Submitted by A federal judge said Friday that consumers may go ahead with a class action lawsuit against Microsoft over the way it advertised computers loaded with Windows XP as capable of running the Vista operating system. The lawsuit said Microsoft’s labeling of some PCs as ‘Windows Vista Capable’ was misleading because many of those computers were not powerful enough to run all of Vista’s features, including the much-touted ‘Aero’ user interface.
Since when did Microsoft make computers ?
Microsoft might have tested some computers for Vista capability after some company donated test machines.
But, who is to say the test machines donated where the same specification that the manufacturers released after they got the Vista stamp of approval ?
Microsoft should not be held to task over this, the hardware manufacturers should be investigated instead.
I agree actually. Microsoft published the specs for Vista way before it was due and hardware manufacturers had plenty of time to up the specs. It’s almost as if they were clearing out old inventory and in order to make a sale, slapped a sticker on it that said Vista capable for the consumer to feel warm and fuzzy.
If the vendor sent a machine with different specifications to Microsoft than the one that had the sticker on it then you would be correct. The contention and the reason that it is Microsoft being sued is that Microsoft (not the hardware manufacturer) certified machines for use with Vista that were not capable of running the OS other than in a very limited fashion.
Based on the presumption that MS was aware of the fact that the computers they were certifying as Vista ready were not capable of running Vista in an acceptable manner it is the correct course of action to sue MS. Given the two original plaintiffs in the case never attempted to upgrade to Vista (according to the article) the merits of the case are somewhat sketchy though.
Personally I do not think this is an intent to deceive the customers who bought these computers so much as the painful reality of performance on Vista once you go below a certain threshold of Video and CPU performance.
The premise of the case is that MS used “Vista Capable” as a marketing ploy to ensure that people were comfortable purchasing XP-loaded machines during a peak holiday season, under the belief they would be easily upgradable to Vista.
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.
(Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/350667_msftvista09.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?
I’m totally against false advertising but, on the other hand, these machines will actually run Vista — they just can’t take advantage of all its features (ie. Aero). This isn’t much different than an OEM shipping a lame machine with 1GB and 64MB video card with Vista installed. The perf will undoubtedly be so questionable that you can’t believe the OEM thought it was a good idea. But is it Vista-capable? Yeah, it is. Technically. But not a good business practice.
What I think will probably happen here is that MS and the OEM(s) will settle and offer vouchers toward the purchase of better machines. Which is (presumably) what these users want. It’s ALWAYS a risky proposition to buy one machine with the expectation that it will be upgradeable to the next OS, in my opinion. A better bet is to simply wait for the next wave of machines to be released with the OS preinstalled. It takes time for Microsoft and OEMs to shake out the specs. OEMs don’t want unhappy customers who are going to return their PCs. So, regardless of what MS says are the minimum hardware specs, OEMs test what works on their hardware; consequently, I’d feel better about buying a PC that’s been tested with Vista on it, rather than trusting that it can be upgraded down the road from XP.
“It’s ALWAYS a risky proposition to buy one machine with the expectation that it will be upgradeable to the next OS, in my opinion.”
It’s a fair opinion provided you stick too the Windows world only.
My wife’s Apple is more than four years old and runs the latest osX release just fine and only now (after how many osX version upgrades?) needs a small boost in ram. I’ve yet to see a four or more year old machine upgrade from winXP too Vista without a crapload of ram required (at minimum); or upgrade from winXP too winXPsr# for that matter.
Moving even further from the Windows world, my poor excuse for a workstation was a monster of a machine six or more years ago and yet I’ve upgraded through at least two OS version releases per year yet the same old hardware is running the latest version of my prefered OS just fine.
A new OS should not, by default, require new hardware upgrades; just to run the thin layer between hardware and what program the user actually makes use of. Somehow, other OS manage to use the existing hardware more efficiently with later releases.
I’m off topic here I think as the discussion is about the business rather than technical side though.
Under those conditions, when will it ever be possible to require new hardware upgrades? I think you’re being a bit too dogmatic here.
Apple doesn’t have the problem of supporting tens of thousands of differing configurations. They have a small number of configurations to test, they’re highly tuned to their testing matrix, but you get what you get. As for Linux, well, I daresay that many (if not most) of the latest distros will not run on machines from 4 years ago.
“Under those conditions, when will it ever be possible to require new hardware upgrades? I think you’re being a bit too dogmatic here.”
Q When will it ever be possible to require new hardware?
A When the hardware component wares out and requires replacement or when the incrased resources of a new hardware upgrade are of benefit too the end user rather than the OS.
I do have to agree though, I am rather wishfull; I can’t help but see it from the user’s side rather than the shareholder’s side. The degree too which some OS version releases require increased hardware is exponentially greater than other offerings though. How does the end user really benefit from an OS that increases it’s weight on the hardware with every service pack and version re-write? Greate, it’s pretty to look at and works the GPU now too (too support that thin layer between hardware and user apps) but when the novelty of Aero wears off your left with a 2000$ machine that does exactly what the machine you just replaced too support a new OS did.
Apple supports a small amount of hardware so they have an advantage there but why does supporting a plugin system for hardware drives justify such extravigant increases in requirnments? I’m barely more a fan of Apple than I am of MS and only because they choose to put some actual interest into security with BSD underpinnings. Both companies are as end user hostile and lockin happy (thanks corporate law).
As for Linux based OS not running on hardware older than 4 years – no word of a lie; I’m running Mandriva 2008.0 with KDE on a workstation older than four years. The hardware is no slouch and pushes winXPsp2 just fine also so it may not be the best example.
I also have a Panasonic CF27 chugging along happily with Linux. It’s feels the weight of KDE but barely notices lighter window managers and flies along without issue if I forgo “startx” all together after login. The CF27 is a win95 (license sticker on the bottom still) age machine much older than four years which barely pushes winXP.
In both cases, my prefered platform is naturally flexible enough to accomidate the greater or lesser range of hardware resources so when 2008.1 turns up, I won’t have to run out and replace a machine just to push it.
To look at “Linux” specifically, it runs on more limited resources and supports more hardware than either of the big brand names. There’s a reason everything from cell phones, car computers and R/C toys on through too clustered super computers choose too layer a user space on top of the OS core. Still, the kernel continues to increase with version releases without limiting itself to hardware released in the last few years.
I just can’t understand why a new OS version requires so much hardware resources just to sit between hardware and what I am actually doing with the machine.
Ah well, unless you work for MS, we’re both just observers here to watch the show.
Edited 2008-02-26 14:16 UTC
There was an alternative sticker that said “Designed For Windows Vista,” AFAIK. I know it’s a semantic game, but certainly those computers are ‘capable’ of running Vista (heck, I have a friend running it without Aero on an ages-old Dell 600m with upgraded RAM). Confusing branding? I don’t think anyone will argue against that (least of all those execs). Intentionally misleading? I don’t think it is. There’s likely to be a specific set of metrics an OEM must meet to put that sticker on their box and Microsoft probably doesn’t go around policing to make sure these metrics are followed exactly. Fraud? Not unless you stretch the meaning of the word “Capable” to “Capable of running every feature of every edition of the OS.”
I just don’t understand why the lawsuit is necessary. Maybe some lawyers think they can make a buck out of this? In the absence of fraud or some other form of deception, customers should be responsible for their purchases.
True, I’d personally rather see the market correct this through natural selection but that would require all consumers to put more effort than browsing best buy selves to have any real effect. As such, we’ll continue with the synthetic market forces.
It’ll be a show to watch for the next few months though it would be better, as you point out, if it didn’t require lawyers at all.
Well, the most advertised feature of Vista is Aero. Microsoft trumpeted it everywhere, and it’s THE thing now that supposedly separates Vista from the rest. So, Aero being the main selling point for Vista it is in my opinion wrong to place “Vista-capable” stickers on machines which won’t be able to run the most advertised feature of the OS in question. If they had not touted Aero as being the thing that makes Vista Vista and actually had some other feature to tout then the situation would most likely have not come this far.
I wrote all this before finding out that PlatformAgnostic is claiming to be a Microsoft employee. Since he did not divulge that fact , I think some fraud and masquarade is happening on is part.
Microsoft and the hardware maker and the hardware vendor are all refusing to reimburse the purchase.
Without Aero = Not Vista.
– Pentium M 725 1.60GHz Processor, 2MB L2-Cache
– ATI Mobility RADEON 9000 AGP 4X video graphics at 32MB
That’s where Reality , me and hopefully the court disagree with you , it’s completely fraudulent and with criminal intent too.
That’s exactly what Vista capable means , what is the point of the sticker then , to say that it might or might not run vista it’s a wild guessing game ?
The reality problem you have is that It’s clear that in this case Fraud and deception was involved and known internally.
I agree , when fraud like this happen everyone involved should be trown in Jail for 10 years and not be allowed to sale or particpate in the sale of any products , this include the accomplices like you who are perfectly ok with company commiting fraud.
http://www4.osnews.com/user/PlatformAgnostic
” I work as a test developer for the Windows Kernel Team. ”
Somehow your real participation seem to not have been clearly defined.
Edited 2008-02-25 22:46 UTC
Not true. Under Vista, kill the dwm.exe process. There: You’re still running Vista but Aero is turned off.
Interesting how you listed “Reality” and “you” as orthogonal concepts. That’s utterly fitting.
Get real. You don’t know what you’re talking about. This is a civil action. It isn’t even remotely criminal.
Nonsense. Having a “capable” machine doesn’t mean that it’s capable of running ALL possible features. For example, if my OEM sells me a machine with a crappy video card, I’m not going to be playing HD content on it.
No. “Fraud” is a term in criminal law. This isn’t a criminal action. It’s a civil case. Try to keep up here.
Hyperbole and bombast.
Why do you need to kill a default process ? Because your lying and know that Aero is part of the default instal of all vista …
That’s my conclusion about you.
“This is a civil action.”
No it’s class action suit.
The title should be enough :
“Class Action Suit Against Microsoft Gets Green Light”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
“In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation.”
That’s the definition of capable. Incapable would be the correct definition you are using.
It’s not going to be HD certified either. With a Microsoft HD or Hardware maker or hardware seller sticker saying it’s HD capapable. Thanks for showing that your wrong.
It’s is an investigation into criminal action for many people grouped into one case , I am keeping up , Class action suit are Both Criminal and civil laws.
It’s always fun to read about the nonesense and the absolute ridicule of opposite of what is what and to what extreme Microsoft apologist are going to go to.
Microsoft capable is suppose to mean it’s not capable of running Microsoft …
To demonstrate the Vista can run perfectly well without Aero.
Read for comprehension. I never said it wasn’t part of the default install. What we’re discussing here is the fact that Vista runs fine without Aero.
Tell me something, genius: If this is a “crime”, then who has been arrested? Who is being charged with criminal violations? Who? Answer: Nobody. It’s a civil dispute. So, stop referring to it as a crime.
Are you really that incapable [pun intended] of understanding the nuance of Vista being “capable” of running without Aero?
That’s beside the point. The point that we’re discussing is that being a “Vista capable” machine doesn’t mean that it can perform all possible functions, like HD. You don’t like admitting that distinction, though, because it completely blows a hole in your theory that the crappiest machine should be able to do everything that the most expensive machine can do. Which everyone knows is complete BS.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You’re way out of your depth here — and you don’t even realize it. Look, this is America. Not France. Or Switzerland. Or whatever. Here, law enforcement officials DON’T file class action civil suits. They file charges against INDVIDUAL defendants. Nobody has been charged with a crime. What has happened is that a civil suit was filed by a group of CONSUMERS. It’s really not that difficult to grasp.
Edited 2008-02-26 05:38 UTC
Apparently it is difficult for you to grasp so let me give you other links :
http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic…
A federal judge in Seattle last week granted class-action status to a lawsuit.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206…
A federal judge has granted class-action status to a lawsuit.
It’s always fun to read people who claim to know Americans laws , when there are no Ameircans laws , there are laws of the United States, The constitution reads : ” We the people of the United States. Not : ” we the Americans”
Last I looked even do your judged under criminal laws , you are still not guilty until the court say otherwise.
Conspiracy to commit fraud fall under criminal laws , that’s why it got an elevated status.
No point in wasting more time in arguing what as alwaredy been pointed out to you as wrong.
You have that backwards, and you can’t even admit it.
Thanks. Your links merely proved my point that it’s a CIVIL case NOT a criminal case.
Right. It’s a CIVIL suit. Not criminal.
The term is United States OF AMERICA. Don’t take it too hard: I realize that you’re a foreigner and don’t grasp our way of life or culture.
Irrelevant. We’re not talking about criminal law here. It’s CIVIL case law.
No, it got elevated status because a group of plaintiffs spanning multiple states have a common complaint against a single civil defendant; hence, federal jurisdiction.
Look, it’s patently obvious to anyone reading this thread that you don’t know your ass from your hat when it comes to the issues in this case. The fact that you think this is criminal — when in fact it’s a civil lawsuit brought by consumers — pretty much says it all. Thanks for throwing yet more ignorance onto the bonfire. From what some people tell me, you’ve become something of a joke around here. Now, I know why.
Edited 2008-02-27 02:53 UTC
Who actually “certified” the computers, Microsoft or the manufacturers?
I agree with the basis of the lawsuit, if a computer is advertised as being compatible with certain software, it should be ~completely~ compatible, not sort-of or partially compatible. But there’s something I’m not convinced of: Due to the limited scope of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs will have to show that the computers prices were inflated as a result of the ‘Certification.’ Did people actually pay extra for the Vista-ready machines? Were the Vista Capable machines priced higher that similar computers that weren’t certified?
Quite simply, the sticker should have been:
“Upgradeable to Windows Vista Basic”
Whether this “bad choice” of words was intentional or not, I am sure the courts will find out. It is however definitely deceiving.