Microsoft Loses Appeal of "Vista-Capable" Lawsuit

bfwebster writes "Microsoft has lost its appeal to remove class-action status for the 'Vista Capable' lawsuit that has already resulted in some embarrassing internal e-mails being released publicly. As Computerworld reports, in its appeal to the US Ninth Circuit Court, Microsoft argued (among other things) that 'continuing the lawsuit might mean new disclosures of insider e-mails, which could "jeopardize Microsoft's goodwill" and "disrupt Microsoft's relationships with its business partners."' Given what's been released so far (158-page PDF), not to mention Microsoft's history of rather frank internal e-mails, that's probably putting it mildly. There could be some interesting reading ahead."

Re:How Much Really?

[Joe The Dragon]

The Vista Premium Ready requirements are about there for a low end base line but the "core" ones are to low. The core should of been what Vista Premium is and Vista Premium should be moved to 2gb or more ram + HT or dual core or better cpu with a video card with 128 MB or more of graphics memory useing it's own ram.

Re:"Microsoft's Goodwill" ?

[mythras]

Goodwill is an accounting term used by companies to place a value on patents, Intellectual Property Rights, Copyrights, Branding, etc. So, apparently Microsoft is worried it will drop further into the negative than it is now.

Minimum Requirements are MINIMUM requirements

[CannonballHead]

I really don't understand the minimum requirements. If you play Crysis with a computer that matched the "minimum requirements" list you'd ... well, the program would RUN. And Vista RUNS. What exactly does a minimum requirement specify then? As far as I understand, it's what is actually required to run the actual program, not even necessarily run it enough to work with it well. I don't like Vista even though I generally tend to be on the defend-XP side - but really, the double standard between minimum requirements for Microsoft and minimum requirements for any other product is frustrating. But then, any anti-Microsoft comment on Slashdot typically gets modded up as insightful or interesting, even if it's redundant. And, by the way, having everyone switch to Linux won't help that much. Linux is easy for computer nerds/techies to use. Windows is a ton easier for a lot of people, and it's not just what you're used to, it's getting your wireless card, sound card, or video card to work right. Windows does it, Linux doesn't always. :)

Re:"Microsoft's Goodwill" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it could mean "goodwill" in the accounting sense. When a company buys another one for more than it's book value, the excess is added to "goodwill" on the financial statements. Maybe they think that the additional value of some of the companies they've bought will evaporate if the public gets a really good look at the cancer-ridden microsoft internals.

Re:Goodwill?

[electrictroy]

>>>"Made public this week, these e-mails reveal the behind-the-scenes deliberations over the "Windows Vista Capable" designation, suggesting that Microsoft lowered the standards for that classification to appease Intel,"

My brother was screwed by this.

I told him: "Don't buy a Vista machine; buy XP." "Don't buy a Vista machine; buy XP." "Don't buy a Vista machine; buy XP." Per usual he did not listen and bought Vista claiming it's the latest & greatest therefore it HAS to be good. (rolls eyes). Well it isn't good; he was just brainwashed by the commercials.

It's one of those Vista Capable machine which means it runs on only 500 megabytes and is s-l-o-w to do anything (even opening a folder takes a minute). It actually runs slower than the 5-year-old PC in the basement, but then that PC has XP so of course it's better.

Microsoft should be sued. They shouldn't claim a 500 meg machine can run Vista when the software is running slower than an old 80s PC.

Re:How Much Really?

[rohan972]

If the expression "minimum requirements" is defined as "the very least required to run", then the "minimum requirements" announced are probably a fair bit above what Vista actually demands to run, so that's not quite right.

IIRC, part of the issue is essentially "what is Vista", the arguement being something like: Due to Microsoft's marketing of Aero being indistinguishable from Vista, customers identified Vista as Aero. So a system not capable of running Aero was not capable of running Vista in the sense that the customer had been led to expect.

I could have this wrong. (Have just checked the article: "The year-old case alleges that many of the PCs labeled with a "Vista Capable" sticker in the months before Vista was released were able to run only Home Basic, a version the plaintiffs say lacked some of the most heavily promoted elements of the new operating system.") So it's not that no version of Vista will run, its the customers were lead by MS marketing to expect something they didn't get.

Mod both parent and grandparent up

[ais523]

Yes, things like lock-in (which Microsoft is good at generating lots of) count as 'goodwill' too; the fact that customers currently use your software and therefore want to / have to / don't know anything else than to use Microsoft software is worth a lot of value to Microsoft. The estimated value of this will show up as 'goodwill' in Microsoft's accounts, and is likely to be worth a lot of money to them. If Microsoft didn't have any lock-in, and people did not currently use their products, it seems unlikely that Microsoft products would gain a substantial market share from a hypothetical other dominant company or platform unless they were improved.

Dell's take on Vista performance

[Eevee]

Dell has a chart [dell.com] showing the performance for various configurations. Under the Basic Windows Vista Experience - No Aero column (800MHz, 512MB), they show Great for...

Booting the Operating System, without running applications or games

Kind of says it all.