Vista - Microsoft Internal Emails Show Dismay With Vista

Slashdot has a thread going concerning the frustration among senior
Microsoft personnel about Vista's performance problems and hardware
incompatibilities. It mentions that Microsoft lowered the hardware
requirements for 'Vista Capable' in order to include certain lower-end Intel
chipsets, apparently as a favor to Intel: 'In the end, we lowered the
requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could
continue to sell motherboards with 915 graphics embedded.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/02/28/1746211.shtml

It's also being covered by C/Net:
http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-988...ml?tag=newsmap
Forbes -- Microsoft caves in to Intel:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...0228vista.html

and a lot other publications.

I got stung buying a 'Vista Capable' system that was as bad as desctribed
and I'm still upset.


But I wasn't the only one:

In another e-mail message, Microsoft Windows product manager Mike Nash
complained he had fallen victim to the problem: "I personally got burned by
the Intel 915 chipset issue on a laptop that I personally" bought "with my
own $$$." Nash said he purchased a Sony laptop with the Vista logo and was
disappointed. "I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine," he complained.

A "Vista Capable" Sticker should never have been allowed to be put on a
computer.

You can't get MS for "False Advertising" regarding this, but you can get
them for "Misleading Advertising", as they did not state "Vista Basic ONLY"

--
Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia


"Mikep" wrote:

"Mick Murphy" <MickMurphy@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1F4488B0-9DA8-422D-8798-D68991A0091C@xxxxxxWhy was it misleading?
Vista capable meant it could run vista at some level.
The other label (which I forget what it said, but something like Vista
compatible) meant it was able to run Vista properly.
Or did M$ have different labels in different areas?
Anyway it was up to the manufacturer to decide if their machine met the
requirements not M$.

It said "Vista Ready".

It was misleading as many people did not like Vista Basic(too basic, no
WOW!), and upgraded to Home Premium, and Ultimate, which would NOT run on the
CRAP hardware which was installed under the banner of "VISTA CAPABLE"

Answer your questions!!!!!!!!!
That was "Misleading "Advertising".

And that legal point will be used!


--
Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia


"dennis@xxxxxx" wrote:

"Mick Murphy" <MickMurphy@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:210AD94B-2CCA-4A21-8FDD-57A9798D8E0E@xxxxxxWell if that is the point, good luck.

I can see it now..
"I bought this machine from <insert manufacturer here> because the
manufacturer stuck a label on that said vista capable and it can't run vista
ultimate as well as a machine costing five times as much. I want to sue M$
over it because Vista Ultimate doesn't run on this cheap machine as well as
Vista basic and not sue the manufacturer that put the label on because M$
has more money and I don't like M$."

Are you going to sue again when your DX10 game doesn't run because the
machine doesn't have the grunt to give decent frame rates? I am sure there
is something about vista having DX10 somewhere.


BTW one thing I have noticed is a lot of the cheap machines come with vista
basic and 256M of shared RAM for the video.. it goes a lot faster when you
drop the shared video RAM to 64M and vista has another 192M RAM to actually
use.

"dennis@xxxxxx" <dennis@xxxxxx-ass.net> wrote in message
news:29BB657B-CC2A-4013-AC1B-8E2CB1C8A0B2@xxxxxx
Axtually, it was MS -- from the article:

According to e-mails exchanged, many inside Microsoft were appalled at the
decision to let Intel's supply concerns dictate its marketing policies. Now
Microsoft had to go out and create a two-tiered program promoting both
"Vista Capable" machines and "Vista Premium Ready" machines.

A Vista Capable sticker would simply mean the PC could run Vista Basic,
allowing PC makers to promote their PCs as "Vista" PCs while glossing over
the fact that the minimum hardware requirements for that label couldn't
really handle the improved graphics that were one of the major reasons to
upgrade to Vista. This confusion was exactly what Microsoft and its PC
partners hoped to avoid when they were first drawing up the requirements in
the first place, and several e-mails show those concerns were shared widely
prior to, and following, Poole's decision.

Hi Mike; dennis@xxxxxx is definitety a MS boy!

I try to be objective in things; not totally one-sided like him!
--
Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia


"Mikep" wrote:

"Mick Murphy" <MickMurphy@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:F41B23FC-8549-4EF9-915E-6F76F7A35943@xxxxxx
Aren't you the one that's one sided?
There is nothing on the vista capable label that says the PC can run all of
Vistas variants and there is plenty of info about that tells you what the
labels mean. If someone is too idle/un-knowledgeable to know what they mean
they can always ask the retailer supplying the machine if it will do what
they want. To not do so and then want to sue the supplier of a /component/
of that machine appears stupid to me.

"NoStop" <nospam@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fq9uc301p38@xxxxxxWhy not instead of bringing it up here?

Have you always been a hypocrite?

"dennis@xxxxxx" <dennis@xxxxxx-ass.net> wrote in message
news:396927F5-542E-4926-8CBD-40876924BCBE@xxxxxxWell, I did go to the manufactures web site and they showed a free upgrade
to home premium and for $20.00 more, I could get Ultimate. Now this 4 months
before RTM. I'm assuming that because they are offering Ultimate, the
computer will run Ultimate. After RTM when the upgrade program hit,
Ultimate had disappeared as a choice. Read the emails, there was lots of
confusion at MS about what the different programs meant. Even the guy in
charge Mike Nash (the Windows product manager ) said "I personally got
burned by the Intel 915 chipset issue on a laptop that I personally" bought
with my own $$$." Nash said he purchased a Sony laptop with the Vista logo
and was
disappointed. "I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine," he complained.

Here's another quote from the Microsoft General Counsel:

..I don not see any benefit of providing such a list to customers when they
are in the store buying a PC, not an OS. Trying to "educate" customers about
features of an OS that is not available may very well confuse them and cause
them to delay their purchase - the exact opposite of what we want to see.

Sounds like bait and switch to me.

Mike