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:

> 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.
>
>
>

"Mick Murphy" <> wrote in message
news:1F4488B0-9DA8-422D-8798-...
> 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$.

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@home" wrote:

>
>
> "Mick Murphy" <> wrote in message
> news:1F4488B0-9DA8-422D-8798-...
> > 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" <> wrote in message
news:210AD94B-2CCA-4A21-8FDD-...
> 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.

"dennis@home" <> wrote in message
news:29BB657B-CC2A-4013-AC1B-...
>
>
> "Mick Murphy" <> wrote in message
> news:1F4488B0-9DA8-422D-8798-...
>> 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$.
>


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@home is definitety a MS boy!

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


"Mikep" wrote:

>
> "dennis@home" <> wrote in message
> news:29BB657B-CC2A-4013-AC1B-...
> >
> >
> > "Mick Murphy" <> wrote in message
> > news:1F4488B0-9DA8-422D-8798-...
> >> 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$.
> >
>
>
> 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" <> wrote in message
news:F41B23FC-8549-4EF9-915E-...
> 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.

dennis@home wrote:

>
>
> "Mick Murphy" <> wrote in message
> news:F41B23FC-8549-4EF9-915E-...
>> 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.

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/war...tm/compost.htm

"NoStop" <> wrote in message
news:...
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Mick Murphy" <> wrote in message
>> news:F41B23FC-8549-4EF9-915E-...
>>> 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.
>
> 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?