Vista Capable Lawsuit Loses Class-Action Status

nandemoari writes "The long-running 'Vista Capable' lawsuit challenging Microsoft's marketing of PCs capable of running only the most basic version of the Windows Vista operating system has reportedly lost its class-action status. Federal judge Marsha Pechman decertified the class-action lawsuit, saying that plaintiffs had failed to show that consumers paid more for PCs with the 'Vista Capable' label than they would have otherwise."

Re:Monitors

[jetsci]

Also, why don't vendors include stickers for all OS' a piece of hardware will function with. My HP laptop shipped with a Vista-capable sticker but it works wonderfully with Debian/Ubuntu and it even works with my non-Vista-compatible digital camera!

"Paid more"? What about "needed to replace?"

[zooblethorpe]

I'm confused by the judge's comment -- I thought the whole issue was *not* that users paid higher prices for "Vista Capable" machines, but rather that they bought such machines that were not actually capable of running Vista.

What gives?

Re:Monitors

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because Debian and Ubuntu won't pay the vendors to put the stickers on. You didn't think the stickers and the person putting them on and keeping inventory of them was free did you?

Re:"Paid more"? What about "needed to replace?"

[andrewd18]

The fact that they had to pay more for a machine that was Vista capable, when the basic machines weren't Vista capable (yet labeled as such) is a big part of that argument.

Re:Slightly Misleading

[ShieldW0lf]

The arguments are flawed. It doesn't matter if they paid more or not. The machines were advertised as being fit for a specific purpose, and they are not fit for that purpose. If I order a $200 car, and someone sends me a $200 bicycle, the fact that it was a fair price for a bicycle is rather irrelevant.

This whole thing stinks of bought and paid for...

Re:Slightly Misleading

[dAzED1]

find a bicycle that is actually just the basic version of a car, then perhaps your argument might mean something. There is a version of Vista those machines would run with, and it is actually Vista...not DOS, not Win3.1, but Vista.

Re:"Paid more"? What about "needed to replace?"

[oldspewey]

So? It's still Vista and the machine is running it.

Whether or not Vista blows goats is outside the scope of this particular lawsuit.

Re:Yay!

[MightyMartian]

Looks like the immoral, unethical, dishonest and really quite pathetically retarded Microsoft shills are getting mod points these days. Ah my, it must be so so sad to be so immoral, unethical, dishonest and really quite pathetically retarded.

Re:Not a Surprise

[Darth]

Face it, Vista got a bad name for three reasons:

1. The lowest-end computers certified to run it were not really capable (since fixed).

Microsoft ran the certification program that certified those low end computers as being capable of running vista. This was under Microsoft's control.

2. Nvidia's drivers sucked for the first 6 months.

While Nvidia's drivers sucking is not under Microsoft's direct control, the certification program that signs the drivers for use in Vista is. Were those drivers signed?
I will agree that the signing of the drivers doesn't necessarily mean that they don't suck, just that they wont harm your system; so in that way this one really shouldn't be Microsoft's responsibility as long as the drivers weren't actually destructive.

3. The I/O subsystem was poorly designed (fixed in SP1), and the virtualization of video memory was a poor idea for Vista-32 [anandtech.com] that makes game memory usage balloon (hence the higher memory requirements for games under Vista, and problems running out of memory that players don't see on XP). REALITY: Vista should have pushed 64-bit as the primary OS.

clearly Microsoft's fault.

Only one of the above was really under Microsoft's control.

Two of them. Why do you think the first one is not Microsoft's fault?

I also don't agree that these are the only reasons Vista got a bad name, but I'm leaving that part alone.

Or just marketing run amok

[Moraelin]

While I see your point, I've also seen and touched computer speakers labeled as "Y2K compliant" back in 1999. And even that wasn't the most ludicrious thing. IIRC _the_ most ludicrious thing was a network cable sold as Y2K compliant.

I'm not even sure how a cable or speakers could _possibly_ have had a Y2K problem, seeing that neither even had a CPU, much less anything capable of knowing the date or depending on it.

The only sane explanation was that some marketer figured out they'd sell more of them with that extra claim.

And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Vista thing created similar effects.

Why did they bother?

[houbou]

This lawsuit was a joke. For once I have to say I'm happy Microsoft won.

Why?

Simple.

There is nothing wrong with advertising a PC as "Vista Capable".

Even if it only runs Basic Home Edition of Vista, certainly it doesn't contradicted its ability as being "Vista Capable".

Furthermore, retailers and manufacturers who have been pushing Vista with their products (PCs, laptops, notebooks, etc...) have usually also made sure that they recommended their products with words such as "runs best with (insert flavor of Vista)".

This is one of those times where clearly, greed was the only reason for this lawsuit.

On another note, the cost of a laptop being "Vista Capable" and how much they overpaid? Oye Vay! Are they retarded? Even I know there are no collation between a product being branded as "Vista Capable" and a higher cost of purchase. If anything, I recall laptops being sold for like 400$ with Vista Basic. Dirt Cheap.

Now, let's not think I like Vista, heck no, in my honest opinion, it's a crappy product, but, this isn't about what I like, it's just about being fair.

Again, this lawsuit and the people behind it are just trying to make a quick buck on Microsoft by conning the system.

What a waste of time and resources...