Microsoft wants to freeze the Vista incapable lawsuit

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.

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

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

CodeLite C/C+ IDE Rev, 1145 is released

Next Story

Wal-Mart ends test run for Linux-based computers in stores

26 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This is a frivelous lawsuit, because capable does not mean best user experience. Just like when you buy a game. Are you going to expect a cheap PC to run it at 100 FPS with a slow computer? I think not. Microsoft I think did a great job on how they advertised Vista compared to XP. I think this is just another way for people expecting the best experience by spending the least amount of money possible. If ya wanna run with the big dogs then your gonna have to spend some loot.

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

Cheap computers that cant even run the aero interface have bigger problems than being able to run all featues of vista.

Surely "Vista Capable" machines can run Vista Ultimate with the Aero interface turned off... right? Or will Vista Home Premium/Ultimate simply not work at all?

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.

Actually, for me one of the killer features would be the WDDM drivers (and, to some extent, the DWM). No more blue-screens due to buggy graphics drivers, just let the driver fall over and restart. But, of course, for anyone with the Intel 915 chipset (which was, of course, Vista Capable), no WDDM, no DWM, just the XP driver support.

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).

VISTA Ultimate
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...

(lbmouse said @ #9.1)
VISTA Ultimate = Vista

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.

all vista capable means is the it will run the basic vista. END OF STORY.

same goes for the people who sue for spilling coffie on them selfs

So, the marketing goons should have labeled "Vista Home Basic Capable"... but the real problem is that they use these labels as a marketing gimmick rather than a service to their consumers. Read the emails and you will see how they are more worried about Wintel profits than they are their consumers. Another reason MS wants to freeze this lawsuit... (more) bad PR.

This despite the fact that e-mail ceased from Microsoft show that MS lowered the standard driver standard so it could squeeze in low end Intel on-board graphics as "Vista Capable" despite knowing they were too sub-par for Vista.

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/14244

Another e-mail dated February 1, 2006 suggests Microsoft staffer Mike Ybarra protested the decision, saying, "Jim [Allchin], I am passionate about this and believe this decision is a mistake. We are caving to Intel. We worked hard the last 18 months to drive the UI experience and we are giving this up. The OEMs are behind us here, we have the support we need to drive this experience on today's hardware. . . . We are allowing Intel to drive our customer experience"

"In the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded," says Microsoft executive John Kalkman in one of the e-mails dated February 17, 2007. Kalkman adds, "It was a mistake on our part to change the original graphics requirements. This created confusion in the industry on how important the aspect of visual computing would play as a feature set to new Windows Vista upgrades."

Yes. That's what annoyed me - the fact that they made their choice, and then changed their mind because of pressure from Intel, knowing that consumers would be confused and make wrongly-informed choices.

I didn't know "slippery" meant "undertaking a legal procedure" that Microsoft has every right to.

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.

No, people sue to make sure that companies are held responsible for irresponsible and/or negligent activity. The Microsoft marketing goons screwed-the-pooch on this one. Did you read all the emails that have been made public?

The article calls Microsoft "slippery" for this appeal motion. I don't have a lot of energy over the whole "ready/capable" thing, but this legal action by Microsoft is standard practice for this type of situation.

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.

This lawsuit is a joke. Vista ready meant that. It can run vista. No one promised vista ultimate would run on the garbage low end boxes.

Don't confuse yourself, Vista Ready is exactly as you state, Ready to run Vista in all its glory, but Microsoft also have the "Vista Capable" branding that means it is able to run Vista in Home Basic mode only (without Aero) and that is deemed to be misleading because punters believed they could run Vista as advertised in stores, on the Internet and on the TV.

(Mikee4fun said @ #2)
This lawsuit is a joke. Vista ready meant that. It can run vista. No one promised vista ultimate would run on the garbage low end boxes.

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.

(briangw said @ #2.2)
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.

(briangw said @ #2.2)

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"?

(markjensen said @ #2.5)
Ah, yes. Imply mental retardation. Winning comment there. :rolleyes:

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.

(mrbester said @ #2.6)
Apart from that lapse of judgement, he has a point.
...
He didn't have a "point". Just more anecdotal evidence. As useless as the first.

"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.

I agree and it serves Microsoft right....maybe in the future Microsoft will pay more attention to whats 'fact' and whats 'wishful greed'...maybe they should have 'Human Resource Department' raise the 'Marketing Employment Application' up one more qualifying IQ to at least 20...LOL. In all honesty, I really stood behind Microsoft until those 'internal' emails were made public.