Vista Capable scandal
By Brad Sams, 18 November 2008 - 14:49 44 comments
Many will remember a few years back before the launch of Vista, Microsoft decided to tout some PC's as Vista capable. This seemed an innocent and easy way to boost sales but what happened is a different story.
The Vista capable idea was a genuine one at heart. It was designed to allow consumer to buy new PC's with confidence that the new computer would run the latest version of Vista when it launched. The idea was genius for Microsoft, they could sell more PC's (indirectly getting sales of the OS and software) and have consumers know they would be able to upgrade with confidence.
What happened was that Intel got in the way. Intel complained to Microsoft that the majority of its chip sets would not meet the requirement of "Vista Capable". Specifically, Microsoft set the requirement that WVDDM (Windows Vista Display Driver Model) would be required to get the affiliated branding. The problem for Intel was that their Intel i915 chip sets did not support the WVDDM. Intel claimed that this would cost them billions of dollars due to lost market share.
The true problem was that AMD was ready for WVDDM and would have been able to push its products to retailers quicker than Intel. Intel would loose a large portion of sales for being behind the WVDDM curve. So what does Microsoft do? It changes the requirement as an internal email said its only "labels on boxes".
Microsoft went ahead and made the change, supposedly Ballmer was unaware of this, to please Intel. As you can tell this made not just AMD but HP as well, very upset. HP had invested a large amount of capital to make sure that its upcoming laptops would be Vista capable. They were going to play the competitive edge that other suppliers may have backed off from. When Microsoft lowered Vista requirements it allowed all suppliers to slap the Vista logo on their laptops. HP sent several angry emails to Intel and Microsoft about the issue but the rest is history.
It's a shame that due to Intel's poor planning that this happened; its even worse that Microsoft dropped its standards on requirements to meet Intel's needs. Could all of the bad publicity around Vista been avoided if the proper "Vista Capable" hardware had been sold? The world may never know but the lawsuit behind the issue may make someone pay.
Comments (44)
thealexweb - 18 November 2008 - 18:39
To be fare it does what it says on the tin is capable, no mention of Aero, etc on packaging so a bit misleading.
markjensen - 18 November 2008 - 19:01
To be fair, these newly released documents from the court show that Microsoft played hardball with other OEMs, then knuckled into Intel and lowered the standards for them. And even internal emails show that co-president Jim Allchin identified this decision to allow PC manufacturers to label machines not capable of running all of Windows Vista's features as Vista Capable "terrible" and "misleading".
It shows that Microsoft knew it was misleading, and they played favorites to do so.
Is this calculated deception bad enough to get a judgment against them in court? That is yet to be seen.
+techbeck - 18 November 2008 - 19:34
It shows that Microsoft knew it was misleading, and they played favorites to do so.
Is this calculated deception bad enough to get a judgment against them in court? That is yet to be seen.
Its not MS fault that Intel wasnt up to snuff. They were behind in their development and poor planning. I feel sorry for MS, or any other company, that are escape goats for morons. For AMD, a company that is supposedly worse than Intel, to be up to code says more about Intel that MS. Yea, AMD and HP are ****ed at MS, but if they didnt bow to Intel then Intel would be ****ed. Its a no win situation.
Compatible means that the software will work on older/other machines. Vista works on the compatible machines just fine cept in a few cases you done get the transparency of Aero. Big deal.
markjensen - 18 November 2008 - 20:22
Compatible means that the software will work on older/other machines. Vista works on the compatible machines just fine cept in a few cases you done get the transparency of Aero. Big deal.
I don't recall saying that Microsoft was responsible for Intel's hardware issues.... Let me look over my post again.
Nope. Didn't say it. Didn't imply it. All I said is that Microsoft knew that Intel's hardware did not meet their requirements for "Vista Capable", so Microsoft changed their requirements at the suffering of the consumer.
+TCLN Ryster - 18 November 2008 - 21:11
Beware those escaping goats! :)
I think you mean scapegoat not escape goat
+techbeck - 18 November 2008 - 21:34
I think you mean scapegoat not escape goat :)
Damn the typos!!
+techbeck - 18 November 2008 - 21:38
I don't recall saying that Microsoft was responsible for Intel's hardware issues.... Let me look over my post again.
Nope. Didn't say it. Didn't imply it. All I said is that Microsoft knew that Intel's hardware did not meet their requirements for "Vista Capable", so Microsoft changed their requirements at the suffering of the consumer.
Didnt say you did and I apologize if I implied that. The article, not you, that was posted at the top of this page states that Intel had poor planning. Microsoft changed their requirements to make Intel happy and in turn ****ed of AMD and HP that were ready. If Intel had thier **** together, then this wouldnt be an issue.
Powerless - 18 November 2008 - 22:12
It shows that Microsoft knew it was misleading, and they played favorites to do so.
Is this calculated deception bad enough to get a judgment against them in court? That is yet to be seen.
They'll be fined. Consumers will get ignored ...like nothing happend.
markjensen - 19 November 2008 - 00:08
...
You are entirely correct. When you quoted me, it seemed that your post was in response to and to contradict my post.
I see now that your post may quote mine for reference, but yours also stands alone, and isn't saying that I claimed one way or the other, either...
My apologies.
Shiranui - 19 November 2008 - 00:27
Damn the typos!! :)
Damn the malapropisms!! you mean...
LaP - 19 November 2008 - 18:19
Its not MS fault that Intel wasnt up to snuff. They were behind in their development and poor planning. I feel sorry for MS, or any other company, that are escape goats for morons. For AMD, a company that is supposedly worse than Intel, to be up to code says more about Intel that MS. Yea, AMD and HP are ****ed at MS, but if they didnt bow to Intel then Intel would be ****ed. Its a no win situation.
Compatible means that the software will work on older/other machines. Vista works on the compatible machines just fine cept in a few cases you done get the transparency of Aero. Big deal.
It's doesn't really mater if it's MS fault or not.
MS allowed Vista Capable logo to appear on machines that was not quite capable of running vista in all its glory.
I know a girl who bought one of these computers and after a while she asked me to install his old XP copy that was installed on his previous computer.
What does capable means ? The court will have to answer this. In the video games market capable means the game runs on lowest quality settings. But it has always been this way for video games. For OS it may not be that clear for the consumers.
Who do you call Morons actually ? People who bought a PC with Windows Vista Capable logo and was dissapointed to see that this PC could not run Aero and decided to fill a lawsuit against the company who ultimetely, no matter how you turn this, is responible for this logo to appear on their new computers ? I hope not.
I like Microsoft. I legally own Microsoft product. I own a legal full copy of Vista Home Premium (not corporate crap). I own a 360. I would own Office if the price of the standard version would not be so ridiculous.
But on many aspects MS just did drop the ball with Vista. You can blame companies that did not have drivers ready. You can blame Intel for the Vista Capable logo fiasco. But there's no smoke without fire. Too much things went wrong with Vista for MS to not have at least one thing to blame themselve for. BTW i'm still waiting for some Gadgets support. I heard MS will remove Gadgets from Windows 7. Can't say i'm surprised and at the price i paid Vista i'm actually dissapointed with the lack of proper Gadgets support.
+techbeck - 19 November 2008 - 19:37
You are entirely correct. When you quoted me, it seemed that your post was in response to and to contradict my post.
I see now that your post may quote mine for reference, but yours also stands alone, and isn't saying that I claimed one way or the other, either...
My apologies.
No big deal...I do the same things sometimes so its all good
barteh - 18 November 2008 - 18:40
Interesting.
Just goes to show that they're not really looking after the consumer, but more concerned about their pockets.
RAID 0 - 18 November 2008 - 18:43
Just goes to show that they're not really looking after the consumer, but more concerned about their pockets.
What business isn't?
rpgfan - 18 November 2008 - 19:08
What business isn't?
The business that actually cares about its consumers... Unfortunately, I have yet to find such a business. They're too busy trying to get rich and stay rich... I'm dreaming of the day that money no longer matters.
+techbeck - 18 November 2008 - 19:27
The business that actually cares about its consumers... Unfortunately, I have yet to find such a business. They're too busy trying to get rich and stay rich... I'm dreaming of the day that money no longer matters.
Oh please, this was just a marketing mistake...period. You can say the same thing about EVERY company out there. People/companies make mistakes...get over it. I am sure if this whole compatible thing didnt happen, someone else would find something to bitch about.
+techbeck - 18 November 2008 - 19:39
The business that actually cares about its consumers... Unfortunately, I have yet to find such a business. They're too busy trying to get rich and stay rich... I'm dreaming of the day that money no longer matters.
There are a bunch of companies that cater to the consumer. Once such company is Credit Unions. They could not function with their members and all the money in the CU is the members, not the CUs. So if CUs didnt cater to the members then they would be out of business.
There are other non for profit and not for profit companies that cares about their customers. No to mention all the open source software companies....
+DARKFiB3R - 18 November 2008 - 19:53
LOL You'll be long dead before that ever happens.
SBUX - 19 November 2008 - 02:30
There are a bunch of companies that cater to the consumer. Once such company is Credit Unions. They could not function with their members and all the money in the CU is the members, not the CUs. So if CUs didnt cater to the members then they would be out of business.
There are other non for profit and not for profit companies that cares about their customers. No to mention all the open source software companies....
Right, companies that are NOT interested in making a profit... Any other company would act as MS did. Rightfully or not, they are out to save themselves, so I can't really blame them.
Sigmatic.Minor - 19 November 2008 - 19:39
What business isn't?
I can think of a couple, unfortunately, their small and usually run by 1-4 people and are in a small town :P