Vista - Did Microsoft engage in "bait and switch"

I quote:

"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,' " the complaint says. As a
result, the suit said, people were buying machines that couldn't run "the
real Vista."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...sftsued03.html

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Sounds like Microsoft being blamed for uneducated (and lazy?) consumers.

- Rafael

Bill wrote:
> I quote:
>
> "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,' " the complaint says. As a
> result, the suit said, people were buying machines that couldn't run "the
> real Vista."
>
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...sftsued03.html
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Bill wrote:

> I quote:
>
> "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,' " the complaint says. As a
> result, the suit said, people were buying machines that couldn't run "the
> real Vista."
>
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...sftsued03.html
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

So what they're saying is that they purchased computers that the store
put "Vista Capable" stickers on and they will run Vista but not Vista Aero.
Is that correct?
Frank

Yah after reading the article, I have to agree that that sticker was very
misleading! Gates didnt help the situation with his interviews stating you
could upgrade to vista for under $100. The "wow" campain really focus' on
the premium home editions and above, but hardly mentions the "BASIC" edition.
Unfortunately, people dont like 5 versions of anything. I dont care what it
is. Its too confusing. It was bad enough when you had XP home and XP
business. At least then, the general public had a reasonable idea of what
they should get. Then came XP:Tablet PC, XP: Media 2005, etc. Again it got
confusing to people.

Microsoft needs to make just two versions: VISTA HOME PREMIUM (roll Basic
into Premium) and VISTA BUSINESS (ROLL ULTIMATE INTO BUSINESS).

Otherwise people will continue these problems.

A great example is my brotherinlaw. I had told him several times to get
premium vista with his new PC. But when it was all said and done, he got a
pc with BASIC in it because he couldnt figure out what to look for on the box
and the salesperson he bought it from was selling him "an less expensive
budget pc".

"Frank" wrote:

> Bill wrote:
>
> > I quote:
> >
> > "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,' " the complaint says. As a
> > result, the suit said, people were buying machines that couldn't run "the
> > real Vista."
> >
> > http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...sftsued03.html
> >
> > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>
> So what they're saying is that they purchased computers that the store
> put "Vista Capable" stickers on and they will run Vista but not Vista Aero.
> Is that correct?
> Frank
>

Rafael R. [Live Butterfly] wrote:

> Sounds like Microsoft being blamed for uneducated (and lazy?) consumers.

I'd rather say MS is being, quite correctly, blamed for misleading and false
advertising.

When a user buys a "Vista Capable" Pc they expect it to be *fully* capable.
They don't expect it to just barely work with over half of its features
disabled.

Do you really thing the average consumer has *any* idea what processor,
video card, ram they have? Should have? need to have? They have NO idea!
They don't want to, nor should they *need to*, have an idea.

The only thing they want to do is walk into a store, buy their PC for the
operating system of their choice and run their OS with all its features
that they paid money to have.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

interesting.

Filing a lawsuit and applying for class action status (in the US at least)
is something anyone can do for any reason at any time and for very little
money.

Getting certified as a class action would be the next step and even this
isn't all that difficult.

Then, if past history is any indication, they will probably get certified
and three years later it will be settled out of court. MS will admit nothing
but for anyone who says they purchased a computer with a sticker of any
sort, they will offer coupons for $10 off 3 Xbox games unless you are in the
EU in which case you'll be able to download WMP for free. : )

Sadly, in the end, only the lawyers will "win".

"Dustin Harper" <dharper@vistarip.com> wrote in message
news:20EAE968-3175-4D2A-93CD-D49A8F04DC1F@microsoft.com...
> But, it obviously is a concern for some as there is a class action against
> Microsoft. But, as far as the what the Judge decides is ignorance or
> misleading, I have no idea.

I say that "Vista Capable" is exactly that, capable of Vista. Note that it
doesn't specify the specific version, so in this case, Microsoft AREN'T
being misleading here. It IS capable of running Vista!

You need to get a proper grasp of the English language before you are quick
to blame Microsoft.

"Stephan Rose" <kermos@nospam.somrek.net> wrote in message
news:1_WdnaQ9munJOI_bnZ2dnUVZ8surnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Rafael R. [Live Butterfly] wrote:
>
>> Sounds like Microsoft being blamed for uneducated (and lazy?) consumers.
>
> I'd rather say MS is being, quite correctly, blamed for misleading and
> false
> advertising.
>
> When a user buys a "Vista Capable" Pc they expect it to be *fully*
> capable.
> They don't expect it to just barely work with over half of its features
> disabled.
>
> Do you really thing the average consumer has *any* idea what processor,
> video card, ram they have? Should have? need to have? They have NO idea!
> They don't want to, nor should they *need to*, have an idea.
>
> The only thing they want to do is walk into a store, buy their PC for the
> operating system of their choice and run their OS with all its features
> that they paid money to have.
>
> --
> Stephan
> 2003 Yamaha R6
>
> ????????????????
> ??????????????

"*fully* capable"
Interesting word you added there.
The word "fully" is not mentioned or implied by any advertising I have
seen.
Adding it changed the meaning significantly.

A lawsuit filed means almost nothing since almost anyone can sue
almost anyone else for just about anything.
The publicity of this suit may hurt Microsoft but that is probably it.
This discussion on Vista Capable seems to ignore Vista Premium Ready,
all of which are easily researched on Microsoft's website.
As is often typical, some want others to pay for their inability or
unwillingness to research the purchase in advance.

My guess is this suit will result in no award and that assumes it does
not get thrown out first.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Stephan Rose" <kermos@nospam.somrek.net> wrote in message
news:1_WdnaQ9munJOI_bnZ2dnUVZ8surnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Rafael R. [Live Butterfly] wrote:
>
>> Sounds like Microsoft being blamed for uneducated (and lazy?)
>> consumers.
>
> I'd rather say MS is being, quite correctly, blamed for misleading
> and false
> advertising.
>
> When a user buys a "Vista Capable" Pc they expect it to be *fully*
> capable.
> They don't expect it to just barely work with over half of its
> features
> disabled.
>
> Do you really thing the average consumer has *any* idea what
> processor,
> video card, ram they have? Should have? need to have? They have NO
> idea!
> They don't want to, nor should they *need to*, have an idea.
>
> The only thing they want to do is walk into a store, buy their PC
> for the
> operating system of their choice and run their OS with all its
> features
> that they paid money to have.
>
> --
> Stephan
> 2003 Yamaha R6
>
> ������出�日�ん�����
> ����忘れ�������ら

Test Man wrote:

> I say that "Vista Capable" is exactly that, capable of Vista. Note that
> it doesn't specify the specific version, so in this case, Microsoft AREN'T
> being misleading here. It IS capable of running Vista!
>
> You need to get a proper grasp of the English language before you are
> quick to blame Microsoft.

My grasp of the English language, among others, is just fine.

If I go by your definition of "Capable" then I could claim a low-end 5 year
old Pentium 4 is capable. Sure it might take it half an hour to boot up and
move at the speed of a snail. But the operating system is *running* so the
system is obviously capable of running it...even if at a horrid speed.

Does the end-user care about the text-book dictionary definition
of "capable" though? No they don't.

They only care about one thing: They spent money on something and they
didn't get what they paid for. They spent money on a computer and money on
a operating system just to find out that they can't use some of the key
features the OS promised despite the claims that the PC is capable of
running their OS.

Think they would have bought it if the sticker said "Capable of only running
half the features of Vista"?

I won't disagree in that any consumer should do some reasarch prior to
buying anything down to a friggin toaster for their kitchen. Fair enough.

However I also do believe that some corporations, and this is one of those
times, get away with things they simply shouldn't get away with either. MS
and other corporations like it *do* have responsibility as well and should
be held responsible for their actions.

Provoding misleading stickers for hardware is something that I personally
cannot justify.

Just because they will probably weasel their way out of it with the same
textbook definition you mentioned does *not* make it right.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら