Microsoft-Intel 'Capable' Collusion?
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 29 February 2008 - 14:21 · 39 comments & 14728 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
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
-
-
(10 replies)
#1 Posted by 
neufuse on 29 Feb 2008 - 14:31
- Deficient for what? running Aero? Vista Capable is just what it says... it is CAPABLE of running vista... it does not say "the full experience" There is a huge difference between capable and Ready... which where the two terms they used... Ready says you have what you need... capable says yeah it could do it but you might not get everything... no this isn't a defense of microsoft this is using pure common sense... if you saw a car that say it was capable of getting 40 MPG and you got 15 would you run to the mfg and sue them? because its Capable doesn't mean it will... and everyone knows that much about cars... so whats different in the logic here with computers? capable means the same thing... it can but not saying you will get it all...
heck a lot of the laptops that have 915 come with windows home basic edition anyways! they dont even have the full aero! and the reason for this? rum roll please... IT DOESNT SUPPORT IT! there is a reason why MS made a "basic" edition for the cheaper end laptops that don't have high end graphics cards in them or even medium end ones...
This guy just seems like he is trying way to hard to try to dig up dirt on MS... I mean seriously how hard is it to understand MS made a low end version of Vista for a reason? and even says that not all editions on all hardware can run aero!.... thats why they list minimum requirements on the box for different features... capable just means it can run the minimum requirements... ready means it can run against ms's recommended requirements...
Last edited by neufuse on 29 Feb 2008 - 14:36 -
#1.1 Posted by Azmodan on 29 Feb 2008 - 15:07
- Windows Vista with the classic windows settings is just Windows 2000 with DirectX10. No offense intended, but the average customer is just going for Vista because of the promotional settings of Aero, I really really doubt you find a Windows Vista ad without Aero on it.
-
#1.2 Posted by neufuse on 29 Feb 2008 - 15:32
- (Azmodan said @ #1.1)Windows Vista with the classic windows settings is just Windows 2000 with DirectX10. No offense intended, but the average customer is just going for Vista because of the promotional settings of Aero, I really really doubt you find a Windows Vista ad without Aero on it.
Well it is up to the consumer to verify requirements and the boxes clearly state them for areo and non-areo... -
#1.3 Posted by lbmouse on 29 Feb 2008 - 15:37
- (neufuse said @ #1)This guy just seems like he is trying way to hard to try to dig up dirt on MS... I
He didn't have to try too hard. Second sentence in the first email:In the end, we lowered the requirements to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with 915 graphics embedded.
That being said, I think you might have missed the major point of the article: Microsoft-Intel 'Capable' Collusion. For years Microsoft has been guilty of anti-consumer practices. Maybe something like this is what we need to shake them up a bit. -
#1.4 Posted by Foub on 29 Feb 2008 - 15:39
- (neufuse said @ #1.2)Well it is up to the consumer to verify requirements and the boxes clearly state them for areo and non-areo...
We're talking about the average consumer here. Companies do have to be quite specific on what it can and can't do. That is why it should have been labelled 'Vista Basic Capable' instead of just 'Vista Capable'. The second implies that the version of Vista doesn't matter. To the average consumer a computer is a toaster; you put something in and you get something out. They care not for anything us more technical users would be concerned with. -
#1.5 Posted by Swift33 on 29 Feb 2008 - 15:41
- "if you saw a car that say it was capable of getting 40 MPG and you got 15 would you run to the mfg and sue them? because its Capable doesn't mean it will..."
If a manufacturer says it will do X, then under some specific scenario, it has to be able to do X even if that scenario may not be exactly practical. They don't just make up numbers. There's a specific scenario where it could run at 40 MPG, whether that scenario is practical or not is an entirely different question.
Capable was quite misleading in my opinion. The internal e-mails from MS debating the issue should be enough to show that to you. -
#1.6 Posted by neufuse on 29 Feb 2008 - 16:06
- (Swift33 said @ #1.5)"if you saw a car that say it was capable of getting 40 MPG and you got 15 would you run to the mfg and sue them? because its Capable doesn't mean it will..."
If a manufacturer says it will do X, then under some specific scenario, it has to be able to do X even if that scenario may not be exactly practical. They don't just make up numbers. There's a specific scenario where it could run at 40 MPG, whether that scenario is practical or not is an entirely different question.
Capable was quite misleading in my opinion. The internal e-mails from MS debating the issue should be enough to show that to you.
That is the point though! MS says its capable... yes under what MS says for their minimum requirements it is capable of doing vista.. But the way people are dragging this is its capable it has to do all the fancy stuff to! even though that means minimum... when people drive you are capable of getting 40MPG if you do exactly what they did to get that... but most consumers (average people) think ill buy this car and get 40MPG when I drive... which is not gona happen unless they do exactly what they are baseing that off of... this was my entire point... its back to capable vs capable meaning two different things somehow in peoples heads... -
#1.7 Posted by 120 on 29 Feb 2008 - 18:30
- I drive a 67 camareo it gets 40 mpg.The way I tested it was I put 1 gallon of gas in it then I took it to the top of a hill that's 25 miles long then push it down the hill then actually driving it the last 15 miles presto 40 mpg.
You know I think people are just getting sick of the damn shell games everyone plays to sell crap,what ever happen to having a good product and sell it on its merits?
If MS and Intel lied then they should have to pay the piper. -
#1.8 Posted by npe on 29 Feb 2008 - 20:19
- (Azmodan said @ #1.1)Windows Vista with the classic windows settings is just Windows 2000 with DirectX10. No offense intended, but the average customer is just going for Vista because of the promotional settings of Aero, I really really doubt you find a Windows Vista ad without Aero on it.
No offense but you're wrong on that point. According to that sentence of your Vista is nothing more than Windows 2000 with DirectX10 and a fancy theme (Aero)? You must be joking, haven't use Windows Vista, or plain ignorance. I can still use most of Windows Vista Business's features in classic mode (no Aero, no flip 3D). -
#1.9 Posted by toadeater on 01 Mar 2008 - 03:57
- Ok, I think it's time to shutdown Vista and call it a day. Time to try again with Windows 7. MS can't possibly screw up again, can they?
-
#1.10 Posted by The Walker on 02 Mar 2008 - 03:30
- If you care to think about what was ACTUALLY done, instead on jumping in and blindly defending obviously underhanded tactics *SIGH*.. then you would see that MS PREVIOUSLY classified the 915 chipset as INCOMPATIBLE, then buckled to intels wishes to 're-evaluate' their specifications so that motherboards with the 915 could be continued to be sold..
ARE YOU SO BLIND AS NOT TO SEE THAT THOSE ACTIONS WERE NOT ONLY UNACCEPTEBLE BUT ALSO AS UNDERHANDED AND CROOKED AS ACTIONS CAN BE?
Exactly which part of the collusion do you find acceptable business practice?
Last edited by The Walker on 02 Mar 2008 - 03:36
-
(4 replies)
#2 Posted by abcdefg on 29 Feb 2008 - 19:15
- Those e-mails are fake.
Microsoft is your friend.
Don't believe FUD.
Keep using Microsoft products.
Let's make future brighter together.
[/end of mind control] -
#2.1 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 29 Feb 2008 - 20:34
-
#2.2 Posted by prince_niceguy on 29 Feb 2008 - 21:16
- ideally vista should be able to give good effects of aero on the low end graphics processor like intel... if beryl and compiz can run so efficiently on the same processor then why not aero???
-
#2.3 Posted by Azmodan on 29 Feb 2008 - 21:21
- (prince_niceguy said @ #2.2)ideally vista should be able to give good effects of aero on the low end graphics processor like intel... if beryl and compiz can run so efficiently on the same processor then why not aero???
Don't compare Compiz with Aero. Compare Aero with KDE 4. Runs smoothly in a eeePC, but you'll need something 5 times more expensive to run Aero. Yes, KDE4 composing.
-
(6 replies)
#3 Posted by _dandy_ on 29 Feb 2008 - 23:29
- Let me get this straight: A class-action lawsuit is being filed against Microsoft because people's window captions and borders aren't translucid.
Seriously, this is what it amounts to. -
#3.1 Posted by The Walker on 02 Mar 2008 - 03:32
- No, there is a class action because they were sold goods on the OMISSION that it wouldn't.
-
#3.2 Posted by _dandy_ on 02 Mar 2008 - 16:57
- (The Walker said @ #3.1)No, there is a class action because they were sold goods on the OMISSION that it wouldn't.
If the borders/captions were translucid the lawsuit wouldn't exist. So, it means the same ****ing thing for the end user.
My point is, there are bigger fish to fry. -
#3.3 Posted by The Walker on 02 Mar 2008 - 19:43
- (_dandy_ said @ #3.2)(The Walker said @ #3.1)No, there is a class action because they were sold goods on the OMISSION that it wouldn't.
If the borders/captions were translucid the lawsuit wouldn't exist. So, it means the same ****ing thing for the end user.
My point is, there are bigger fish to fry.
Bigger fish? Hardly..
When monopolistic bodies commit this kind of obfuscation, it is exactly the kind of thing that they should be held accountable for. -
#3.4 Posted by _dandy_ on 02 Mar 2008 - 21:48
- (The Walker said @ #3.3)(_dandy_ said @ #3.2)(The Walker said @ #3.1)No, there is a class action because they were sold goods on the OMISSION that it wouldn't.
If the borders/captions were translucid the lawsuit wouldn't exist. So, it means the same ****ing thing for the end user.
My point is, there are bigger fish to fry.
Bigger fish? Hardly..
When monopolistic bodies commit this kind of obfuscation, it is exactly the kind of thing that they should be held accountable for.
How about, then, the revised "Vista capable" label also includes "Warning - bells and whistles are disabled when used on underpowered hardware"? Would that solve the issue?
If so, then it sounds like you're in favor of having "do not use in bathtub" labels on hair dryers.
What about the "recommended system" specs on game boxes? Why not sue the game makers as well for the same reason, since those are always misleading. Oh, that's right, they're not as juicy a target as "M$". -
#3.5 Posted by The Walker on 02 Mar 2008 - 23:04
- (_dandy_ said @ #3.4)(The Walker said @ #3.3)(_dandy_ said @ #3.2)(The Walker said @ #3.1)No, there is a class action because they were sold goods on the OMISSION that it wouldn't.
If the borders/captions were translucid the lawsuit wouldn't exist. So, it means the same ****ing thing for the end user.
My point is, there are bigger fish to fry.
Bigger fish? Hardly..
When monopolistic bodies commit this kind of obfuscation, it is exactly the kind of thing that they should be held accountable for.
How about, then, the revised "Vista capable" label also includes "Warning - bells and whistles are disabled when used on underpowered hardware"? Would that solve the issue?
If so, then it sounds like you're in favor of having "do not use in bathtub" labels on hair dryers.
What about the "recommended system" specs on game boxes? Why not sue the game makers as well for the same reason, since those are always misleading. Oh, that's right, they're not as juicy a target as "M$".
Now you are just posting stupidity.
If the labels actually had that warning then there would be no arguments.. but not only do they not have that warning.. the whole campaign was set out as to PURPOSEFULLY mislead the buyer in to thinking that he was buying certain functionality, when in fact it was known by the vendors that such fuctionality would not be possible.
It really beats me as to why people like you blindly defend blatently illegal actions on behalf of ANY company.... are you also quite happy when your GF lies to you about your 'prowess'?
Lies and obfusaction deos no one any good and only enourages more and more outrageous claims... why do you fight against people who will not puit up with it?
Last edited by The Walker on 02 Mar 2008 - 23:09 -
#3.6 Posted by _dandy_ on 03 Mar 2008 - 18:03
- (The Walker said @ #3.5)(_dandy_ said @ #3.4)(The Walker said @ #3.3)(_dandy_ said @ #3.2)(The Walker said @ #3.1)No, there is a class action because they were sold goods on the OMISSION that it wouldn't.
If the borders/captions were translucid the lawsuit wouldn't exist. So, it means the same ****ing thing for the end user.
My point is, there are bigger fish to fry.
Bigger fish? Hardly..
When monopolistic bodies commit this kind of obfuscation, it is exactly the kind of thing that they should be held accountable for.
How about, then, the revised "Vista capable" label also includes "Warning - bells and whistles are disabled when used on underpowered hardware"? Would that solve the issue?
If so, then it sounds like you're in favor of having "do not use in bathtub" labels on hair dryers.
What about the "recommended system" specs on game boxes? Why not sue the game makers as well for the same reason, since those are always misleading. Oh, that's right, they're not as juicy a target as "M$".
Now you are just posting stupidity.
If the labels actually had that warning then there would be no arguments.. but not only do they not have that warning.. the whole campaign was set out as to PURPOSEFULLY mislead the buyer in to thinking that he was buying certain functionality, when in fact it was known by the vendors that such fuctionality would not be possible.
It really beats me as to why people like you blindly defend blatently illegal actions on behalf of ANY company.... are you also quite happy when your GF lies to you about your 'prowess'?
Lies and obfusaction deos no one any good and only enourages more and more outrageous claims... why do you fight against people who will not puit up with it?
All I'm trying to say is that in the end, Vista is still functional, albeit without the bells and whistles, and this is nothing new or unique to Microsoft. I just don't see this as a very good reason to warrant a class-action lawsuit.
Heck, I remember not too long ago some OEMs were trying to sell XP machines with only 128MB. That's not just bells and whistles missing.
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by boho on 01 Mar 2008 - 01:13
- For those Fanboys who defend Microsoft or Intel's honour at every turn, just read a few of the emails and see the admissions of the VERY TOP Microsoft staff (Ballmer included) having a go at each other, admitting they were deceiving customers (and themselves
... "I've just bought a $2100 email machine with my own $$$" )
Microsoft and Intel are going to pay dearly for this... Then wait for the EU take their pound of flesh
. I am so glad I held off buying a new laptop. I think I'll wait another year! With Stagflation just around the corner, hopefully there will be real deals about 
-
#5 Posted by mel00 on 01 Mar 2008 - 03:31
- Microsoft is playing dangerous game they were found anti-trust few years back and they still trying to play this game?
I see Microsoft as roman empire they were in there wonderful days until they fall from there wonderful days.. but whatever.
-
#6 Posted by dacris2000 on 01 Mar 2008 - 06:40
- Another reason for me not to buy Vista. I'm loving my XP. At this point, MS would have to pay me to buy Vista. (Or force me through incompatible software
)
-
#7 Posted by hardgiant on 01 Mar 2008 - 08:36
- The average joe is confused enough by computers, it will just make consumers less trusting of Microsoft and Intel.
-
(4 replies)
#8 Posted by OblivionStalker on 01 Mar 2008 - 11:18
- Sue them, yes? Why? Because the average Joe is too dumb to read at what the specifications say when he buys a PC. If this is the case, we should sue the food makers, because some people can get allergic. The OEMs should be sued because then don't tell the people the real story, not MS or Intel.
Vista Capable - Good enough to run Vista Home Basic.
Vista Ready - Good enough to run Vista Home Premium or Vista Ultimate.
""Another reason for me not to buy Vista. I'm loving my XP. At this point, MS would have to pay me to buy Vista. (Or force me through incompatible software)"
Have you even tried Vista? It is not Vista's fault that you have problems with your software, it is the developers of that software being to lazy to issue a compatibility update. -
#8.1 Posted by boho on 01 Mar 2008 - 22:01
- (OblivionStalker said @ #
It is not Vista's fault that you have problems with your software, it is the developers of that software being to lazy to issue a compatibility update.
That's a priceless comment, I wonder if the poster understands the irony! (probably not, if an American! )
Tip... You break my software, I'll break yours, you break mine... I think in computer parlance, this is called a loop... or something -
#8.2 Posted by RAID 0 on 02 Mar 2008 - 07:27
- (boho said @ #8.1)(OblivionStalker said @ #It is not Vista's fault that you have problems with your software, it is the developers of that software being to lazy to issue a compatibility update.
That's a priceless comment, I wonder if the poster understands the irony! (probably not, if an American! )
Tip... You break my software, I'll break yours, you break mine... I think in computer parlance, this is called a loop... or something
"Probably not, if an American." I have ONE question, "What does your country produce or contribute to the world?"
I'm betting nothing at all. -
#8.3 Posted by boho on 02 Mar 2008 - 16:20
- (RAID 0 said @ #8.2)"Probably not, if an American." I have ONE question, "What does your country produce or contribute to the world?" I'm betting nothing at all.
Frank Whittle's Jet engine was a steal for the USA for a $1,000,000 down payment, and Alexander Graham Bell did something too!
I come from the UK
, my (our) predecessors' ruled the world for a short while. But yes, we are a burned-out, warmongering "has been" and now an irrelevance. The USA is just about to join our club... Welcome! Your "Founding Fathers" (an our "fathers" too! ) would be very proud how the "great experiment" has turned out 
Bye Bye USA... Hello Asia... and Armageddon
Last edited by boho on 02 Mar 2008 - 16:28 -
#8.4 Posted by Richteralan on 03 Mar 2008 - 00:50
- (RAID 0 said @ #8.2)(boho said @ #8.1)(OblivionStalker said @ #It is not Vista's fault that you have problems with your software, it is the developers of that software being to lazy to issue a compatibility update.
That's a priceless comment, I wonder if the poster understands the irony! (probably not, if an American! )
Tip... You break my software, I'll break yours, you break mine... I think in computer parlance, this is called a loop... or something
"Probably not, if an American." I have ONE question, "What does your country produce or contribute to the world?"
I'm betting nothing at all.
Well then how about withdraw EVERY foreign scientist/lab asst./engineers/etc... from your dear USA?
-
(3 replies)
#9 Posted by sweetsam on 01 Mar 2008 - 19:46
- Sorry Microsoft we are dumb and stupid. We don't read anything about what we buy. We just buy stuff. We don't do research or even bother to find out from others about stuff we buy even though everything is available on the internet at the click of a button.
What did you expect ? we are the people who spill coffee on our crotch and sue somebody else for that. We are the people who sue the microwave manufacturer because we killed our pet trying to dry in a microwave oven. Whats even better is we have greedy lawyers who will help us and stupid judges who help us wash responsibility of any sort off our hands how cool !
If you thought we were not gonna sue you... you must be in lala land. -
#9.1 Posted by The Walker on 02 Mar 2008 - 03:35
- This is just plain stupid!.. it's not a matter of reading about it..
The customer's were led to believe, BY A HUGE ADVERTISING BLITZ, that it would.. AND ANY INFORMATION TO THE CONTRARY WAS OMITTED!
Get over it.. the tactics were plainly illegal and now both parties are going to pay. -
#9.2 Posted by sweetsam on 02 Mar 2008 - 04:50
- (The Walker said @ #9.1)This is just plain stupid!.. it's not a matter of reading about it..
The customer's were led to believe, BY A HUGE ADVERTISING BLITZ, that it would.. AND ANY INFORMATION TO THE CONTRARY WAS OMITTED!
Get over it.. the tactics were plainly illegal and now both parties are going to pay.
Sure. Bestbuy says we got the cheapest stuff in huge advertising blitz and we just go to Bestbuy and buy stuff. We don't go online and look for the best deals. We just blindly follow what we are told when the advertising blitz is huge yey ! -
#9.3 Posted by RAID 0 on 02 Mar 2008 - 07:29
- (sweetsam said @ #9.2)(The Walker said @ #9.1)This is just plain stupid!.. it's not a matter of reading about it..
The customer's were led to believe, BY A HUGE ADVERTISING BLITZ, that it would.. AND ANY INFORMATION TO THE CONTRARY WAS OMITTED!
Get over it.. the tactics were plainly illegal and now both parties are going to pay.
Sure. Bestbuy says we got the cheapest stuff in huge advertising blitz and we just go to Bestbuy and buy stuff. We don't go online and look for the best deals. We just blindly follow what we are told when the advertising blitz is huge yey !
It's so sad, but what you just said in sarcasm is so true.
-
#10 Posted by brianshapiro on 02 Mar 2008 - 19:44
- Microsoft definitely botched the marketing of this, 'Vista Capable' and 'Vista Ready' are not good descriptions, and may have made consumer decisions more difficult. I'm sure Microsoft's marketing department understood that these 'purchase-friendly' terms would make customers more willing to buy lower-end machines, when they should have opted for more descriptive labels. But Microsoft re-evaluating a 'capable' standard because Intel asked them to, shouldn't necessarily be considered underhanded, especially since they didn't get a 'ready' rating. Responding to concerns of other companies is not necessarily 'collusion'.
But e-mails released yesterday (while I was out of the office at a Microsoft event, damn it) suggest otherwise. I was wrong about Microsoft. By all appearances, the company colluded with Intel to qualify a knowingly, deficient graphics chip set as being Windows Vista Capable. Todd Bishop of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer blogged the full text of internal Microsoft e-mails late yesterday. The communications were released as part of discovery for the Windows Vista Capable class-action lawsuit.