Windows Vista marketing 'deceived' consumers

By Gavin Clarke in San Francisco
<small>Published Wednesday 4th April 2007 01:02 GMT</small>


Microsoft has been accused of deceiving US consumers by marketing PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" when they could only run the most basic version of its latest operating system.

A US lawsuit filed today claims Microsoft overstated the ability of PCs to run Windows Vista, and that an upgrade program added insult to injury by giving users access to Windows Vista Home Basic that lacked many of the advertised features.

The suit, filed in the Western District of Washington, is seeking class-action status for 10,000 people and damages in excess of $5m.
The suit, Microsoft's latest class action case but the first related to Windows Vista, comes amid claims that most business PCs also lack the hardware required to run most versions of Windows Vista.

Eighty per cent of PCs do not match Microsoft's hardware requirements to upgrade, according to Everdream, a desktop management spe******t. The biggest hurdle is lack of RAM: 70 per cent of machines lack the requisite 1GB, according to Everdream, which surveyed 140,000 desktop and laptop machines.

It will be the court case, though, that probably occupies Microsoft most.

The case rests on Microsoft's decision to let PC manufacturers slap stickers on PCs that describe machines as either Windows Vista "Capable" or Windows Vista "Premium Ready".

A Windows Vista Capable machine is defined by Microsoft as using "at least" an 800MHz processor, 512MbB RAM and DirectX 9 compatible graphics card.

The suit claims many of the Windows Vista Capable machines are only capable of running Home Basic editions of Windows Vista and could not run the next edition, Home Premium, which featured most of the heavily advertised features.

Home Basic lacks the media center, and funky Aero interface with flip 3D and thumbnails, and was described in one underwhelming Dell product spec as: "Great for booting the operating system without running applications or games."

Despite making the information on the differences widely available on its site and through partners, the suit accused Microsoft of operating a "bait and switch - assuring consumers they were purchasing 'Vista Capable' machines when, in fact, they could only obtain a stripped-down operating system lacking the functionality and features that Microsoft advertised as 'Vista.'"

The suit claims Bill Gates contributed to the deception by saying on NBC's Today Show, PC users could upgrade to Windows Vista for just $100. "In fact, one can only 'upgrade' to Home Basic for that price, which Mr. Gates and Microsoft know is a product that lacks the features marketed by Microsoft as being Vista."

In reply, Microsoft said it had conducted a "very broad and unprecedented effort" to help PC makers, retailers and consumers "understand the hardware requirements to run the various flavors of the Windows Vista operating system."
 
The only thing I know is that I'm after a new, fairly new+ stong laptop. Recently, I rejected more than nine offers, because all the machines were bundled with the turd named Vista. I rejected all the offers, and claimed I'll accept them right away with another OS (even XP Home!), but so far I got no reply.
Actually, it's a matter of principle: I will certainly touch Vista on some of my client's machines, but I will advice against their usage, and I will certainly NEVER use them myself. This OS is way worse than Windows ME, which is the worst MS-OS on record up to date.
 
Recent events have certainly proved that Vista still has "feet of clay" when it comes to security, despite being supposedly the most secure Windows to date - certainly the most secure against using non-MS security products.

The old, old problem, if a new product is not different enough, why bother, and if too different, why struggle with it and face the inevitable compatibility issues.


One thing though can anything EVER be worse than Windows ME, surely that was the maximum breakages of existing application for the minimum gain, though according to others, it was really a dressed up "Win98 3rd edition" in terms of what it actually gave. Mind you, the application breakage and driver unavailability or poor performance in Vista is not far short... could have done with at least another 6 months in beta.
 
I held off on using Vista up until a couple of months ago. I had a machine that I had built a while back that has the AMD dual core 4400+ Toledo and 2 GB of dual channel memory installed. Installation went very smoothly and only took about 30 minutes from start to finish. This has been by far my most stable windows system to date. 58 days and counting on system uptime, aside from updates from MS that require a soft boot. This machine is a work horse as well, it is used for video encoding/editing and for Adobe PhotoShop CS3, as well as a load of other resource intensive audio and video apps that I use on a regular basis.

I would certainly not go as far as to compare Vista to Windows ME in any form, shape or fashion. This one is built around the 2k kernel just as XP was and is certainly worthy of a try if your hardware is up to snuff.

ME was built around a bastardized 95/98 kernel and inherited all of their bad properties, and developed a few new ones to go along with them. ME is a lesson that MS learned from I think. It sure wasn't around for very long before they rolled out 2k then XP right on it's heels. Anyone that brings me a system that has ME pre-installed on it, I tell them that I will only work on it if they agree to let me upgrade it to at least 2k or XP home. ME simply has way too many issues, especially for the casual p.c. user, and let's face it, the majority of p.c. users are of this status at this time.

The version of Vista I am using is the Ultimate flavor. I really can't speak for the basic/home versions as I have no experience with them to date. I would assume that they should actually be more suitable as far as stability goes, than the ultimate or business platforms as they have fewer moving parts so to speak (there are fewer bells and whistles in them to eat up system resources).

I know the above opinions were formed back in March or April of this year, but at this time, Vista seems to be on a full force roll to being the friendliest, most usable and most stable OS that MS has released up until this time.

PR
 
Last edited:
I held off on using Vista up until a couple of months ago. I had a machine that I had built a while back that has the AMD dual core 4400+ Toledo and 2 GB of dual channel memory installed. Installation went very smoothly and only took about 30 minutes from start to finish. This has been by far my most stable windows system to date. 58 days and counting on system uptime, aside from updates from MS that require a soft boot. This machine is a work horse as well, it is used for video encoding/editing and for Adobe PhotoShop CS3, as well as a load of other resource intensive audio and video apps that I use on a regular basis.

I would certainly not go as far as to compare Vista to Windows ME in any form, shape or fashion. This one is built around the 2k kernel just as XP was and is certainly worthy of a try if your hardware is up to snuff.

ME was built around a bastardized 95/98 kernel and inherited all of their bad properties, and developed a few new ones to go along with them. ME is a lesson that MS learned from I think. It sure wasn't around for very long before they rolled out 2k then XP right on it's heels. Anyone that brings me a system that has ME pre-installed on it, I tell them that I will only work on it if they agree to let me upgrade it to at least 2k or XP home. ME simply has way too many issues, especially for the casual p.c. user, and let's face it, the majority of p.c. users are of this status at this time.

The version of Vista I am using is the Ultimate flavor. I really can't speak for the basic/home versions as I have no experience with them to date. I would assume that they should actually be more suitable as far as stability goes, than the ultimate or business platforms as they have fewer moving parts so to speak (there are fewer bells and whistles in them to eat up system resources).

I know the above opinions were formed back in March or April of this year, but at this time, Vista seems to be on a full force roll to being the friendliest, most usable and most stable OS that MS has released up until this time.

PR
Is this a spam? who serious tester would dare to compare Vista to ME knowing that most people this days are using XP which is working much better than Vista has demonstrated, Vista should be taken in consideration after a service pack has been released.
 
No, this is not a SPAM. Please read through the post thoroughly before posting a question such as this. Particularly the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

My post was in response to another poster (scarecrow) who WAS comparing Vista to ME.
 
Top