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'."
Confused (Score:2, Interesting)
Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, when you hear someone say something is Vista "capable", you'll realize that "capable" means the bare minimum requirements have been met. Likewise, "ready" doesn't mean much more, though MS marketing wants to make the differentiation. So what matters here is not whether the bare minimum can run the lowest version of Vista, but whether it can run the more featureful versions at all. Should someone mind if their Vista "capable" machine is as slow as a dog running Vista Ultimate and can't take advantage of the Aero interface? I would say that anyone paying for the barebones shouldn't expect to run the top of the line, no matter what the labelling.
In other words, always buy one size larger than you expect to fit. Also, always try the pants on before buying.
MS sells what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when has MS been a computer retailer?
I'd think that the class action would be against PC builders, who in turn would go after MS for misleading them into labeling a PC as Vista capable.
Caveat Emptor (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that more and more often we're returning to the good old days of caveat emptor. In the past few months I've seen quite a few number of shady advertisements that, if not exactly illegal, certainly push the boundaries of the law.
Example: my cable company is running this huge ad campaign promising net access at X Mbps for $Y per month. Fantastic deal... until you read the fine print where it's stated that it's a time limited promotion and that after 6 months it's X/2 Mbps for $Y*2 per month, or something to that effect.
Maybe I'm just seeing what I want to see and things have always been like this, but when MS starts arguing about the definition of "capable" and saying it's all explained in the fine print, it's a bit like saying "Well, you should have been more careful, you should have been aware of the fine print, it's all explained there." In other words, caveat emptor.
It's like labeling a PC "Linux Capable", someone buys it after reading all the articles about compiz and bling and rotating cubes, is ultimately disappointed, goes to the vendor and gets told that the computer they just purchased can clearly run BusyBox, a version of Linux.
I've Never Understood Microsoft's "Home" Concept (Score:1, Interesting)
Why sell a crippled version of your operating system? Even if the average user may not think she needs the more advanced features, chances are another application she may install will, and then the user is left angry and confused.
But on the other hand, this may be a good thing - it was when I discovered I couldn't install an Oracle database on XP Home edition that I began to explore Linux.
Re:Exactly Right (Score:3, Interesting)
Any version of Windows? (Score:3, Interesting)