Microsoft Could Lose up to 8.5 Billion in “Vista Capable” Lawsuit

35

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Amare_F

People rely on the internet. And when people have no internet, they lose access to a lot of the information they depend on – whether it is their work, their financial information, or an application for an online payday loan. Since so much of daily life now revolves around a computer, it seems like all life has come to a stop if you can't surf the web. This is the reason why so many of us shell out for better internet service, and wireless utilities. It's worth a payday loan to keep one's self from having no internet.

avatar

Wareagle

True, the performance delta may be negligable on a high end computer, but try installing it on a Pentium 4 with 1GB of RAM or less.

It makes no sense to upgrade from XP to Vista.  If it comes with your computer, it's ok, but don't waste your time and money upgrading.

avatar

aarcane

Regardless of the fact that the lack of aero doesn't "cripple" the OS, it is an advertised feature, and one the plaintiffs in this case expected to be included in a "vista capable" system.  If the system isn't capable of running every feature of the operating system, that should be made aboundantly clear before the point of sale.

avatar

colinjm0517

maybe people should read the product description more often

avatar

colinjm0517

Again I am only a teenager, but I am no fool when it comes to hardware and Windows XP/Vista/7 beta 1. Once I fried my motherboard and I had to read a 1,532 page book on fixing PC hardware. I think that there is someone whose job is to exploit these loopholes and earn billions each day. "Vista Capable" means it can run windows Vista with the Aero Glass theme disabled or Vista Home basic ONLY! At my school we have several (100+) computers that have the "Vista Capable" logo on them. I checked the stats and it reported an Intel Pentium 4 HT at 2.6 GHz, 512MB of RAM, DirectX 9.0, and about 30 GB of hard drive space left, Which if you read the Vista DVD box, It meets the minimum requirements for Windows Vista Home Basic/ Premium, Business, and Ultimate, minus the Aero Glass theme. Basically, someone is just being an a** and pointing out every flaw to earn a quick buck in this crappy economy (or $8.5 billion).

avatar

trotfox5

Same over here. All the new laptops the school got this year have that sticker and the specs are about the same as the minimum requirements for vista. I agree. The lawsuit is a bit harsh but I think Microsoft deserves a punishment for what vista put us through to begin with.

avatar

colinjm0517

People should have asked for XP or not upgraded, Microsoft did NOT force us to buy Vista

avatar

colinjm0517

People should read the bold print more often

avatar

colinjm0517

"Vista Capable" means it can run the core essence of Vista. In other words it CAN run Vista Home Basic but not other ones with the Aero Glass theme, or with the Aero theme disabled. My definition of "Vista capable" is a 1GHz CPU, 512 MB of RAM, 16 GB of free hard drive space, a SVGA monitor, and a graphics card with 128 MB of RAM that supports the original DirectX 9.0 standard. This lawsuit is just so some rich guy can get richer and make others feel bad in this crappy economy.

avatar

NAYRhyno

This lawsuit is a bunch of BS!

I understand people have trouble with Vista, or like XP better, or whatever.  But this is simple.  Machines had two varieties of stickers in 2006.  

1) Windows Vista Capable
A Windows Vista Capable desktop or laptop can run all six editions of
Windows Vista but has limitations with advanced features like the new
Windows Aero interface.
- 800MHz CPU or faster
- 512MB system memory
- graphics card capable of DirectX 9

2) Vista Premium Ready
A Premium Ready desktop or laptop can run all five editions of Windows Vista, including all the advanced features.

- 1GHz 32-bit or 64-bit CPU
- 1GB of system memory
- 128MB graphics card with WDDM driver and supports Pixel Shader 2.0

Pretty clear.  Reading further inormation indicates that Media Center, movie maker, etc will not run if you don't have the right graphics hardware.  Intel could not right a WDDM driver for GMA900, so no aero on Vista Capable machines with GMA900.  I ran Vista (Win 7 now) on GMA900 hardware and it is fine.  No aero, but so what! 

 

avatar

bcweir

...$50 off your next copy of Windows Vista!

 

As usual, the attorneys get the cash, you get the stiff one from behind.

avatar

bjoswald

There's one small change MSFT could have implemented to completely avert this disaster. Instead of stamping a vague "Vista Capable" sticker on hardware, they could have used a scale similar to the Windows Performance Index system. For example, say I went in to Best Buy to buy a new PC. I see the machines all lined up, all of which say "Vista Capable". However, in addition, they also have a number between 1 and 5, which determines how well Vista will run (or, in MS's terms: "How much of the 'Vista Experience' I'll be able to enjoy"). So there's your run-of-the-mill Gateway, eMachine, or whatever the mainstream PC is, which will be anywhere between 1 and 3. And then, as you go further down the line, you get to the enthusiast hardware, which is, obviously, your 4's and 5's. If the customers still can't figure it out, have little brochures or some kind of display to outline the rating system so the customers can read it. Simple, no lawsuit, no lies. Oh, and a lot cheaper than 8.5 billion.

avatar

Brock Kane

I have 2 hard drives in my Alienware System. 1 with Win XP and the other with Vista. Comparing the 2 operating systems, hands down XP is a much smoother and much faster OS.

Let's face it, it's all about the mighty dollar, before the consumer. The consumer is a guinee pig to the big Microsoft Giant. They realize PC users are always excited about the latest software updates on anything, especially the latest Windows version. But, I think that's finally caught up with them.

Most of us are aware that Vista is terrible. But I've already heard some good reviews on Windows 7. Let's just hope Microsoft has now caught on. That not all consumers have $3,000 for a new powerful system that can run a memory hogging operating system every 5 years.

avatar

Quakindude

I like WindowsXP as much as the next geek. But the reality is drivers, or the lack of capable ones, has the large majority of the blame on Vista's horrid launch. If it weren't for such bad driver support, in large part due to Microsoft taking so long to provide Dev's with the needed tools to write them, Vista would have launched just like XP did. Thousands of people whining about how they are going to keep using Win2KPro for life.

 

Ever since the drivers started being properly written, and a couple of Pre-SP1 updates, Vista has been smooth as silk. After SP1 came out, everyone in the business has to shut the hell up about Vista. To keep going on about it now is pointless. It has been proven all over the major review sites that Vista is currently performing at about the same level as XP. Now if people want to keep on complaining about not being able to run Vista on five year old hardware, we will never get to the next level of OS evolution because MS and others will be too afraid to push the envelope of OS development. If you can't afford the newer hardware, then don't buy the damned OS. 

avatar

dirtyvu

MS should walk up to Intel's CEO and slap him in the face with the bill for the costs of this case.  if MS didn't bend to Intel insistence that their MB chipsets with crappy Intel graphics qualify for Vista, we wouldn't have this problem.  While Nvidia and AMD upped their hardware to qualify, Intel begged MS and MS relented.  That got Nvidia and AMD pissed because now their upgraded hardware got grouped together with Intel's poor offerings.  What makes  Vista feel slow is first RAM and then graphics. If you have at least 2 GB of RAM and decent graphics, Vista feels great.  I really like Vista and would never go back to XP.  But Win7 is sick.  It's a thing of beauty and fixes nearly all the problems with Vista.  Luckily, I went thru my learning curve with Vista GUI changes so Win7 feels natural (it's just an upgraded Vista).  For someone who jumps from XP to Win7, there will be some serious adjustment.

avatar

Wildebeast

 I do think "Vista Capable" should mean the buyer can should be able to choose the upgraded software ver. on that same hardware.  They had no problem breaking the OS into 3 different types --for more $$, they shouldn't have had any problem coming up with a couple more different labels.

I don't have Vista ---the first member of my family to get it is still doing a periodic System Restore (as recommended by the OEM's tech support) to recover from lock-ups & crashes.

At one point, I seem to recall reading around MPC somewhere that 75% of Vista crashes & lock-ups had been attributed to drivers from either nVidia or Creative.

That's what the the lawsuit would be about --to me-- if I were part of the class action.  They allowed the OEMs to slap these labels on anything, without any idea if/when drivers would be ready & working. 

 I'm sure it happens with every new OS release, but it was worse this time, and MS was doing the OEMs a favor pushing losing support for older parts.  It's an OEM problem, as much as MicroSoft's

20/20 hind-sight, they should have not issued those labels at all, had more stringent standards for them, or spent the money from that AD campaign getting people's computers working as they were advertised/purchased to work.

I really hate the "Madison Avenue" approach ["the Matadors" & "Mohave"], as a "fix."

 

 

 

avatar

MeTo

I hope Microsoft loses they droped the standards to allow them to be sold as vista capable. They should have said Vista "BASIC" capable. Beacuse to say "VISTA" capable it should be capable with all verisions. IMO.

avatar

Antilogic81

That kind of reasoning is why we have lip balm with the label "Do not put into your eyes"...It's a mixture of retarded individuals who can't seem to grasp the idea of "buyer beware" - ie knowing exactly what their purchase is capable of, and people who will find some little itty bitty minute discrephency and take it to some extreme and see if they can't make a quick buck from it...

I guess they need to put a label on it for whether it's capable with Vista 64, and one that says its capable with Vista 32 too, cause otherwise some shmuck will think he HAS to get the 64 bit...by the time they are done they "may" have so many stickers on it you can't even read what the technical specs are. The same could also be said for online purchases but why bother, they have the sum of all human knowledge at their finger tips and they don't even use it...I'm not going to pity them.

Lack of judgement and not looking into their purchase further than the face of the box and paying attention to only what stickers are on the front of the box is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. The internet is there, it should be used. 

avatar

routine

Boom! That's the sound of a hammer hitting the nail directly on the head.

avatar

computer_freak_8

It is true that it makes sense that the buyer of a new computer should do the research to make sure the computer will do what they want it to. On the other hand, however, companies should not create situations in which non-computer-savvy people are misled. People that do not know a lot about computers should not be forced to learn a bunch of new terminology, how it applies, and spend hours doing what computer enthusiasts have done already, simply because they enjoy it.

I think it is safe to say that the majority of computer users simply want to be able to use the computer. They may or may not care about how it works, or even the system specifications. They just want to use it. And they should be able to purchase one without having to have a consultant (be it a friend/family member, whoever) just to get a computer that does what they want it to.

avatar

Balgaroo

 

This is just one more example of people feeling they were wronged and now they want monetary compensation for their said pathetic lives.  I am not a Microsoft fanboy, I do not believe the little man should be allowed toget run over by the "big bad corporation" but this is a waste of timeand money by our courts and Microsoft.  When Vista first came out I had a mobo that was Vista Capable and it did not run Aero.  At the time I was abit disappointed but the operating system ran without a problem (well you knowwhat I mean).  When I got my pc running Aero I was thrilled for a whole min and then I ignored it just like we all do.  Like I said, this is awaste of time and money by both parties.

In the end Microsoft will have to pay all those money grubbing bitches and in the future they will simply put a little one sentence disclaimeron what they label to protect themselves and their practices will not change.  Their is no lesson learned at best it is one more thing that Microsoft will start doing to protectitself from stupid consumers.

Why not spend that $8.5 Billion on R&D on a DRM that does not suck. 

 

avatar

teh 1337 haxxor

Capable:(usually followed by `of') having capacity or ability; "capable of
winning"; "capable of hard work"; "capable of walking on two feet"

Isn't Vista Basic pretty much the same as XP as far as the UI goes? It has complete functionality without Aero's eye candy...I would say that this lawsuit is complete bogus...If Vista boots up ok, then technichally, it is "running" Vista, and is therefore Vista CAPABLE.

 "capable of walking on two feet"<--see above definition... Just because you are capable of walking on two feet, doesn't necessarily mean that you can run a mile...or even run at all for that matter...

avatar

MeTo

No Win XP and Win Vista basic are not the same. Vista basic has no media center Plus a hole list of things you had with Win XP. When Microsoft released system req. for Vista (3d video card was req.) to be Vista certafied. Even some of Microsoft's own people said don't do it.

avatar

cmichael

In response to MeTo, Win XP did not come with media center. It was a separate version of XP all together and was mostly ownly available from OEMs.

avatar

cup

I'm wondering just how this got as far as it did.  Remember, there were two 'ready' levels:  "Vista capable" (meaning the computer could run the OS), and "Vista ready" (which meant 'can run eye candy', basically.) 
Can't people do a tiny bit of research as to what means what?  Weren't salespeople educated as to what meant what?
Oh yeah, I forgot:  in the US, no one is responsible for their own (non-criminal) actions - it's always another person's (or, better, a corporations) fault.  Grr.

~Cup
*nearly every day of my life is some kind of computer hell*

avatar

Devo85x

When using the actual definition of "capable" doesn't that technicly mean that the PC itself doesn't even have to be able to run vista?  "Yeah this thing can run vista, it has 128GB of RAM but is CAPABLE of 2GB, It can use a GPU CAPABLE of running Aero, but youll never get it on the onboard Intel graphics... capable doesnt say much and should never be advertised, yes ill do my research, but when they are practicly the same thing (Vista READY, and Vista CAPABLE? WTF?!?!?) maby you should stop siding with a company just because you like them...

avatar

bcweir

That's what you wrote.

 

 

Wow.  That's what I call a DOWNGRADE!

avatar

BaggerX

How is it the customer's fault when Microsoft decides to redefine words in the english language?  Vista capable or Vista ready should mean that the hardware will run Vista.  Any version of Vista.  If it doesn't, then they should explicitly state that it will only run certain versions of Vista and explain what features will not work.  Microsoft always shows the Aero interface in Vista advertisements.  As far as customers know, that IS Vista.  Had they been told that the machine they were buying would run Vista but that it wouldn't look much better than XP, they'd probably reevaluate their purchase.  That, of course, is precisely why they didn't just come out and say it, and instead redefine certain words into secret code-phrases that roughly translate to "buy this and get screwed, sucker".

avatar

Devo85x

Before I continue, let me just emphasize that I do not hate Windows or Microsoft, I have Windows XP and Vista on my current system, but Microsoft deserves this, Vista Compatible should have ment that you could use ANY version of Vista with all extras enabled/useable (Aero, along with the programs it comes with) and work well, not to mention that on Microsofts own website they never gave a disclaimer to say that Vista Compatible did not mean it might not run Aero.  As for does it hurt the OS, I think it does.  When I use an operating system the visual appeal is a major aspect to me.  Just thought I would state my opinion

avatar

Antilogic81

Sorry but I feel this is retarded. Vista Capable doesn't really mean Aero capable. It's just eye candy...and its just a bunch of malcontents wanting easy money...as much as M$ is what it is...I don't think this law suit ever had much validity. You could get Aero like eye candy with window's blinds can't you? This doesn't stop them from making that resume, or checking that important email. It didn't stop them making any business acquisitions or sales. This is utterly stupid. We see this all the time with games...remember the promise of guild houses from Diablo 2? They never came...did we file a law suit...no because the game still worked and was still enjoyable. Same goes for Age of Conan, where a lot of advertised components never reached the players as promised. Granted these aren't entire PCs, but the analogy is still applicable. We are forced to make due with things not promised every day...no one gripes we make do. The difference here is M$ is viewed as having so much damn money because we all know Gates is a pretty freaking rich...so we identify with that and get mad because we aren't in the same boat as he. You feel duped on some instinctual level, and I can't abide that kind of reasoning...jealousy is no reason.

 

This is just visuals, go get window's blinds or something.

avatar

Devo85x

You compair game devolipers promising stuff in game and not delivering, isnt what Microsoft did more like a PC company saying "PLAYS CRYSIS WELL" for a PC, but when you test it, you have to run it in DX9, at 800x600, on low settings, no AA enabled, and it only plays about 20fps?  You compair something promised vs something advertised wich doesnt rly work...

avatar

makius

Nope sorry you arent compairing the same thing. If Microsoft had said "Windows Vista PREMIUM capable" than yes your analogy would be accurate. However, Microsoft said it was just "capable" not Vista Premium capable. So to make your analogy more accurate it would be like a PC manufacturer saying "plays Crysis!" and people crying that they have to play it on low settings and resolution but can still infact PLAY Crysis just not with high settings. That PC company would have done exactly what they promised. Same thing with Microsoft, they said it could run Vista not Vista Premium or Ultimate and it did run vista just fine. Granted it was just Vista Basic but that is considered Vista isn't it? 

avatar

Cache

The case could have merit if the plaintiffs can show that Vista marketing was done with features like Aero, but then those features were not included in their copies of Vista.  It's technically a bait and switch--and hopefully this is something MS will think about when they kick off their next OS campaign.

 Speaking of which, shouldn't they be starting one up sometime soon?

avatar

makius

 Ok lets see here, the bottom line is were these systems "capable" of running vista? The answer is yes. They were able to install, boot up and run Windows Vista, period. What version of Vista is besides the point, the fact is these systems did infact run Vista, thereby making them "capable". Did they not do exactly what was advertised? Yes they did so go cry me a river.

 Everyone knows that Microsoft always has different tiers of all their OS. So why didnt these people ask themselves, "hey what version of Vista is this capable of running?". Not Microsoft's fault if they just assumed it could run the premium version. Now if Microsoft had advertised these units as being able to run Premium and they failed to do so then ok they screwed up. All these people are just pissed off that they were too stupid to ask a simple question. Don't get me wrong i would be pissed too in that situation but i would also just have to slap myself for letting it happen.

avatar

cmichael

The real culprits in this may not be Intel or Microsoft or even the OEMs. It could have been that under paid, under qualified sales person at Best Buy, Circuit City, Office Depot, etc., that would just use the lastest greatest OS to make more sales while having no idea or concern as to whether the computer they were selling was capable of running even Windows 95. I have had experience with these sales people, and it is unbelievable what they will tell you to make a sell. I don't blame them because they are just trying to make a living. The real fault is with the companies themselves. All they care about is making as much money as possible and they care very little about the consumer. If they cared about the comsumer, they would hire qualified sales people so that comsumers could trust that what they were being told was factual. That may be why Circuit City is out of business and I don't doubt that more will follow. If corporate greed is not brought under control, our economy is doomed to fail.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.