Court to Microsoft: ‘Vista Capable’ Appeal Denied
Posted by Steven Parker on 23 April 2008 - 10:50 · 25 comments & 8565 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
-
-
#1 Posted by jwjw1 on 23 Apr 2008 - 12:23
- Pay to the Order of ___________________________in the amount of $________
Microsoft Corporation
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by Foub on 23 Apr 2008 - 12:45
- Good. Justice is served.
-
#2.1 Posted by EduardValencia on 23 Apr 2008 - 14:26
- That right foub,that's right
Agreed
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by chaosblade on 23 Apr 2008 - 14:41
- Relative justice, at best. The only problem here is that Microsoft shouldn't have lowered their standards for Intel's crappy onboard graphic chips. The whole "I'm a clueless user and i don't know what 'Capable' means" is moot - Users don't know half of what their Operating System does and for what reason. Does not knowing the law rid you from the implications of breaking it?
-
(6 replies)
#4 Posted by C_Guy on 23 Apr 2008 - 14:50
- I'm no legal expert but I would love to know how executive e-Mails are obtained in the first place and permitted as evidence in court.
The basis of this case, though, is that consumers cannot reasonably understand the difference between 'Vista Capable' and 'Vista Premium', even though Microsoft couldn't have made it clearer. Microsoft is being punished yet again for consumers' inability to take responsibility for their own purchasing decisions. -
#4.1 Posted by lbmouse on 23 Apr 2008 - 15:40
- The marketing goons at MS could have made it a lot clearer. They very well could have and should have created different levels of "capable" branding. Instead of using this branding to help inform the consumer, they decided to use it as a marketing gimmick to help Intel make their quarterly earnings. Once again Microsoft forgot who pays their bills. I really wish they would get their act together.
-
#4.2 Posted by C_Guy on 23 Apr 2008 - 16:24
- I'm not sure I agree with you. Perhaps it's my technical background but I think the branding was very clear:
-Vista Capable: Runs Vista at least at a basic level (Home Basic)
-Vista Premium: Runs Vista with premium features such as the Aero interface
Is that too unclear for the general population to understand?
Since the correlation with Intel has not yet been proven, I'm not sure I would say they forget who pays their bills. There are lots of computers out there in the market and in order to make Vista available to more computers they needed to identify all computers that could run Vista. Rather than limit themselves to computers with the hardware to run all of Vista's features they made a 2-tier system so lower-end computers could also feature Vista Basic.
Sure Microsoft could have had different levels of "capable" branding. But consider how much heat they've taken from having several different releases of Vista (Home Basic, Home Premium, Starter, Enterprise, Business, Ultimate). I think they would take even more heat if they had different levels of "Vista Capable/Ready/Premium/Ultimate/Basic Only" branding.
If the correlation with Intel is true then Microsoft's motivations behind the project are not what they should be. But from a marketing perspective they are in a position where they can't please everybody no matter what they do. -
#4.3 Posted by lbmouse on 23 Apr 2008 - 16:36
- (C_Guy said @ #4.2)Since the correlation with Intel has not yet been proven, I'm not sure I would say they forget who pays their bills.
I meant the consumer pays their bills. They have not been a consumer friendly company for over a decade know. As a consumer that uses their products, a technologist that uses their tools, and a long term stockholder, I really wish they would hurry up and straighten themselves out. But since it doesn't seem like the kids in Redmond want to to do it themselves, I welcome every lawsuit and judgment against MS that push them back to being consumer-centric. -
#4.4 Posted by TRC on 23 Apr 2008 - 17:03
- (C_Guy said @ #4.2)I'm not sure I agree with you. Perhaps it's my technical background but I think the branding was very clear:
-Vista Capable: Runs Vista at least at a basic level (Home Basic)
-Vista Premium: Runs Vista with premium features such as the Aero interface
I'm surprised no one has pointed this out yet but it was "Vista Capable" and "Vista Ready", not "Vista Premium". -
#4.5 Posted by boho on 23 Apr 2008 - 18:43
- (TRC said @ #4.4)I'm surprised no one has pointed this out yet but it was "Vista Capable" and "Vista Ready", not "Vista Premium".
Orwellian memory hole - double think! I wondered what these "news-hounds" were talking about too!
Unfortunately naive people who talk about "branding" fail to understand deliberate deceptive marketing ploys (which have been since been outed). Both parties deserve each other, as always the only people who will come out smiling will be the lawyers. A touch of "live by the sword, die by the sword" in Microsoft's case. 
(I'm a MSFT stock holder) -
#4.6 Posted by Amodin on 23 Apr 2008 - 20:38
- (C_Guy said @ #4)I'm no legal expert but I would love to know how executive e-Mails are obtained in the first place and permitted as evidence in court.
The basis of this case, though, is that consumers cannot reasonably understand the difference between 'Vista Capable' and 'Vista Premium', even though Microsoft couldn't have made it clearer. Microsoft is being punished yet again for consumers' inability to take responsibility for their own purchasing decisions.
Subpoenas are a very powerful thing. SOX compliance requires Microsoft to maintain those records and be available for things such as this.
-
(2 replies)
#5 Posted by X'tyfe on 23 Apr 2008 - 15:23
- its good to know that they are no longer above the law, at least a little bit
-
#5.1 Posted by C_Guy on 23 Apr 2008 - 16:16
- It took you that long to realize they are not above the law? Wow.
Microsoft was punished for innovating their software years ago and have since been battling many lawsuits. Most of these are unsuccessful competitors trying to regain some money, or an overseas Union hiding behind a myth of "protecting the consumer". Some of them however, have merit.
Take a look at Microsoft's Press Pass to see the battlefield they're on.
-
#6 Posted by
KoDeXeRo on 23 Apr 2008 - 19:17
- ok so sweet... i get my govt "stimulus" check and my Microsoft checks in the mail soon. SWEET! Guess i alert my bank to the huge sums of cash coming to my account shortly. LOL
Yeah, i wish i was gonna see any of those checks. Granted my laptop runs Vista great and i love it but i am "Vista Capable" also ... oh well.
-
#7 Posted by +James7 on 23 Apr 2008 - 20:07
- How can a judge do that to Microsoft? They didn't mean any harm. Why should they have to pay people because those people didn't understand what they meant? It makes me want to weep to hear that such a decent, honourable, honest, caring, spiritual company as Microsoft are treated as if they should be subject to the same laws as everyone else. Surely they have earned the right to a full reprieve and freedom from any prosecution from anyone!
-
(5 replies)
#8 Posted by Xenomorph on 23 Apr 2008 - 20:15
- My system is very "Vista Capable" - no, it doesn't have that sticker or anything, but its capable of running Aero and everything else Vista Ultimate has.
Microsoft was putting "Vista Capable" stickers on systems that WERE NOT CAPABLE of running Vista well.
What does it take to get a Vista Capable sticker? Any old crap box with 800 MHz CPU w/ 512 Megs RAM. That's all. Ever run Vista on a system like that? Slow, slow, slow, slow, slow. That's half the minimum amount of RAM Vista needs and hardly enough CPU to do anything.
"Vista Capable" isn't even "Vista Basic" ready.
Microsoft advertises their Aero 3D interface as one of the reasons to upgrade to Vista, and that doesn't even work on "Vista Capable" systems.
I like Vista (Vista Business and Vista Ultimate, not the Home versions and certainly not the Basic version). But splitting the Home versions and claiming such LOW system requirements were a mistake. I wouldn't feel bad at all if they got punished for doing that. -
#8.1 Posted by Roger MS on 24 Apr 2008 - 01:06
- Microsoft was putting "Vista Capable" stickers on systems that WERE NOT CAPABLE of running Vista well.
...Any old crap box with 800 MHz CPU w/ 512 Megs RAM. That's all. Ever run Vista on a system like that?
This is actually a very old tactic, used by just about everybody. Almost every game I have ever purchased lists minimum system requirements, and the few times I only met those requirements, I ended up uninstalling and shelving the game until I could upgrade my system.
Let's take Crysis as an excellent example: the minimum videocard requirement is either a 6800GT or 9800 Pro. Now let's see a show of hands of people who are happy playing Crysis with these video cards...
Windows XP also had minimum system requirements: a Pentium II 233 with 64 megs. Oh, but wait...XP is much more performant if you have the recommended system requirements: a Pentium II 300 with 128 megs.
In cyberspace no one can hear you laugh.
It's not for me to say whether or not MS was in the wrong here. But this kind of thing is certainly nothing new. -
#8.2 Posted by +Dakkaroth on 24 Apr 2008 - 04:16
- Microsoft was putting "Vista Capable" stickers on systems that WERE NOT CAPABLE of running Vista well.
...Any old crap box with 800 MHz CPU w/ 512 Megs RAM. That's all. Ever run Vista on a system like that?
Look at all the requirements for the Windows XP!
Minimum:
233 MHz CPU
64 MB of RAM (may limit performance and some features)
1.5 GB of available hard disk space
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
Recommended:
300 MHz CPU
128 MB of RAM
1.5 GB of available hard disk space
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter with at least 8 MB of video RAM and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Network adapter
Sound card and speakers
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
Now, who here can honestly say they can enjoyably run from the recommended settings? Also, why is this crap news? It's absolutely NOTHING NEW. Of course, that's not to say that it isn't a bit f***ed up, but if we've come this far without bitching about it, why the big fuss now? Because the sticker was more noticeable than the requirements listed on the box? Seriously now...
As for what you said about game requirements, Roger, I don't find them so bad at all. My computer meets the exact minimum requirements of BioShock, and I played it just dandy.
-
#8.3 Posted by Tikitiki on 24 Apr 2008 - 04:25
- Microsoft was putting "Vista Capable" stickers on systems that WERE
NOTCAPABLE of running Vistawell.
Fixed for you. There is nothing anywhere in the definition of "Capable" that says it has to work well. Capable means just that; that it can work. Period.
Just because you can't run Crysis on max detail on a PC that barely meets minimum specs-or even recommended specs- doesn't mean that you aren't "capable" of playing the game.
Now whether or not I agree that Microsoft was using this tactic for the good or the bad is another story. -
#8.4 Posted by Roger MS on 24 Apr 2008 - 17:31
- (Dakkaroth said @ #8.2)As for what you said about game requirements, Roger, I don't find them so bad at all. My computer meets the exact minimum requirements of BioShock, and I played it just dandy.
Ahhh, yes. But let's keep that in perspective: BioShock uses the highly-forgiving Unreal 3 engine. I play UT3 at 1600x1200/Intense on my 8600GTS, and it's beautifully fluid...can't exactly crank everything to the max with a much older Doom 3 engine game on my card without some visual suffering. -
#8.5 Posted by +Dakkaroth on 24 Apr 2008 - 19:40
- (Roger MS said @ #8.4)Ahhh, yes. But let's keep that in perspective: BioShock uses the highly-forgiving Unreal 3 engine. I play UT3 at 1600x1200/Intense on my 8600GTS, and it's beautifully fluid...can't exactly crank everything to the max with a much older Doom 3 engine game on my card without some visual suffering.
Well, that little bit is more dependent on the game developers. I mean, Quake Wars for instance is a decent game, but it takes a real system just to play it reasonably at all. Yet, as stated, BioShock is just yummy.
-
#9 Posted by +Orlando Rays on 24 Apr 2008 - 11:55
- One can only imagine if we'll discover anything more embarassing and incriminating than the blatant conspiracy between Microsoft and Intel to advertise the incapable i915 chipset.
In a brief, one-paragraph order, the appeals court denied Microsoft's request to appeal Judge Marsha Pechman's February 2008 ruling expanding the case into a class action.
The denial effectively lifts a stay that Judge Pechman granted to Microsoft in early April while the request for appeal was still pending. Judge Pechman's stay halted discovery in the case, a welcome respite for Microsoft, which had been roundly embarrassed when Pechman unsealed 158 pages of previously sealed evidence, mostly executives' e-mails, in late February.
Whether the denial of Microsoft's request to appeal and the lifting of the stay will put the case back on schedule isn't clear. The case was originally scheduled for October, however, the discovery process – halted by the stay – will now likely restart.