Comments on: Lawyers: Vista branding confused even Microsoft
Company marketing manager among those unclear about what "Vista capable" means, say lawyers pursuing class action suit.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Amazon beefs up wireless Kindle family
January 5, 2010 10:35 PM PST
- The iPhone app that lets you see your friends naked
January 5, 2010 7:48 PM PST
- Snapdragon chip powers itself into Nexus One
January 5, 2010 6:00 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
A.)
all they have to do is prove that all versions could infact be installed and used.. "vista capable" in no way describes how the system will perform by installing ultimate..
B.)
it is up to the manufacture(s) to make the decision to call everything 'vista capable'
A.)
all they have to do is prove that all versions could infact be installed and used.. "vista capable" in no way describes how the system will perform by installing ultimate..
B.)
it is up to the manufacture(s) to make the decision to call everything 'vista capable'
The word they should have used is Vulnerable.
i.e., this PC is vulnerable to Windows Vista.
The word they should have used is Vulnerable.
i.e., this PC is vulnerable to Windows Vista.
: having attributes (as physical or mental power) required for performance or accomplishment
: having traits conducive to or features permitting
: having legal right to own, enjoy, or perform
: having or showing general efficiency and ability
So my interpretation of "Vista Capable" without any accompanying caveats is that this will run all versions of Vista applied as an OS. If it is not so able, then additional adverbs such as "Vista Home Basic Capable" or "Vista capable except for premium versions" are needed for truth in advetising.
: having attributes (as physical or mental power) required for performance or accomplishment
: having traits conducive to or features permitting
: having legal right to own, enjoy, or perform
: having or showing general efficiency and ability
So my interpretation of "Vista Capable" without any accompanying caveats is that this will run all versions of Vista applied as an OS. If it is not so able, then additional adverbs such as "Vista Home Basic Capable" or "Vista capable except for premium versions" are needed for truth in advetising.
user really needs has caused user to choose none. In fact
Microsoft has only really marketed as if you had to buy Ultimate
version for true Vista effect. In fact little has been said about
Basic Home edition which for older computers is about what they
need. Personally I don't think a user should have to give up
some software function just because their computer does not
work with the Aero effects.
I think we should have had a Home version and a Business
version and that's it. Let the computer hardware be the deciding
factor in what works. Not Microsoft.
Why not just have one version and call it a day? If there is functionality one does not need, don't install it. But, given the cheap price of disk space, who cares? Install it all and use what you want.
Multiple skews simply cost more money, require more support work, and create no end of confusion to customers. Who can remember what is in what release? And if you have two different versions, one for business and one for home, what would be in each? Perhaps I need a business feature and perhaps business user might need a "home" feature.
I really think there ought to be a single version.
user really needs has caused user to choose none. In fact
Microsoft has only really marketed as if you had to buy Ultimate
version for true Vista effect. In fact little has been said about
Basic Home edition which for older computers is about what they
need. Personally I don't think a user should have to give up
some software function just because their computer does not
work with the Aero effects.
I think we should have had a Home version and a Business
version and that's it. Let the computer hardware be the deciding
factor in what works. Not Microsoft.
Why not just have one version and call it a day? If there is functionality one does not need, don't install it. But, given the cheap price of disk space, who cares? Install it all and use what you want.
Multiple skews simply cost more money, require more support work, and create no end of confusion to customers. Who can remember what is in what release? And if you have two different versions, one for business and one for home, what would be in each? Perhaps I need a business feature and perhaps business user might need a "home" feature.
I really think there ought to be a single version.
If you can run Vista Basic, you can run Vista. There was no claim that it could handle the whole line. Likewise, computers that were XP-capable didn't all meet the requirements for XP Pro. People just enjoy suing, and I think they equate Microsoft with the Information Age. Many people were left behind, and they're angry, so they need a target.
It is much better at slowing down an otherwise bleeding edge pc but I'm not so sure how well that would play out in marketing the product.
You are right about one thing, sort of. Many people were left behind, or more accurately, let down.
If you can run Vista Basic, you can run Vista. There was no claim that it could handle the whole line. Likewise, computers that were XP-capable didn't all meet the requirements for XP Pro. People just enjoy suing, and I think they equate Microsoft with the Information Age. Many people were left behind, and they're angry, so they need a target.
It is much better at slowing down an otherwise bleeding edge pc but I'm not so sure how well that would play out in marketing the product.
You are right about one thing, sort of. Many people were left behind, or more accurately, let down.
Two months, what do I have to show. Not much. I expected to have to make sacrifices and switch back or emulate Windows at least twice a day. Well, I've run on Linux continuously for more than a week without switching. There are some things that I still need windows for, but not enough to live there (just visit).
Okay, so it is not as easy as Windows, and I have to fight to get some hardware to work, but when it does, it stays running. Something that isn't true of Windows. Try it. The newest version of Ubuntu even comes with better (and more useful) eyecandy then Vista, and I can run it on my 4 year old laptop with an integrated video card. Sooooo not Vista Capable!
Two months, what do I have to show. Not much. I expected to have to make sacrifices and switch back or emulate Windows at least twice a day. Well, I've run on Linux continuously for more than a week without switching. There are some things that I still need windows for, but not enough to live there (just visit).
Okay, so it is not as easy as Windows, and I have to fight to get some hardware to work, but when it does, it stays running. Something that isn't true of Windows. Try it. The newest version of Ubuntu even comes with better (and more useful) eyecandy then Vista, and I can run it on my 4 year old laptop with an integrated video card. Sooooo not Vista Capable!
A four-version OS is nearly as horrible an idea as their bloated, endlessly-corrupted Registry - ugh.
A four-version OS is nearly as horrible an idea as their bloated, endlessly-corrupted Registry - ugh.
- For a change...
- by dpbakeril December 1, 2007 9:09 AM PST
- For a change I'd like to see some intelligent responses instead of all the sophmoric writings of people who have nothing more intellectual between their ears than the last video game they played.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- How...
- by Commander_Spock December 3, 2007 8:22 AM PST
- ... well is your judgment of this CNET NEWS article and all the comments which followed informed by the U.S Constitution which guarantees the freedom of speech. How about not reading the comments whenever you see them since no one is forcing you to.
- Like this
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (116 Comments)