Microsoft Internal Emails Show Dismay With Vista

[Mikep]

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_3-9882376-37.html?tag=newsmap
Forbes -- Microsoft caves in to Intel:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2008/02/28/microsoft-vista-intel-tech-ebiz-cx_wt_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.

 

[Mick Murphy]

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"

 

[dennis@home]

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"

Why 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$.

 

[Mick Murphy]

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!

 

[dennis@home]

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!

Well 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.

 

[Mikep]

Why 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$.

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.

 

[Mick Murphy]

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

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

 

[dennis@home]

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

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

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]

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.

Why don't you just put a lid on your stupid speculations and just wait and
see what the courts eventually have to say?

Cheers.

--
Vista will make you speechless!
http://tinyurl.com/38zv7x

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm

 

[dennis@home]

Why don't you just put a lid on your stupid speculations and just wait and
see what the courts eventually have to say?

Why not instead of bringing it up here?

Have you always been a hypocrite?

 

[Frank]

NoStop wrote:

Why don't you just put a lid on your stupid speculations and just wait and
see what the courts eventually have to say?

Cheers.

Yeah why don't you just shut your stupid, ignorant face and leave this ng.
You have no business here.
Frank

 

[Mikep]

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.

Well, 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

 

[C.B.]

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.

My two cents worth:

I researched the issue before purchasing a computer with Vista
installed. I had no problem understanding the differences between Vista
Capable and Vista Premium Ready. Microsoft went out of its way to explain,
in several articles, that a Vista capable computer may not be able to use
the Aero feature and many of the other features. Microsoft also explained
that if you wished to use the Aero feature you needed to buy a Vista Premium
Ready computer with the required hardware. These articles were all over the
internet for a long time before Vista was released to the public.
In addition, Microsoft explained, in great detail, the upgraded
hardware that would be necessary to properly use Vista on a computer. They
provided all the information needed to make a qualified decision as to what
hardware was required to run the more advanced editions of Vista.
I have no sympathy for people who blindly purchased a computer thinking
it could run Vista Premium or Ultimate. Place the blame where it belongs;
with the computer manufacturers and the hardware vendors. They knew fully
well the outdated hardware they were selling was unable to run Aero or the
more expensive editions of Vista. Their only interest was emptying their
warehouses of old, outdated and ineffective hardware at the expense of the
buying public.
Personally, I don't care who is sued and who is forced to pay. What
bothers me is that some consumers will be rewarded for their own lack of
common sense and their inability or lack of desire to research what they
were buying. This issue is not about rewarding consumers for being duped by
a fraudulent advertising campaign. Rather, it is all about trial lawyers
sucking in millions of dollars from a multinational corporation.
I'm not a fanboy of Microsoft nor an apologist for Microsoft's business
practices. I think Microsoft was, is and always will be a corporate bully,
just like Google and Intel. However, I hope the judge or jury finds in
Microsoft's favor. Actually, I would like to see the judge dismiss the
lawsuit, with prejudice.
Now, if you wish to discuss the inevitable future lawsuit against
Microsoft concerning Ultimate Extras that is a different subject matter
altogether. I'll hop on that bandwagon as soon as it arrives. I bought
Ultimate for the Ultimate Extras that Microsoft stated would be available.
In this case, Microsoft made a promise and failed miserably to follow up on
that promise.

C.B.

 

[thetruthhurts]

The village Idiot spewed:

Yeah why don't you just shut your stupid, ignorant face and leave
this ng.>You have no business here.
Frank

and then they took him off to a mental hospital and he was never seen
again.