EVER SLIPPERY, Microsoft asked that the "Vista Capable" lawsuit against it be stayed while it appeals the judge's approval of class action standing for the case.
The lawsuit, filed almost a year ago, claims that Microsoft misled punters in late 2006 by letting PC makers stick "Vista Capable" labels on lower power machines sold with Windows XP that were later found capable of running only the Home Basic version of Windows Vista rather than the full version that includes most of Vista's new features including the Aero eye-candy graphical interface.
It claims that PC buyers paid more for those machines than they would have parted with had they known that they wouldn't be able to support Windows Vista when that was released a few months later in early 2007.
The lawsuit, filed almost a year ago, claims that Microsoft misled punters in late 2006 by letting PC makers stick "Vista Capable" labels on lower power machines sold with Windows XP that were later found capable of running only the Home Basic version of Windows Vista rather than the full version that includes most of Vista's new features including the Aero eye-candy graphical interface.
It claims that PC buyers paid more for those machines than they would have parted with had they known that they wouldn't be able to support Windows Vista when that was released a few months later in early 2007.
Never mind that those PC consumers who bought "Vista Capable" machines are likely better off sticking with Windows XP instead of "upgrading" to Vista, seeing as how Vista has turned out to be even more of a pig on qualudes than all prior versions of Windows. The Vole probably won't be arguing that, but even if it did, that wouldn't let it off the hook for having misled customers who expected that "Vista Capable" actually meant "Vista Ready" when they coughed up the readies.
View: Full Article @ The Inquirer
Yeah, I have a laptop that says Vista Capable on it. It has a CoreDuo 2 GHz, 2 GB Ram, GEForce7900GS and it's not even Capable at running Vista without some graphical glitches and slowness. I tried Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise on it.
I have a Laptop with Core Duo 1.8 GHz, 2 GB RAM, ATI Radeon Mobility X1400, and Vista is running fine.
Yeah, I have a laptop that says Vista Capable on it. It has a CoreDuo 2 GHz, 2 GB Ram, GEForce7900GS and it's not even Capable at running Vista without some graphical glitches and slowness. I tried Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise on it.
I had an exactly same laptop as you do.
And I run Vista WITHOUT ANY PROBLEMS.
Maybe it's just you are "special gifted"?
Maybe it's just you are "special gifted"?
Apart from that lapse of judgement, he has a point. There must be something else going on if two identically spec'ed laptops run Vista Ultimate with differing performance (there shouldn't be a problem, my Core 2 Duo 1.8GHz rig runs it just fine with all settings up to the max; 4.8 performance score [the CPU is the "bottleneck", everything else is 5.9]). It could just be a dodgy (as in mucked up, not counterfeit software) installation or some hardware fault.
...
"Vista runs well" or "Vista doesn't run well", it is subjective and lacking in detail (what conditions, how measured, etc.).
So, really all there was is subjective opinion (which is OK, as I primarily disregard) and the insult.
In fact, if their legal team didn't try every legal means to delay punitive action, then they ought to be fired for incompetence!
The issue has been raised, there is enough merit to go to court, the rest is the legal process, and I don't see a reason to call them "slippery" for following the process to protect the company's interest.
Ahhh, never mind. The Inquirer has a very poor grasp of English.
I'm sorry but if consumers are too incompetent to understand the difference between "Vista Capable" and "Vista Ready" (or, are too lazy to take the 2 minutes to figure it out) then they shouldn't be making the purchasing decisions.
Of course in America, these types of consumers simply sue to make themselves feel better, rather than admit their mistake was their fault.
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/14244
same goes for the people who sue for spilling coffie on them selfs
VISTA Business
VISTA Home Premium
VISTA Home Basic
VISTA Capable.
VISTA Home basic = Vista
So actually, since they didn't specify a specific version, they did nothing wrong.
Marketing has always been like this, sorry...
VISTA Capable? It is misleading (which is wrong) and people at MS even admit to it.
VISTA Capable? It is misleading (which is wrong) and people at MS even admit to it.
Crysis cannot run on PC. Just set all video options to max and set 1920x1440 resolution and you'll see it yourself.
This is all over a bunch of eye candy which is pretty stupid. The underlying features of the new OS still exist behind the eye candy. And yes there are in fact new features in Windows Vista other than eye candy.
That's the issue I have - I don't consider WDDM to be "eye-candy", I consider it to be a core stability update which everyone should have got, regardless of hardware (as long as it hit the general Vista min spec, of course).
I would also imagine that the majority of the complaints are coming from people who know next to nothing about computers and they see their uber leet "geek" friends doin cool stuff and they say I have Vista and my PC can't do Aero, or the other visuals like DreamScene.
When I first bought Vista, I bought retail box, and found that I was gonna have to spend some to get that. No big deal, I know performance costs $$
These people have to get with the program and realise that if ya wanna be a "geek", play like a "geek" then ya better decide how much cash ya wanna spend cause thats all that this is about.
Expecting everything for nothing
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.