Microsoft Sued Over Vista Marketing 556
daviddennis writes "According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a lawsuit alleges that Microsoft engaged in deceptive practices by letting PC makers promote hardware as 'Windows Vista Capable' even though they knew it could not run most of Vista's widely-promoted features. Microsoft responds by saying that the differences have been promoted with one of the most extensive marketing pushes in company history. 'In sum, Microsoft engaged in bait and switch -- assuring consumers they were purchasing Vista Capable machines when, in fact, they could obtain only a stripped-down operating system lacking the functionality and features that Microsoft advertised as Vista ... As a result, the suit said, people were buying machines that couldn't run the real Vista.'"
1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Insightful)
The should start off at 1GB. PC makers lose credibility selling systems with less than that because the experience is going to suck.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes with all the bells, and a lot of the whistles turned on, its a memory hog, but then so is XP once you load up your AV of choice, firefox faststart, google desktop and throw window blinds onto it.
Theres bloat there, of course, but it is mainly the interface and the extras, at its core (you know, the new driver model, dx10, etc) its o
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:4, Funny)
I lol'd.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. The fact that Vista is ANY bigger than its predecessor tells me everything I need to know about it. Do you think Microsoft is serving customer demands when it makes each successive operating system bigger and requiring more resources? Do you think customers are demanding that a computer should slow down just because you upgraded your operating system?
I've got a brand new PC that's right in the sweet spot for Vista performance. Yet, Windows XP runs faster and better on it than Vista. So how can anyone possibly say that Vista is "better"?
The entire PC industry is so tied to Microsoft that they don't have to even pretend to make each operating system better than the one before. All they have to do is get the PC makers to sign contracts saying that they'll put Windows on all of their new computers. Then, they sell big organizations on the idea that they need the latest software, which requires the latest OS, which requires a faster computer.
Net benefit to consumers? Negative. We are the consumables.
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Funny)
Damn. I guess 640k IS all the RAM anyone should ever need . . .
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Informative)
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:4, Interesting)
1974 golf fuel consumption
petrol (1093 cc, 750 kg) 8.5l/100km
diesel (1588 cc, 820 kg) 6.7 l/100km
2003 golf fuel consumption
petrol (1390 cc, 1164 kg) 6.8 l/100km
diesel (1588 cc, 1227 kg) 5.3 l/100km
The consumption has gone down a bit but in more than 30 years you'd expect a bit more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, what I said was that in a monopoly situation, the vendor decides what consumers get. That's what's wrong with the OS market at the moment.
As to the rest of your question, "the market" is a collective name for consumers and vendors, and the balance they negotiate between themselves. Advertising is a tool used by vendors to persuade consumers to want their product, so demand is always what the consumer really wants.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn, just when computers started to get interesting...
(j/k)
BTW the Parent Post is 100% right about the European car markets.
Americans would be shocked to see the differences, just take the GM (USA) and Opel (Belgium) for example (technically, the same company), and the differences in standard fuel mileage, saftey features, etc are staggering.
There even a few performance geared Opel models that I wish GM would offer in the US, as they
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner!
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Insightful)
A new version is supposed to have at least the same functionalities as the previous versions.
When using exactly the same functionalities as the previous version, one could expect the new version to take less resource or at least, to not take more.
In my company that's what our clients require.
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes it does...
# Paint has new features such as unlimited undo levels and a crop function.
( from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Wind
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple: If Vista has a feature (yes, I'm being hypothetical here...) that XP doesn't have and it makes the computer more useful, it's better. If application performance is your sole measurement of the 'better-ness' of an OS, then you aren't doing much more than making a bunch of noise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I had heard the box sales of Vista are actually quite a bit lower than any time before. And it makes sense. 98/ME -> XP was a no-brainer for most people. XP -> Vista is much less of an upgrade and quite often not worth it, hence fewer box sales.
Why do people by the latest versio of whatever MS puts out? Compa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but XP was a lot more than "just a pretty interface" compared to Windows 98. Maybe you're thinking of Windows 2000 vs. XP? I hardly ever saw a Windows 98 machine (or worse, Windows ME!) that was "running fine." I know I hated using it.
/.
*Cue all the
Re:1 GB RAM is the minimum for windows (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes with all the bells, and a lot of the whistles turned on, its a memory hog, but then so is XP once you load up your AV of choice, firefox faststart, google desktop and throw window blinds onto it.
RTFAS (Read The Fucking Article Summary)
The point is that MS advertises those bells and whistles, and then goes and brands computers as Vista compatible that cannot do those things.
If MS says 'Vista has X', and then says 'This computer supports Vista', that computer damn well better be able to do X, or, like the lawsuit asserts, there's false advertising somewhere going on.
Hell has frozen over.... (Score:3, Funny)
Someone on Slashdot being modded down for slamming MS and praising Apple...
The WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!!!
REPENT SINNERS!
Re:Hell has frozen over.... (Score:5, Funny)
(If I get modded up for insulting linux guys we know it's true)
There you go, people ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista Home Basic includes the "core experience," which means Microsoft admits that the rest is useless window dressing.
Hey... which version comes without the DRM feature?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Windows 2000.
This one... (Score:5, Informative)
This one [reactos.org], but it's not done yet.
Re: (Score:2)
win2k was really close though.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
It is true that the machines are technically Vista Capable in that they can run, and the features MS advertises for Vista are features that Vista has. However, the machines that are Vista Capable are not capable of running what MS is advertising Vista to be. Sure, both ads are technically true, but in conjunction they are designed to mislead.
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Go through the interactive demo for MS Vista "Wow starts now" [microsoft.com] and click on the "Easier" link (magnifying glass). Funny how the "3D flip" feature is displayed here without any sort of qualification on the product level or hardware level needed to use it. Even automobile advertisements include a note showing that some features are not "base model". While it may be obvious to advanced computer users that these features will require more system resources, the average PC user is not so educated to understand that the low end Dell they bought can't run the "Wow".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The website is not the part of the marketing campaign that is the subject of the lawsuit. So, whether the website which mentions the features provides such a link is not particularly relevant to the question, unless one is arguing that any person purchasing a "Windows Vista Capable" PC based on Microsoft's other marketing of Vista can reasonably be expected to have been exposed to the Windows Vista website (and, even if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, while this suit might be a bit stupid, it sure makes F/OSS sound damned good!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is that Vista is all about the WOW, so if you don't get the WOW, you don't get Vista. Can you imagine getting home with a brand new machine and turning it on and not seeing the WOW?.
I'd be mad and mislead!
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Because whenever Microsoft advertises Vista, they always showcase Aero. Therefore, consumers have been lead to believe that they are the same.
Re:Looks like a worthless suite to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, most companies don't showcase their low-end products. OTOH, when the high-end product is showcased as representing the brand-name it shares with the low-end product, and people are sold some third product on the basis of capacity to use a product identified with that shared brand name, when it cannot use the features that the seller has worked hard to identify with the shared brand name, the marketing is in fact deceptive. Whether it is also so in law may vary by other considerations, but, note that adds for particular brands of cars where there highlighted version has different options than the base that advertise selling points (such as price) applicable to the base model tend also to include reference to the higher price of the version "as shown". There is a reason for that.
Yep... (Score:3, Insightful)
So... if the plaintiffs claim that the computers were advertised as being able to run Vista with all features, then I'm 99.99% sure the computer can run Vista wit
the wow starts now... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, they needed something to market it on... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, what it seems to be is a consumer thought that "Windows Vista Capable" meant that the computer would be able to do all the pretty things that Microsoft portrayed in ads.
To me, this is a little bit like suing because even after buying a bag of chocolate chips, you couldn't make cookies that look as nice as the ones on the package. Or even, for that matter, that even after buying an SUV, you are not suddenly scaling mountains in the wilderness.
I don't think that Microsoft was concealing anything. They were advertising a product with its niftiest features, but I think that about 15 minutes of research would have let someone know that they couldn't use the Aero interface. Microsoft used marketing and advertising to make their product look the best, that isn't the same as cheating someone.
Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Me thinks you put too much faith in the ability of US consumers to do 'research.'
This is the same country that sues fast food places because they didn't know fast food is fattening and unhealthy, despite needing only 15 minutes of research to tell them what large quantities of saturated fat and sodium would do to the human body.
Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:5, Informative)
Well, people assumed that certification meant they could run Vista. It didn't say "Mostly Windows Vista Capable". It didn't say "Windows Vista Capable Without Aero". It simply said it was 'capable' of running Vista, which doesn't imply a subset.
There were so damned many versions of Vista, people were relying on that sticker to know if the machine was worth running Vista on. Finding out that you can run the crippled version on your new machine you just forked money over for is probably not what consumers were expecting. If professionals in the industry haven't been entirely clear on what macine resources you need, your average consumer doesn't stand a chance of sorting this crap out.
Well, except that in those SUV ads they have little wee fine print at the bottom of the screen which says the vehicle isn't actually being offered as something which scales wilderness mountains, and that you shouldn't try to replicate what you see.
In the case of Vista, people have been told to expect all of this shinyness, they've been told that their machines are capable of doing it, and then they're discovering that sticker means "well, you can sorta kinda mostly do the stuff we claimed, but all of the good reasons to buy Vista aren't actually implied by that sticker -- that was just a marketing campaign".
Some of us would argue those two things are one and the same.
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is like buying "ready to bake" cookies only to find you have to add eggs in order to bake them. Well, you didn't buy eggs while you were at the store because you thought they are ready to bake as the bag advertises. Sure you could try to bake them without the eggs, but you aren't getting the full cookie experience you expected.
but I think that about 15 minutes of research would have let someone know that they couldn't use the Aero interface
It isn't the job of the consumer to research whether an advertisement means what it says. That's why there are consumer protection laws in the first place. Not everyone is capable of figuring out how to do such research. Now if you want to the computer that runs Aero the best, then sure that is the job of the consumer to do their homework.
If the stickers say "Vista Capable" then they should be Vista capable and not some smaller subset which provides minimal functionality. If you can't see why that's deceptive, then you don't fully understand what the word means. [reference.com]
Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I have to go with Microsoft on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, what you say is why this suit's unlikely to be simply thrown out. As you said, MS advertised only the versions with the niftiest features. Not a peep in the ads about anything lower down on the scale. And one thing courts have done over the years, in response to games with the fine print is to say "The product is what the advertising says it is.". That's why, in car ads, when they quote the "starting from $X" price you always see, in type that's not too much smaller, an "as shown, $Y" after it. A couple of dealerships ran ads that showed the top-of-the-line luxury variant with all the extras, and then said "starting from $X" where the price they advertised was for the bottom-end stripped-down variant. And when a couple of consumers sued, the judge said "You showed that model. You said it started at $X. You didn't mention or show any other models, nor mention anything about that $X price not being for the model shown. So the consumers have every right to assume that that $X starting price applies to that car exactly as you advertised it.". So in this case it's quite possible that the courts will say that Vista with Aero and all the bells and whistles was what Microsoft advertised, none of the advertising made any mention of lower-end versions or lack of Aero and the bells and whistles, so the buyers are entitled to assume that "Vista Ready" means exactly that: ready to run exactly what Microsoft was advertising, not something that looks completely different and wasn't shown anywhere in the advertising.
Saw this coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft may or may not win this one but regardless, the damage is done as far as end users are concerned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You see the bolded text up there? That would be why it's not exactly Microsoft's fault.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, no it isn't.
If it was, it would mean the difference between a german piece of shit whose day is long gone, and a finely engineered piece of Japanese machinery that will be relatively reliable (dramatically moreso than the BMW) and hold its value, also unlike the beemer.
There is no direct automotive metaphor here because the cars don't have d
Gates is on the hook too (Score:5, Interesting)
Enough! (Score:3, Insightful)
I am so sick of lawyers.
No... (Score:2)
It's what lawyers do, their sole function. (At least, professionally.) As such, it's in their vested financial interest to make sure that people sue each other as much as possible, even if that means for totally silly reasons.
As long as they continue to make lots and lots of money for doing so, and as long as our legislators continue to be disproportionately of that profession, it's not likely to change.
:-(
Sure (Score:4, Interesting)
Whether you like it or not, our legal system is a fairly good way to work out disagreements. Yes, it has it's flaws like any system. But, on the whole, it is far better than duking it out with guns, gangs, or otherwise. I would much rather hire an attorney than hire an army.
If you think America is violent NOW, imagine what it would be like without any "legal", state-recognized way to work out disagreements. Do you really want to be in a system where the biggest gun wins? You would stand absolutely no chance in a system like that.
So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I run Linux exclusively and in general throw punches at Microsoft when they're valid.....
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
To most of the people who use computers, there's no difference between the core of an OS and the user interface. It's the software that makes the computer work, and it's not the same software that they thought they'd be able to run when they saw "Vista capable" on the machines.
That doesn't necessarily mean the suit itself has any merit, but I can definitely see where the customers are coming from.
Re: (Score:2)
Look I hate Windows too (Score:2)
Vista vs XP (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not completely baseless... (Score:2)
All well and good, but who was making those stickers in the first place? As I recall, it was Microsoft offering them to manufacturers last year as compromise for Vista being late. As of today Toshiba still doesn't have an
same old disply laptops with blister loaded? (Score:2)
Can I join the lawsuit? (Score:5, Funny)
It's not just about fluff (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps Overblown (Score:5, Insightful)
Car analogy time!
Car companies use phrases like "starting at $22,900" all the time in their commercials, when we know damn well that if you want power windows, A/C, a CD player, and a decent sized engine, you will be paying significantly more than that price. The "starting at" price is always the most basic model. I don't see any difference between this and advertising "Windows Vista Capable" and only being able to run basic version of Windows Vista. The computer is, in fact, capable of running Windows Vista.
"But wait!" TFA exclaims. "It can't run ALL of Vista, at least not all the features that Microsoft advertised as being in Vista!"
So? That same car commercial has the car making hairpin mountain pass turns at 65 miles an hour, probably with custom tires, a beefy engine, and a specially trained driver. Do those things come with the $22,900 car? Certainly not. Why then are these same people not filing suits about the Ford Edge not being able to climb buildings and park on walls?
I can't see this suit going anywhere. There is a fine line between letting a company advertise their products and forcing them to tell everyone how shitty their stuff is, and this suit crosses it.
"Minimum Requirements" (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone knows that trying to play a game on the minimum hardware is an excercise in frustration and futility. You need at least the recommended specs to run the game decently in most cases.
Even more to the point, modern games turn off resource-intensive features when running on older PCs; and since much of the hype around the latest FPS is centered on the advanced (read: resource-intensive) graphics, anyone playing "Half-Quake of Doom 37" on an older PC is missing much of the advertised experience. Micro$oft is simply copying the 3D game developers' design/business model, just as they copied the 3D idea itself.
Isn't this like.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Advertising is all about making the most out of the least. If a version of Vista will run on a system, no matter how stripped down, then you get to call it Vista capable.
By the same point I am , to the best of my knowledge, marathon capable.
My car is baja rally capable.
My weenie dog is "burglar killing" capable. (Although the burglar in question would probably have to lay down very still, and rub meat juice on his neck or something)
Mildly deceptive? probably. Lawsuit worthy? no.
Beer != Girls (Score:3, Funny)
Silver lining (Score:3, Insightful)
DX10 (Score:5, Interesting)
further complication... (Score:4, Interesting)
Technically... (Score:3, Interesting)
This machine is capable of running XP...but I wouldn't want to. Microsoft will probably win on the technicalities, but (IMO) ethically, they're in the wrong.
The core experience of Windows Vista... (Score:3, Funny)
What would that be? Even more annoying pop-ups and lower performance than they got from XP?
I actually agree with the general concepts here... (Score:5, Informative)
As anyone can tell from my posting history, I am quick to step in to correct wrong or ignornant comments about the NT architecture and the Slashdot myths of Vista, as most people really have very little technical understanding of either.
However, Vista Home 'Basic' should NEVER have existed. MS really screwed up here, they should have just made the Business version which doesn't install games and non business features by default and Vista Ultimate for home users. They could have moved their pricing model so that Ultimate was provided at the Home Premium price and not only made more money, but gave users more features and not caused the version confusion that exists.
Businesses usually get the need for a different version, and the Business version of Vista is a good idea as it doesn't install the 'toys' by default. However, home users should not be put in the position of choosing a version, especially when there are 3 versions for the Home Market.
(Home Basic = Vista Core without next gen Video subsystem enabled)
(Home Premium = Vista that meets the needs of 95% of the users) and
(Ultimate = The complete OS with both business domain features and all the home toys, and the toys that used to be part of the Plus Program.)
There is no reason the Ultimate License and the Business license couldn't have been available at a comparable price point, and just not screwed with the other versions.
This is the MS marketing and logic that I refer to as the Steve Ballmer side of thinking, something MS would never have done when he dind't have the control or his mindset in control of things like this.
I can almost understand Vista Home Premium, but Vista Home Basic truly denies users of most of the features that make Vista a true benefit over XP. Sure the kernel is optimized, the caching is brilliant, new audio, new network, the graphic subsystem sees some benefits even in Vista Home Basic, but by not including the accelerated features of the new GUI subsystem 'aka Aero/Glass' they are screwing users as this is a major performance gain even in desktop applications.
And don't forget gaming for DX10 that depends on the WDDM/Aero model. So in theory DX10 games running on Home Basic will probably fail, as DX10 expects the full GPU scheduling and GPU memory sharing that is what makes Vista a next generation OS for Gaming and Graphics.
Sadly one of the desgin goals and beauty of the NT code base was the unified structure for all classes of users and business from the home desktop to the massive servers, all sharing a common modular kernel and code base.
MS still has this, but their marketing and business idiots screw this up by disecting Vista into 5 versions for just the desktop. Why even keep a common code base, especially if you are going to turn off features in Home Basic that are 'architectural' in nature?
I hope MS loses and they re-consider the whole Vista versioning mess and at the very least pull Home Basic from ever being sold again.
Attention Everyone:
Anyone out there that is actually considering a new computer with Vista installed, DO NOT BUY a computer with anything less than Vista Home Premium installed. PERIOD.
Fortunately, most of the computers and laptops you find that have Vista preinstalled at places like BestBuy are using Vista Home Premimum.
It does seem the market has already spoken quite loudly about Home Basic and MFRs and retailers are getting the hint to not even bother with Home Basic already.
640,000 litigators (Score:2)
Now that idea has merit (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, now that you mention it, going after the game makers has merits.
No, I'm not saying it should run with everything _maxxed_. But I can think of games which are anywhere from completely unplayable (as in, crash), to a slideshow, to having to be downgraded to a pityful joke, on machines which meet the minimum advertised specs. Sometimes even on machines which meet the _recommended_ specs. And that I don't really find ok.
I can think of games which were launched with some advertised spec, but then some mandatory patch turned them into a graphics orgy that outright crashes the game or machine of someone who did previously meet the specs. One example is COH. When the graphics upgrade happened that put COH graphics on par with COV. I know at least one person whose (admittedly crap) laptop started to just crash to desktop when that graphics update hit. In spite of having previously been perfectly good to play COH, and still being perfectly good to play WoW. (And, you know, because it's a MMO you can't refuse to install a patch.)
I can think of games which were hyped for their supposed great graphics, except _no_ machine at the time of release could actually display the advertised graphics as more than a frame per second. (E.g., EQ2. It was launched at a time when the 9800 passed for the top end graphics card, and sorry, it wasn't anywhere near enough to play other than at a massively reduced graphics quality. And by massively reduced, I mean that even at a point blank range all detail on a piece of armour was turned into a blurred smear.) I'm sorry, I know that not all machines are created equal, but if _no_ computer exists at the time which can actually display those graphics, then don't fucking advertise it with the max quality screenshots.
Briefly, some truth in avertising would be a welcome change with the game publishers too, you know? Those specs on the box are rarely more than a joke pulled out of the ass by marketting. It has nothing to do with what computers run the game adequately, it just has to do with how big a slice of the market does the marketting department want to market to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
vista's new caching technologies are significant and vista is the first release of NT to integrate ipv6 and ipv4 into the same stack, which enables them to provide ipv6 management through the same interface used by ipv4. There are also numerous security improvements over XP, even if the UAC feature is complete bullshit the others are still useful (like the stack protection etc.)
Are the new features in vista, not count
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
The glass GUI is the least crucial part of Vista, just as it's irrelevant to the ability to operate the system and get things done if I remove Beryl and swap Metacity back in as my window mangler on Ubuntu.
If the little stickers had said "Vista 100% Eye Candy Ready" then you would have a point, but you don't, because they said "vista ready", and that's just one feature of Vista, and frankly it's the least important one. Not that there are ANY features of Vista which would compel me to upgrade.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Another big problem is that br
Re:Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
Give it a rest. M$ is playing semantic word games with the words "Vista" and "Aero", not to mention crippling their software in various ways, in a deliberate attempt to deceive the consumer. Showing one thing and giving another. False advertising in other words.
They have along history of doing similar things. One reason they're disliked. This time they've been called on it. We'll see what the court says but at a bare minimum they should get their wrist slapped.
---
Astroturfing "marketers" [wikipedia.org] are liars, fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as objective third party opinion.
I'm confused... (Score:3, Funny)
What does "the most advanced software on the market" have to do with this topic?
I mean, my shitbox $500 pc runs the most advanced software on the market just fine. Not that I've upgraded my old mini to Tiger yet, I'm waiting to see what Leopard has to offer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(only half joking - the only cost to sticking with Windows 2000 for me is that I can't use Bluetooth, and I had to reinstall when I upgraded to a dual-core system because of an AMD driver issue... and I'm pretty sure XP or Vista's Big Brother code would have balked at motherboard upgrades more often than 2000 has...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like a game of Redmond roulette to me. If microsoft were really honest, they would have the sticker clearly show that this computer Will Require More $$.
The sticker would also explain that some consumer devices (such as cellphones, voice recorders, printers, etc.) will not EVER work with ANY version of Vista and will also have to be replaced. But, of course, that's all part of the getting cored by Vista experience, which is why none of the above (n
Re: (Score:3, Informative)