Vista Branding Confusing Even To Microsoft 236
Trotti Laganna writes "Lawyers are now arguing a case brought against Microsoft over Vista's marketing. The software giant is being dinged for allegedly not telling the truth when it put the 'Vista capable' logo on PCs that would only be capable of running Vista Home Basic. Case in point - even the software giant's marketing director Mark Croft was confused by the pre-launch campaign in the United States. Croft's explanation was that "'capable'...has an interpretation for many that, in the context of this program, a PC would be able to run any version of the Windows operating system". After a 10-minute break to talk to Microsoft's lawyers, Croft admitted he had made 'an error', and retracted his previous statement, saying that, by 'capable', Microsoft meant 'able to run a version of Vista'."
new acronym proposal: HINAL (Score:5, Insightful)
Usual Caveat: Don't trust MS statements. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Capable" is a good word (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem:
I don't know what size fits and Microsoft won't provide a dressing room to try the software on.
Once purchased and opened so I can 'try it on' I can't return it if it is the wrong size.
Re:Certain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I agree with you that informing the consumers would have been nice. But would they have bought the computer when it said that it was only capable of running the most basic Vista?
Re:Usual Caveat: Don't trust MS statements. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think it's reasonable that an average joe-user should expect that?
Re:Certain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, there *is* quite a bit of difference between Home Basic and Home Premium. This is to say that Home Basic is completely missing nearly every advertised function and feature of the platform. Home Basic doesn't have Aero, all the mobility support for laptops, SideShow, scheduled backups, fax support, DVD Maker, Movie Maker, Media Center, and a bunch of other things. Vista is advertised as supporting all of those things, with no mention of version distinction outside of tiny small print.
Even if you to their web site, and browser the Vista pages, it is misleading. There a pages dedicated to footnotes, exceptions to system requirements, an A-V list of poorly documented version differences, etc. I still haven't found a page that describes what the "Core Experiences of Windows Vista", which they continually mention, even are.
In other words, Microsoft seems to knowingly mislead consumers. They were aware of the differences, and did not adequately inform purchasers of it. They certainly appear to be misleading through deceptive labeling and advertising.
Re:Certain? (Score:3, Insightful)
And I have to say that I'd side with Microsoft here. I mean, when it comes down to it, if the PC can run any version of Windows Vista then it's CAPABLE of running Vista. Maybe it would be nice to have more info given to consumers, maybe a compatibility sticker on the bottom of the laptop, or even on the top lid of the laptop that's able to be easily peeled off.
I think the big problem here is the consumers who could go out and buy a machine, regardless of cost, that is labeled "Vista Capable". Shortly thereafter they purchase either the Vista Ultimate Upgrade ($299.99 CDN at Future Shop [futureshop.ca]) or even just plain old Vista Ultimate ($499 at Future Shop [futureshop.ca]) because it is "The best edition of Windows Vista with the power, security, and mobility features you need for work, and the entertainment and ease you want for fun. It has everything you need to shift seamlessly between the worlds of play and productivity."
So now that they've dropped well over $300 or $500 (sales taxes inclusive) for this product, opened it, spent 4 hours installing it - now they can't return it because it's open and they have to replace their brand new computer.
This suggestion is IMHO pretty bang-on. It should list XP Home|Pro, Vista Home Basic|Home Premium|Ultimate and rate them on compatability (in full-featured mode) rather than "Yeah, it'll run a form of Vista if you disable all cool stuff that makes Vista Vista" (for whatever definition of 'cool' and 'stuff' you or the marketing people would prefer). The problem here is the disconnect between the marketing of the product and the capabilities required to actually unleash same. I have a pretty darned powerful computer connected to my home theatre system and much to my chagrin it's not up to snuff to run Vista Ultimate - letalone perform up to its multimedia requirements at the same time!
Re:Certain? (Score:3, Insightful)
A pilots license grants you certain category allowances by the FAA. Depending on the class of your certification and your ratings, you can pilot a range of aircraft under a variety of conditions. A basic private pilots certification does not let you pilot a 747, in the same way that a typical drivers license doesn't let you drive a 35,000lb commercial truck down a public way. It is rather clear what you are certified to pilot, though. You probably only have certification and rating to fly recreational aircraft of a specific class, and might have instrumentation rating.
Vista Home is still Vista, but it is not clear what that means. MS advertising says Vista is the newest and best of all Windows ever, and includes this list of supposedly unbelievable and life-changing new features. Vista Home just doesn't come with any of them, a fact which they have conveniently decided not to mention. Vista Capable means only that the computer can run the absolute core of Vista, which is undefined. It means that I can go buy a copy of Vista, or use my upgrade certificate, and it won't work right if I don't already know more than Microsoft tells me about the "Vista Capable" program.
While caveat emptor is still the only sane way of doing business, and isn't necessarily nice, you still can't deliberately mislead or lie. Try to find what this "core experience" of Windows Vista actually is. I have never been able to find a single reference to a definitive list. Every single mention anywhere I have seen is purposefully and noticeably vague. In other words, you can't actually find out what "Vista Capable" means, because Microsoft doesn't tell you.
That difference, the bit where they don't clarify their vague wording, is a key difference between your pilots certification and the "Vista Capable" program. I can go look up all sorts of interesting things in the FAR Code, and find out exactly what someone can and cannot do involving aircraft, based on their certification. I *can't* go look up exactly what "Vista Capable" means, and what I can and cannot do as a result.
For what it's worth, this has never been an issue before Vista. Something would say "Designed for Windows XP", or for 2000, or 98, and no matter what licensing and such you had, it would work. They would tell you that you can't watch TV without a tuner, that you can't get on the Internet without an Internet connection, and that you needed a 3D video card for 3D graphics. It was all very obvious and well defined. Windows still worked, though, regardless, as long as you met the minimum requirements printed on the box. This is just not the case with Vista, and between their advertisers and marketing people, they have managed to complicate things to such an extent that they are lying and misleading, and they can't even tell.
Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding (Score:3, Insightful)