Judge OKs suit over 'Vista Capable'
A U.S. District judge in Seattle has ruled that consumers can move ahead with a class-action suit against Microsoft over how it advertised computers with Windows XP as capable of running Vista, according to an article by the Associated Press.
The suit claims that the labeling of computers as "Windows Vista Capable" misled consumers because many of the machines weren't powerful enough to run all of Vista's features, such as the Aero user interface, the AP said.
The federal judge certified the suit late Friday but narrowed its scope to whether the "Vista Capable" labels artificially created demand for PCs in late 2006 during the holiday-shopping season. Vista, which had faced several delays, was released in early 2007.
According to a related article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, many of the computers touted as Vista Capable could run only the stripped-down "Home Basic" version of Vista.
Microsoft said it was reviewing the decision.
Click to Save up to $300/yr on calls
- Morons need not apply
-
by mikalg
February 23, 2008 8:54 PM PST
- MS CLEARLY stated the MINIMUM system requirements for each of its different "versions" of Vista. To accommodate "cheap" PC's there was/is a designation that is easy to understand by anyone who bothers to RESEARCH,READ, or otherwise PERUSE documentation on the specifics of that designation as pertaining to CHEAP PC's.
Long winded for: "buyer beware", and research your purchases! I have no patience for people who misread, misunderstand, or ignore simple language.
A suit of this nature is not deserving of our national attention.
This is all semantics. Do any of you actually believe that when you purchase "stone ground wheat bread" it is actually ground by stone? That example is more deserving of a suit than "Vista Capable".
I can spend all day with these examples. Pepsi was not the "choice of the next generation", as Coke outsold them and I know of no parents that feed their babies Pepsi, rather than milk/formula (next generation).... blah,blah.
Stupid example; but you get the point. Sadly, this case may actually earn some money for council who have no interest in actually upholding the torte system as it should be....and action members that will receive nothing of value at all.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. I feel immensely less intelligent for even reading this story.
-
Reply to this comment
View
all 4 replies
-
-
1 | 2 | 3 | Next 10 Comments >>