Reply With QuoteVista runs fine (Though you need 1GB for it, 512MB is very problematic)
People who get "Vista capable" machines for $2100 are very stupid customers, even if they bought the machine 2 years ago.
Still funny though...
The strangely named Seattle Post Intelligencer has an article on the ongoing class action lawsuit about PCs sold as "Vista Capable" which could only run the most bare-bones version of the operating system. The funny thing are some internal e-mails by MS employees that were quoted in court:
Maybe trying to switch everyone to an OS that few people could run properly wasn't a very good idea."Even a piece of junk will qualify" for the "Windows Vista Capable" designation, wrote one employee in an e-mail that Tilden read out loud.
Another employee, Mike Nash, currently a corporate vice president for Windows product management, wrote in an e-mail, "I PERSONALLY got burnt. ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."
Jim Allchin, then the co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, wrote in another e-mail, "We really botched this. ... You guys have to do a better job with our customers."
Another e-mail chain presented in court showed that Wal-Mart was concerned about the impact the campaign could have, and Tilden hinted that other retailers had similar concerns.
Vista runs fine (Though you need 1GB for it, 512MB is very problematic)
People who get "Vista capable" machines for $2100 are very stupid customers, even if they bought the machine 2 years ago.
Still funny though...
Ha! Stupid customers!
I'm sorry, but attacks against the most important, innovative OS of all time will not be tolerated here!
This is what MS gets for shipping so many different versions of its OS. It's stupid. It does nothing but cause consumer confusion. If Alchin was so concerned about the consumers, he'd demand they ship a single SKU, just like Apple. (Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server I consider two completely different things. Mac OS X works for business and consumers. Server is just for that: servers.)
They are? Why's that?Originally Posted by Shiroko
Because he said so!
I'll clarify, vista capable machines that cannot run vista descently sounds like someone sold you an overpriced computer, and where I live computers cost more than in the US. In fact, more than a year ago (Prior to vista release) I could get a notebook CPU that runs vista excellent here (Israel).
Honestly, his claim about the $2100 machine is BS. All you need to run vista decently is 1GB considering the CPUs and HDs sold around the world in the last two years.
At 1GB anyhow, Vista runs around 10-20% at most slower than XP, which is usually unnoticable.
P.S.
The quote has a lot of stuff missing, so I acutally can't make the context, bah, lawyers.
The computers run Vista Basic and do it without too many issues. The fact of the matter is not everyone cares about Aero Glass, in fact there are probably some people out there who run Home Premium or Ultimate probably turn it off to save memory, CPU, or just aren't that keen on the look of it. (Gamers, and such)
The computer was advertised as Vista Capable, and it is. I don't see what the fuss is about. Nobody said it was "Vista Ultimate Capable" or "Runs Vista Awesomely".
Yeah, those vps trolling the forums... he was playing the long troll game, waiting for his private email to be made public in lawsuit so he could troll QT3 with his "$2100 vista machine", what a lying douchebag.Another employee, Mike Nash, currently a corporate vice president for Windows product management, wrote in an e-mail, "I PERSONALLY got burnt. ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."
Chet
Just because you're a Vice President at Microsoft doesn't mean that you're not a stupid consumer. When I was working at Dell, we would every once in a while deal with a Dell executive who needed help with their machine, and they always did the same stupid shit that everybody else does -- not reading error messages, installing spyware, deleting things they shouldn't, etc, etc.
Important people don't have time to read warning dialogs, dude. That's what peons get paid for.
Well, the $2,100 email machine is pretty funny. I'd be interested to know how a technically illiterate person could manage to find a $2,100 rig which isn't capable of running Vista smoothly, much less a VP at MS.
The emails aren't from yesterday. If you remember, "Vista Capable" was heavily promoted pre-vista release. I don't see that term used anymore. They either come with vista on them or they don't.
It could have a single disqualifier, like a top-end gaming rig with 256 megs of RAM or something. Hell, you could have a $1500 wide-screen display and a $600 budget PC and still make the claim above.
You've got a point. People who would be lulled into a false sense of security with the phrase "Vista ready" are the same ones who think about a PC as One Big Thing and would be expected to think about it in terms of how much of their money ended up on the credit card rather than how much the CPU cost.
I spent 700 Dollars on a moderately spec'd Laptop, and it runs Vista fine.
No, I'm pretty sure that a requirement of becoming a VP of anything technical requires that you have no fucking idea how anything really works.
Bad day at work?
There are good ones? ;)
More internals Microsoft e-mails have been "unsealed", and Todd Bishop of the Seattle PI has posted excerpts and linked to the full PDF on his blog. Joe Wilcox points out a stunning admission of collusion between Microsoft and Intel, both already under monopoly investigation:
Microsoft executive John Kalkman explains that Microsoft "lowered" the Vista Capable requirements to accommodate Intel: "We lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded."
By my reading—and qualifying that I am no legal expert—the agreement appears to loosely fit the U.S. definition of collusion. By lowering Vista Capable standards, presumably knowingly below a capable of threshold, Intel graphics chip sets were fixed at a lower price than they should have been in a competitive market. Microsoft made the change to accommodate a single partner and one that arguably is another monopoly. The European Union already is investigating Intel for anticompetitive, monopolistic activities.
If nothing else, there arguably is a violation under either the jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission. I include the SEC because of the material gain to Intel earnings.
The results identified by Kalkman, clearly indicate potential anticompetitive outcome and consumer harm: "This in turn did two things: 1. Decreased focus of OEMs planning and shipping higher end graphics for Vista-ready programs and 2. Reduced the focus by IHV's [Independent Hardware Vendors] to ready great WHQL [Windows Hardware Quality Labs] qualified graphics drivers. We can see this today with Intel's inability to ship a compelling full featured 945 graphics driver for Windows Vista."
Kalkman sent the e-mail about a month after Windows Vista shipped on new PCs to explain the process leading to the 915 chip set's Vista Capable certification. He was clear about the outcome: "It was a mistake on our part to change the original graphics requirements. This created confusion in the industry on how important the aspect of visual computing would play as a feature set to new Windows Vista upgraders."
Posting Permissions