# Microsoft could face $8.5 billion in damages for "Vista Capable" case



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

"A University of Washington economist, and an expert witness for the plaintiffs has calculated that it would cost anywhere from $3.92 billion to $8.52 billion to upgrade all of the PCs that were sold as Vista Capable so that they would be able to run the premium versions of Windows Vista.

This number was computed by utilizing data provided by Microsoft, and arrives at how many "Vista upgradeable" PCs had been sold in the United States between April 2006 (when the Vista Capable Campaign began) through to January 2007 (when Vista hit the market and the marketing campaign ended). It was deemed that 13.75 million notebooks and 5.65 million desktop PCs had been classified "Vista Capable" when they were not actually able to meet the harsher "Premium Ready" requirements."
http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/content-view-41165-118.html


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

TG Daily article said:


> The Vista Home Basic lawsuit alleges that Microsoft's Vista Capable program would inflate the prices of PCs that were only capable of running that edition, thus enticing users to purchase machines that would not be able to upgrade to a better version of Vista at a later date. Individuals and consumers involved in the lawsuit feel that they were cheated, and not given the "real Vista" because it doesn't have the Aero glass user interface.
> 
> Microsoft denies false advertising and claims their campaign was fair and honest.


I agree with Microsoft on this. Claiming "Vista capable" doesn't mean ALL versions of Vista would be able to run on any given "Vista capable" labeled machine. I do agree Microsoft should have been more clear on the version of Vista and "Vista capable" labeled machine was actually capable of running but at the same time, *not all* Vista users would be interested in running any given version of Vista. Some who think the Aero interface is too slow disable it, as an example.

I haven't supported many Vista users but the few I have supported have NOT expressed any regret with the version of Vista they have. They mostly express frustration with problems and issues they have.

Peace...


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

I guess I never considered the phrase "Vista Capable" to mean anything other than that at least the minimum, simplest version of Vista would run on machines so designated. It seems a stretch to say that they need to be able to run every version of Vista to be so designated.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

I'm thinking a "Vista Basic capable" or "Vista Premuim capable" kind of label would be more appropriate. That way, PC retailers can jack up the prices based on the label on the machine. 

Peace...


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

I guess I lack sympathy for people who feel they were misled. Even people with no computer knowledge at all can compare the specs found everywhere online to the specs of the machines and get what they need.

But your labels would certainly be more informative.


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

Elvandil said:


> I guess I lack sympathy for people who feel they were misled. Even people with no computer knowledge at all can compare the specs found everywhere online to the specs of the machines and get what they need.
> 
> But your labels would certainly be more informative.


How would they know what they need?

Did you know what you would need for "7" last year?


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

What is needed can be found in 100's of places all over the net. And since 7 isn't out yet, and won't be for quite a while, there are no specs for it yet. But before it is released, that, too, will have specs posted all over the net for anyone who wants to look.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Elvandil said:


> I guess I lack sympathy for people who feel they were misled. Even people with no computer knowledge at all can compare the specs found everywhere online to the specs of the machines and get what they need.


I completely disagree. Ok, not completely since I won't comment on your lack of sympathy but I disagree on the rest of it. 

Someone with no computer knowledge who walks through the computer section of BestBuy will see the "Vista capable" logo and buy the machine if the price is right. Not only will they NOT read online specs, they might not understand ANY specs they read at all. In some cases, they will call their "computer person" or bring that person with them to help them find a "good" computer. I wouldn't be surprised if some "computer people" would not have scrutinized the specs to determine which versions of Vista that machine was actually capable of running.

My agreement with Microsoft stems from "Vista capable" doesn't necessarily mean ALL versions of Vista are supported. I also think Microsoft could have and should have been more clear on this.

Peace...


----------



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

I agree that "Vista Capable" does not mean it is necessarily capable of running all versions of Vista. The same as Designed for Windows XP did not mean it would be able to run all versions of Windows XP (XP 64bit in point). But were the courts to follow through with this, should not the Computer Manufacturers who made and sold the computers play a part in any possible redress of wrongs along with Microsoft? After all they were the ones that placed the sticker on the computer in hopes of increasing their own revenues.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

That may all be true, but I still think people are responsible for what they buy. They would never behave this way when buying an automobile. They would look and compare and get the best deal, even if they were unfamiliar with all the terminology. Let the buyer beware.

If they can't do the same with computers, perhaps they need psychologists more than a computer.


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

Elvandil said:


> And since 7 isn't out yet, and won't be for quite a while, there are no specs for it yet.


That was my point.



RootbeaR said:


> "Vista upgradeable" PCs had been sold in the United States between April 2006 (when the Vista Capable Campaign began) through to January 2007 (*when Vista hit the market* and the marketing campaign ended).[/url]


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

dustyjay said:


> I agree that "Vista Capable" does not mean it is necessarily capable of running all versions of Vista. The same as Designed for Windows XP did not mean it would be able to run all versions of Windows XP (XP 64bit in point). But were the courts to follow through with this, should not the Computer Manufacturers who made and sold the computers play a part in any possible redress of wrongs along with Microsoft? After all they were the ones that placed the sticker on the computer in hopes of increasing their own revenues.


It was collaboration between hardware makers and M$.

Who gave permission to stick those labels on?

I think M$ would be suing the you know what off of someone had they done so without their permission.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Elvandil said:


> That may all be true, but I still think people are responsible for what they buy. They would never behave this way when buying an automobile. They would look and compare and get the best deal, even if they were unfamiliar with all the terminology. Let the buyer beware.


The thing is, people do price comparisons on a base car configuration, not performance comparisons on different kinds of cars. I bet most people don't know how much horse power the car they drive has.

I do agree those interested in running the Premium or Ultimate versions of Vista should have made sure the machine they purchased was capable of running the Premium or Ultimiate versions of Vista but I don't think this is the group of people we're talking about here.

Using your car analogy, if someone wanted a car that would carry a certain load, it would be their responsibility to make sure the car they bought would carry that load.

Peace...


----------



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

RootbeaR said:


> It was collaboration between hardware makers and M$..


And so the responsibility should equally be shared by the manufacturers who were party to this collaboration. That is if the courts were to proceed. Personally I think that people have become way too litigious and are looking for anything to gain finacial awards for. Yes this includes the legal profession as well. IMHO any way.


----------



## RootbeaR (Dec 9, 2006)

dustyjay said:


> And so the responsibility should equally be shared by the manufacturers who were party to this collaboration. That is if the courts were to proceed. Personally I think that people have become way too litigious and are looking for anything to gain finacial awards for. Yes this includes the legal profession as well. IMHO any way.


If it wasn't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers.


----------



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

You know why a shark won't eat a lawyer of course? Professional Courtesy. I know shame on me!


----------

