If MS is liable on this basis, aren't at least half the games out there equally problematic with their essentially fictional "minimum system requirements"?

Geez, more lawsuits that award stupidity.

I do not see how MS is in trouble for anything. Capable never equals recommended or fully supported.

Might as well B&M and sue Ubisoft for Crysis's inability to work fully with my 9700PRO.

I got Vista to work for the most part. After many patches, and some hardware updates to printers and such, and new versions of perfectly working software....Vista worked, about as good XP....almost. Then I finally ditched the shit and moved to OS X.

Anyhow this just goes to show you this product was total FRAQING crap, when it shipped. Tons of problems even for MS top brass. I am so tired of the "Vista rocks, works for me, never a problem" ms loving fangirls.

Sure after over a year of "Performance Updates" and now the final Windows 2008 server code injected in it in the form of SP1 its probably product that is ready for RTM.

All of this, plus my 360 RROD'ing twice lets me know that Microsoft does not give a rats ass about consumers....at all. Vista was a GIANT beta test, that consumers paid for.

I think the real gem here is an "we lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings"

That is such a rose-tinted and economical version of the truth that I find it highly entertaining. Backscratching between two companies the size of MS and Intel is generally measured in eight to nine digit dollar values.

What I also like is that Microsoft essentially admit that Intel persuaded them to mislead customers because the Intel hardware was too pathetic to sell without the logo.

#29, If you're in Firefox, you can make the text visible by shrinking the font size to something tiny. Hold down Ctrl and spin your mouse wheel.

The hidden part of the post says that Intel coerced Microsoft into making Vista run on the crappy Intel 945 graphics chipset.

Truly a gaint test.

.. @ #46.

Ok, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but first thing that came to my head was that those "emails" sound a little phony, unnecessarily specific (narratory of things that HAVE happened) and way too formal, like they were written afterwards. If it's communication inside the house (they all talk about "we", etc), wouldn't they speak in a more relaxed manner?
Or are they just post-edited for the public...?

But yeah, those stickers may eventually become pretty expensive...
(well, not that it would financially be directly noticeable, but for the image)

Somewhat related is The INQ's report more than a year ago about Intel forcing Microsoft to make Aero runs on the 945G.

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/01/08/vistas-worst...mpromise-is-its-support-for-intel-integrated-gra...[uirer.net]

Read the full article.

This guy was sending these emails right after the launch and right after he took over the head of the Vista group. The person before him.....got let go because of all of the delays. Or they wished him well in his new endeavors as they say in corporate America when they can someone that high up.

This is legit, this comes from some legal findings, and not some rumor.

$10 says these people got their computers at Best Buy because a rep told them the machines could handle Vista with no problems.

Intel blamed for microsofts decision. It's not intels fault microsoft decided to make it like that, it was microsofts choice.

No one bashes intel about this?

I'll be the first to say it: fucking intel, dipping their hands in all the honey pots.

Then again, microsoft is the bitch for caving into intel.

lol @ Mike Nash. Just lol.

First thing I look for in a laptop is discrete video.

Whenever we are presented with two or more possible interpretations, if one of those interpretations can be considered "correct", then I don't see the problem. Can you install the program called "Windows Vista" on a "Vista Capable" computer and subsequently boot up an operating system called "Windows Vista"? Then there's no problem.

Misleading marketing? So what? No more so than a million other products that are A-Okay to our legal system and consumers. There are more deceptive practices in the "Light" food category, that simply reduces the serving size to "reduce" calories.

I'm still mad that nforce3 won't run vista with dual core

There never should have been Vista Capable stickers.
It was not clear to consumers. Vista Capable implies that it can run Vista, period and not run only parts of Vista.

I think whoever is responsible deserves whatever they get.

What I (and OEMs and other members of numerous tech areas) hated with Vista: the multiple versions. Microsoft can lay SOME blame on Intel's weak as hell chipset, but their product division should have been FIRED for all the different SKUs.

Two SKUs should exist: home and business. Let EVERYONE in on the graphical features of Vista and only restrict networking options on the home edition.

Less products = clearer communication to customers and this potentially time consuming lawsuit could have been avoided. If employees of Microsoft were confused over the marketing, why wouldn't they believe non-employees would be confused as well.

I don't think the plaintiff will win because the sticker promises nothing more than functionality, but regardless MS suffers from (yet more) bad PR.

I don't understand this. There was enough warning leading up to Vista's release about the different logos (Vista Capable and Vista Premium Certified). This whole suit is just sour grapes. I purchased a laptop knowing that it was only Vista Capable, and I knew what I was getting. The information is out there. You just have to have a knowledge level above fourth grade.

So... someone spends the least amount of money, because they see some stupid little sticker saying "Vista Capable", and it doesn't run ALL of Vista *GASP*, and they say, "I'm gonna sue!"

My response: [baby] Waaaahhhhh!! [/baby]

How about we stop being cheap $%&@#* and buy the right computer that we really needed, and not get the lowest end, expecting the best, or better than what we pay for.

"Vista capable" does not mean that it will run the Glass interface of Vista. So what! That doesn't mean you don't have Vista, it means you don't have the Vista eye candy. You still have the base Vista operating system, just no extra accouterments, which is to be expected when your are buying a $500 computer.

So the argument that Vista Home is not Vista is invalid. It IS Vista, regardless of what anyone says; at the core of Vista Ultimate, turn off ALL extra features, and you have Vista Home.

Vista Capable was a terrible campaign idea. Too bad it will cost M$ to fix it.

Vista Home Basic makes an excellent replacement for XP on my old 915GM notebook thank you very much. I have no need for the eye-candy on that system. Just throw in a ton of memory, and it's zippy. Capable is not the same as adequate. It's a bit shady, but the language is accurate.

Interesting, my Athlon 64 939 big box system came with a sticker too.

Ouch. This is one class action lawsuit that looks like it's got some backing behind it. Good luck MS, looks like you'll need it.

Adi