Comments on: Judge OKs suit over 'Vista Capable'
Class-action suit claims labeling computers as "Vista Capable" in late 2006 misled consumers because many of the machines could run only the most basic version of Vista.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About News Blog
Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Let's get real.
I also agree with him....but that isn't the point.
Can't accuse him of being anti or pro MS, now can you?
He read the story, and made an opinion that is not based upon, dare I say, I HATE/LOVE MS.
Disgusting how many others have posted comments only to be THINLY veiled attempts to support or ridicule MS.
Thank you, Not_Apple_Capable!
The fact of the matter is there wasn't any fine print labeling the computer and it bas BOUGHT, and PAID FOR long before the client found out the computer could not run Vista. I'm against frivolous lawsuits myself. But something also has to to be done about all the flase and misleading advertising out there.
Me too... but where was all that required fine print on that "Vista Capable" sticker? Even the most basic automotive flyers and handbills carry the required fine print (and usually say the word "optional" a lot in regards to the neat packages that come separately).
Also, the cars themselves in the lot carry the full and total price of each car... [i]before you buy it[/i].
I guess what I'm getting at is, a more apt analogy involving cars would be something like MPG standards, or rated horsepower, or top speed, etc... and auto makers do pay dearly when they misstate any one of those.
/P
I certainly hope buying an operating system doesn't become the ordeal that buying a car has become.
This whole mess is NOT Microsoft's fault.
I repeat, This whole mess is NOT Microsoft's fault
Instead of blaming the software manufacturer, how about blaming the Computer Manufacturer? Dell, Toshiba, IBM, Gateway. They all knew that their machines would not be able to handle Vista. SO why did they bother slapping the Vista-Capable logo on it?
Someone else at fault here, The Consumer.
As a tech specialist, I've seen and experienced on many occasions where the consumer was one-minded on getting a paticular machine. Instead of listening to the store associates they would rather cause a scene and get the machine that they want, When the see the software that it's running, sue Microsoft.
Doesn't anyone bother checking to see if their machine is capable of running vista?
Doesn't anyone bother to look at the different versions of the software their going to buy?
Here are some links for those of you who are going to buy a computer. (These links are also for those of you who picked up the wrong machine and now want to sue Microsoft)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx - Windows Vista: Compare Editions
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/footnotes.mspx - Windows Vista Footnotes
http://winqual.microsoft.com/HCL/Default.aspx - About the logos
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx - Windows Vista: Recommended System Requirements
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/upgradepaths.mspx - Windows Vista: Upgrade Paths from Previous Versions
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/logo.mspx - Windows Vista: Look for the logo
The above links will take you to Microsoft's website for Windows Vista. Those links are extreamly useful for when you go to buy a new PC.
For the remaining amounts of prople who still want to sue Microsoft, It's time to grow up.
Why? They were the ones who ran the campaign, and they were the ones who approved/disapproved of the hardware that got the stickers (see also similar programs such as WHQL).
[i]"...how about blaming the Computer Manufacturer?"[/i]
Can you prove that they all, as one, disregarded MSFT guidelines? That'd be one hell of a collusion if you could.
[i]"Doesn't anyone bother checking to see if their machine is capable of running vista?"[/i]
...and if the machine came with a sticker saying that it could...?
[i]"Doesn't anyone bother to look at the different versions of the software their{sic} going to buy?"[/i]
I do, but I'm kinda lucky. Odds are excellent that Linux already runs decently on it (no matter what the general specs are). If I'm looking for OSX, well, those come already installed on each new Mac. ;)
/P
So, I decided to buy a laptop. In looking around the best deal I could get was on a Dell Inspiron 1501 and it came with something called Vista Basic. I had no idea what that was compared to the other versions since Microsoft wasn't really telling anyone what the differences were. I just knew I'd be able to downgrade to XP if it sucked.
What really surprised me was that Aero wasn't included in it since ALL the ads showed Vista running it. Oh, and it runs like a dog, even with 1GB of RAM.
Now if I were to place myself in a non-tech person's shoes I could clearly imagine looking at the PC and seeing the Vista capable sticker and thinking that any version of Vista would run fine on it. I mean how many other consumer operating systems scale features based on hardware? What would be the expectation?
I'm definately in the camp that says Microsoft hid important details about the various versions and how machines would run them.
"Vista Capable, sort of, better off with Xp"
was not designed to be misleading?
It was. Whether or not it pertains to the case, multiple versions
of Vista were announced late, after the campaign started. Tech
people scrambled to figure out what was what. It is pure idiocy
to hold the consumer accountable for information they most
likely will never understand.
If i am not mistaken, one of the arguments FOR Vista was it
would drive new PC sales. It did. Of course, this was only
positive from the retailer, and manufacturer perspective. It
would be tough, and dismissive, to argue how this was a great
thing for the consumers.
As a result, users had to purchase new equipment, and the thing
they had to go on, was that damn sticker. Now you are telling
them it is their fault, and they were too ignorant to know better.
But who do they turn to? Oh, and PLEASE don't tell me all those
consumers could flood the Microsoft help line and get real help.
What this means is that when you (as a device MFG)pay M$ the fees to certify your drivers compatibility and be allowed to have the sticker on your device, they are glad to accept your money, but they don't actually test for full compliance.
Additionally I have found that many devices that have the compliance stickers, are not actually registered with M$. So M$ does not do any enforcement within their certification system either.
They have been doing this for years, and I am suprised the big OEM's don't sue them for it. How much have you paid them for this bogus certification system?
Your overly dramatic claims of decades of ******** is meaningless, irrevelant, and proves you to be an uncouth lout, but says nothing about the case in question nor adds any meaningful content to reasoned arguments related to the case. If you want to spew your verbal diarrea kindly do it elsewere.
- Vista has been a nighmare for me
- by realestatequeen February 29, 2008 7:21 AM PST
- I became the proud owner of Vista back in June of 07. Had I of known the nighmare it would present I would have NEVER ordered this Dell with Vista on it. First it wiped out my email which took a solid week to recover, it was compatable with only about 1/3 of the programs I run with my Real Estate business, the automatic updates ALWAYS screw something up and I have spent hundereds on Dell support and countless hours on the phone which I feel is very wrong. I tell people if you hear the work VISTA ........RUN
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (145 Comments)