hope she wins... It's easier to collect from a rich idiot than a poor smart person...




"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki