Microsoft: Vista Capable site description unchanged
Posted by Steven Parker on 12 April 2007 - 10:27 · 16 comments & 7003 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 12 Apr 2007 - 11:51
- Quote -Moreover, many of the machines with the label can't or poorly run Home Premium, the least expensive version of Vista
Surely Home Basic is cheaper? -
#1.1 Posted by roadwarrior on 12 Apr 2007 - 11:57
- Perhaps it would make more sense to you if you actually quoted the rest: Quote -the least expensive version of Vista that includes most of the heavily advertised features
-
#1.2 Posted by DariusIII on 12 Apr 2007 - 12:31
- And what is the difference between home premium and ultimate? Couple of capabilities that have nothing to do with average user (bitlocker, advanced networking).Vista Capable has nothing to do with home premium, only with basic versions of vista.Btw, Vista is not only looks, more is under the hood.
-
(2 replies)
#2 Posted by cardg on 12 Apr 2007 - 12:44
- Everyday it passes windows vista looks more like a new Windows ME
-
#2.2 Posted by drygnfyre on 15 Apr 2007 - 22:17
- What makes you say that? Windows ME was untested, and non plug-and-play drivers were removed from the installation, which is why so many hardware products certified for 98 didn't work with ME. The fact of the matter is, those who dislike Vista are in the minority, and the OS is selling very well. Vista is not "the next ME" by any rate.
-
#3 Posted by altermind on 12 Apr 2007 - 12:46
- how the hell ppl can sue microsoft over this is downright misserable... it's just like saying... windows can always run ANY game.... not really... they say it runs vista... and gues what.. it does.. so ... it does not say it gives all the features..... look at ANY advertisment... wow... *sigh* end rant
-
#4 Posted by ataris_kid on 12 Apr 2007 - 13:07
- Yeah, this is pretty dumb. Clearly, the sticker claims that the computer is capable of running Vista..... 'Vista Capable,' which it is. Never is it specified WHICH version of Vista it can run, and at what speed it can run said version. No, It says capable, and it is capable. Shutup, or learn to upgrade.
Stuff like this is why I am NOT proud to be an American. Sigh.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by LTD on 12 Apr 2007 - 14:26
- Man oh man.
Rule # 1: If it requires a learning curve . . . don't do it!
All of this sticker crap could have been avoided if there were two reasonably-priced versions of Vista: Vista, and Vista Server, for example.
Hell, even a Vista Home and Vista Pro woud have been fine as well, and perhaps a third, specialty variant.
State clearly the hardware requirements on the back - minimum and recommended. Minimum would *obviously* mean what the minimum specs are to at least run *everything.* Recommended would be to what is required to run *everything* comfortably.
But whatever, I prefer the leaner, meaner, hungrier competition.
All of this Vista tragedy is becoming tiresome bull****, really. -
#5.1 Posted by C_Guy on 12 Apr 2007 - 15:24
- Re: Rule #1: You're right, if you have to learn how to use a computer, don't. How is it you are able to use your fancy Mac without ever having to learn how?
So, you think 3 editions are ok but 4 is way too many? (Yes there are more than 4 if you count starter and enterprise - editions for certain markets only and not geared towards the whole marketplace).
Now, as far as system requirements go, if this website isn't crystal clear for you then I would strongly advise you to keep using your Mac and stay away from Windows-based computers.
Vista requirements: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...quirements.mspx
If Vista makes you so uptight and tired, here's another suggestion: Stop using it. Like the manuals say, your Mac was designed just for you.
-
#6 Posted by C_Guy on 12 Apr 2007 - 16:02
- I'm very happy to see that Microsoft isn't caving to this woman's sheer ignorance. These types of lawsuits are the reason you see "warning: contents hot" on coffee cups now.
-
#7 Posted by shadodemon on 12 Apr 2007 - 18:49
- Whats even more bad about the specs that are suppose to run Vista is that you cant run anything on WMP11 with a little bit of video ram. To me that seems stupid because on other Windows OS's you can run videos on any of the WMPs and you dont get no glitchy video at all. Why would i need anything high on video just to use WMP, while on Xp I can use the same thing and I wouldnt get the same error I do on Vista. I was a beta tester for Vista all I can say is that when they rose up the specs to run it thats when it started getting problems, especially with the memory hogging and stuff.
-
#8 Posted by +‹-cJr-› on 12 Apr 2007 - 19:51
- I don't think Microsoft have done anything wrong here!
They said the PCs are capable of running Windows Vista - which they are!
If a person buys a computer which says "Windows Vista Capable" and it can only run Windows Vista Basic, yet they think they can have the premium features then it is their fault.
All consumers hoping to buy a PC should read up about it first to find the best one (just like you would do if you were going to buy a car or something).
It is not Microsoft's fault that some consumers are technophobes who no NOTHING about the operating system!
-
#9 Posted by GnomeofDeath on 13 Apr 2007 - 15:09
- Think about it. Would you want to run XP on a 500mhz PC even though you can? I don't think so. So why should user's be forced to use Vista if half of the options are disabled? Dell won't even ship laptops with XP anymore. Laptops with intergrated graphics. Vista will work with them, but would be very crippled. I am not even talking about DX10, the aero interface would be gone too. So it is basically a fancier looking version of XP now. Does this make any sense, telling the public that they will be able to do all these new things with this OS, and then when they get home none of them work? It's like saying that cigarette companies should put a label on a pack of cigarettes saying they are only a little dangerous, even though they know that they are misleading the public by not telling them the full story.
http://www.techspot.com/news/24926-no-more...in-january.html
Last edited by GnomeofDeath on 13 Apr 2007 - 15:14
Reports published this week by The Seattle Times and other news outlets claimed that Microsoft has updated the description of what the label means on the Windows Vista Capable Web site, which is part of a marketing campaign that was launched before Vista was available.
According to reports, the changes are in direct response to a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington last week. The suit claims that Microsoft unfairly labeled PCs "Windows Vista Capable" even when the computers could run only the most basic form of the OS. Moreover, many of the machines with the label can't or poorly run Home Premium, the least expensive version of Vista that includes most of the heavily advertised features, according to the suit, which is seeking class-action status and damages from the vendor.