Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Nov 2008 21:57 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
Legal As most of you will know, Microsoft is currently involved in a class-action lawsuit about the company possibly misleading its customers about which computers could run Windows Vista. The story goes that when Microsoft delayed Windows Vista they allowed computers makers to label existing stock as "Vista Capable", even though these computers could only run the basic, Aero Glass-less version of Vista. The most recent development is that Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer will be questioned under oath.
Order by: Score:
It's true
by binarymutant on Tue 25th Nov 2008 22:44 UTC
binarymutant
Member since:
2008-11-11

I worked at an OEM while Vista was in it's prime and it's true that a lot of the Vista Capable stickers went on incapable machines. Even though I try to stray from the MS hating train, Ballmer & friends should be held accountable for their actions.

Reply Score: 4

RE: It's true
by DrillSgt on Tue 25th Nov 2008 23:49 UTC in reply to "It's true"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"I worked at an OEM while Vista was in it's prime and it's true that a lot of the Vista Capable stickers went on incapable machines."

Was there a memo from Microsoft saying to put those on the machines? Does the OEM work for Microsoft? Did Microsoft actually put the stickers on the machines or did the OEM you worked for? It will be interesting to find out if your employer took kickbacks to put the stickers on, or if they did it themselves. Or, if the specs that Microsoft published for the stickers were followed, in which case Microsoft is to blame.

Personally, if the machines run any version of Vista, they are Vista capable. Whether they can run all the bells or whistles or not is an entirely different matter.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: It's true
by cyclops on Wed 26th Nov 2008 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE: It's true"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"I worked at an OEM while Vista was in it's prime and it's true that a lot of the Vista Capable stickers went on incapable machines."

Was there a memo from Microsoft saying to put those on the machines? Does the OEM work for Microsoft? Did Microsoft actually put the stickers on the machines or did the OEM you worked for? It will be interesting to find out if your employer took kickbacks to put the stickers on, or if they did it themselves. Or, if the specs that Microsoft published for the stickers were followed, in which case Microsoft is to blame.

Personally, if the machines run any version of Vista, they are Vista capable. Whether they can run all the bells or whistles or not is an entirely different matter.


I absolutely agree the machines themselves are quite capable and usable using a modern Linux based distribution with *ALL* the bells and whistles its Windows that is not capable.

They should all get there money back + time wasted. you know what they say "Windows is inbuilt into the cost but you pay with performance and functionality"

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: It's true
by tomcat on Sat 29th Nov 2008 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's true"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I absolutely agree the machines themselves are quite capable and usable using a modern Linux based distribution with *ALL* the bells and whistles its Windows that is not capable.


Um, no. You're wrong. These machines have the worst possible graphics cards in them (Intel integrated). Utter crap hardware.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It's true
by binarymutant on Wed 26th Nov 2008 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE: It's true"
binarymutant Member since:
2008-11-11

Well there are kickbacks for a Microsoft OEM, they get rolls of the licenses for dirt cheap. And without getting the deal on those licenses I guess they would go out of buisiness? Just a guess though since I wasn't high up in the chain. Just a side note though, the min specs for Vista is 512MB of ram but stickers were put on 256MB also.

Edited 2008-11-26 02:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: It's true
by DrillSgt on Wed 26th Nov 2008 04:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's true"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Just a side note though, the min specs for Vista is 512MB of ram but stickers were put on 256MB also."

Well, that case would be the OEM's fault for labeling computers not meeting the specs as meeting them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: It's true
by Moulinneuf on Wed 26th Nov 2008 06:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's true"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

from : http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_HP_Lashes_Out_at_Microsoft_in_Vista_...

Friday, a judge in the "Vista Capable" lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation unsealed never before presented e-mails that Hewlett-Packard Company executives had sent to Microsoft. The electronic documents showed HP execs utter annoyance at the fact that Microsoft certified computers using Intel's 915 graphics chipset as compatible with their 2007 operating system Windows Vista, although the chipset did not fully support Vista's new driver model.

Senior vice president of HP's consumer business unit Richard Walker stated in one of the aforementioned e-mails, which he had sent to co-presidents-at that time-of Microsoft's platforms and services unit Jim Allchin and Kevin Johnson, that Microsoft had displayed an upsetting lack of commitment to HP as a partner. Moreover, Walker also said that the decision to certify Intel's chipset had rendered them to lose a large amount of money.

This is not the first incident of the like that has happened during the "Vista Capable" lawsuit, since earlier this Thursday, federal judge Marsha Pechman also unsealed some letters that claimed Microsoft had become more lenient with Vista's technical standards so as to lend a hand to computer manufactures such as Intel, which were running the 915 chipset.

Court filings of the legal action against Microsoft read that consumers were deceived by the company, rendering the latter to buy less expensive computers produced by HP competitors, because even though they did not support Vista's full version, they were deemed capable of running the new driver model due to the more relaxed requirements. Consequently, HP lost major ground in terms of computer sales to Intel and other PC makers whose products did not properly support Windows Vista.

-----

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/07/29/wi...

"We did not use some geeked out or custom built PC. We used an HP Pavilion DV2500. It had 2GB of RAM and was running an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20GHz. The OS was a 32 bit version of Windows Vista Ultimate."

Edited 2008-11-26 06:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: It's true
by Moulinneuf on Wed 26th Nov 2008 06:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: It's true"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

From http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2008/11/19/a-cheap-tech-stock-y...

Court documents show that Ballmer capitulated on specifications for what would qualify as a "Vista Capable" PC, an important designation around which Microsoft would craft a marketing campaign. Initially, Computerworld reports, Mr. Softy held the line -- demanding that "Vista Capable" hardware include advanced graphics chips. So Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) prepared as Dell (Nasdaq: DELL) resisted.

But then Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) complained. The line disappeared shortly thereafter, emails show.

HP's management and some of Microsoft's top engineers fumed at the decision, including Jim Allchin, who led the development of Vista at the executive ranks. "I am beyond being upset here," Allchin wrote to Ballmer in an email released by the court. "This was totally mismanaged by Intel and Microsoft. What a mess. Now we have an upset partner, Microsoft's destroyed credibility, as well as my own credibility shot."

Allchin retired from Microsoft on the day of Vista's release. Dell has chosen to allow some PC customers to choose Windows XP over Vista. And Intel -- the longtime partner to which Mr. Softy yielded -- has refused to upgrade its own PCs to Vista.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: It's true
by lemur2 on Thu 27th Nov 2008 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: It's true"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Allchin retired from Microsoft on the day of Vista's release.


Then Allchin's credibility is well & truly intact.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It's true
by Nalle on Wed 26th Nov 2008 08:00 UTC in reply to "RE: It's true"
Nalle Member since:
2005-07-06

Personally, if the machines run any version of Vista, they are Vista capable. Whether they can run all the bells or whistles or not is an entirely different matter.


I do not agree. Microsoft used a lot of money and resources telling people how nice all those «whistles and bells» was and that that would be the new way of thinking desktop altogether.

Then they allow «Vista capable» -stickers to be placed on computers not able to use the new, fantastic features. I know I'd be pissed off if I was fooled that way.

As far as I know only computers that met Microsoft requirements were branded as «Vista capable», so the one to blame is Microsoft for that.

Vista is also the only operating system known to have this problem, so one cannot say that the users are whining. If that were the case, Microsoft would never have survived Milennium Edition at all!


Nalle Berg
./nalle.

Reply Score: 4

should be fun
by TechGeek on Tue 25th Nov 2008 22:50 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

I wonder what kind of questions they will ask him. Could be a fun time. Maybe he will throw something at the lawyer and get a contempt charge. hehe.

Reply Score: 3

Let the punishment....
by leech on Tue 25th Nov 2008 23:40 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

fit the crime.

I say they should either cover Ballmer in Vista Capable stickers, or force him to run an older laptop that was labeled as Vista Capable for 3 years.

Oh and they'll have to make sure there aren't any chairs in the court room, unless they want to also tag him with assault with deadly furniture.

Reply Score: 8

Oh, this should be interesting...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 26th Nov 2008 00:38 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

Ballmer in court, in front of a judge. Wonder how the judge will react if Steve starts to throw chairs?

Anyone have some popcorn?

Reply Score: 2

Basic
by Gone fishing on Wed 26th Nov 2008 05:19 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

Mmm it will be interesting to see what Vista Capable means. If a low end laptop with 512 Meg of Ram is Vista Capable, then Vista capable means just about capable of booting Vista and you may be able to do basic word processing if you are prepared to wait.

Personally I've come to interpret that Vista Basic sticker as meaning thoroughly miserable computing experience avoid if possible.

Edited 2008-11-26 05:23 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Basic
by PortResi on Wed 26th Nov 2008 05:52 UTC in reply to "Basic"
PortResi Member since:
2008-10-06

Personally I've come to interpret that Vista Basic sticker as meaning thoroughly miserable computing experience avoid if possible.


My primary platforms are OS X and Debian GNU/Linux. At work, I tried to run the latest incarnation of windows on a new Dell PC with 512 and its performance was, well, less than expected. It cached itself constantly. This was even after expanding the swap size.

I don't believe Ballmer and all are true criminals. But if you tell your OEMs that their machines are compatible then Micro should pay up to the OEMs and any others who were subject to potential false advertisements.

Edited 2008-11-26 05:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Basic
by Machster on Wed 26th Nov 2008 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Basic"
Machster Member since:
2007-05-15

But don't the OEMs also have a responsibility to their customers to test their own product with Vista before they sell it?

Edited 2008-11-26 17:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Wed 26th Nov 2008 09:19 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

even though these computers could only run the basic, Aero Glass-less version of Vista.


So in other words, they were indeed capable of running Vista. This thing sounds a lot more like HP being pissed because other OEM's got to put the Vista sticker on machines that are cheaper than HP than anyone being actually concerned about the consumers.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Soulbender
by tomcat on Sat 29th Nov 2008 05:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by Soulbender"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

So in other words, they were indeed capable of running Vista. This thing sounds a lot more like HP being pissed because other OEM's got to put the Vista sticker on machines that are cheaper than HP than anyone being actually concerned about the consumers.


Talk about a bunch of whining pussies. Look, "capable" means capable. It doesn't mean "exceptional" or "exemplary". Anybody who buys low-end hardware and expects it to do anything more than boot and run a few apps is kidding themselves. I'm sorry. I just don't buy that whoever bought these machines expected to get top-tier performance. It sounds (to me) like some Freetard axe-grinders are trying to dredge up legal muck in an attempt to discredit Microsoft.

Edited 2008-11-29 05:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2