The truth is out: Microsoft dupes consumers into buying Vista-incapable hardware

http://vista.blorge.com/2008/02/29/t...able-hardware/

Everyone had their suspicions as to what Microsoft may or may not have been
doing when it released Vista with different stickers like "capable," and
"ready." Many consumers felt cheated when they purchased hardware that flat
out couldn't handle Vista. Well, the truth has finally surfaced: In the
class-action lawsuit brought against Microsoft regarding the labeling system
for Vista, the court has released a series of emails between Microsoft execs
that show how Microsoft plain deceived customers into buying hardware that
couldn't handle Vista to help Intel and to release Vista earlier than it
should have been.
It seems the big dogs over at Microsoft exchanged some fairly clear-cut
emails between each other discussing a little dilemma surrounding the
release of Vista, that dilemma being: Intel really didn't believe that Vista
would be ready when it was, and as such, did not have a chipset out that was
really optimized to handle the needs of the new OS. The chipset that would
be available is the Intel 915 chipset, which is completely insufficient to
the needs of Vista.So Microsoft was faced with a choice; they could wait
until summer to release Vista with an appropriate chipset (the 945 chipset,
which was later shown to not really be great for all of Vista's needs
either), or dumb down Vista so it would function on the 915 chipset, but not
have any of the perks of the new UI (User Interface).

A quote from one executive:


We are caving to Intel. We worked for the last 18 months to drive the UI
experience and we are giving this up.

Some of the emails included in those released to the public document many of
the execs at Microsoft saying they were displeased with being pushed around
by Intel; because they chose to go ahead with the release in spring, they
had to adopt the two-tier platform of "ready" and "capable."

In the emails it seems fairly clear that, although Microsoft was pushing the
two-tier approach to OEMs, none of Microsoft's executives felt that the
lower tier of "capable" would be insufficient to run Vista.Microsoft was
also under a lot of pressure to release Vista, as it was already delayed,
regardless of the Intel debacle.

Some emails show the folks at Microsoft discussing the pros and cons of
delaying till summer as opposed to releasing in spring; the largest drawback
listed was that customer dissatisfaction would be high if Vista was again
delayed (obviously). As the emails continue past release of Vista, it is
made clear that they know how badly the blundered by releasing Vista on the
poor chipsets. No doubt they would have lost a lot less by simply waiting
to release Vista; everything is 20/20 in retrospect.

Though it isn't easy to say this is an open and shut case, the emails
clearly depict Microsoft's own uneasiness with releasing Vista on machines
known to be incapable of delivering the Vista experience. Now the judge
has to decide on how much this expensive charade will cost Microsoft.


--
What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007/..._windows_vista

50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free

Would you post all your links in one post so I have less to ignore?

"On the Bridge!" wrote:

> http://vista.blorge.com/2008/02/29/t...able-hardware/
>
> Everyone had their suspicions as to what Microsoft may or may not have been
> doing when it released Vista with different stickers like "capable," and
> "ready." Many consumers felt cheated when they purchased hardware that flat
> out couldn't handle Vista. Well, the truth has finally surfaced: In the
> class-action lawsuit brought against Microsoft regarding the labeling system
> for Vista, the court has released a series of emails between Microsoft execs
> that show how Microsoft plain deceived customers into buying hardware that
> couldn't handle Vista to help Intel and to release Vista earlier than it
> should have been.
> It seems the big dogs over at Microsoft exchanged some fairly clear-cut
> emails between each other discussing a little dilemma surrounding the
> release of Vista, that dilemma being: Intel really didn't believe that Vista
> would be ready when it was, and as such, did not have a chipset out that was
> really optimized to handle the needs of the new OS. The chipset that would
> be available is the Intel 915 chipset, which is completely insufficient to
> the needs of Vista.So Microsoft was faced with a choice; they could wait
> until summer to release Vista with an appropriate chipset (the 945 chipset,
> which was later shown to not really be great for all of Vista's needs
> either), or dumb down Vista so it would function on the 915 chipset, but not
> have any of the perks of the new UI (User Interface).
>
> A quote from one executive:
>
>
> We are caving to Intel. We worked for the last 18 months to drive the UI
> experience and we are giving this up.
>
> Some of the emails included in those released to the public document many of
> the execs at Microsoft saying they were displeased with being pushed around
> by Intel; because they chose to go ahead with the release in spring, they
> had to adopt the two-tier platform of "ready" and "capable."
>
> In the emails it seems fairly clear that, although Microsoft was pushing the
> two-tier approach to OEMs, none of Microsoft's executives felt that the
> lower tier of "capable" would be insufficient to run Vista.Microsoft was
> also under a lot of pressure to release Vista, as it was already delayed,
> regardless of the Intel debacle.
>
> Some emails show the folks at Microsoft discussing the pros and cons of
> delaying till summer as opposed to releasing in spring; the largest drawback
> listed was that customer dissatisfaction would be high if Vista was again
> delayed (obviously). As the emails continue past release of Vista, it is
> made clear that they know how badly the blundered by releasing Vista on the
> poor chipsets. No doubt they would have lost a lot less by simply waiting
> to release Vista; everything is 20/20 in retrospect.
>
> Though it isn't easy to say this is an open and shut case, the emails
> clearly depict Microsoft's own uneasiness with releasing Vista on machines
> known to be incapable of delivering the Vista experience. Now the judge
> has to decide on how much this expensive charade will cost Microsoft.
>
>
> --
> What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
> http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007/..._windows_vista
>
> 50 Ways to leave your Vista....
>
> CHORUS:
>
> You just format the drive , Clive
> Get a New Mac , Jack
> Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
> Just get yourself free
> Boot from a *nix, Jix
> You don't need to discuss much
> Install XP, Lee
> And get yourself free
>
>
>
>
>

If you'd stick to actual news media sources, instead of amatuer bloggers,
you might find people a bit more interested in your opinions.

Why should I stink to news media sources?

I post stuff I think are right regaurdless of who writes them.

The truth is the truth... and in Vista's case the truth is shining more each
day

THAT ITS CRAP



<> wrote in message
news:...
> If you'd stick to actual news media sources, instead of amatuer bloggers,
> you might find people a bit more interested in your opinions.
>

On the Bridge! wrote:

> Why should I stink to news media sources?

Try "real news media". Not blogs or wannabe e-rags.
>
> I post stuff I think are right regaurdless of who writes them.

Bad idea. You're calling anyone "intelligent" if all they do is agree
with you.
>
> The truth is the truth...

Only if it's true!

and in Vista's case the truth is shining more each
> day
>
> THAT ITS CRAP

No, that is not true.
Frank

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:39:04 -0800, PNutts <>
wrote:

>Would you post all your links in one post so I have less to ignore?
>
>"On the Bridge!" wrote:

<snip>

Please, do me and us all a favour, stop quoting this crap! That's not
necessary.
--
Greetings, Wolfgang.
Please remove the "nospam_" part of the address. Thanks.