Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ballmer Ordered To Testify In 'Vista Capable' Case

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the take-the-stand-monkey-man dept.

Microsoft 235

alphadogg writes "A federal judge in Seattle has ordered Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to testify in a class action lawsuit against Microsoft that alleges the company misled consumers in a marketing campaign for its Windows Vista operating system in which computers sold with an older Microsoft OS were labeled 'Vista Capable' when in fact they could only run a basic version of Vista. Ballmer has unique personal knowledge of facts surrounding the case, therefore he must face questioning, Judge Marsha Pechman of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle ruled, according to court documents released late Friday."

cancel ×

235 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ballmer in court (5, Funny)

rallymatte (707679) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873387)

I wonder if they allow chair-throwing in court these days.
If they do, I think Microsoft stands a pretty good chance.

Re:Ballmer in court (5, Funny)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873451)

What about monkey-dancing? The judge will be amazed!

Re:Ballmer in court (5, Funny)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873499)

Judge: Uh, I hate to interrupt your fun, boys, but I got a few complaints this case is crooked.
Ballmer: [laughs] And how.
Judge: Gee, I'd hate to close you down. Maybe we can reach a little, uh, understanding here. [Holds out the palm of his hand and motions his fingers so as to suggest that this is a bribe]
Ballmer: I understand.
Bill: Um, hey, Ballmer, I-- I think he wants--
Ballmer: Not right now, Bill. Monkey Boy is talking to a Judge.
Judge: Uh, let me put it this way. I'm looking for my friend Bill. [nods as he says Bill] Have you seen any Bills around here? [nods]
Ballmer: Yes. [points at Bill] He's Bill.
Judge: [groans] I-- Listen carefully, and watch me wink as I speak, okay?
Ballmer: Okay.
Judge: The guy I'm really looking for--wink--is Mr. Bribe--wink, wink. [holds out hand again]
Ballmer: It's a lightweight operating system.
Jusge: All right, that's it, I'm shutting this shit down.

Re:Ballmer in court (5, Funny)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873799)

It's a good thing Jusge broke in at the end to put an end to all this corruption!

Re:Ballmer in court (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25874069)

Yes, Jusge (Played by S L Jackson), was fed up with the mother****ing corruption in this mother****ing case.

Re:Ballmer in court (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25874455)

Jusge for supreme court!!

Replace Scalia!!

Re:Ballmer in court (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25873527)

all rise .... and duck!

Re:Ballmer in court (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873601)

No, there's only bench-throwing in a courtroom setting, which is why Ballmer should be wheeled in inside a monkey cage so he can't get loose and cause trouble. He'll also need a fresh change of newspaper so he won't have anything to fling at hapless jurors.

Re:Ballmer in court (3, Funny)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873761)

I just had the image of Ballmer being brought in the courtroom in full Hannibal Lecter setup :-)

Re:Ballmer in court (4, Funny)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873719)

and here I was expecting when the lawyers have him in the box and ask him who's at fault him to say 'developers' like 50+ times...

Re:Ballmer in court (3, Funny)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873741)

I wonder if they allow chair-throwing in court these days.
If they do, I think Microsoft stands a pretty good chance.

Unfortunately for him, Ballmer is being kept in a special plastic prison. All chairs have been replaced by ultra-light-weight plastic versions that will cause little harm if thrown. And as an added contingency measure, the chairs have been bolted down in the special courtroom. Unless a blue shape-shifter smuggles in a chair, it looks like he is stuck here permanently.

Re:Ballmer in court (5, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873839)

Prosecution: Following all the evidence that we have seen, in which many different customers and partners of Microsoft mention discussing the problems with you, do you maintain that you had no knowledge of these problems?

Ballmer: Erg... ugh... errg!

Judge: MISTER Ballmer! You have been warned before. I will find you in contempt of this court if you continue your attempts to dislodge the seat in the witness stand.

Ballmer: [Sits down, sweaty. Sighs.]

Judge: Answer the question, Mr Ballmer.
MISTER BALLMER! Why are you painting your face blue?!

Ballmer: I'm a PC and... I have just crashed.

Re:Ballmer in court (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25873853)

Enough with the chair throwing. It's getting old!

Re:Ballmer in court (3, Funny)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873949)

Judge: Mr. Ballmer, will you please take the stand?

Ballmer: Sure. Where do you want it to land?

VERDICT: "Ms Chairman sentenced to chair" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25874139)

See subject-line - Shocking verdict now in:

BALLMER SENTENCED, GETS THE CHAIR

Look out now - becaues the "CHAIR-man" of Microsoft is now equipped with a better chair, via an electric chair.

Ballmer's statement, in regards to said verdict?

"No, this chair isn't "vista capable", but, it does make one hell of an object to toss around at others who vex me thus!"

Re:Ballmer in court (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874225)

I await the movie version with interest, perhaps with a pro-wrestler playing the part of Stevie.

Re:Ballmer in court (3, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874507)

I wonder if they allow chair-throwing in court these days.

If they do, I think Microsoft stands a pretty good chance.

The judge rules from the bench. She'd fsck'ing p3wn him.

And as a precaution... (3, Funny)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873399)

...all courtroom furniture will be bolted down.

Re:And as a precaution... (4, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874223)

It would be far simpler to handcuff Ballmer instead.

hazard pay? (0, Redundant)

Binder (2829) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873429)

I certainly hope the judge grants the jury an anti chair cage around the jury box.

Hmm (3, Insightful)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873431)

Although I agree with the justice of going after them for misleading statements, I reckon all-in-all these people are better off, having got a PC with XP rather than being forced to wrestle the leviathan.

Re:Hmm (5, Insightful)

daviee (137644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873531)

At the end, it still comes with and runs a version of Vista.

There are true marketing scams, but IMO, this is not one of them.

Re:Hmm (5, Informative)

TheLinuxSRC (683475) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874025)

At the end, it still comes with and runs a version of Vista.

Actually these machines *didn't* come with a version of Vista. They came with a sticker claiming they are capable of running Vista with no specific of which version of Vista they would be capable of running. As a result, this sticker meant different things to MS marketroids than it did to consumers who found the stickers misleading; hence the lawsuit.

Re:Hmm (5, Interesting)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874375)

It also fooled MS employees. One of the damning e-mails was a VP who bought a Vista capable laptop and was pissed it couldn't run Vista in a usable way.

Re:Hmm (4, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874111)

For certain small values of "Vista". And a sufficiently tolerant definition of "runs".

Re:Hmm (5, Informative)

TTURabble (1164837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874193)

Wrong, this is classic bait and switch.

You bait them with pretty pictures and a new user interface, then you switch it out with something that looks and feels just like XP. Even their new marketing campaign (mojave) pushes the UI with the "participants" talking about how great everything looks. I have yet to see a vista commercial that talks about the technical merits of the operating system, because your average user doesn't understand or care about indexed search or file systems etc.

Re:Hmm (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25873565)

wrestle the leviathan.

That sounds like a lovely euphemism for an action that's... well... more pleasurable than dealing with Vista that's for sure.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25873677)

Is the punchline, "they're fun to ride, but don't let your friends catch you on one?"

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25874529)

I was referring more to the Leviathan's sea-serpent-like shape and the idea of wrestling with a phallus... preferably one's own.

Re:Hmm (5, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873571)

The sad irony is that MS lowered the standards to get Vista onto machines that could not support Aero. The original assumption that no one would buy these machines if consumers knew that they could not upgrade from XP to Vista. Considering the negative experiences that many of them consumers had on these machines, many of them don't want Vista nowadays.

Re:Hmm (4, Informative)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874369)

The sad irony is that MS lowered the standards to get Vista onto machines that could not support Aero. The original assumption that no one would buy these machines if consumers knew that they could not upgrade from XP to Vista. Considering the negative experiences that many of them consumers had on these machines, many of them don't want Vista nowadays.

This is certainly true.

I've got a Vista machine at home... 64-bit, dual core, 4 gigs of RAM... Runs fine. I might very well be better off with some other choice of OS, but I don't have any genuine issues running Vista. It is at least functional.

I've seen clients bring in Vista machines that are barely functional. They complain about how slow the machine is, how hard it is to do any work. These machines have the bare minimum hardware necessary to boot the OS. They've got 1 GB or less of RAM, a crappy on-board GPU, and some kind of underpowered budget CPU. And these people are miserable with Vista.

If Microsoft had required manufacturers to ship computers with decent hardware you wouldn't be seeing nearly as many people complaining about Vista.

Re:Hmm (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874643)

Yup, if someone brings me one of those to fix, I install Linux with ExPee in a VM and seamless RDP from Linux for specific Windows applications. That works like a charm, but it takes a lot of dedication to set it up and get it all to work.

Re:Hmm (2, Insightful)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874741)

If Microsoft had required manufacturers to ship computers with decent hardware you wouldn't be seeing nearly as many people complaining about Vista.

On the other hand, if Microsoft hadn't bloated Vista to the point of unusability on the average hardware being sold at the time, there would be even less people complaining.

A machine with a 2-2.8GHz CPU and 512MB-1GB of RAM was pretty much the middle of the road when Vista was launched, so it should run just fine on that configuration. With Aero, you'll need a decent graphics card, but you shouldn't need 4GB of RAM or a 3.4GHz processor just to run the basic system.

Re:Hmm (1)

SpiderClan (1195655) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873605)

Unless they're trying to wrestle said leviathan anyway, but using under-powered machines to do it.

Re:Hmm (5, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873691)

Although I agree with the justice of going after them for misleading statements, I reckon all-in-all these people are better off, having got a PC with XP rather than being forced to wrestle the leviathan.

...except the point is that the point of the lawsuit is that people intending to run Vista bought the computers, and found to their chagrin that they couldn't run it. Which means they were wrestling the leviathan, just with even poorer weapons.

I do feel for them. I have a laptop I bought in April, 4GB RAM, and Vista (preinstalled) has always just been obscenely slow when doing anything like logging in, switching users, etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

Re:Hmm (3, Interesting)

Cowmonaut (989226) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874043)

My laptop with 2GB RAM has no issues with Vista Ultimate x64. It does have an AMD64 Turion dual core though.

It came with Vista Home Basic pre-installed which DID run dog slow during everything. I'm pretty sure Microsoft, for whatever reason, purposely crippled the lower versions. Lord knows I've seen similar things happen when people misconfigure their GPO settings or make bad Registry changes manually.

Re:Hmm (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874385)

Funny, I bought a Viao laptop with only 2GB of RAM, and Vista Business. I wiped it of course and installed a fresh copy of Business, which I later upgraded to Ultimate. It runs just fine, she's had no complaints. I've used it as well.

Re:Hmm (1)

Rary (566291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874387)

I have a laptop I bought in April, 4GB RAM, and Vista (preinstalled) has always just been obscenely slow when doing anything like logging in, switching users, etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

I suspect this is not purely a problem with Vista, as I have not experienced any obscenely slow activity on my laptop with 2GB RAM running Vista Home Basic, nor on an older desktop (XP 2800) with 2GB RAM running Vista Ultimate.

Re:Hmm (CORRECTION) (1)

Rary (566291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874439)

Correction to my previous post:

...my laptop with 2GB RAM running Vista Home Basic...

I meant Vista Home Premium, not Basic.

Re:Hmm (3, Funny)

mseidl (828824) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874823)

I have a laptop I bought in April, 4GB RAM, and Vista (preinstalled) has always just been obscenely slow when doing anything like logging in, switching users, etc. Absolutely ridiculous.

Have you tried to reconfigure, optimize and recompile your kernel?

Re:Hmm (5, Informative)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874313)

Although I agree with the justice of going after them for misleading statements, I reckon all-in-all these people are better off, having got a PC with XP rather than being forced to wrestle the leviathan.

I think you misunderstand.

This isn't about whether a computer shipped with Vista or XP, this is about how a computer was labeled.

Microsoft has a qualification process that decides what sticker you're allowed to put on your PC. If your machine meets the requirements you are allowed to brand your computer as "Vista Capable".

Microsoft intentionally lowered the requirements for their sticker program in order to include computers that probably should not have qualified.

This means that there are people out there who bought computers intending to run Vista on them, and thought that the machine was capable of running Vista, and were then disappointed to find out that they could only run a very limited version of Vista.

You can certainly argue that XP is a better OS than Vista, and I don't think you'll see a whole lot of people disagreeing with you around here. But the fact of the matter is that people expected something that they weren't getting.

Re:Hmm (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874733)

This is something that they've been doing for years. Even notice that in Win XP there are an awful lot of greyed out checkboxes? Or how the help files often include information about the Pro version when you're using the Home version?

It's a pain in the ass, and it really ought not to be tolerated. I'm fine with them stripping features from home or adding them to the more expensive version, but the less expensive versions ought to properly function. None of that sabotaging security features bullshit either.

The question now is whether they went too far with the confusion.

Suggestions to Steve (2, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873505)

  1. Don't throw any chairs. Judges hate it when you throw chairs.
  2. Don't say "I'm gonna fucking KILL" anything or anybody. Judges hate that, too.

I know this because of a child support hearing [kuro5hin.org] I had to attend in 2004 (I was trying to get child support from my ex-wife). Please don't follow Mr. Johnson's example:

There was a huge black man standing before the judge. Apparently this fellow was unemployed and hadn't been paying his child support.

"Look, Judge, I gots no problem with child support."

"Yes, you do," the judge replied. "You may not have a problem with the idea of child support, but you do have a problem with actually paying it.

There was some nearely subaudible back and forth between the judge and the large man standing before him, when the judge said "Do you think this is a joke, Mister Johnson?"

Mr. Johnson replied quietly, too quiet to hear. The judge repeated, "I'll ask you again, Mr. Johnson," very firmly, "Do you think this is a joke??"

"I gots no fuckin' money!" Johnson replied. "You gonna sent me to jail?"

"Would you like me to cite you for contempt, Mr. Johnson?"

"Fuck you, motherfucker!" Gasps and giggles from the gallery...

"Contempt of court!" the judge ordered. "Take him to jail."

"Fuck you!" Johnson added rather stupidly.

"That's two" the judge said.

"Fuck you! Eat shit cocksucker!"

"That's three."

"Kiss my big black ass, motherfucker. Fuck you!"

"That's four!"

"Suck my dick bitch!"

By the time he got to eight, Mr. Johnson was being led out in handcuffs.

Don't let that happen to you, Mr. ballmer!

Re:Suggestions to Steve (2, Funny)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873617)

The prospect of Mr. Ballmer sitting in a cell chewing on a pillow would indeed be karmic since Microsoft's customers have been assuming the position ever since Vista was released. Cue the banjo music.

Re:Suggestions to Steve (1, Offtopic)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873813)

Bleh, a perfectly good on-topic comment modded offtopic. I want the old metamoderation system back, where mods were modded "fair" and "unfair" and if you got metamodded "unfair" you didn't get future mod points.

THIS comment is offtopic. The GP is not.

Re:Suggestions to Steve (0, Offtopic)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874297)

THIS comment is offtopic.

The mods got it right this time. Actually I think the moderators are doing a very good job, under very difficult circumstances.

Re:Suggestions to Steve (0, Offtopic)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874377)

It was about Balmer and court. How was it off topic?

Rename the company (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873529)

In the five comments, three are about flying chairs.

I think it's think to rename the company to Microchair, Chairsoft, or something.

Or maybe help fund SpaceX, with the condition to make their next spacecraft chair-shaped.

Re:Rename the company (1)

Huntr (951770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874459)

It might be easier to rename /. to Obsesseddot or Notreallyallthatfunnydot.

just kidding, slashdotters!

So? (3, Interesting)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873549)

Although it seems misleading.. Vista Basic is still vista. Why is this still going on?

Because people feel like Aero was a major selling feature? And that without Aero, Vista is not distinguisable from XP? I'd say that the difference is major, and is very much public knowledge, much to Microsoft's chagrin.

So what's the argument? That MS's ad campaign led you to believe anything over the "vista-sucks" hype? I don't think so.

Re:So? (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873583)

I mean distinguishable, not sure how that other.. uh .. word happened.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

yumyum (168683) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873665)

The whole issue surrounds the agreements made between MS and HP. HP claims that the change in machine requirements was done in bad faith, through the influence of Intel. It has nothing to do with labels or branding.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873707)

Initially, the "Vista Capable" logo meant that you'd be ready to use Aero, and able to run Home Premium or better using all its features. Then, due to pressures from OEMs and Intel among others, the requirements for "Vista Capable" changed to "can have some version of Vista installed", which pretty much meant that many of those machines can barely have Vista Home Basic installed, let alone give you a usable system, and they certainly cannot use Aero.

The gist of the argument is that Microsoft changed the requirements and definition of what "Vista Capable" meant along the way, misleading customers about what it really meant.

For Microsoft, from my point of view (I've followed the computing industry for 25 years or so now), it's business as usual and nothing that surprises me. I'm used to taking any recommendations they make and double it, and used to seeing them lie, cheat, deceive, coerce, defraud and generally do anything they can get away with in order to increase their profits and enhance their control of the computing industry.

Caveat emptor I say, but a lot of people aren't interested in doing research and make informed decisions, they'd rather believe the companies selling them this stuff, or the sales drones at the local big surface shop.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873805)

Yes, but this is the first time I recall that OEMs sold machines that were seriously underpowered. The difference between XP Home and XP Pro requirements were small. In previous versions, if you upgraded an old machine, you had to double the MS requirements but most new machines met the requirements. In this case, you had a whole lot of new machines that could only run Vista Basic. Add this to whole mess of other problems Vista had at launch and it adds to the negative image of MS.

Re:So? (4, Informative)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874093)

Machines in question were in fact nowhere near new. Intel's 915 chipset for example (which was one of the chips later allowed under "vista capable") was released all the way back in June of 2004. Even Nvidia's geforce 5-series supports the WDDM (A chip which was released way back in 2002). Microsoft simply caved due to intel pressure. Why would you run a brand new operating system on hardware that isn't competitive with 4-year-old hardware?

Re:So? (3, Informative)

jkrise (535370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874315)

But according to one Mr. Josh Bancroft, I remember that the Intel 915 was indeed capable of doing the Aero as well... and that Vista Beta actually ran Aero on the 915. This changed when Vista was actually released though.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2007/04/02/video-why-intel-915-graphics-dont-have-a-wddm-driver-for-vista/ [intel.com]

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=451104&cid=22395296 [slashdot.org]

Re:So? (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874639)

Yes, but this is the first time I recall that OEMs sold machines that were seriously underpowered. The difference between XP Home and XP Pro requirements were small. In previous versions, if you upgraded an old machine, you had to double the MS requirements but most new machines met the requirements. In this case, you had a whole lot of new machines that could only run Vista Basic. Add this to whole mess of other problems Vista had at launch and it adds to the negative image of MS.

I disagree.

I've seen entirely too many XP machines for sale with only 256 MB RAM. Sure, technically that's more than enough... But in reality it is horribly underpowered.

Load up the OS, throw on some sort of antivirus, fire up a web browser and email client... Now try to get some work done. Your machine will crawl.

We've always told our clients that 512 MB is really the minimum RAM to be productive, and I've been recommending 1 GB or more for a while now. Especially if folks want to do anything even remotely interesting on their computers.

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

CSHARP123 (904951) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873891)

I am really amazed at the inept of the legal department of Microsoft. People in this country sue for petty things and it is a known way to circumvent the deceptive marketing tactics with disclaimers in tiny fonts that no one could read. Why didn't Microsoft legal department came up a disclaimer that said Aero interface requires Supercomputer to run. I guess this case would have folded long time back.

Re:So? (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874241)

I bet Microsoft's legal eagles would have been up to the task, but Microsoft's marketing would have insisted that the disclaimer be thoroughly buried* (to not detract from the "Vista on YOUR computer!" message).

*By "thoroughly buried", written in the most obscured legalese, than translated to Attic Greek, transliterated phonetically into Mandarin Chinese, ROT-13'd, printed in navy blue ink on royal blue paper, glued shut, and locked "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."

And in advertising, aero=Vista (3, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874395)

Another point to ponder is what Microsoft was leading people to see as "Vista" at that time. Pretty much all the advertisements and hype of Vista featured Aero (obviously it would sell better that way). Thus, the image that MS created was a Vista with Aero, which is not what people ended up getting or being able to run in the end.

Re:So? (1)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874559)

Caveat emptor I say, but a lot of people aren't interested in doing research and make informed decisions, they'd rather believe the companies selling them this stuff, or the sales drones at the local big surface shop.

While I agree, I think you've missed an important point: by law, they're not supposed to have to.

Have you used one of these? (2, Interesting)

ACMENEWSLLC (940904) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874573)

My sister has an Acer laptop which is Vista Capable - it came with Vista Basic installed. It's the lowest end Acer laptop you can purchase (not sure of model.)

I used the thing the day she got it, before she had a chance to bloat it with stuff. The thing is gawd awefully slow. I'm remembering back in the 386 days when I got Windows 95 to run on an old PC. You click on START and within 30-120 seconds, the start menu appears. You click on the submenu, and within about 30 seconds it appears. You click on an icon, and between 30-200 seconds the application will actually load.

It works. It runs Vista. Is this a usable computer, in your opinion? You should see how slow it is now that she has software installed on it.

Re:So? (5, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873743)

You must be new here. :P

Here's the point of the plaintiffs: Vista is advertised to have all these nice features. Aero was one of them. Vista Basic does not run Aero because the machines cannot support it. It was not evident to most consumers that Vista Basic was the most stripped down version that could not do this because it was in the fine print. It didn't matter the cost of the machine per se. It was the video chipset that mattered. Mike Nash, VP of MS, bought a $2,100 computer that could not run Aero.

Re:So? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873855)

Does Vista have some major tangible benefit evident to the average consumer besides Aero?

Re:So? (1)

TheLinuxSRC (683475) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874125)

Aero is a "major tangible benefit"?

Re:So? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874345)

At least, it is major and tangible. Does Vista have something that is major and tangible besides Aero?

Re:So? (1)

thewils (463314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874423)

Does Vista have something that is major and tangible besides Aero

There's the UAC, and the roads, public order and don't forget the aqueduct.

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

Sparks23 (412116) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874797)

Aero was /advertised as such/, which is part of the point here. The issue isn't the actual functionality of stuff in Vista Business or Ultimate; the issue is the misleading expectations Microsoft allowed.

Microsoft went, "Look! Here is our new shiny OS, Vista! Vista can play movies! Vista has shiny UI! Vista can sing and dance and make you coffee! And look, because this will be coming out soon, we've even labeled computers for you so you'll know which ones are ready for the Vista Experience!"

Consumers went, "Yay! Thank you, Microsoft! This makes my life easier! I, a non-technical consumer who do not wish to have to worry about hardware specifications but do wish to enjoy the benefits of this OS you are telling me about, have gone and bought one of your conveniently labeled computers!"

Then Vista comes out and the consumers try to run Vista Ultimate or Vista Business or whatever, and discover their computer can't. And Microsoft goes, "Oh... yeah, /that/ computer? That one is kind of a piece of junk. That has a crappy Intel chip which can only run this lower-end version. This version doesn't have shiny UI, only plays movies that are 3 years old, and the singing and dancing part only includes musical numbers from Bollywood films. And while this version of Vista can still make you coffee, the coffee can only be decaf with artificial creamer. Didn't you read all the fine print specifications on the Vista box?"

And the consumers go, "WTF BBQ I paid $2600 for this laptop! You said this would run Vista! There's a label right on the computer! I bought this because I didn't want to have to worry about figuring out what hardware my computer had and whether that was enough for various Vista stuff! I bought this computer /specifically/ since the computer says it can run Vista!"

Microsoft goes, "Well, that computer /does/ run Vista! Just not the same version of Vista we were telling you about earlier, that's all. Not our fault you got confused about that."

And the consumers go, "LAWSUIT!"

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874211)

That's my point- it doesn't offer benefits at all. It does offer a difference, however.

I'm arguing that the claim aero made Vista is false. Vista is different than XP in tons of other ways as well. Not better, just different. Mostly worse.

But to claim without aero, it's not vista, is just plainly false. If, without aero, the software ran better, faster, less hangups, and more compatible, I'd say that then, without Aero, it's not actually vista. Now you have an argument.

But the things that make Vista special are true in all versions:
-It's slow
It's incompatible with EVERYTHING
-It's a resource hog.

I fail to see how Aero makes any difference.

The claim is that MS changed their internal standards from AERO capable to just plain basic capable. As far as I'm concerned, Being vista capable means just that. Vista also supports tons of features that I can't take advantage of without particular hardware. I can't use the floppy disk capabilities without a floppy drive. I can't take advantage. I can't take advantage of the extras and bitlocker without upgrading to the Ultimate Edition.

So the fact that Aero was people's favorite feature does not in fact prove that it was in fact what made vista "vista." And therefore anything labeled Vista capable doesn't neccessarily need to run a particular feature to still be vista. People just liked the eye candy and didn't research before purchasing.

Only on an MS bashing site are people claiming something illegal may have happened. Unethical? Probably. Not done with customers in mind, of course. Enough to make you switch to linux or max, absolutely. I certainly don't trust them after this.

But to say their marketing tricked everyone, as opposed to the fact- people wanted to believe the cheapest gave them all the features, and decided not to inform themselves before buying? That's just stupid.

wow (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874451)

in advertising:

vista = wow [msn.com]

wow = areo interface

vista capable = vista "home basic" = not wow

in nerd:
Keep using XP. v1sta sux0rs

In laywer sp3ak:
Class action on big pockets of MS.

Re:So? (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874511)

Although it seems misleading.. Vista Basic is still vista. Why is this still going on?

Because people feel like Aero was a major selling feature? And that without Aero, Vista is not distinguisable from XP? I'd say that the difference is major, and is very much public knowledge, much to Microsoft's chagrin.

So what's the argument? That MS's ad campaign led you to believe anything over the "vista-sucks" hype? I don't think so.

Initially, "Vista Capable" meant that you'd be able to run pretty much any flavor of Vista you might want to. It meant that you could run Aero and all the other shiny stuff.

Microsoft then redefined "Vista Capable" to mean simply capable of running the most basic version of Vista - not all the shiny stuff.

Further, the minimum requirements to get a "Vista capable" sticker are truly minimal. I'm not sure I'd even want to run XP on some of the systems that qualify. I've been recommending 1GB RAM or more for XP installs for a while now. So these systems are underpowered by just about any measure.

Finally, most of Microsoft's advertising focused on the shiny new features. There were lots of commercials showing the fancy new visual effects. They were intentionally trying to make it look at least as good as Mac OS X. Lots of people bought computers expecting those pretty visual effects, and didn't get them. As far as these folks are concerned they didn't get the OS they thought they were buying.

Capable doesn't means complete (5, Funny)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873577)

Part of the issue here is the meaning of the word capable. Balmer has already said that Vista isn't really a capable operating system (or at least wasn't when launched) so surely the argument therefore is that a machine that is incapable of running Vista is therefore getting exactly the same experience (or better) than someone who is actually running Vista.

Thus actually Vista Capable is a comparison between XP and Vista and thus you are better off having XP as that is just as capable as Vista.

Come on are we seriously thinking that Balmer can't talk his way around the word Capable?

Re:Capable doesn't means complete (5, Funny)

twl1973 (877541) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873645)

Just use the Bill Clinton defense: It depends on your definition of the word "is".

That was Bill Gates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25873773)

Bill Clinton was about the definition of sex.

Re:Capable doesn't means complete (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873921)

You may be right but to suggest Ballmer is capable of coherent and logical speech is very iffy. His email assigning the blame on Will Poole suggests poor comprehension and grammar.

So while Vista may not be capable, Ballmer definitely is not.

Re:Capable doesn't means complete (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874071)

So Vista is handi-capable [urbandictionary.com] ?

Re:Capable doesn't means complete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25874425)

You're missing the point. It isn't that the word "capable" can be defined in different ways for different people, it is that Microsoft changed the definition of "Vista Capable" in the middle of the process.

But it still runs Vista. What's the problem? (1)

chemosh6969 (632048) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873587)

"were labeled 'Vista Capable' when in fact they could only run a basic version of Vista" So even though it could run Vista, people are mad they couldn't run themes that require more hardware?

Re:But it still runs Vista. What's the problem? (3, Informative)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874001)

So even though it could run Vista, people are mad they couldn't run themes that require more hardware?

Yes. They advertised Vista as having all these cool bells and whistles in terms of the user interface, and when people thought they were getting that and found out that they weren't, they were pissed. Moreover, Microsoft had very specific hardware requirements that they posted to the OEMs. After many of the OEMs busted their asses, spent tons of money, and re-tooled their product lines to meet the requirements, Microsoft changed them last minute (the day before release) for Intel, who had a flagship chipset that didn't meet the certification requirements. That (though of course IANAL) is the real legal issue here; whether Microsoft misled their partners with this whole "Vista Capable" program.

Re:But it still runs Vista. What's the problem? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874477)

So should the suit be that Basic should have included Aero? I don't understand your point.

Cars are sold like this all the time "starting at $X, optional equipment shown."

AAARRRRRRRRGHHHH!!!! (2, Funny)

mfh (56) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873611)

{{Throws chair at judge.}}

Just had this thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25873793)

If barrels had been available in Steve's office, what better for "monkey boy" to throw than barrels. Preferably at any little italian man jumping over the barrels.

Re:AAARRRRRRRRGHHHH!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25873991)

Referring to the judge, Ballmer allegedly said, "Fucking Marsha Pechman is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that woman, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill this court," then resumed trying to persuade the judge to dismiss the case. Ballmer has described the incident as a "gross exaggeration of what actually took place."

It's not that bad (1, Insightful)

Ins0mau (1305569) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873627)

Well, it DOES run Vista basic. So yeah, it's a little cheeky. But it's not exactly lying. And not TOTALLY misleading either. Although they probably ideally should have been more upfront.

Re:It's not that bad (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874435)

Some of them "run" Vista Basic in the same way a P2 266 with 128 MB of ram "run" Windows XP, so no, some of these things labeled as Vista Capable can't even actually run Vista Basic in a usable way. MS's argument is they said it could run Vista. They never said which Vista, and they never said it could run it in a way that was usable!

Premium Ready (2, Informative)

kieblerh (1414625) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873749)

Microsoft had Vista Capable and Premium Ready as their two qualifiers for Vista. Boxes read "'Vista Capable' when in fact they could only run a basic version of Vista"... oh so if you wanted to run premium you needed the Premium Ready tag? That seems to make sense to me. I dont think microsoft is wrong this time.

just when is (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873835)

microsoft ever wrong. or in wrongdoing.

Re:Premium Ready (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874353)

Here is the Vista Home Basic Requirements:
  • 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
  • 512 MB of system memory
  • 20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
  • Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory
  • DVD-ROM drive
  • Audio Output
  • Internet access (fees may apply)

Here is Vista Premium Requirements:

  • 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
  • 1 GB of system memory
  • 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
  • Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
    • WDDM Driver
    • 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
    • Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
    • 32 bits per pixel
  • DVD-ROM drive
  • Audio Output
  • Internet access (fees may apply)

Now, the part that separates Aero and not Aero is the WDDM requirement. However MS does not mention anywhere on their page what this exactly means. To an average consumer, they might think that they have to download a driver. There's not even an asterisk, a link, etc. You actually have to search for "WDDM requirement" on the MS site but it doesn't exactly tell you specifically which computers/video cards meet this requirement. Now if they had a list somewhere: "Intel 915 not WDDM compliant, nVidia YYYY and below not compliant" that might have been different. You can download the Upgrade Advisor but only works if you are upgrading an older computer. It would not work on a new computer in the store that you are not in possession of.

Re:Premium Ready (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874561)

Hell, they expect vista to run in 512mb?

'Vista Capable' was essentially meaningless marketing. My last laptop was 'Vista capable' - stickers all over it saying so... just before the RTM of Vista Asus discontinued that model and released one with a TPM chip in it, then said their previous model was unsupported on Vista. Without drivers it was never going to be 'Vista capable' in any real sense, even though it met the technical requirements (and, being a laptop, the ethernet and wireless chipsets were completely nonstandard).

btw. WDDM is a driver model.. Any hardware could be made to use it if someone had enough time to write it. The important bit is the graphics memory and pixel shader support.

Re:Premium Ready (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874761)

btw. WDDM is a driver model.. Any hardware could be made to use it if someone had enough time to write it. The important bit is the graphics memory and pixel shader support.

Not exactly true. Intel's 915 chipset cannot run Aero no matter which driver is used even though it has the memory and the pixel shader support. If Intel could write a driver, they would have done it by now. This blog [intel.com] tells exactly why. The Intel 915 does not have a Hardware Scheduler built in the chip. Newer Intel video chipsets (945, 965) do have a Hardware Scheduler.

Re:Premium Ready (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874719)

And you can't see how that is misleading?

Re:Premium Ready (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874731)

Microsoft had Vista Capable and Premium Ready as their two qualifiers for Vista. Boxes read "'Vista Capable' when in fact they could only run a basic version of Vista"... oh so if you wanted to run premium you needed the Premium Ready tag? That seems to make sense to me. I dont think microsoft is wrong this time.

That'd be fine... Except that Microsoft changed the definition of "Vista Capable" midway through. And they certainly didn't advertise the differences between "Capable" and "Premium". And almost all the advertising showed the shiny new Aero stuff... So that's what folks expected to see when they fired up their brand new Vista box...

Imagine going to the jeweler and buying a box of diamonds. After watching all those commercials on TV you're expecting the box to be full of sparkly crystals. Instead the box is full of rough diamonds that look like any other rock. Obviously you'd be a little surprised, if nothing else.

Quick !!! (-1, Redundant)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25873807)

Fix all chairs in the courtroom to the ground with steel bolts !

Re:Quick !!! (1)

N1AK (864906) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874085)

I know you are just one of a hundred people here to make this remark so this isn't anything personal unity100.

Can /.ers please get over the Balmer = Chairs mentality, it's been done so far past death on Slashdot and stopped being remotely clever ages ago. Everyone knows about the incident, everyones had a laugh at it, now all it achieves is to hide any informative material or fresh funny material from being seen.

words words words (2, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874213)

Vista-capable.

Is that a euphemism like "handicapable" instead of handicapped?

Talk about your PC language...

Re:words words words (1)

qualidafial (967876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874397)

I'm Vistacapable, you insensitive clod!

How much room will there be in this courtroom? (0, Redundant)

Pozican (864054) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874727)

Will there be enough room in the courtroom for his monkey dance???

Teh job's not done... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25874815)

Until Vista doesn't run!;)

Microsoft's degenerate corporate culture has finally caught up to them. Another fine example of a Microsoft 'standard,' eh?

Good luck in court, Ballmer. I don't think da judge is going to be intimidated by your bad, bad self-image.

Microsoft should make good... (2, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25874821)

Microsoft should simply offer a free upgrade to Windows XP for everyone who bought a computer with Vista installed that couldn't handle it.

Vista Culp^H^H^H^HCapable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25874843)

Am I the only one who read the headline as 'Vista CULPable'?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>