Topic: Vista capable machines NOT capable

[[ISC]Phaser]

How misleading was Microsoft's "Windows Vista Capable" campaign? Misleading enough for a judge to approve a federal trial.

On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that two PC buyers, Dianne Kelley and Kenneth Hansen, can proceed with a lawsuit that accuses Microsoft of deliberately deceiving the public with the "Window Vista Capable" stickers it slapped on Windows XP machines in the run-up to Vista's January debut, InformationWeek reports. Microsoft had asked for a dismissal, but US District Judge Marsha Pechman of Seattle is happy to oversee an October trial.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/08/judge_approves_vista_capable_trial/

[GE-Raven]

Hmmm... Don't know why they are letting it proceed.  I can't see how a "vista ready" sticker implies it is ready for any version of Vista.  Fairly enough I know a few machines that were XP ready that would have a hard time running with a full XP SP2 and that is when there were only 2 versions.

Must be something else not in the article...

Dunno, but on this one, I think the ability to run Vista (any version) was all that was implied.  Especially since at the time of Windows Vista Ready stickers information was generally available on the various builds that would be marketed.  (Including the needs of Aero)

GE-Raven

[Nemesis]

Without having seen more details than that Register article I can't say much.  But one thing springs to mind is that we Dynaverse members are more knowlegable than most on computers.  How many "Joe Sixpacks" even know that there is an array of different Windows Vista versions? 

If I come across further info (which is likely) I'll post links.

[FRA.E.Kehakoul_XC]

 Sorry guys i wonder how  you can not see  the misleading character of this ,if i say i am ready to buy a car, you would probabley assume i am ready to buy that car .Right?
If i say that rocket is ready to be fuled  up, you will assume that it is ready and if the fule simply starts   flushing through the nozzle before ignition  so you cant fuel it up,.. it was obviously not ready to be fuled,..afterwards someone is responsible for this misleading statement.

if i go into a shop and see a pc ,.. vista READY i  assume its ready for upgrading xp to vista or  installation of it from scratch, and if its not  the seller is a friggin liar,  understood?

Thats really basic stuff , i am glad that there are atleast some people left in the USA,namely that judge for example,who still can part right from wrong,lie from truth  ,and the lack of morals if it comes to deals

Next  you will tell us eventually that being an opportunist is a positive virtue ????. i hope not..

[Lepton]

Misleading, yes, but anyone buying a "capable" machine with Vista not preloaded is shooting themselves in the foot.  Why buy a "capable" machine without Vista on it and then buy Vista some time in the future?

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

According to court papers, Judge Pechman is allowing two of the plaintiffs' claims to move into the trial phase of the case. One alleged that Microsoft violated the Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unfair or deceptive business practices by affixing "Windows Vista Capable" labels to PCs without telling consumers they may have to spend more money for a machine to run a premium edition of the OS. Another alleged that Microsoft unjustly received payment for Windows XP licenses and upgrades from Vista Basic to Vista Premium because of their practices.

Judge Pechman dismissed one claim, which called Microsoft's placement of "Windows Vista Capable" stickers on PCs that could not run all versions of Windows Vista a "breach of contract." Another claim -- that a "Windows Vista Capable" sticker represents a written warranty under federal law -- has been taken under advisement by the judge, which means she will decide how to proceed on that claim later, Microsoft said.

A basic explanation of the logic of the suit and why the judge did not dismiss everything. 

Misleading, yes, but anyone buying a "capable" machine with Vista not preloaded is shooting themselves in the foot.  Why buy a "capable" machine without Vista on it and then buy Vista some time in the future?

The Vista Ready and Vista Capable campaigns began when Vista was not yet on sale.  Some people didn't delay buying (especially Christmas gift computers) while waiting for Vista.  They bought machines with the Vista logos expecting to upgrade once Vista was shipped. 

[GE-Raven]

The Vista Ready and Vista Capable campaigns began when Vista was not yet on sale.  Some people didn't delay buying (especially Christmas gift computers) while waiting for Vista.  They bought machines with the Vista logos expecting to upgrade once Vista was shipped. 

Which they can do... However they may not be able to run the version with  all the bells and whistles to their full satisfaction.  I have done a Premium install, and frankly aero will work on a "regular" machine, it is just not something you are going to enjoy running.

The machine IS capable of running it, however it doesn't meet the minimums standards of what would run it well!  All in all I understand the Judge wanting to make sure that no warranty was given (which I am sure it won't).

However in the world of "everlasting" Gobbstopers and "no scrub" bathroom cleaners, I fail to see how this could be construed as a guarantee.

GE-Raven

[Nemesis]

The Vista Ready and Vista Capable campaigns began when Vista was not yet on sale.  Some people didn't delay buying (especially Christmas gift computers) while waiting for Vista.  They bought machines with the Vista logos expecting to upgrade once Vista was shipped. 

Which they can do... However they may not be able to run the version with  all the bells and whistles to their full satisfaction.  I have done a Premium install, and frankly aero will work on a "regular" machine, it is just not something you are going to enjoy running.

The machine IS capable of running it, however it doesn't meet the minimums standards of what would run it well!  All in all I understand the Judge wanting to make sure that no warranty was given (which I am sure it won't).

However in the world of "everlasting" Gobbstopers and "no scrub" bathroom cleaners, I fail to see how this could be construed as a guarantee.

GE-Raven

Will "Vista Ready" and "Vista Capable" machines run Vista as seen in the Microsoft TV ads?  (Ads which I haven't seen by the way as I watch very little broadcast TV).  If not then those ads combined with the stickers could be considered false and misleading advertising which would enable the case to go forward.  Will it run the Vista shown in all the Microsoft sponsored "reviews" in the media over the last year?

At this point the judge has only made the decision that the case has enough of a basis to go to trial with.  That bar is very easy to pass.  Getting a case dismissed pretrial is difficult.

Myself I can't really judge as I haven't bothered even looking at Vista as I have no desire to go that route.

[Lepton]

I think we are operating under the assumption that just because the case could go forward that this is a fait-d'accompli.  It isn't.  Microsoft defines a Vista Capable machine as this:

    * A modern processor (at least 800MHz¹).
    * 512 MB of system memory.
    * A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.

I really have no idea if Vista will really run well on this.  I doubt it will, but it may run.

Here are the specs for a Vista Premium Ready Machine:

    * 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor¹).
    * 1 GB of system memory.
    * Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)², Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
    * 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
    * DVD-ROM Drive³.
    * Audio output capability.
    * Internet access capability.

That seems reasonable to me, but they go on to say that this configuration will support Aero.  This I find a bit of a stretch.  I've got two gigs of memory and I don't bother running Aero due to the performance hit.

Perhaps we have all just become accustom to the fast response of XP relatively speaking with such a hardware configuration.  A screaming Vista machine doesn't exist yet.  At least, I don't think it does.

Can you run Vista on these machines?  Probably.  Are you going to be happy with it?  Probably not.

[Victor1st]

I tried running Vista Premium for 5 whole months.

Poor driver support from the motherboard and soundcard manufacturers, over the top security in the OS, net games not connecting or crashing the game.  I got hacked off with it and re-installed XP again.  Vista is a massive resource hog, its no wonder they are having to force future gamers over with DX10 only being available for Vista.

[Nemesis]

I think we are operating under the assumption that just because the case could go forward that this is a fait-d'accompli.  It isn't. 

If you read what Raven and I have said you would see that Raven believes the case should fail and I don't know.

For example I said:

At this point the judge has only made the decision that the case has enough of a basis to go to trial with.  That bar is very easy to pass.  Getting a case dismissed pretrial is difficult.

Myself I can't really judge as I haven't bothered even looking at Vista as I have no desire to go that route.

It is clearly too early to judge yet. 

I've seen too many cases allowed to go forward that later failed to make such a judgement unless I have substantial information about the case.  I especially try not to be swayed by claims of either party that are not actually presented to the judge as I have seen press releases of "mountains of evidence" followed by the judge saying "an astounding lack of evidence" for the very people claiming they had those mountains.  Since I don't have much evidence one way or the other and this case hinges on some fine points of the law (such as what "Vista Ready" and "Vista Capable" legally mean) I readily admit I don't know or even have a strong opinion as to which way it will go or SHOULD go.

[manitoba1073]

I tried running Vista Premium for 5 whole months.

Poor driver support from the motherboard and soundcard manufacturers, over the top security in the OS, net games not connecting or crashing the game.  I got hacked off with it and re-installed XP again.  Vista is a massive resource hog, its no wonder they are having to force future gamers over with DX10 only being available for Vista.

 WoW nice to see you around Vic. Been awhile since I been to ur site lol.

 Anyways whatever way you go with Vista its a resource hog period.

[Panzergranate]

So sticking a VISTA READY sticker onto my old Tulip 80286/12.5 Mhz. won't make it run Vista then??!!

Microsoft and the computer industry has doen this before. Remember that Windows 1.03 wouldn't run on machnes with an 80386 or above processor. Windows 3.0 wouldn't run on machines running less than a 80286 processor and then not very well, even if it was a NEAT type processor.

I can't see why folks have forgotten that Microsoft has done this before in the past with the Windows operating system, or are some of you too young to remember these events??!!

[Nemesis]

I can't see why folks have forgotten that Microsoft has done this before in the past with the Windows operating system, or are some of you too young to remember these events??!!

There is a difference in audience.  Back then computer users were all "expert" to some degree and understood how to research things.  Now most users are casual users ("Joe Sixpack" as they are sometimes referred to) and almost totally lack expertise.

Just look back to the anti trust trials and their famous lines "Knife the baby", "Cut off their air supply" or more recently "Whack Dell" if you want examples of Microsoft's misbehaving.

[Lloyd007]

This will be a test of whether Vista Home Basic (which is a lot less functional than XP Home from what I've read) is anything more than a bait and switch. I think this could go either way as "Vista Ready" was a nice big selling point for computers with that coupon but then to get an OS that is crippled compared to its predecessor product when you were expecting all the bells and whistles of Aero and stuff like that and since the average computer user is a lot more average than before when only advanced to experts could maneuver their way around a computer might very well tip the judgement to either a settlement or an outright loss if M$ is arrogant about it.

OTOH these comps still can run Home Basic so...

Vista is a disaster for M$. Advanced users won't touch it or retrograde when they realize their killer system is killed by something that shouldn't use a quarter of the resources its using and the average joe is made suspicious by having a choice even 8 months on...

[Panzergranate]

A friend has been tempting me with UNIX. His last demo was that one of the UNIX PCs he runs had been running non-stop online for a fortnight without crashing. I run both MAC and PC, and technically speaking the MAC is superiour to the PC, but over here in the UK MAC software support and games are made of pure unobtainium.

I also have to run compatable ECAD software packages to factory PC based systems as well and so I have a seperate non-gameing PC for that.

I wish that I had the money to buy a Gateway Super Amiga like NASA use. I'd have to sell the house to afford one though!!

The trouble with PCs is that they were always handicaped by the use of the 8088 and later 8086 family of processors.  This was to make it software compatible with the previous IBM 670 runnung the 8085. It was a tragic mistake and has left PCs handicaped, processor wise, from that point.

Any electronics engineer will say that IBM should have used the  Motorola 68000 or the Zilog Z8000 instead of the 8088 and 8086. A clear example of how marketting screws up sensible design.

Aren't we forgetting that XP stands for Xtra Problesm here??!!

This particular machine here is running VISTA Home Premium and seems to be hastle free so far (fingers crossed!!)

[Nemesis]

The trouble with PCs is that they were always handicaped by the use of the 8088 and later 8086 family of processors.  This was to make it software compatible with the previous IBM 670 runnung the 8085. It was a tragic mistake and has left PCs handicaped, processor wise, from that point.

Any electronics engineer will say that IBM should have used the  Motorola 68000 or the Zilog Z8000 instead of the 8088 and 8086. A clear example of how marketting screws up sensible design.

IBM was also after multiple sources.  Back then the Microprocessor firms were not the wealthy power house Intel has since become.  If Intel had gone under or just out of the processor business IBM would have lost their microcomputer business.  Intel, to get the IBM business was willing to license IBM and 2 other companies (Harris and AMD) to make the chips.  Whether Motorola or Zilog might have been convinced to do the same I don't know. 

[Dash Jones]

Actually, the big kicker isn't the machines that can't run Vista with all the bells and whistles, but those that cannot even run basic.  If it isn't in that lawsuit, it should be.

You see, the problem came in, NOT when those trying to run ultimate couldn't, but when many of the general populace started getting computers from Dell, HP, and Toshiba with two factors that made Vista Basic run terribly.  The processors weren't good enough, and the RAM at the minimums made it so that it ran very sluggishly.  People began to complain that their machines weren't running that well, and on top of that couldn't run a majority of the programs in Vista.  That aided to a snowball effect that rapidly engulfed those with higher forms of Vista.

So you see, at it's core, the issue isn't about Vista with all the bells and whistles, but whether a computer can run Vista period.  I think people have individually talked about similar lawsuits against Dell, and HP, but who knows.  Dell now offers computers with WinXP (actually happened that they switched rapidly after Vista's release with the reasoning of allowing people choice and increasing options, but with the outcry before that one sometimes might wonder) so that would probably become a null lawsuit rapidly...however one against Microsoft...

If they include that even Basic wouldn't really run on many of the computers so advertised...I think it is at least admissable in court to hear both sides of the story and see what a judge thinks about it.

[Panzergranate]

I remember in the 1980's Intel suing NEC over the V20 and V30 replacement processors in PCs for the 8088 and 8086. For the same clock speed the chips were 20% faster at processing than their Intel counterparts.

NEC won the lawsuit but, by then, the 80186 and 80286 were the in PC processor. There was no need for the V20 and V30 processors. NEC never bothered to come up with a replacement for the 80186 and 80286. AMD did though!!

If it wasn't for NEC winning the lawsuit the precident would have been set the other way and we wouldn't have the choice of AMD, Cryix, etc. that we have today.

Back in those days the Z80 was the king of home computers, easily running circles around the senile 6502.

[Nemesis]

I remember in the 1980's Intel suing NEC over the V20 and V30 replacement processors in PCs for the 8088 and 8086. For the same clock speed the chips were 20% faster at processing than their Intel counterparts.

NEC won the lawsuit but, by then, the 80186 and 80286 were the in PC processor. There was no need for the V20 and V30 processors. NEC never bothered to come up with a replacement for the 80186 and 80286. AMD did though!!

The lawsuit was over the fact that NEC did a direct copy of the chip.  They won because the chip was protected by copyright law and at that time you had to include the copyright notice to be covered and Intel did not.  NEC didn't create a design they just used Intels.  Intel put the proper notice on the 386 so NEC couldn't run an out and out copy so they dropped it.  As I understood it at the same clock speed they performed exactly like an Intel chip.  They might have run at higher speeds, I don't recall.  Harris ran 286 chips up to 20 mhz which allowed them to compete with early 386 models and be cheaper.

AMD used (under license) the intel design all the way to the 486 then after fighting a lawsuit with Intel over the meaning of the license they started cloning their own post 486 chips.  Harris just dropped it. 

[Panzergranate]

The 80286 lived on in industry as an embeded processor and ended up at 40 Mhz.

The fast 80286 PCs used NEAT technology and a 80286 16 Mhz. was twice as fast as a 80386 16 Mhz.  PC. I have an old 80286/25 NEAT PC board which I use for robotics.

80386s were always handicaped by thier 16 bit data bus despite the internal 32 bit data bus. The 80486 was a truw 32 bit processor and not a pseudo one like the 80386.

The Z80 is up to the E and F versions with 1 M.Byte of paged RAM (the Z80 was the first processro to run virtual memory actually), built in ROM, CTC, PIO, SIO, etc. and is the first one chip computer system. Clock speed are in excess of 50 Mhz. last time I looked.

I've run every version of Windows since Windows 1.03 and was always gripes about them.

[TFO KILLSWITCH]

the way i see it its buyer beware
vista is not a system hog as people think
here look at this
-----------
Machine name: -PC
   Operating System: Windows Vista™ Ultimate (6.0, Build 6000) (6000.vista_FDR.070627-1500)
           Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: INTEL_
       System Model: DP965LT_
               BIOS: Default System BIOS
          Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6600  @ 2.40GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.4GHz
          Memory: 807MB used, 3468MB available <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------im only using 807 out of 3468
        Windows Dir: C:\Windows
    DirectX Version: DirectX 10
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
     DxDiag Version: 6.00.6000.16386 64bit Unicode
----------------
its a 64bit machine

i play sfc3 and have the server runing on this machine
no problems

[Nemesis]

The fast 80286 PCs used NEAT technology and a 80286 16 Mhz. was twice as fast as a 80386 16 Mhz.  PC. I have an old 80286/25 NEAT PC board which I use for robotics.

That speed difference does not match what I recall.  My memory says that they ran neck and neck at the same mhz rating. 

80386s were always handicaped by thier 16 bit data bus despite the internal 32 bit data bus.

There were two models of the 386.  They paralleled the 8086 which was 16 bit with a 16 bit data bus and the 8088 which was 16 bit but an 8 bit bus.  The 386DX was 32 bit with a 32 bit data bus.  The 386SX was 32 bit internally but used a 16 bit data bus to allow cheaper motherboard. 

The 386SX being handicapped to allow cheaper motherboard is pretty much what AMD did with the socket 754 vs socket 939 chips.  Limit the chip to allow cheaper systems to be built.  Then as motherboard tech caught up switch on to the more advanced socket.

The 80486 was a truw 32 bit processor and not a pseudo one like the 80386.

Only true when compared to the 386SX not the 386DX.  The 386DX was fully 32 bit.

The 2 advantages of the 486DX were the internal L1 cache and the integrated math coprocessor.  The 486SX lacked the coprocessor.

[Commander Maxillius]

the way i see it its buyer beware
vista is not a system hog as people think
here look at this
-----------
Machine name: -PC
   Operating System: Windows Vista™ Ultimate (6.0, Build 6000) (6000.vista_FDR.070627-1500)
           Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: INTEL_
       System Model: DP965LT_
               BIOS: Default System BIOS
          Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6600  @ 2.40GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.4GHz
          Memory: 807MB used, 3468MB available <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------im only using 807 out of 3468
        Windows Dir: C:\Windows
    DirectX Version: DirectX 10
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
     DxDiag Version: 6.00.6000.16386 64bit Unicode
----------------
its a 64bit machine

i play sfc3 and have the server runing on this machine
no problems

How many programs are using that 807MB?  Besides, the issue isn't if top-kit rigs like yours can run Vista, it's whether upgraded older ones and low-kit new PCs can.  Of course you'll run Vista great with 3.5 GB of RAM.

[Panzergranate]

I've owned both 386 SX and DX versions and they were still slower than a 286 NEAT of the same speed.

I was lucky enough to pick up a broken Compaq 386 SX with the 387 and 4 M.Byte RAM modules in 1991 for £10. It took minutes to fix and I used this as the main PC until a sick 486 DX 66 fell into my lap a year later.

I used to run Win 3.11 NT with the Sparta override, which converted it into a Mac type desktop. It also stopped the crashes.

I think folks'll need to experiment and compile their findings as a guide rather than specualte on what'll run VISTA and what won't.

We'll need a new post for that.

[TFO KILLSWITCH]

the way i see it its buyer beware
vista is not a system hog as people think
here look at this
-----------
Machine name: -PC
   Operating System: Windows Vista™ Ultimate (6.0, Build 6000) (6000.vista_FDR.070627-1500)
           Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: INTEL_
       System Model: DP965LT_
               BIOS: Default System BIOS
          Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6600  @ 2.40GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.4GHz
          Memory: 807MB used, 3468MB available <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------im only using 807 out of 3468
        Windows Dir: C:\Windows
    DirectX Version: DirectX 10
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
     DxDiag Version: 6.00.6000.16386 64bit Unicode
----------------
its a 64bit machine

i play sfc3 and have the server runing on this machine
no problems

How many programs are using that 807MB?  Besides, the issue isn't if top-kit rigs like yours can run Vista, it's whether upgraded older ones and low-kit new PCs can.  Of course you'll run Vista great with 3.5 GB of RAM.

i was runing the sfc3 server kit.vintrillo, and playing bf2142

[Panzergranate]

One thought....

Now that Intel's Dual Core Processors have removed the problem of stack overflow, doe that mean that perhaps we're finally progressing towards a Microsoft crash proof computer??!!

Or has Microsoft have a team already looking into ways around this crash barrier??!!

[TFO KILLSWITCH]

8 muths  have gone buy no crashes
and i have put it threw  the ringer
ive hade up to 8 programes running at one time
bf2142,bf2,guild wars, vintrillo,sfc3,freelancer,battel stations midway,halo 2

[Commander Maxillius]

I regularly have 10+ programs going at once on my Mac Mini, one of which is the web browser and *that* typically has 15+ windows open. 

It's crashed once since January, and that's because it got bored (wasn't running anything but the OS).

[Age]

Regarding Vista.I was wondering if Direct X 10 will be able to play SFC 2 and 3 games or those that run on DX90C?