Even Microsoft Execs Are Confused About 'Vista Capable' Claims
from the marketing-doublespeak dept
In April we noted a lawsuit charging Microsoft with deceptive advertising for slapping a "Vista Capable" label on computers that will only run the Home Basic version of Windows. The lawyers are currently taking depositions in that case, and we're learning that even Microsoft's own executives can't keep their story straight. Apparently, a Microsoft executive stated that "capable is a statement that has an interpretation for many that, in the context of this program, a PC would be able to run any version of the Windows Vista operating system." Not surprisingly, his lawyers quickly pulled him aside and pointed out that this statement was undermining their case, and he quickly changed his tune and said that "capable" meant able to run at least one version of Windows Vista. So Microsoft deservedly has egg on its face here. Still, I'm torn about whether a lawsuit is appropriate. Home Basic clearly is a version of Windows Vista, and so the statement that the machines were "Vista Capable" is technically true, albeit misleading. I just checked HP and Dell's website, and they're both selling their low-end machines with Home Basic. Unless there's evidence that consumers received more specific promises from sales reps or in marketing materials, it seems like a stretch to interpret "Vista Capable" as a promise that the machines would be able to run every version of Vista. Microsoft is getting some richly deserved bad press here, and that may be enough to make them be more careful in the future. It's not clear a class action lawsuit will accomplish anything beyond enriching the lawyers involved.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: marketing speak, vista, vista capable
Companies: microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No more. People who are buying modern, cheap computers are looking for an appliance. They want to plug it in and have it work for the basic tasks of non nerds. It does e-mail, it has a browser, it plays CDs and DVDs, and it does all that without superfluous bells and whistles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The version of OS the system came with
I was really disappointent when I tried to load Vista Ultimate Prerelease on my brand new Sony VAIO in late 2006. It installed and worked well enough but I had a very hard time finding drivers for it. I guess I had misinterpreted "Windows Vista Capable" as "you can install Windows Vista on this thing now and it'll run smooth as silk." Guess I was wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vista?? Um, no.
Make it $100, fix the bugs, give us a BIGTIME service pack, and maybe one or two of us will buy Vista. I personally do not see the benefit of spending $400 on an operating system that will run programs and games SLOWER than XP (Check the Crysis benchmarks, especially SLI in XP versus SLI in Vista64 - LOL!).
Read this Microsoft: We will NOT give you $400 for your lousy, shoddy, slapped-together "code", when a high-end 8800GT GPU is only $250, and a quad core Q6600 is only $275. Is the operating system supposed to cost as much as a speedy CPU and GPU COMBINED?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm afraid
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To borrow a line from Casablanca...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
an oxymoron?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vista?? Um, no.
I just built a new high-end PC, and guess what... XP went right on there, not Vista. $399 for an OPERATING SYSTEM, hahaha yeah... right. In your DREAMS, Microsoft!
Make it $100, fix the bugs, give us a BIGTIME service pack, and maybe one or two of us will buy Vista. I personally do not see the benefit of spending $400 on an operating system that will run programs and games SLOWER than XP (Check the Crysis benchmarks, especially SLI in XP versus SLI in Vista64 - LOL!).
Read this Microsoft: We will NOT give you $400 for your lousy, shoddy, slapped-together "code", when a high-end 8800GT GPU is only $250, and a quad core Q6600 is only $275. Is the operating system supposed to cost as much as a speedy CPU and GPU COMBINED?
[/quote]
QFT, QFE
and amen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vista
They say Vista is selling well, but I bet thats only because computers are becoming more prevalent, and more people don't know the difference.
I agree 100% with Matt post #3. I am looking at rebuilding my machine here this spring and Vista will NEVER touch it.
Gawsh I wish game programmers would get with it and ALL start developing OpenGL. I know it is a little behind DirectX now, but thats only because they are all slackers and haven't been working on it. If they did it would smoke DirectX I am sure.
Oh, and "Windows Genuine Advantage" may very well be the biggest oxymoron ever, I agree there. Not to mention its practically a misnomer. Should be called "Genuine Windows Authenticator" or something at least a little more appropriate.
And we would probably mostly agree, any system that HAS to be labeled "Vista Capabale" is probably going to run it like shit anyways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why not....
Seems like a simple enough idea to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vista capable to do what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
but....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mean minimal performance
That being said I agree with post #3. M$ will starve to death before I'll drop $400 for a shoddy version of an OS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vista
It's like a car, you can get a Chevy whatever for $12,000, but it won't have electric windows, locks, etc. You have to get the $23,000 version to get that. And guess what? You can't just upgrade your car either.
If these people were told differently by the person that sold them the computer, then it's the company who sold them the computer's fault for not having their employees being educated. In this case, I believe Microsoft has tried to go out of their way to try not to be deceptive.
You people whine about a $400 OS, but they offer cheaper versions (that's what this case is sort of about) specifically for that reason. What you are saying by not being happy with the $99 version is that you want all the fancy features, but don't want to pay for it. Since all the features above home basic are "flash", with maybe the exception of bit-locker, I don't see much point in the argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vista?? Um, no.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vista
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Protools and Vista
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The version of OS the system came with
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: but....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Multiple versions of Vista
Vista's twelve different versions are like this. Either I need the stuff that Vista has or I don't. MS doesn't make twelve versions of Word. They just sell Word. Lots of people complain that Word is too bloated, and they're right, but basically everybody has it anyway.
Half the reason that people make uniformed decisions as to which version of Vista to buy is, there are too many choices. They should just have one (maybe two) versions of Vista. When people make the car analogy, they're making a mistake. Cars are major investments. Tens of thousands of dollars. This is a $400 OS. It would be more accurate (although admittedly still a stretch) to compare Vista to buying peanut butter. If you give me two different kinds of peanut butter, I'll probably take the time to figure out which one I prefer. But if I have to choose between 12 different kinds of peanut butter, I'm just going to say "fuck it. Gimme Jif." Because even though it might not be the best one, it'll still do for PB&Js.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My experience with XP
I personally don't care much for Microsoft but being a computer repair guy I do have to deal with their products and know how to resolve issues with them. Following this logic I did install Vista onto my new machine. (New is relative). Core 2 Duo Overclocked to 2.6Ghz, 512MB Nvidia graphics card, Raid 0 drives, etc...
The Bad:
Vista did NOT automatically have the drivers to load my raid array, although it did allow me to use a flash drive to load the drivers unlike XP requiring a floppy disc.
Vista didn't run well with all features turned on until I had 2GB of RAM (512for XP) and I have since put in another 2GB making 4 total. It runs smoothly now (go figgure).
The performance hit is noticeable, especially when trying to do file operations. Although the operations go smoother, it appears that Vista does some extensive checking for duplicate names and such before it even begins the file operation leading to slower performance, especially over a network.
The good:
Vista is laid out nicely and support tons of nifty gadgets that I actually find myself using. This could have been offered for XP as well though.
The performance of my 3D gaming has improved, believe it or not. My framerates are higher and game load times are lower. I can't explain this.
Summary:
Vista isn't worth it, especially the ultimate version. XP worked fine for me, had fewer compatibility problems, etc. I would have to say that the reason Vista is selling so well is that it's packaged with almost all new PC's unless you find a vendor like Dell who offers the option of XP or you have your system custom built. Vista really doesn't seem to offer anything earth-shattering right now. BTW: the vista capable sticker is misleading, I've already received tons of calls from consumers requesting help with their machine which is almost entirely related to lack of RAM in the new machine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They should just rewrite the whole thing from scratch and think about usability / simplicity this time around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Protools and Vista
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Vista?? Um, no.
Ultimate:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116140
$220 for Premium
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116142
$149 for Basic
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116152
I use Vista. I think it's pretty good. For those that say it should be $100, I'd like to see your business plan that will allow for that to happen AND keep your company in the black.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not practical to expect every machine to run every
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Too many Vistas, but still a good OS
When we've got Microsoft popping out a new OS every 4 years on average and charging $400 for it.
Whats the difference? Microsoft is somehow 'poorer value' because its a bigger number? :/
The responsibility here not only lies with Microsoft but also the retailers. While a 'Vista Capable' sticker is technically correct, its missleading (especially in the hands of a salesman). Microsoft should probably have brought out multiple stickers for the different OSs different levels of requirement.
I've been using Vista for four months now, and I wouldn't go back to XP. Its not perfect, but its definately an improvement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pre-installed Vista
Off topic: I put Open Office on the laptop since it was free. It didn't work like MS Office [for XP, which I'm familiar with] so I took advantage of the offer to get a 60-day trial of Office 2007. This has been "improved" until it's further from Office XP than the Open Office product. For someone who was dragged kicking and screaming from DOS, I can only wonder what kind of customer MS is selling to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re #12 Minimum Requirements
My computer meets the minimum requirements (and that is about it since it is now 2.5 years old).
I set everything to the minimum and it still looks awesome and plays sharp as a whistle.
Never ever lags on minimum even with my system only meeting the minimum requirements (only think I am over on is the RAM, my CPU is actually below).
Gawd I love that game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vista Capable v Premium Ready
Just checked Dell, and they've clearly got two different versions of hardware - "Designed for XP/Vista Capable", and "Premium Ready" - guess which is cheap and which isn't?
Think I'll keep XP for the time being, thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
M$ Butt Licker
...you are a Wanker and a Microsoft shill !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On Vista SKU's
Unlike most consumers, I don't like unnecessary bells and whistles (I came from the BSD side, rather than the Linux* side).
Vista is a good OS. There have been driver issues due to third parties not releasing Vista drivers in a timely manner or releasing badly written drivers. Even so, this seems to be being corrected faster than the earlier transition from Win 98/ME to XP, when I had numerous serious problems.
From my point of view, the reason to upgrade from XP to Vista is security.
It is all but impossible to run XP as a normal user, but it is quite easy to run Vista as a normal user. I configure my machines with an administrator account and individual user accounts. This results in a great security increase and is not discussed in public, I believe because it is too hard to communicate to a user and developer base that is used to running as administrator.
There was a lot of hardening of the OS infrastructure - utilization of fine-grained permissions to service hosts, massive fuzzing of parsers, introduction of low-rights limitations, etc.
Despite all the complaints about UAC, under reasonable usage you shouldn't be hitting this much - I don't. You get hit when you are installing executables to the system. Under normal usage, you should be manipulating data, not modifying the system. As a former Unix sysadmin, the last thing I wanted was for users to be able to install or modify stuff on the system.
I turn off sidebar (it takes extra cycles and increases the attack surface) and Aero (it takes cycles and increases memory usage). Indeed, I optimize my systems for performance not appearance. They work well. My desktop system, which is running Vista Business has a 3.2 Ghz Pentium D with integrated graphics and 1 GByte of RAM. My older notebook, on which I ran Server 2008 beta's had a 2 GHz notebook proc and 2 GByte of RAM. It ran well, even on maximal battery savings mode.
The bells and whistles cost processing cycles and RAM. If you are running systems that may lack something here (and RAM and processor speed are rather cheap these days), you should configure your system to avoid the bells and whistles. Vista Home Basic is a solid implementation. If you are running minimal systems, you do not want to try and run the bells and whistles, you will not be happy with the result.
By the way, I found the transition to Office 12 to be very irritating. I did not like the forced UI change. In my opinion, even if you ignore the new features, the security improvements if Office justify the transition. I have seen rather careful reviews that suggest that Office 12 probably has significantly fewer vulnerabilities than Open Office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:Protools and Vista by Vi$hita H8ter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I would suggest that m$'s next objective would be a new version of vista called lightning - stripped of bloat and optimized for performance. This is a product people like me would consider buying (if we weren't already running win2k in a virtualbox).... Too late!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vista
This is all about choice. Rather than thanking MS for making it possible to have a $300 Vista machine, you complain that a $300 can't run the latest piece of software technology. Duh.
As far as 'upgrading' to XP from Vista... Just go get XP and do a clean install. Can you do an upgrade over Vista? No, XP has no knowledge of Vista. Just reformat the drive and have at it. Just because *you* don't know how to do something, don't blame Microsoft. These are PCs at the end of the day, and there's nothing in them that make them Vista only PCs.
No offense, but if you are calling HP, Sony or Geek Squad, trying to figure out your PC situation, you are in over your head only asking for trouble. Go get help from someone that does know, and that does not include Geek Squad, Sony or HP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, thats right, its the popular thing to do. Nevermind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Too many Vistas, but still a good OS
Except in Redding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've gotta side with MS
Let's say I just bought Crysis. It looks amazing, I've seen the screenshots of what it looks like on Very High. My computer meets the minimum system requirements. I run the game and find that I can only play on low settings and it looks ugly! Is my computer not capable of running Crysis?
Of course it's capable. I just don't get the best experience.
Now take the same scenario but let's say that MS made Crysis. Is my computer not capable of running Crysis?
Of course not, it's made by M$.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Too many Vistas, but still a good OS
Your understanding of Mac OS is flawed. It costs $129, not 200. And while the number hasn't changed (10.4 to 10.5) it's not a "service pack." A Windows Service Pack contains security patches and hotfixes, and maybe a runtime or new version of Internet Explorer. That's it. Mac OS 10.5 includes over 300 new features not in 10.4. Some are applications or drastic interface updates, some are updates to already existing, included with the OS, applications (which are worthwhile, not trash like Windows Movie Maker or Wordpad), and some are under the hood. Take just a quick look here: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ at the major new features, and tell me XP's Service Pack 2 included anything that even closely resembles this kind of update over SP1.
I do not use Mac, but I keep up with their news (as well as that of Microsoft and Linux/FSF), and don't like to see misinformation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vista?? Um, no.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vista
Yes, but I've never seen an instance of buying a $12,000 Chevy and getting out on the highway and finding out its top speed is only 43 miles per hour. _That's_ what buying a system with Vista pre-installed is like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who filed this lawsuit?
Now do ya really think that $400 overgrown web browser is really going to run Vista Ultimate (an oxymoron if there ever were one)? C'mon people. Those people filing the lawsuit should be the laughing stock of all this.
Likewise Microsoft should be chastised for being cagey. Sure you need to obey every if, and, or but in their EULA. But on this one we should just them some slack. Yeah, right! Those assholes!
This whole thing is a farce!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The version of OS the system came with
It says "Designed for Windows(R) XP" and then below "Windows Vista(tm) Capable". It can run Media Center, XP Home and XP Pro and they assume you know that without specifying each product. One would assume that the Vista Capable line can be taken in the same context as the Windows XP line and that all flavors are considered.
And it's not like the hardware can't support Vista! Intel Core2 Duo, 2gb RAM, Dual 100gb HDDs and a nVidia GO 7600.
Microsoft clearly has their phrasing mixed up....I doubt it was intentional but it sure is annoying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Love Vista
[ link to this | view in thread ]
microsuck
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Protools and Vista
How the hell can you blame Microsoft when it was you that bought software that was incompatible with your OS?
I couldn't tell you how many times I've wiped out a pre-installed OS and installed something different WITHOUT having to buy a new hard drive.
It sounds like you're the dumb @ss that doesn't know what she's doing.
And to the rest of you crybabies, don't blame Microsoft because you bought "Vista Ready" computers that run like shit under Vista Ultimate.
Next time, do a little research before you invest money. Find out what the minimum and recommended system requirements are for the OS that you want to run and make your purchase accordingly. Duh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Corporate Crash
[quote]
I use Vista. I think it's pretty good. For those that say it should be $100, I'd like to see your business plan that will allow for that to happen AND keep your company in the black.
[/quote]
Last I checked M$ had something like a hundred gazillion dollars in the bank -- CASH! So, no, I'm not worried about them not having enough money to pay the rent next month.
Their X-Box platform OTOH...well, let's just keep this civil.
Also, the fact that they are not selling Vista AT ALL compared to XP one year after its release should be more worrying. Drop the price, sales climb (maybe), problem solved.
Part of the reason why Vista sucks is that it requires 4 gigs of ram to run smoothly. Now, if the big box stores sold a low-end PC with 4 gigs standard, then we wouldn't be having these problems. It'd only add $100 or so to the sticker, the price of DDR2 falling through the floor.
Only problem is, this would no longer be a low-end machine. Econo-box makers like their 512MB and 1GB RAM numbers. It allows them to up-sell their "high-end" machines for ridiculously over-inflated prices. They need to realize that the 32 bit era is coming to a close, and 4GB should be considered the minimum when running upper-echelon operating systems.
Me, I recently "upgraded" to Ubuntu 7.10, and 512MB of ole' Kingston DDR. It doesn't sparkle, but a) it boots, and b) I can open up a web browser.
That's all I really need, on my 'net machine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When will MS learn?
1. Making many versions of the same product so you can extract the most money from consumers...is a bad idea.
2. Making the roll-out so confusing that it not only bewilders consumers but also your own Execs...is a bad idea.
3. Being greedy...is a bad idea.
4. Angering customers by making what should have been in release pack #3, a new product with a hefty price tag...is a bad idea.
5. Misleading potential customers...is a bad idea.
6. Giving customers yet another reason to adopt Linux...priceless!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Windows Vista? What's that?
Let me just say this: I was doing just fine with Windows 2000. Almost everything I need that runs in XP runs in 2000 as well. I switched to XP for about six months before making the leap to Linux. I am considering installing Windows for the sake of playing my games, but I will probably just use 2000 since it is less bloated than XP. I have not seen one good reason to use Vista.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's like gaming companies
Is a computer designed for Windows 95 "capable" of running Vista? Maybe at the barest level, but technically, it will still run. Is this "misleading"? No, but it's not being very informative either.
However, when a customer is faced with spending $300 (or whatever) on a new operating system on their existing computer or spending twice that on a brand-new computer, which option will they take? How many people go into a store expecting to buy an operating system and actually come out with a new, mid to high-end computer?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The version of OS the system came with
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Vista?? Um, no.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My experience with XP
VISTA is horrible for many reasons, but the biggest one is the imbedded DRM. Gates and company went down on the poles that are the RIAA and MPAA. Everytime I read bad comments on VISTA, I cheer. Down with DRM!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vista was designed for high-end and future systems. Microsoft expected PC's and Laptops to be better by now as this is what hardware manufacturers where advertising... Supposed to have octa-cores out by now said Intel a few years ago. (ignoring the cell).
Fact is these laptops CAN run A version, but simply shouldnt.. its like running Bioshock on or just under the minimum syste, requirements.. you CAN, but you shouldnt.
The sticker is marketing play aimed at stupid people who take things for granted and believe that adverts tell you something real... deluded simple people, who see hear and buy without knowing as they allways have and allways will... Thats why the advertising industry is so big people! Because most people are thich and brainwashable.
Microsoft is playing the same old game that the rest of the world is playing... and so are Dell and such releasing laptops with these stickers on.
Listen good, Vista wants 4,9 and mroe cores, and at least 8gigs of ram.. it supports up to 128gigs of ram... this is what its designed for... stop trying to run it on your craptop when you really dont even know what you want it for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re#50 John
I would bet I could get this Vista level of performance out of CoD4 with a system far below the minimum reqs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Merit
That doesn't meant that a case is without merit, just that the legal system is too screwed up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Vista?? Um, no.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: but....
M$ sets the requirements for what qualifies for the "Vista Capable" label, not Acer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vista
But it will run. Most people would be upset if when it was delivered it wouldn't run and the dealer just said "Oh, you wanted it to run? You have to get the $23,000 version to get an engine."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not practical to expect every machine to run e
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Vista
No, this is about truthfulness and untrue blanket statements about Vista compatibility. If a computer will only run certain version of Vista, then that is what should be stated. A computer touted as Vista capable, with no restrictions or qualifications stated, should be able to run Vista without restriction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I've gotta side with MS
Sure there is, if that restriction wasn't made clear to the buyer before purchase.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The law is supposed to protect the public from con jobs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm afraid
Jeff Hyder (Fed Up)
[ link to this | view in thread ]