Microsoft Sued Over Vista Marketing 556
daviddennis writes "According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a lawsuit alleges that Microsoft engaged in deceptive practices by letting PC makers promote hardware as 'Windows Vista Capable' even though they knew it could not run most of Vista's widely-promoted features. Microsoft responds by saying that the differences have been promoted with one of the most extensive marketing pushes in company history. 'In sum, Microsoft engaged in bait and switch -- assuring consumers they were purchasing Vista Capable machines when, in fact, they could obtain only a stripped-down operating system lacking the functionality and features that Microsoft advertised as Vista ... As a result, the suit said, people were buying machines that couldn't run the real Vista.'"
Gates is on the hook too (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, while this suit might be a bit stupid, it sure makes F/OSS sound damned good!
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:3, Interesting)
The office supply store messure..... (Score:1, Interesting)
Now, on the other hand, Vista is looking more and more like a piece of bloated shite and I'm seriously looking at Apple. Now, before I'm accused of drinking the fanboy Kool-Aid, I'd like to point out that "Consumer Reports" lists Apple as the number one PC and laptop maker every year. Why? Quality of hardware is matched by Toshiba and HP (I don't know about now) BUT, Apple's customer service/support blows the doors off of everybody.
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes with all the bells, and a lot of the whistles turned on, its a memory hog, but then so is XP once you load up your AV of choice, firefox faststart, google desktop and throw window blinds onto it.
Theres bloat there, of course, but it is mainly the interface and the extras, at its core (you know, the new driver model, dx10, etc) its only a little bigger than its predecessor.
Definitely a case of Windows Vista-ME 2.0
"Minimum Requirements" (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone knows that trying to play a game on the minimum hardware is an excercise in frustration and futility. You need at least the recommended specs to run the game decently in most cases.
Even more to the point, modern games turn off resource-intensive features when running on older PCs; and since much of the hype around the latest FPS is centered on the advanced (read: resource-intensive) graphics, anyone playing "Half-Quake of Doom 37" on an older PC is missing much of the advertised experience. Micro$oft is simply copying the 3D game developers' design/business model, just as they copied the 3D idea itself.
Re:Saw this coming (Score:3, Interesting)
No, no it isn't.
If it was, it would mean the difference between a german piece of shit whose day is long gone, and a finely engineered piece of Japanese machinery that will be relatively reliable (dramatically moreso than the BMW) and hold its value, also unlike the beemer.
There is no direct automotive metaphor here because the cars don't have different characteristics depending on what kind of road you put them on, although some are more suited for some types of roads than others. Don't try to make an automotive metaphor if you don't understand cars.
The closest you can come is that it's like getting a car that's advertised as being good for both dirt and tarmac, and with an advertised speed of 140 mph (not that they advertise speeds, but if they did... yet another reason why this kind of car analogy doesn't work) and then you go try to drive it on the dirt at 140 mph. You should really know that's a bad idea, but you could make the argument that they should have told you that you can't reasonably go that fast on dirt, since it was advertised as being able to operate on dirt. The counterargument is that you should really know that's a bad idea, and if you weren't a total dingbat you would know it.
Microsoft really DID go far out of their way to list multiple levels of requirements for Vista that would tell you precisely what features you can use with what level of supported hardware. Grant you, this is the least they should be required to do - but they did it, so I'm not complaining. If I want to drive on a certain lumpy road, it's my responsibility to make sure that my vehicle has sufficient ground clearance. It's not the car dealer's responsibility, unless I ask him if I can successfully traverse the road with the vehicle, and they say I can. Ditto for the manufacturer. Since that's not what's happening here (Microsoft has been very clear about Vista feature requirements) I don't think that this is a reasonable suit.
Now that idea has merit (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, now that you mention it, going after the game makers has merits.
No, I'm not saying it should run with everything _maxxed_. But I can think of games which are anywhere from completely unplayable (as in, crash), to a slideshow, to having to be downgraded to a pityful joke, on machines which meet the minimum advertised specs. Sometimes even on machines which meet the _recommended_ specs. And that I don't really find ok.
I can think of games which were launched with some advertised spec, but then some mandatory patch turned them into a graphics orgy that outright crashes the game or machine of someone who did previously meet the specs. One example is COH. When the graphics upgrade happened that put COH graphics on par with COV. I know at least one person whose (admittedly crap) laptop started to just crash to desktop when that graphics update hit. In spite of having previously been perfectly good to play COH, and still being perfectly good to play WoW. (And, you know, because it's a MMO you can't refuse to install a patch.)
I can think of games which were hyped for their supposed great graphics, except _no_ machine at the time of release could actually display the advertised graphics as more than a frame per second. (E.g., EQ2. It was launched at a time when the 9800 passed for the top end graphics card, and sorry, it wasn't anywhere near enough to play other than at a massively reduced graphics quality. And by massively reduced, I mean that even at a point blank range all detail on a piece of armour was turned into a blurred smear.) I'm sorry, I know that not all machines are created equal, but if _no_ computer exists at the time which can actually display those graphics, then don't fucking advertise it with the max quality screenshots.
Briefly, some truth in avertising would be a welcome change with the game publishers too, you know? Those specs on the box are rarely more than a joke pulled out of the ass by marketting. It has nothing to do with what computers run the game adequately, it just has to do with how big a slice of the market does the marketting department want to market to.
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:2, Interesting)
I would think the PC makers (HP, Gateway etc) would actually have more responsibility in the lawsuit... after all, the stickers were on their machines, even if MS created them.
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. The fact that Vista is ANY bigger than its predecessor tells me everything I need to know about it. Do you think Microsoft is serving customer demands when it makes each successive operating system bigger and requiring more resources? Do you think customers are demanding that a computer should slow down just because you upgraded your operating system?
I've got a brand new PC that's right in the sweet spot for Vista performance. Yet, Windows XP runs faster and better on it than Vista. So how can anyone possibly say that Vista is "better"?
The entire PC industry is so tied to Microsoft that they don't have to even pretend to make each operating system better than the one before. All they have to do is get the PC makers to sign contracts saying that they'll put Windows on all of their new computers. Then, they sell big organizations on the idea that they need the latest software, which requires the latest OS, which requires a faster computer.
Net benefit to consumers? Negative. We are the consumables.
DX10 (Score:5, Interesting)
further complication... (Score:4, Interesting)
Technically... (Score:3, Interesting)
This machine is capable of running XP...but I wouldn't want to. Microsoft will probably win on the technicalities, but (IMO) ethically, they're in the wrong.
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:3, Interesting)
I had heard the box sales of Vista are actually quite a bit lower than any time before. And it makes sense. 98/ME -> XP was a no-brainer for most people. XP -> Vista is much less of an upgrade and quite often not worth it, hence fewer box sales.
Why do people by the latest versio of whatever MS puts out? Compatability? Promise of better security (debatable)? Just to say they have the latest and greatest? Many reasons, I'm sure.
It died with the last philosopher.
-matthew
An interesting experiment.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure (Score:4, Interesting)
Whether you like it or not, our legal system is a fairly good way to work out disagreements. Yes, it has it's flaws like any system. But, on the whole, it is far better than duking it out with guns, gangs, or otherwise. I would much rather hire an attorney than hire an army.
If you think America is violent NOW, imagine what it would be like without any "legal", state-recognized way to work out disagreements. Do you really want to be in a system where the biggest gun wins? You would stand absolutely no chance in a system like that.
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:2, Interesting)
I suppose even vendor lock-in has its advantages.
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:4, Interesting)
1974 golf fuel consumption
petrol (1093 cc, 750 kg) 8.5l/100km
diesel (1588 cc, 820 kg) 6.7 l/100km
2003 golf fuel consumption
petrol (1390 cc, 1164 kg) 6.8 l/100km
diesel (1588 cc, 1227 kg) 5.3 l/100km
The consumption has gone down a bit but in more than 30 years you'd expect a bit more.
Re:Sigh (Score:3, Interesting)
Another big problem is that brand new computers should have absolutely no problem running a current operating system. Honestly, if you go into a store and buy a current model you should not have to worry about the responsiveness of the operating system!
Re:They meant Viagra, not Vista (Score:3, Interesting)
The sticker would also explain that some consumer devices (such as cellphones, voice recorders, printers, etc.) will not EVER work with ANY version of Vista and will also have to be replaced. But, of course, that's all part of the getting cored by Vista experience, which is why none of the above (not even the full quote from the parent post) appeared in the "Vista Capable" sticker.
Re:Hell has frozen over.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn, just when computers started to get interesting...
(j/k)
BTW the Parent Post is 100% right about the European car markets.
Americans would be shocked to see the differences, just take the GM (USA) and Opel (Belgium) for example (technically, the same company), and the differences in standard fuel mileage, saftey features, etc are staggering.
There even a few performance geared Opel models that I wish GM would offer in the US, as they are not only fairly inexpensive, but have some great features and get great mileage.
My company works with EDS Europe, so this is something I was exposed to years ago.
Whatever happened to... (Score:1, Interesting)
"The customer is always right?" IANAL, but I am a business student, and from Day 1 I have been told that "you must always assume the customer has no idea and has done no research about your product or service. All they know is what you have advertised or shown them." Store return policies are built around this premise - look at where Best Buy has their return policy stated: on large, easily-spotted signs written in big, bold letters at the front of the store over the main doors. Retailers are demanded by law to do this, or some version of this, so that they cannot intentionally mislead the customer. To use a (somewhat) similar example of a good 'return policy', this evening I was in Applebees and ordered one of their 'new chef items' off of the menu. The food takes longer than usual to be served, and the manager brings it out and comments that this isn't exactly what I ordered (apparently they lost the recipe). If I wanted it, I could take the dish and the house would eat the cost of my meal, or I could order anything else off of the menu for half price and it would be out right away.
Why would it be so hard to hold Microsoft, one of the biggest commercial and personal OS producer/manufacturer in the world, accountable for this terrible, shoddy advertising? My own horrid Vista experience aside (not to mention their customer support), I can easily see how Joe User looks at all the pretty Vista commercials, spies a "Vista Capable!" sticker on that nice new computer he wants to buy, and gets totally screwed in the process because Joe User does not understand the difference between the versions, because Microsoft has not advertised that there is any difference between the versions on their TV ads. The car analogy is a great example, and I hope that the courts see this advertising for what it is: false.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:3, Interesting)
(only half joking - the only cost to sticking with Windows 2000 for me is that I can't use Bluetooth, and I had to reinstall when I upgraded to a dual-core system because of an AMD driver issue... and I'm pretty sure XP or Vista's Big Brother code would have balked at motherboard upgrades more often than 2000 has...)