A US judge has given the go-ahead for consumers to file a class action lawsuit against Microsoft for providing misleading information about Windows XP computers being able to run Vista.
Redmond’s “Windows Vista Capable” labels first appeared on computers in April 2006, even though the firm’s latest operating system didn’t get a general release until January last year. According to Associated Press the class action lawsuit, which was certified by US district judge Marsha Pechman last Friday, will specifically look at whether Microsoft’s labels generated artificial demand for computers in the 2006 run-up to Christmas.
View: The full story @ The Reg
Redmond’s “Windows Vista Capable” labels first appeared on computers in April 2006, even though the firm’s latest operating system didn’t get a general release until January last year. According to Associated Press the class action lawsuit, which was certified by US district judge Marsha Pechman last Friday, will specifically look at whether Microsoft’s labels generated artificial demand for computers in the 2006 run-up to Christmas.
View: The full story @ The Reg
Idiots.
Not the rest of the public. It is misleading.
You really have no Idea how clueless and mis informed the average individual really is.
When it comes to computers the average individual doesn't know there ass from a hole in ground. At lease not when it comes to Vista-capable type things.
Not the rest of the public. It is misleading.
You really have no Idea how clueless and mis informed the average individual really is.
When it comes to computers the average individual doesn't know there ass from a hole in ground. At lease not when it comes to Vista-capable type things.
Either way, Vista capale obviusly means the computer is "capable" of runing Vista, it's not brain surgery we're talking about here.Capable means ou are able to run the OS not that you can use all the fancy stuff that requires more powerful computers.
Idiots.
+1. And it isn't just computer geeks who only know it. Last time I went to PC World, they had a big poster showing what each version was and what Vista-capable and Premium Ready meant.
People are just idiots. All it takes is a simple click onto the Windows Vista site.
THey should have called it "Vista capable of running like ass"
Exactly if it says Vista Capable doesn't that mean I should be able to run Vista? .....oh wait.... you mean its just basic? ...then why not say "Vista Basic capable"
because it's still capable of runing premium and ultimate and any other version too. it just can't run Aero. but it's CAPABLE of runnign any versio of Vista.
We got your drift a thousand freaking posts ago. Time to talk about something else, yes?
The consumers are the ones buying it. Microsoft isn't forcing people to buy vista, so why the heck would they get sued? If I release a really crappy product (I actually think vista is a great product, but whatever), but I'm not forcing consumers to buy it, then why would I get sued? Sometimes you really make no sense, man.
The consumers are the ones buying it. Microsoft isn't forcing people to buy vista, so why the heck would they get sued? If I release a really crappy product (I actually think vista is a great product, but whatever), but I'm not forcing consumers to buy it, then why would I get sued? Sometimes you really make no sense, man.
Microsoft is not forcing people to switch Windows Vista directly and pointing a gun at you, sure hell they trying very hard with Marketing and cutting off certain support from Windows XP and removing it from the retail stores(june 200
I don't understand they have win and win situation they make money off Windows XP and Windows Vista so why not keep both and let people have choice.. bah, whatever..
Hey! I find my L2 cache to be quite a comfortable cushion, you insensitive clod!
When it comes to anything remotely Vista related, definitely. Jesus.
MS deserves some spankin with this.
Just that there is enough evidence that the "capable/ready" wasn't clear, and that there may have been enough problems with this for consumers that a trial can proceed to go over the evidence.
i was going to say the same
its hard for people to deny
stop defending microsoft, they need to get it hard and rough up the ass
and then MAYBE they will learn from it for next time
i was going to say the same
its hard for people to deny
stop defending microsoft, they need to get it hard and rough up the ass
and then MAYBE they will learn from it for next time
What are you talking about - was the results of the anti-trust suit not enough for you? Be prepared, your favorite Google company is next.
i was going to say the same
its hard for people to deny
stop defending microsoft, they need to get it hard and rough up the ass
and then MAYBE they will learn from it for next time
i think it's easy to denie. The reason vista is being bashed is third party junk, and with third party junk i mean
computer manufacturers delivering crappy computers, companies that write ****ty drivers and people who think their 4 year old computer will be able to run a state of the art OS smooth (please don't give me linux is state of the art, and my TEN year old runs it smooth, theres no reason to argue on that right now).
I love vista, for my everyday use, and even more so with SP1, the os is more responsive and i find it to be faster.. I still dual boot vista/xp, since i love some old games that won't run in vista. But i don't blame Microsoft for that.
This is like the guy suing Microsoft for giving him a couple of weeks of having to use imagination, when that Xbox live went down during x-mas :p People are stupid.
I say sue computer manufactures, for misusing the vista capable label.
Someone sure is sexually frustrated...but this is a technology forum. Take your frustrations out somewhere else and let the adults discuss the topics at hand, ok?
And capable does not mean "it will run it smooth as silk". The brochures that retailers were supposed to deliver out with the computers labeled "Vista capable", stated this (not in those exact words tho).
They should sue those who misused the label.
Hey, Dell built me a ****ty machine they said was vista capable ... let's sue MS!!!!!
why ?
why shold a home basic user pay for th developementof media cener and Aero wich he doesnt use ? why should a home user pay for the developement of the unix application launcher thing in enterprise version ?
Again for HOME users there are TWO versions too choose form, NOT 5, and choosing between home basic andhome premium doesn't require a degree in computer systems. having multiple SKU's aimed at different markets and customers makes perfect sense. Pay for what you need.
Agreed. If any law can be created, extreme profiting from the law should be highly illegal.
EDIT: I didn't even read the other posts here and see I'm not the only one who said this
a Vista capable coputer can run ay Vista version, but it can't use certain features. Hence it's capable of running the OS, but not capable of using ALL the fancy features.
and again, there's nthign wrong with multiple SKU's
Not only that, but during discovery, once again MS emails came into play. The emails are sealed and not publically accessible, but a reporter at the hearing made a note of them anyways.
During his opening presentation, plaintiffs' lawyer Jeffrey Tilden of Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell quoted from numerous internal e-mails that appeared to show that employees within Microsoft had misgivings about the "Windows Vista Capable" campaign. The documents are under seal pending a ruling by Pechman.
Another employee, Mike Nash, currently a corporate vice president for Windows product management, wrote in an e-mail, "I PERSONALLY got burnt. ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."
Jim Allchin, then the co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, wrote in another e-mail, "We really botched this. ... You guys have to do a better job with our customers."
Another e-mail chain presented in court showed that Wal-Mart was concerned about the impact the campaign could have, and Tilden hinted that other retailers had similar concerns.
(Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/350...ftvista09.html)
I don't normally like to jump on the lets-bash-Microsoft bandwagon, but I think there's certainly a reasonable argument to be made that Microsoft intentionally led a deceptive marketing campaign. When Jim Allchin, the guy who headed the Windows division, said "WTF?" to the marketing guys in reply to this campaign, that's a bit of a smoking gun.
Ultimately, it's up to the courts to decide. Does MS deserve to be sued for this? I actually think they deserve to be sued for this more so than some of the other things they get sued for, but we'll see.
This lawsuit basically underscores the giant clusterfsck that Vista's branding became. While I don't think Vista is as bad as many make it out to be, I do suspect that it may become a textbook case for future generations of business/marketing students on how to avoid confusing the hell out of your customer base with nonsensical branding. What was wrong with Home/Professional?
If you're going to sue Microsoft over this concept, then Microsoft must have:
A) Intentionally mislead OEMs as to the meaning of "Vista Capable" -- thereby causing said OEMs to mislabel their computers, and/or;
B) Intentionally misled consumers into believing that any PC running Windows XP could run Vista, even if it could not.
Frankly, I find either scenario pretty hard to swallow.
Microsoft told them the minimal specs needed for their operating system, and that the "Vista Capable" tag could and should be placed on such machines. It's not the OEMs' fault for Microsoft giving them such bull**** specs anymore than it's the customer's for believing it.
It also says "Vista Capable" not "The ****ty Lowest-Set Version of Vista Microsoft Put Out With No Extra Features Or Capability Of Running Most Applications Capable." That's like saying a bicycle is "Highway Capable" despite it being against the law to ride one on most highways or the minimum speed requirements thereof... even if you are, technically, capable of riding one on the highway regardless.
Well then, I guess in this case Microsoft deserves to get sued, and the plaintiffs deserve to win.
A big lie based on a small technical truth is still a lie.
And this being the US I will not be surprised if a judge ordered Microsoft to pay a million bucks. I am not anti US or anything like that. If anything I am proud to be here. But these ridiculous lawsuits need to stop.
That said, class action lawsuits are still a ****ing joke and they need to be completely removed from the judicial system. The only people who benefit are the lawyers involved.
As for class actions, Microsoft (due to pressure from PC manufacturers) helped to deceive many, many people. For years companies used the "divide and conquer" tactic when being sued buy customers (example tobacco companies), class action lawsuits are an effective counter measure. If Microsoft make (huge) profits from their modus operandi, then they have to accept "pay back" when they are found to be dishonest or deceiving. I am a Microsoft stock holder, so have the right to criticize a company I part own!
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.