Slashdot Log In
Vista Branding Confusing Even To Microsoft
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Nov 30, 2007 06:30 AM
from the definition-of-capable dept.
from the definition-of-capable dept.
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'."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Does the Windows Logo Mean Anything? 175 comments
Dan writes "The Windows Logo Program was supposed to be Microsoft's key to ensuring that all hardware devices work well with the Windows operating system. It worked in Windows XP, it would be expected to work just as well in Windows Vista. Unfortunately, there are obvious signs that the Windows Logo Program is no longer a trustworthy standard. Recently, even graphics cards are getting certified without working drivers. The article digs into the 321-page Microsoft Windows Logo Program 3.0 document to find out what the Windows logo is supposed to mean in Vista."
Firehose:Lawyers: Vista branding confused even Microsoft by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Still waiting.. (Score:4, Funny)
Confused (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Confused (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the article, or possibly even the summary, you'd notice that it has nothing to do with running other operating systems other than Vista.
What people are complaining about is that people assumed a "Vista Capable" computer would be able to run any version of Vista when it came out... meaning Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium all the way up to Vista Ultimate. What's ironic is that Microsoft's own marketing director testified that "Vista Capable" meant exactly what many consumers assumed it did.
Microsoft's actual position though is that for a computer to be "Vista Capable" it only had to be able to run Vista Home Basic. That means a computer that can't run Vista Home Premium or Vista Ultimate could still be labeled "Vista Capable" even though it can't run versions of Vista that have many of the features advertised with Vista.
So some consumers who went out and purchased a "Vista Capable" computer and then later bought Vista Home Premium when it came out suddenly discovered they couldn't use Vista Home Premium on their "Vista Capable" computer.
HD Ready (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For some values of "HD resolution". The Wikipedia entry on "HD Ready" [wikipedia.org] makes for interesting reading; it s
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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Certain? (Score:5, Funny)
Introducing VISTA NULL! All it does is wipe your hard drive and put up a big sign saying "your crappy old computer is too old to run our fine software - go buy a new one right now" But it is guaranteed to will run on anything from an 8086 onwards.
There. Now they can use that sticker for anything they like. Send your suggestions to "Steve Ballmer, One Microsoft Way..."
Just one problem (Score:3, Funny)
It comes on 4 DVDs.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Capable" is a good word (Score:3, Funny)
She was using a 486.
Re: (Score:2)
A 486 with 32 megs of RAM could run Windows 95 just fine. A 486 with 8 megs of RAM, however... would take literally three minutes to boot basic stuff like IE2.
Re:"Capable" is a good word (Score:4, Funny)
Jo, is that you?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Yes, and that same computer was slow as hell running a (bare) XWindow system. Every GUI for Linux was just unusable because of such slowness.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Capable" is a good word (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't try to run games, you can get a lot of good use out of older hardware.
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.
Odd way of coming out of the closet (Score:5, Funny)
Look, as your nick suggests on slashdot we use real men's anologies namely cars. Guy stuff. Not clothing and most certainly not womens clothing and MOST DEFINITLY NOT TRYING THEM ON.
Yes I know the temptation can be great when you feel that soft lace... Eh, how about them Yankees eh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Odd way of coming out of the closet (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Women's clothes sizes and Vista branding (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Sir,
I wish to complain in the strongest possible terms about the aforementioned post, namely, that Slashdot readers might consider trying on women's clothes. Many of my best friends are Slashdot readers, and only a few of them are transvestites.
Moreover, while it is true that certain manufacturers of women's apparel mark down the size of a garment to a lower size to placate the buyer's desire for petiteness, there should be no shame for anyone relegated to shopping in the plus-sized aisles, or otherwise interested in purchasing a copy of Vista.
Yours faithfully,
Brigadier Sir Charles Arthur Strong (Mrs.)
PS I have never kissed Cmdr Taco.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The word 'any' (Score:2)
new acronym proposal: HINAL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:new acronym proposal: HINAL (Score:5, Informative)
Neither are their fucking customers.
'Vista Capable' isn't a catchy phrase, so it wasn't chosen for that reason. It's designed to dupe people. It's meaningless -- a stick of RAM is Vista
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For a long while now, however they are only sold in stores in Japan or Korea, don't remember which. that does not even include the xboxes but they are not being advertised as Vista ready.
But back to the mai
Re: (Score:2)
Re:MS sells what? (Score:4, Informative)
Usual Caveat: Don't trust MS statements. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think it's reasonable that an average joe-user should expect that?
You know you've failed when... (Score:3, Funny)
Uh... (Score:5, Informative)
Any computer than can run Home Basic can run any other edition. Yes, you won't get Aero without a graphics card that supports DX9+ hardware acceleration, and performance won't be ideal but you will be able to run any edition of Windows - the (minimum) requirements are identical.
The recommended requirements for Home Basic and the other editions are different, however. Please correct me if the Vista Capable sticker is only available to systems that meet the recommended system requirements (in which case Vista Capable != any edition), but I suspect that since Microsoft hasn't been afraid to cut corners before that it is awarded based on minimum system requirements and that Vista Capable is therefore universally applicable to all versions of Vista.
Well MS got a point (Score:5, Informative)
Google Windows Vista Capable and you get MS own page which currently states the following (Bold added for emphasis)
Windows Vista Capable and Premium Ready PCs
What is a Windows Vista Capable PC?
A new PC running Windows XP that carries the Windows Vista Capable PC logo can run Windows Vista. All editions of Windows Vista will deliver core experiences such as innovations in organizing and finding information, security, and reliability. All Windows Vista Capable PCs will run these core experiences at a minimum. Some features available in the premium editions of Windows Vistalike the new Windows Aero user experiencemay require advanced or additional hardware.
A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:
Some Windows Vista Capable PCs have been designated Premium Ready. These PCs will provide an even better Windows Vista experience, including the Windows Aero user experience. Features available in specific premium editions of Windows Vista, such as the ability to watch and record live TV, may require additional hardware.
A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:
I do NOT know if this page has been changed since the ad campaign was started but in its current form it is quit clear that Windows Vista Capable means just the bare bones of Vista and that if you want everything you need a Vista Premium Ready machine.
Yes it is weasly, but that is marketing for you, buyer beware.
Does anyone know if MS had the same text at launch, if so, then the case is without merit. If not then quit a few games are in trouble, because they ALWAYS show the screenshots at the highest setting, that may be impossible on the minimum requirements they list on the box.
Now if you excuse me, I have to chastise myself for defending Microsoft.
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.
Come the day (Score:2, Funny)
any version of vista. (Score:2)
There is no point buying premium, or ultimate on a capab
Any version of Windows? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has given the sticker a little more thought.
In future, all computers intended for Vista will have a sticker based on this [typepad.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Häxan Surtant (Score:2)