When Windows Vista was released to market on January 30th, 2007, Microsoft gave consumers the option to downgrade to Windows XP if they were not satisfied with the new operating system. However charging consumers $59.25 to downgrade to a different operating system has stirred some trouble for Microsoft. A Los Angeles resident, Emma Alvarado, has filed a class action lawsuit in the US District Court of the Western District of Washington in Seattle. The plaintiff is not demanding anything but a refund because the company charged her for downgrading her Lenovo PC from Windows Vista to Windows XP Professional. According to the lawsuit, Microsoft charging consumers to downgrade to a different operating system due to dissatisfaction violates Washington state's Unfair Business Practices Act and the Consumer Protection Act by "operating an unlawful trust that limited competition and inflated prices for Vista and XP, and kept PC makers from pre-installing XP."
Alvardo is also inviting other consumers who had to pay to downgrade to a different version of Windows to join the law suit. More information about joining the law suit can be found here.
Microsoft spokesman, David Bowermaster, said the company hasn't been served with the lawsuit so he could not comment at this time.
Except that MS didn't charge for the downgrade - IBM did.
Also, companies charge for the downgrade because it costs money to restage computers with other operating systems. The class action suit will go no where and that jackass should be charged for wasting the court's time.
Pushing a button to install an image takes a lot of time and manpower?
F*cking idiots. Microsoft is charging for the labour fees of downgrading, and the purchasing of an XP license.
It was high noon they got sued for this. I'd be furious as well.
Exactly. I remember Gateway did the same thing when Windows ME came out. They offered Windows 98 but it was an extra $90 to get it. I happily paid the price knowing I would get a more stable system.
I don't think you can sue Microsoft for encouraging PC manufacturers to install a newer operating system. Besides, most of them continued to offer XP anyway so what's the problem? You want an old OS? Fine, but be prepared to pay extra for the development of drivers for an old operating system.
It's time for Microsoft to counter sue the people who launch such moronic lawsuits for wasting so much time and money.
I don't think you can sue Microsoft for encouraging PC manufacturers to install a newer operating system. Besides, most of them continued to offer XP anyway so what's the problem? You want an old OS? Fine, but be prepared to pay extra for the development of drivers for an old operating system.
It's time for Microsoft to counter sue the people who launch such moronic lawsuits for wasting so much time and money.
They don't even make the damn drivers. ATI / Nivida / Intel do. They just repackage them with their own branding
OEMs don't make hardware. Even video cards use a form of standard drivers, oftentimes just hack the .ini and the original ones will install
I've said all along that MS should've been sued just for releasing Vista.
Fine, you don't like Vista. You've told everyone that and since you're probably considered the computer expert by those PC owners, they just went along with what you've said and stuck with XP.
If they'd known anything about PCs beyond email and web-surfing they would have downgraded themselves as it's simple enough to do.
Vista is working fine for the vast majority of users so saying MS should have been sued for it is silly.
Last edited by Roadrunna on 16 Feb 2009 - 16:42
Vista uses more resources than XP, thats a fact. Just as XP used more resources than Windows 98 and ME. If you're suggesting that software development should just stagnate and always support the same level hardware, then you are sorely deluded.
Ok but then what do we do with you for your post? Surely you can't pay as much as Microsoft but you should for uttering such nonsense. If you feel forced into a phantom monopoly then go get a Mac. You will be shocked to see that in this monopoly mindset of yours there is another option.
Once the shock wears off we might even tell you about Linux... another alternative to Windows. Get your surprise face ready!
It's like suing Blizzard for not giving away Diablo 1 when buying Diablo 2.
OH WAIT people already do that.
Most OEM's would still install Windows XP if they could because it's very popular but Microsoft pushes very hard for them to use Vista.
Why would someone "pay" for a downgrade in the first place? Find a different computer manufacturer that offers XP without the additional cost, or order it without an OS and buy XP separately. The manufacturer isn't going to support the OS anyway.
What is wrong with charging users to downgrade/upgrade to another operating system?
This ridiculous woman who is suing them did not buy a computer with Windows XP, she bought a computer with the much more improved Windows Vista. She wanted to install another operating system on her computer and she should therefore pay to do so.
Microsoft are allowed to charge for upgrading to Windows 7 so why not downgrading to Windows XP?
At the end of the day, it's that woman's choice and if she refers to going to Windows XP as a 'downgrade' rather than an 'upgrade', why is she doing it in the first place?
Windows XP is still an operating system no matter how old it is and therefore a user should be charged to use it if they wish.
End of story.
Last edited by CalumJR on 16 Feb 2009 - 17:56
This case does not make sense so it wont go. MS has nothing to do with this, she should sue IBM.
As far as Windows Vista, it sucks and that's another story. Compared to XP it is utter crap and you really can see difference when you actually downgrade from Vista to XP on let's say your average laptop. Then you can tell how much Vista is slower then XP. There are some people here which would say opposite, but i don't give a **** cause they just like to eat any **** MS delivers to them cause it's Microsoft ****. lol
This woman is wasting her time.
So once you buy AMD Dual Quad you want a free Quad CPU? Or when buying Mario 3, you want a free copy of Mario 2?
That's the essence of it.
Everyone is so damn busy arguing Vista sucks or XP rules, they totally forgot/ignored the point!! Good for you for bring this to peoples addition. Good job with the bold too.
The only way MS could benefit from this is if the computer in question came preloaded with Vista Home Premium or Vista Basic. Then one would have to pay for the upgrade to Vista Business or Ultimate to get the downgrade rights to XP Professional. Since Vista Home Premium and Vista Basic are (by edition) equivalent to XP Home, if anything, the $59.25 could be considered a cheap upgrade from XP Home to XP Professional
Last edited by JonathanMarston on 17 Feb 2009 - 00:49
The only way MS could benefit from this is if the computer in question came preloaded with Vista Home Premium or Vista Basic. Then one would have to pay for the upgrade to Vista Business or Ultimate to get the downgrade rights to XP Professional. Since Vista Home Premium and Vista Basic are (by edition) equivalent to XP Home, if anything, the $59.25 could be considered a cheap upgrade from XP Home to XP Professional
How does she know that she isn't satisfied when she has not even tried Vista. This lady didn't even try Vista out....remember she got the downgrade preinstalled....She bought the downgrade due to "Word-Of-Mouth.
It seems to me this shouldn't be a suit against MS. Someone should sue her for a stupid consumer and not shopping around.
But i will not shed a tear for MS about Vista failure. They brought this on them no matter what MS sheep here like to say to make Vista pre-SP1 looks better than what it really was. Vista pre-SP1 was a failure and today MS pay for it as angry customers want to get what they think is their due. As someone who was working in a tech support dept when Vista came out i could tell many horror stories about it.
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.