November 28, 2007 5:21 AM PST

Lawyers: Vista branding confused even Microsoft

Lawyers for plaintiffs in a case brought against Microsoft over Vista's marketing have claimed that even the software giant's marketing director was confused by the prelaunch campaign in the U.S.

The case involves the way Microsoft marketed PCs as "Windows Vista capable" prior to the consumer launch of the operating system in January.

Plaintiffs Dianne Kelley and Kenneth Hansen claim Microsoft was not telling the truth when it put the "Vista capable" logo on PCs that would be capable of running only Vista Home Basic. They contend that "Vista capable" implies that the machine is able to run all versions of Vista, rather than just the pared-down Home Basic version.

In a filing for a class action at the U.S. district court in Seattle earlier this month, lawyers acting for the plaintiffs claimed that even Microsoft's director of marketing, Mark Croft, had become confused about the meaning of "Vista capable" when giving evidence.

Croft's explanation was that "'capable' has an interpretation for many that, in the context of this program, a PC would be able to run any version of the Windows operating system."

"Ready," Croft continued, "may (cause) concerns that the PC would run in some improved or better way than 'capable.'"

After a 10-minute break to talk to Microsoft's lawyers, Croft admitted he had made "an error" and retracted his previous statement, saying that by "capable" Microsoft meant "able to run a version of Vista."

In the filing, the plaintiffs' lawyers said that it was "ironic" Croft had made the mistake. "Mr. Croft understood Microsoft's logo to be telling customers that PCs would run not only the stripped-down Vista Home Basic, but also what plaintiffs contend are the 'real' versions of Vista: the ones that include Microsoft's heavily marketed 'Vista features.' Ironically, Mr. Croft's understanding of what 'Windows Vista capable' means is the same understanding that Microsoft asserts no consumer would be justified in having."

In a court filing of its own, Microsoft argues that it, along with computer makers and the press, educated consumers about Vista and the meaning of the term Windows Vista Capable.

"Plaintiffs ignore the comprehensive marketing campaigns through which Microsoft, OEMs, retailers and others provided consumers with detailed information on the different versions of Windows Vista and the 'Windows Vista Capable' program," Microsoft said in the filing. "Instead, plaintiffs focus on the tiny three-word logo that played only a small role in that process."

It also argues that the case should not be allowed to be a class action on behalf of those who took part in the Express Upgrade program for Vista because the named plaintiff in the suit did not take part in that program, which gave a free or nearly free copy of Vista to buyers of XP machines in the months before the newer OS came to market.

The Seattle-based law firm acting for the plaintiffs--Gordon, Tilden, Thomas & Cordell--is seeking to prove that Microsoft developed its "Windows Vista capable" marketing program, including the logo and the "express upgrade to Windows Vista" promotion, to maintain Windows XP sales prior to the launch of Vista.

Microsoft is fighting the claim. The software company claims that itself, OEMs, retailers and the press had informed consumers about what "Vista capable" meant.

Tom Espiner of ZDNet UK reported from London. CNET News.com's Ina Fried contributed to this report from San Francisco.

See more CNET content tagged:
plaintiff, lawyer, director of marketing, class action, Microsoft Windows Vista

116 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Huh
I always thought that the logo meant the computer could run Vista Home Premium. Looks like I was wrong.
Posted by psedog (40 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Nah Dude
the logo means you're flushing your money down the toilet.

avoid the hassles and lies, look for one with an apple on it next
time
Posted by drukenhard (39 comments )
Link Flag
Huh
I always thought that the logo meant the computer could run Vista Home Premium. Looks like I was wrong.
Posted by psedog (40 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Nah Dude
the logo means you're flushing your money down the toilet.

avoid the hassles and lies, look for one with an apple on it next
time
Posted by drukenhard (39 comments )
Link Flag
Mac ads are soo true!
"Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test"- This is a
superb headline.

As a former Windows user, I'm so happy I discovered Macs... The
new operating system, Leopard, works great even in 4 yr. old
computers. NEVER using Windows again.

May the world discover the truth...
Posted by gaspar98 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Uh...
Okay then.

So did you discover Macs the same way Columbus "discovered" America?

Don't even know what to say about "May the world discover the truth" comment you made.
Posted by thescale (31 comments )
Link Flag
Bull!
I suppose you didn't hear the pilots union screaming bloody murder about the iphone commercial? Apple pieced the commercial together to make it look like the iphone "saved our flight" which was so not true. They'll portray the "truth" in their commercials only as long as it makes them look good, just like everyone else does. But if you think they are portraying the whole truth, try again. Nobody does that. My favorite was when the dishwashing soap maker got cornered on what was "new and improved" in their product as they marked it on the box. The answer: new and improved was changing the picture on the front of the box. Keep that in mind as you watch your commercials.
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Link Flag
Mac ads are soo true!
"Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test"- This is a
superb headline.

As a former Windows user, I'm so happy I discovered Macs... The
new operating system, Leopard, works great even in 4 yr. old
computers. NEVER using Windows again.

May the world discover the truth...
Posted by gaspar98 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Uh...
Okay then.

So did you discover Macs the same way Columbus "discovered" America?

Don't even know what to say about "May the world discover the truth" comment you made.
Posted by thescale (31 comments )
Link Flag
Bull!
I suppose you didn't hear the pilots union screaming bloody murder about the iphone commercial? Apple pieced the commercial together to make it look like the iphone "saved our flight" which was so not true. They'll portray the "truth" in their commercials only as long as it makes them look good, just like everyone else does. But if you think they are portraying the whole truth, try again. Nobody does that. My favorite was when the dishwashing soap maker got cornered on what was "new and improved" in their product as they marked it on the box. The answer: new and improved was changing the picture on the front of the box. Keep that in mind as you watch your commercials.
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Link Flag
From London?
Tell me again why this story is coming from London.
Posted by roger.d.miller (41 comments )
Reply Link Flag
From London?
Tell me again why this story is coming from London.
Posted by roger.d.miller (41 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Never even received the upgrade
I also bought a lower-end laptop for a specific use. I ordered the 'free' Express Upgrade to Vista, that was offered, provided my credit card for the shipping, as required for this Vista Home Basic upgrade.... and received NOTHING. The laptop is still running XP (very well I must say). I haven't had the chance to test out how Vista capable this machine is. So, does the false advertising about the free upgrade even out the false advertising about the machine's capabilities?
Posted by whois101 (269 comments )
Reply Link Flag
you know... I had the same problem
Got a XP machine with free mail-in Vista Upgrade but never received my copy of Vista. I provided my CC info received a confirmation but my cc never got charged and I never received the OS.. Guess I'm better off for it anyway. lol
Posted by rnieves1977 (105 comments )
Link Flag
Never even received the upgrade
I also bought a lower-end laptop for a specific use. I ordered the 'free' Express Upgrade to Vista, that was offered, provided my credit card for the shipping, as required for this Vista Home Basic upgrade.... and received NOTHING. The laptop is still running XP (very well I must say). I haven't had the chance to test out how Vista capable this machine is. So, does the false advertising about the free upgrade even out the false advertising about the machine's capabilities?
Posted by whois101 (269 comments )
Reply Link Flag
you know... I had the same problem
Got a XP machine with free mail-in Vista Upgrade but never received my copy of Vista. I provided my CC info received a confirmation but my cc never got charged and I never received the OS.. Guess I'm better off for it anyway. lol
Posted by rnieves1977 (105 comments )
Link Flag
Sticking a pin here...
According to this CNET NEWS article, "Plaintiffs Dianne Kelley and Kenneth Hansen claim Microsoft was not telling the truth when it put the "Vista capable" logo on PCs that would be capable of running only Vista Home Basic. They contend that "Vista capable" implies that the machine is able to run all versions of Vista, rather than just the pared-down Home Basic version..." Here are your holiday's best Window's "Bells and Whistles" by one "Andy kaufman":

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.news.com/5208-1016_3-0.html?forumID=1&#38;threadID=33232&#38;messageID=337196&#38;start=0" target="_newWindow">http://www.news.com/5208-1016_3-0.html?forumID=1&#38;threadID=33232&#38;messageID=337196&#38;start=0</a>

Hoping that "Andy kaufman's" listing of VISTA's Bells and Whistles make your choice of tree (Windows Operating System) a very "satisfying" one unlike those (which have been reused over the years); and, now still being offered by "Windows XP and IBM OS/2 aka eComStation" (AULD LANG SYNE):

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ecomstation.com/product_info.phtml?url=nls/en/content/comparison.html&#38;title=Comparison%20table" target="_newWindow">http://www.ecomstation.com/product_info.phtml?url=nls/en/content/comparison.html&#38;title=Comparison%20table</a>
Posted by Commander_Spock (3123 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Atta Boy!
You go, Spock! Make enough OS/2 posts on cnet and OS/2 will surely return from the dead!

:)
Posted by J_Satch (571 comments )
Link Flag
You linked to one of your posts
and called it one by Andy Kaufman. Was that some sort of joke, if so when are you going to be serious?

Windows Vista works great on new machines, but you need at least 2G of RAM to get Vista running better unless you know how to turn off features you don't need.

There isn't much Windows Vista only software out there or whatever you and Andy Kaufman call it. Most software works on XP and Vista and a lot of it will still work on Windows 2000.

I admit there isn't much reason for older systems to upgrade to Vista. Even still the Vista capable machines can run Vista Ultimate they just won't have the special effects like the 3D sidebar menu and OSX type special effects unless they get upgraded to a 128M Video Card. Which is easy if the PC has a spare AGP or PC Express video slot, just plug in a new video adapter with 128M of RAM or more. It will cost under $100 to do that. Adding on another 1G of RAM will cost $65. So technically those old systems can be upgraded to run Vista Ultimate with under $200 in hardware upgrades, with all the features available.

Stick a fork in it, OS/2 was done in 1999, it still has Y2K issues, IIRC. Not to mention a lack of driver support for new hardware, and a lack of applications as well.
Posted by Proustian (71 comments )
Link Flag
Sticking a pin here...
According to this CNET NEWS article, "Plaintiffs Dianne Kelley and Kenneth Hansen claim Microsoft was not telling the truth when it put the "Vista capable" logo on PCs that would be capable of running only Vista Home Basic. They contend that "Vista capable" implies that the machine is able to run all versions of Vista, rather than just the pared-down Home Basic version..." Here are your holiday's best Window's "Bells and Whistles" by one "Andy kaufman":

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.news.com/5208-1016_3-0.html?forumID=1&#38;threadID=33232&#38;messageID=337196&#38;start=0" target="_newWindow">http://www.news.com/5208-1016_3-0.html?forumID=1&#38;threadID=33232&#38;messageID=337196&#38;start=0</a>

Hoping that "Andy kaufman's" listing of VISTA's Bells and Whistles make your choice of tree (Windows Operating System) a very "satisfying" one unlike those (which have been reused over the years); and, now still being offered by "Windows XP and IBM OS/2 aka eComStation" (AULD LANG SYNE):

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ecomstation.com/product_info.phtml?url=nls/en/content/comparison.html&#38;title=Comparison%20table" target="_newWindow">http://www.ecomstation.com/product_info.phtml?url=nls/en/content/comparison.html&#38;title=Comparison%20table</a>
Posted by Commander_Spock (3123 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Atta Boy!
You go, Spock! Make enough OS/2 posts on cnet and OS/2 will surely return from the dead!

:)
Posted by J_Satch (571 comments )
Link Flag
You linked to one of your posts
and called it one by Andy Kaufman. Was that some sort of joke, if so when are you going to be serious?

Windows Vista works great on new machines, but you need at least 2G of RAM to get Vista running better unless you know how to turn off features you don't need.

There isn't much Windows Vista only software out there or whatever you and Andy Kaufman call it. Most software works on XP and Vista and a lot of it will still work on Windows 2000.

I admit there isn't much reason for older systems to upgrade to Vista. Even still the Vista capable machines can run Vista Ultimate they just won't have the special effects like the 3D sidebar menu and OSX type special effects unless they get upgraded to a 128M Video Card. Which is easy if the PC has a spare AGP or PC Express video slot, just plug in a new video adapter with 128M of RAM or more. It will cost under $100 to do that. Adding on another 1G of RAM will cost $65. So technically those old systems can be upgraded to run Vista Ultimate with under $200 in hardware upgrades, with all the features available.

Stick a fork in it, OS/2 was done in 1999, it still has Y2K issues, IIRC. Not to mention a lack of driver support for new hardware, and a lack of applications as well.
Posted by Proustian (71 comments )
Link Flag
See also ".NET" ;)
Anyone else remember when MSFT pinned the word "dot-net" on nearly everything that moved back in 2001? The had "dot-net" programming language, a "dot-net" server (oh yes they did - it came out when XP had), a "dot-net" implementation of SaaS, and I wouldn't have been surprised if they had "dot-net" sandwiches served at the Redmond campus cafeterias, with a side of "dot-net" fries and "dot-net-cola".

So this isn't exactly the first time they went apesh!t with splattering a catchphrase or buzzword onto nearly anything within reach.

Thing is, this time I think it's going to bite 'em in the arse. It's fine if they want to be all confused about what they want to name stuff, but when you start leaking that confusion into labeling product capabilities for consumer use, you're going to run into trouble.

This is part of the reason why the masses reflexively think that Vista sucks outright - and MSFT did a huge portion of that to themselves. They can't blame Apple, they can't blame Linux - they can only blame themselves.

(Of course, Vista is IMHO and IMPO an inferior product, but there are technical reasons for that which have nothing to do with how MSFT hosed themselves in branding everything that moved as "Vista Capable").

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Nice Post
Of course we know what .NET is now. It's a programming subset associated with application program integrations of active server command web templates... I think. Ready for another .net cola?
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Link Flag
Remember they nearly lost Windows.
Lindows argued that Windows was used in Unix before Microsoft ever used it. It looked like Microsoft was going to lose that battle so they paid Lindows out.

Dot Not, Windowz, Orifice, whatever. They use those words for anything. What about Live Office. It isn't even a free office Web app. Rather it is a website thingy.

Man they are useless when it comes to brand recognition.
Posted by t8 (3716 comments )
Link Flag
See also ".NET" ;)
Anyone else remember when MSFT pinned the word "dot-net" on nearly everything that moved back in 2001? The had "dot-net" programming language, a "dot-net" server (oh yes they did - it came out when XP had), a "dot-net" implementation of SaaS, and I wouldn't have been surprised if they had "dot-net" sandwiches served at the Redmond campus cafeterias, with a side of "dot-net" fries and "dot-net-cola".

So this isn't exactly the first time they went apesh!t with splattering a catchphrase or buzzword onto nearly anything within reach.

Thing is, this time I think it's going to bite 'em in the arse. It's fine if they want to be all confused about what they want to name stuff, but when you start leaking that confusion into labeling product capabilities for consumer use, you're going to run into trouble.

This is part of the reason why the masses reflexively think that Vista sucks outright - and MSFT did a huge portion of that to themselves. They can't blame Apple, they can't blame Linux - they can only blame themselves.

(Of course, Vista is IMHO and IMPO an inferior product, but there are technical reasons for that which have nothing to do with how MSFT hosed themselves in branding everything that moved as "Vista Capable").

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Nice Post
Of course we know what .NET is now. It's a programming subset associated with application program integrations of active server command web templates... I think. Ready for another .net cola?
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Link Flag
Remember they nearly lost Windows.
Lindows argued that Windows was used in Unix before Microsoft ever used it. It looked like Microsoft was going to lose that battle so they paid Lindows out.

Dot Not, Windowz, Orifice, whatever. They use those words for anything. What about Live Office. It isn't even a free office Web app. Rather it is a website thingy.

Man they are useless when it comes to brand recognition.
Posted by t8 (3716 comments )
Link Flag
Not upgrading
I'm not upgrading until they release the "Double Secret Probation"
Edition.
Posted by GGGlen (491 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Give Up?
Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Seven Years of XP Down the Drain!
Posted by iamstubb (32 comments )
Link Flag
Not upgrading
I'm not upgrading until they release the "Double Secret Probation"
Edition.
Posted by GGGlen (491 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Give Up?
Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Seven Years of XP Down the Drain!
Posted by iamstubb (32 comments )
Link Flag
Who cares?
Only here and Europe would semantics cause a 'valid' lawsuit. Whatever happened to being responsible enough to read ALL of the print. ready, capable who cares. Just another attempt at burying MS and getting something for nothing in the process.Everyone is after MS while we let Google and Apple basically run wild. We (and I do mean WE) need to start reining in all of the big guys-Apple, Adobe, MS, Google, Verizon, ATT,Comcast, etc. Notice a trend in this country?????
Posted by corredorlobo (15 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Who cares?
Only here and Europe would semantics cause a 'valid' lawsuit. Whatever happened to being responsible enough to read ALL of the print. ready, capable who cares. Just another attempt at burying MS and getting something for nothing in the process.Everyone is after MS while we let Google and Apple basically run wild. We (and I do mean WE) need to start reining in all of the big guys-Apple, Adobe, MS, Google, Verizon, ATT,Comcast, etc. Notice a trend in this country?????
Posted by corredorlobo (15 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Vista Capable means just that!
Right another lawsuit filed against Microsoft, as I believe for nothing. Vista capable means just that, if you pc is worthy. All you do is run the upgrade advisor to see.

By the way, while using Windows xp home edition, and before I bought Vista Home premium, I ran the upgrade advisor, and it says my machine was only ready for Vista Basic. They were wrong on that. (that needs upgrading itself). I got Vista Home premium, and only thing different is I had some programs thru xp that needed updating, like my graphics card driver at the time I was using xp, it needed update for Vista. Nero 6, also doesn't function in Vista so that program is out. Also a few smaller programs were also not going to work on Vista. But, Windows Vista Home Premium has a lot more programs to use and some of those older programs are not needed. Soon as I upgraded to Vista Home Premium, the graphics card driver for example updated thru windows update.

Right now I used windows dvd maker, movie maker, and windows cd/dvd burning programs within. Work fine for me. No need for 3rd party software vendors. So in reality it takes less room on my harddrive, even though windows vista home premium is larger fhan windows xp alone. Big deal!!

Now that I am using windows vista home premium, I can run the advisor and it says my pc is capable of using any windows vista version including ulimate, because of the right software is in and drivers.
Posted by Robynsnest613 (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
...or does it?
A lot of people with very little tech knowledge bought PC's and laptops in late 2006 on nothing more than a sticker and a promise. When they got their voucher-supplied Vista "upgrade" (assuming they actually bothered and didn't just stick with XP), a lot of people got bit... hard. Sure, Vista would boot, but it wouldn't do too awful much after that.

If you're happy with yours (and the multi-GB of RAM you likely have in it), cool. But a lot of others spent quite a bit of dough only to realize that they got caught up in marketing tactics.

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
Vista Capable means just that!
Right another lawsuit filed against Microsoft, as I believe for nothing. Vista capable means just that, if you pc is worthy. All you do is run the upgrade advisor to see.

By the way, while using Windows xp home edition, and before I bought Vista Home premium, I ran the upgrade advisor, and it says my machine was only ready for Vista Basic. They were wrong on that. (that needs upgrading itself). I got Vista Home premium, and only thing different is I had some programs thru xp that needed updating, like my graphics card driver at the time I was using xp, it needed update for Vista. Nero 6, also doesn't function in Vista so that program is out. Also a few smaller programs were also not going to work on Vista. But, Windows Vista Home Premium has a lot more programs to use and some of those older programs are not needed. Soon as I upgraded to Vista Home Premium, the graphics card driver for example updated thru windows update.

Right now I used windows dvd maker, movie maker, and windows cd/dvd burning programs within. Work fine for me. No need for 3rd party software vendors. So in reality it takes less room on my harddrive, even though windows vista home premium is larger fhan windows xp alone. Big deal!!

Now that I am using windows vista home premium, I can run the advisor and it says my pc is capable of using any windows vista version including ulimate, because of the right software is in and drivers.
Posted by Robynsnest613 (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
...or does it?
A lot of people with very little tech knowledge bought PC's and laptops in late 2006 on nothing more than a sticker and a promise. When they got their voucher-supplied Vista "upgrade" (assuming they actually bothered and didn't just stick with XP), a lot of people got bit... hard. Sure, Vista would boot, but it wouldn't do too awful much after that.

If you're happy with yours (and the multi-GB of RAM you likely have in it), cool. But a lot of others spent quite a bit of dough only to realize that they got caught up in marketing tactics.

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
Not Ready For Prime time
The world knows the truth...and prefers Windows overwhelmingly. As great as Macs are, most people just aren't interested, period.
Now, on to what the story is actually about. Windows Vista is arguably the biggest mistake Microsoft has ever made, possibly comparable to the fiasco that was Windows ME and the disaster that was DOS 4.0. Probably the only thing worse was Microsoft Bob (remember that?)
Anyway, it appears that Microsoft now has to try to force feed Vista to the masses. I know, a lot of people use Vista and have no issues at all and that's great, but it is obvious that Vista has had far more initial complaints, issues and frustrations than Windows XP ever did. Being in IT, I have never heard more talk of downgrading to a previous version since Windows Me, and I'm not sure it was as bad as Vista has been. For the first time in 17 years, I have no desire to move to the next Microsoft OS. Not that I am a barometer of users worldwide, but let's face it, it's a real mess right now.
I've never liked the thousand-version model Vista has anyway, and apparently even Microsoft isn't clear about their own somewhat deceptive branding. Just one more reason for me to pass on the whole thing.
Posted by Toulinwoek (394 comments )
Reply Link Flag
:-)
I've always been amused by the argument that people "prefer Windows
overwhelmingly"- And I'll tell you why.
On the eve of Vista's release, I was standing in line behind a woman who had 3
copies of Vista in hand.
The line was long, so we started to talk, and since I was curious, I asked her how
many computers she had at home.
"Oh, I've only got one, but I've got 3 teenagers, and I was told that this will make my
computer go faster, so I'm buying a Vista for each of them".
This is something I've seen, year after year, since Windows hit version 3.
The masses do not "prefer Windows", they simply buy Windows.
The "masses" are completely, utterly clueless, and they simply do what they're told,
when they're told to do it, and in the manner which they're told to do so.
Posted by GGGlen (491 comments )
Link Flag
Total agreement
Completely agree. I have finally got XP to work really well and not hang up and I am happy with it. Now M$ is telling me that I will be forced to downgrade to Vista. The only one that will work on my meager ACER crappy laptop with 20 minutes of battery life is the Vista Home Basic which offers me no more functionality than I have with XP. So why change just because they call everything by different names doesn't make it better. If I want to learn a new OS I will buy a MAC.
Posted by ramudd (32 comments )
Link Flag
Nitpick:
The world (as an entity) doesn't "know" jack ****.

This is the same 'world' that bases its voting decisions on who has the best hair or sounds the most caring and sympathetic about what each individual perceives as their 'needs'.


This means that it's up to those of us in geekdom to educate folks on the strengths and weaknesses of each OS, computer, and other choices. I get asked a LOT about computer-related things; enough so that I empathize with doctors at parties now.

Me, I have my biases, and they can get obvious. I also make it a point to mention those biases up-front, then explain in layman's terms each relevant technical reason why I recommend a given solution. It works out pretty good.

As for Windows, it has, until recently, its niches and its purposes that made it worth recommending on occasion. Vista broke that, for reasons that have been hashed out numerous times in numerous articles here, and elsewhere.

The reason why, best I can figure, is that MSFT lost sight of what the damned thing was actually supposed to do. Instead, they tried to push their "vision" on to the scene, with no regard for speed or efficiency. Sure, they tried to put more "security" into it, but to no avail... all that managed to do was inconvenience the user while still leaving it [i]with more vulnerabilities[/i] than XP had at the same point in its lifecycle.

Basically, they took their eyes off of the prize. They went from being halfway proactive to being full-on reactive. Think of c.1992 Apple, and their (back then) loss of focus. What Apple was in 1992, Microsoft is today.

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
Not Ready For Prime time
The world knows the truth...and prefers Windows overwhelmingly. As great as Macs are, most people just aren't interested, period.
Now, on to what the story is actually about. Windows Vista is arguably the biggest mistake Microsoft has ever made, possibly comparable to the fiasco that was Windows ME and the disaster that was DOS 4.0. Probably the only thing worse was Microsoft Bob (remember that?)
Anyway, it appears that Microsoft now has to try to force feed Vista to the masses. I know, a lot of people use Vista and have no issues at all and that's great, but it is obvious that Vista has had far more initial complaints, issues and frustrations than Windows XP ever did. Being in IT, I have never heard more talk of downgrading to a previous version since Windows Me, and I'm not sure it was as bad as Vista has been. For the first time in 17 years, I have no desire to move to the next Microsoft OS. Not that I am a barometer of users worldwide, but let's face it, it's a real mess right now.
I've never liked the thousand-version model Vista has anyway, and apparently even Microsoft isn't clear about their own somewhat deceptive branding. Just one more reason for me to pass on the whole thing.
Posted by Toulinwoek (394 comments )
Reply Link Flag
:-)
I've always been amused by the argument that people "prefer Windows
overwhelmingly"- And I'll tell you why.
On the eve of Vista's release, I was standing in line behind a woman who had 3
copies of Vista in hand.
The line was long, so we started to talk, and since I was curious, I asked her how
many computers she had at home.
"Oh, I've only got one, but I've got 3 teenagers, and I was told that this will make my
computer go faster, so I'm buying a Vista for each of them".
This is something I've seen, year after year, since Windows hit version 3.
The masses do not "prefer Windows", they simply buy Windows.
The "masses" are completely, utterly clueless, and they simply do what they're told,
when they're told to do it, and in the manner which they're told to do so.
Posted by GGGlen (491 comments )
Link Flag
Total agreement
Completely agree. I have finally got XP to work really well and not hang up and I am happy with it. Now M$ is telling me that I will be forced to downgrade to Vista. The only one that will work on my meager ACER crappy laptop with 20 minutes of battery life is the Vista Home Basic which offers me no more functionality than I have with XP. So why change just because they call everything by different names doesn't make it better. If I want to learn a new OS I will buy a MAC.
Posted by ramudd (32 comments )
Link Flag
Nitpick:
The world (as an entity) doesn't "know" jack ****.

This is the same 'world' that bases its voting decisions on who has the best hair or sounds the most caring and sympathetic about what each individual perceives as their 'needs'.


This means that it's up to those of us in geekdom to educate folks on the strengths and weaknesses of each OS, computer, and other choices. I get asked a LOT about computer-related things; enough so that I empathize with doctors at parties now.

Me, I have my biases, and they can get obvious. I also make it a point to mention those biases up-front, then explain in layman's terms each relevant technical reason why I recommend a given solution. It works out pretty good.

As for Windows, it has, until recently, its niches and its purposes that made it worth recommending on occasion. Vista broke that, for reasons that have been hashed out numerous times in numerous articles here, and elsewhere.

The reason why, best I can figure, is that MSFT lost sight of what the damned thing was actually supposed to do. Instead, they tried to push their "vision" on to the scene, with no regard for speed or efficiency. Sure, they tried to put more "security" into it, but to no avail... all that managed to do was inconvenience the user while still leaving it [i]with more vulnerabilities[/i] than XP had at the same point in its lifecycle.

Basically, they took their eyes off of the prize. They went from being halfway proactive to being full-on reactive. Think of c.1992 Apple, and their (back then) loss of focus. What Apple was in 1992, Microsoft is today.

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
there wont be any problems
non-issue...

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'
Posted by TinyIoda (503 comments )
Reply Link Flag
there wont be any problems
non-issue...

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'
Posted by TinyIoda (503 comments )
Reply Link Flag
There is no such thing as Vista capable.
Capable is the same word as capability and that is an antonym for Vista.

The word they should have used is Vulnerable.

i.e., this PC is vulnerable to Windows Vista.
Posted by t8 (3716 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Windows Vista Vulnerable
That is funny, true, and sad all at the same time.
Posted by Magnolene (2 comments )
Link Flag
lmao
i concur
Posted by rnieves1977 (105 comments )
Link Flag
There is no such thing as Vista capable.
Capable is the same word as capability and that is an antonym for Vista.

The word they should have used is Vulnerable.

i.e., this PC is vulnerable to Windows Vista.
Posted by t8 (3716 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Windows Vista Vulnerable
That is funny, true, and sad all at the same time.
Posted by Magnolene (2 comments )
Link Flag
lmao
i concur
Posted by rnieves1977 (105 comments )
Link Flag
Dictionary meaning
ca·pa·ble: adjective
: 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.
Posted by zclayton2 (130 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.