Print 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

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.

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

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