"The judge in the ongoing Vista Capable row has denied PC buyers a motion for partial summary judgment in a lawsuit against Microsoft, citing a lack of evidence to show the company had hoodwinked customers. The issue will be decided in a forthcoming trial instead, ruled US District Judge Marsha Pechman late on Wednesday."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-03-12
Member since:2006-02-16
Member since:2006-03-12
I laughed and laughed at this post for 2 reasons. The first is the argument about gaming. I've heard it it plays out like this...no games on Linux...good open source games + buy a console its where the action is and cheaper suitable enviroment. The reality of Linux is it does not have those soon to patched cutting edge 60+ team developers gaming monster thats capable pushing a 3000 rig however I spin it.
BUT THESE ARE MACHINES THAN CANNOT MANAGE A 3D DESKTOP THE ONES IN 60% OF MACHINES RUNNING THE INTEGRATED 915 AND LINUX HAS OODLES OF FANTASTIC GAMES THAT WILL WORK ON THESE.
...and would get a 3D desktop as well. 
Member since:2008-07-15
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-09-21
Also, The hardware manufacturers asked for it as well, they both should share the fault of vista not performing well. But the main thing is, as mentioned, vista does run on those machines, which indeed does make it 'capable'. If the sticker said, 'capable of running vista without any lag and as fast as xp' then there may have been an issue.
Member since:2005-07-11
Maybe they should have put a sticker
"Capable of running Vista, but not all the features, such as that nice gfx desktop we show off everywhere"...
I guess it comes down to, what is Vista and what isn't. If the translucent windows are part of Vista then these machines are not "capable", so I guess what MS has said is that they aren't...
Member since:2005-09-21
Vista home basic did not come with the translucent windows, but is still Vista, yes the advertisements all showed the Aero interface, which would give a slightly false view of what they were getting. But, also I think whats being ruled on here, is that the claimants were not "jipped" out of getting Vista, the computer could run it, in fact the stickers even said premium if they were premium compatible, or just compatible if they were just going to get basic. Reading the fine print would have yielded that, so the judge is not going to award moneys to uninformed consumers when the information was in fact available.
It is unfortunate, and yes they could have been clearer, but what they did was not criminal, its actually what most businesses do on the regular. It's just microsoft has a much larger magnifying glass sitting overhead of every product release.
Member since:2006-03-12
Thats called subterfuge
Member since:
2006-01-27
In my opinion,
1) The advertising/labeling was deceptive and misleading.
2) It should have remained a class-action lawsuit.
3) The verdict outcome is still dependent on the plaintiffs ability to prove that they paid extra for the "Vista-Ready" computers. I am not convinced of that yet, one way or the other.
Member since:
2008-04-15
it doesn't matter what the sticker said, people who don't take the time to understand what they are buying will ALWAYS be screwed over.
when you don't understand that onboard gfx suck you aren't going to understand the requirements of vista or anything else for that matter.
maybe now they will get advice from someone who knows, not a salesman and hopefully be a bit less stupid with their money by researching purchases first.
Member since:2006-03-12
when you don't understand that onboard gfx suck you aren't going to understand the requirements of vista or anything else for that matter.
maybe now they will get advice from someone who knows, not a salesman and hopefully be a bit less stupid with their money by researching purchases first.
I hate this kind of elitist crap, why don't we start calling those less knowledgeable noobs while we are done.
This is especially when we are talking about an area of computing people are more than willing to lie I especially love the posts "I use Vista Ultimate 64-bit and have never had a problem". Why don't we talk about users getting malware on their computers from porn while we are at it. Or maybe some real pratt will talk about computers needing a license before you use one.
This isn't the salesman or the user. Microsoft thats right has produced on operating system that was not supported by the computers being sold, and then to add insult to injury created branding to say it was. At best the branding mislead in the sense of running a limited version, or an outright lie...but this was Microsoft's Lie nobody elses.
Member since:
2005-07-17
Since Microsoft got all the bad PR from selling Vista on underpowered machines, they ran the Mojave Experiment to prove Vista was really better. Then touted it on TV like those "blind taste tests" used for Coke Versus Pepsi.
So, is the version of Vista sold out-of-the-gate on those early PCs THE VERY SAME VERSION that Microsoft bragged about in all those "come back to us" Mojave Experiment ads? That is the issue, the computers sold were not CAPABLE of being upgraded to the advertised levels of Vista, so you couldn't get Aero, and the multimedia bells and whistles they went on tour with for ANY price.. but you bought a "Vista" machine. The "Vista is a dog" press is well deserved because MICROSOFT allowed OEMs to certify hardware with sub-par performance and the public hated the end product.
I agree it's probably "buyer beware", and not worth a lawsuit, but it's the only tool Microsoft understands. The fact they needed to run the Mojave advertising campaign is proof enough they knew they had under-spec'd machines and were trying to spin it to compete with Apple.
