Misleading 'Vista Capable' label could cost Microsoft $8.5 billion

Galen

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/01/23/misleading-%E2%80%98vista-capable%E2%80%99-label-could-cost-microsoft-85-billion/

by Nicholas Deleon on January 23, 2009


Here’s a tip: next time your company creates a snazzy marketing slogan make sure it isn’t misleading. Microsoft may be liable to the tune of $8.5 billion as a result of so many people buying “Vista Capable” PCs in the run up to Vista’s release in January, 2007. The problem is that, to the average person, “Vista Capable” means, “Hey, I can run Vista.” And you can, but only the most basic “this is Vista?” version.
That $8.5 billion figure is part of an ongoing class-action lawsuit filed against Microsoft last year. A whole series of document—“heavily redacted,” says Computer World—relating to the case was released yesterday.
How did the lawyers come up with $8.5 billion, which is approximately double Niger’s GDP (it’s random fact Friday, by the way)? Well, that’s how much they estimate it would cost to upgrade all those “Vista Capable” PCs so that they could adequately run a “premium version” of Vista. That amounts to 1GB of RAM and a graphics card capable of running Aero. Or, around $150 to upgrade each desktop and $245-$590 to upgrade each laptop. At that price, you might as well buy a new laptop, right?
As you might expect, Microsoft doesn’t exactly agree, saying it would be, essentially, giving people a free Premium PC even though they only paid for a non-Premium PC.
Oh, how Microsoft wishes they could just use that Men in Black mind eraser device so that we’re all, “What’s Vista?”

Dartz

Depends on the definition of 'Capable'

Windows 95 capable was 4Mb of RAM, which was just about enough for the OS and a single App. Anything else, and the thing would dive into the ground for virtual memory. In reality, it's nothing new....

It's like saying my Renault Laguna 1.8 will do 125MPh.... no it won't. It tops out at 110. Then breaks down. But such things are expected.

leninbenjamin

Dartz wrote: »

It's like saying my Renault Laguna 1.8 will do 125MPh.... no it won't. It tops out at 110. Then breaks down. But such things are expected.

meh... a better example would be saying it runs on biofuel when in reality it will only run on a max 10% biofuel blend. technically speaking a blend still contains biofuel so they are telling the truth, but it's still a somewhat misleading statement.

these issues are very hard to settle. Microsoft have a point, but so do the millions of users who were relying on ignorant sales staff for their information. I actually think the fault of this will end up with the retailers as ultimately they were the ones responsible for attaching the stickers. but at the same time there'll be little more than a slap on the wrist over this, no way will the customers get 8 million let alone 8 billion.

Capt'n Midnight

minimum spec for windows 95 is 4MB RAM on a 12MHz 386DX which has no maths co-processor and the only reason why they didn't specify 386SX was because of a hardware bug in some intel processors

also manufacturers press m$ to tout lower specs so they can sell old stock

yeah vista runs on those pc's just not as fast as you'd like and no it's not as if this is a secret

A tractor that can do 50Kmph is motorway capable. Totally legal , you can commute from Dundalk to Bray on it, but you aren't going to win many friends.

http://www.microsoft.com/hk/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx

What is a Windows Vista Capable PC?

A new PC 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 Vista—like the new Windows Aero user experience—may require advanced or additional hardware.

A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:

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

Windows Vista Premium Ready PCs
To get an even better Windows Vista experience, including the Windows Aero user experience, ask for a Windows Vista Capable PC that is designated Premium Ready, or choose a PC that meets or exceeds the Premium Ready requirements described below. 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:

* 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.

TBH far worse is HD ready on TV's , the ready means it is NOT HD :rolleyes:

Overheal

leninbenjamin wrote: »

meh... a better example would be saying it runs on biofuel when in reality it will only run on a max 10% biofuel blend. technically speaking a blend still contains biofuel so they are telling the truth, but it's still a somewhat misleading statement.

these issues are very hard to settle. Microsoft have a point, but so do the millions of users who were relying on ignorant sales staff for their information. I actually think the fault of this will end up with the retailers as ultimately they were the ones responsible for attaching the stickers. but at the same time there'll be little more than a slap on the wrist over this, no way will the customers get 8 million let alone 8 billion.

What will happen if it does go through is there will be a press release where anyone who bought a vista capable laptop with those stickers will be able to file their claim to website X. Their information will be verified and then they will receive their cheque in the mail - claims usually must either be made up to a certain deadline or if the claim money pool runs out.

jhegarty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

minimum spec for windows 95 is 4MB RAM on a 12MHz 386DX which has no maths co-processor and the only reason why they didn't specify 386SX was because of a hardware bug in some intel processors
:

I got 95 to boot on a 386 SX 40 with 4 meg ram and 40 MB hard disk.


It was just an exercise to see if it was possible to cut it down enough, it took over 20 minutes to boot.

watty

The machines in question can't run real Vista, only a specially created Home Basic without the Aero Interface. In every way not really Vista and vastly inferior to XP. It was due to the poverty of the built in Intel Graphics. Those PCs/Laptops actually pretty poor performance for Win2K and XP.

So it was much worse than the Win95. A basic spec Win95 PC can run the same Win95 as high end PC. The machines in question can't run a full version of Vista.

Windows 95 has been run on an x86 emulator in DosBox on various ARM PDAs and PMPs. Badly. You won't run Aero at all on most "Vista Capable" machines in question.

Jonathan

Do many people actually use Aero?

I've used windows classic from the day I installed.

Capt'n Midnight

jhegarty wrote: »

I got 95 to boot on a 386 SX 40 with 4 meg ram and 40 MB hard disk.


It was just an exercise to see if it was possible to cut it down enough, it took over 20 minutes to boot.

that's even slower than my 16 minutes

For 40 MB I had to double space the drive to fit the 8MB swap file

Overheal

jmccrohan wrote: »

Do many people actually use Aero?

I've used windows classic from the day I installed.

I do. Its not very useful whatsoever, but I amnt bothered by it either. It shuts down by itself when im battery/fullscreen anyway so as I see it its doing me no harm.

jhegarty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

that's even slower than my 16 minutes

For 40 MB I had to double space the drive to fit the 8MB swap file

Yep , double space was a bitch. I am sure everything would have been far better without it.

But free disk space, why would you not

An Fear Aniar

Some features available in the premium editions of Windows Vista—like the new Windows Aero user experience—may require advanced or additional hardware.

Looks like MS covered their asses with that bit there. I know what Judge Judy would do.:)


.

Capt'n Midnight

Overheal wrote: »

I do. Its not very useful whatsoever, but I amnt bothered by it either. It shuts down by itself when im battery/fullscreen anyway so as I see it its doing me no harm.

cba looking up if aero trashes the CPU or the GPU , if the CPU your pc runs slower if the GPU and an old Nvidia then you might have to worry about the bumps
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/378/1004378/why-nvidia-chips-defective

leninbenjamin

jmccrohan wrote: »

Do many people actually use Aero?

I've used windows classic from the day I installed.

yup, i do. if you got the hardware to do it it's great, looks nice and slick even though it adds little in terms of usability.

Overheal

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

cba looking up if aero trashes the CPU or the GPU , if the CPU your pc runs slower if the GPU and an old Nvidia then you might have to worry about the bumps
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/378/1004378/why-nvidia-chips-defective

tl; dr and FF Search lets me know the article never mentioned aero... so I ask you: huh?

watty

It's not about Vista, but how engineering of flip chips / PCB submodules can go wrong.

Capt'n Midnight

Some older Nvidia chips run too hot and there is a much higher chance that they die young. [quot]Modern chips consume electricity in an uneven manner, as different parts of the chip use power at different rates. Sometimes parts of the chip are never used at all for a given workload. If you have a modern GPU and don't game or are smart enough to not run Vista, you will likely never touch the transistors that do all the 3D work. Think about it this way, there are hot spots on the chip as well as cold spots, it is uneven and changing constantly.
...
The question is not whether or not these parts are defective, it is simply the failure rates of each line, with field reports on specific parts hitting up to 40 per cent early life failures.
...
How widespread is the problem? We told you about G84 and G86s as well as G92 and G94s. From the materials side, it appears that all non-R and non-F lot numbered parts made on the 65nm and 55nm processes are defective.
...
When Dell, HP and others announce a BIOS 'fix', the reason it is so humorous is that all they are doing is lowering the amount of thermal stress on the chips when the fan would not normally be on. When the fan is going full tilt without the 'fix', the new 'updated thermal profiles' won't make a difference. When the fans are normally off or on low, the profiles will essentially lessen the stress from a four to a three. It is just there to allow the laptop to live through the warranty period so the companies don't have to pay for the fix. After that, if the defective chips burn out, it isn't their problem. The 'fix' doesn't fix anything at all.[/quote]

Overheal

oh.

oh.

The glass windows are taxing the 3D aceleration? How does that make sense? Cant remember the last time I used flip3D

Epic Tissue

jmccrohan wrote: »

Do many people actually use Aero?

I've used windows classic from the day I installed.

I do as well. I like it

Donald-Duck

I use aero too. And I like it more than the dull classic.

This means all TV Manufacturers should be ****ed for HD-Ready too?

Capt'n Midnight

Donald-Duck wrote:

This means all TV Manufacturers should be ****ed for HD-Ready too?

Don't get me started
www.consumerassociation.ie/rights_knowrights.html

Your rights under the Act also apply to goods purchased at sale prices. They must be of merchantable quality, fit for their particular purpose and as described.

since "HD ready" is not HD by any stretch of the imagination I think you'd have a case

However, Microsoft make money from licences so this act does not apply since their software is neighter goods nor services and by accepting the EULA you have more or less accepted all the terms and conditions anyway.

jmccrohan

In a way this case is being exaggerated. The media is making out that PCs with i915 graphics can only run Home Basic. This isn't true; they can't run Aero, that's it. You can put Vista Ultimate on a i915 machine and it would still work, I did it in work two days after Vista was released. However I do agree that "Vista Capable" should mean that Aero is supported. But I do also remember seeing a "Premium Ready" badge at one stage, I think that was meant to to be the differential.

jmccrohan wrote: »

Do many people actually use Aero?

I've used windows classic from the day I installed.

Windows Classic looks fine under XP but it looks awful on Vista. The Vista interface just wasn't designed with it in mind.