Vista Class-Action Lawsuit

[rs7]

Hi. I read today about a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft saying machines were "Vista Capable". I don't know if mine would count, because though it did meet specifications, it didn't have the "Vista Capable" sticker (it was bought before the campaign). I know that class-action lawsuits sometimes set up websites where affected people can sign up. Does a website exist for it? Or would it not be up until a ruling is made?

Thanks

 

[cantthinkofone]

Have you tried to run vista on your computer?

even if you could get something out of the lawsuit it wouldn't be much. $5-$10 max is my guess. More trouble than it's worth if you ask me.

 

[rs7]

Not just tried...my parents installed it on their computer (Dell). It made it unbelievably slow and something froze every minute.

 

[nick9191]

If it wasn't Vista Capable Certified then you're out of luck, sorry.

 

[Consultant]

OP, you are NOT qualified, as your computer do not have a Vista Capable sticker.

 

[Sun Baked]

Funny how people got pissed at Apple because Apple redid their specs last minute to s-can the machines that were included in the pre-release specs that did not run acceptably fast.

Really surprised there wasn't a class action over that change.

---

Seems you are damned if you include machines or exclude them these days.

 

[rdowns]

If it wasn't Vista Capable Certified then you're out of luck, sorry.

Some machines were Vista Capable Certified Home Edition.

 

[gilkisson]

Saw an article on Computerworld this morning related to this. Seems some emails between several MS-ers were concerned about the difference between "vista capable", "vista ready" and the definition of "premium experience:

Russell went on to defend Vista, specifically its ability to "run on a very wide-ranging set of systems from the minimally capable to the incredibly capable," he said. "Apple doesn't do that."

He also touched on the idea of a Vista "premium" experience, which led him to a discussion of "Vista Ready," the name of the marketing campaign that would later be recast as "Vista Capable" and become the focus of the class-action lawsuit that led to his message going public.

"Vista Ready means that a PC will run Vista well -- it doesn't mean the users will get a 'premium' experience -- it never has meant that," Russell said. "There was some thinking and effort put into having a higher-tier Vista Ready logo, but this didn't fly with the OEMs.

A more pointed portion of that article, which refers to WSJ columnist Walter Mossberg:

"You won't have to worry about Vista if you buy one of Apple Computer's Macintosh computers, which don't run Windows," Mossberg had written. "Every mainstream consumer doing typical tasks should consider the Mac. Its operating system, called Tiger [at that time, the most-current Mac OS X -- Ed.], is better and more secure than Windows XP, and already contains most of the key features promised for Vista."

Warrier added his own comment. "A premium experience as defined by Walt = Apple. This is why we need to address [the column]."

This is all way back in October 2005. What MS did NOT want to do was allow anyone to compare OSX to Vista.

Here's the link

 

[mkrishnan]

Seems you are damned if you include machines or exclude them these days.

It seems to me, not quite. The big difference between Apple and MS is that Apple does not generally offer computers as being upgrade capable, nor of course does it license others to do so. It's not the same when you pore through tech information that's posted on fan sites or misinterpret developer information that was never a promise of release specs, than if you're a customer who goes to a store and sees a computer with a Microsoft-supplied sticker on it that says it'll run their next OS release.

Assuming that MS indicated explicitly to these OEMs that a certain hardware level would be officially supported in Vista, and the OEMs properly complied with the MS guidelines in their products carrying the label, then yeah, MS is at fault. If this didn't happen, but the vendors specified the computers as Vista capable without doing their legwork, they might be at fault themselves (and not MS).

Seems like a prima facie case....

OTOH, when has there ever been a time when you could buy a computer that ran an MS OS and then expect to have a good result upgrading? I have some basic sympathy with customers, but history is against them. When XP came out, it was a total zoo as to whether or not it would run on a computer made the previous year, also. I had borrowed a Compaq desktop from my parents and it was quite insane -- there would be very similar model variants, and these three would be supported and those two would not, with no clear pattern (but based on drivers, of course).

P.S. When you post a thread like this, please provide a link to an article on the topic...

EDIT: Here's one. http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212100567

EDIT2: Oh... if this case is not about the issue of computers that would not install Vista at all, but purely about the issue of computers that only ran Vista at its "Basic" level, then meh... I don't think it has merit, and I'm on Microsoft's side on this one. I think what they did was stupid, but not fraudulent, and I think the market knew about it and its chilling reception for Vista has essentially been MS's fair payment back for this behavior.

 

[Eidorian]

The Vista Capable stickers are a big mess for Microsoft and Intel. Hopefully those poor sods with GMA 900s and Vista will get some compensation.

ComputerWorld and Information Week have been all over this. I'm partial to ComputerWorld though.