They tried to win Intel's favor and ended up killing Vista by letting people install Vista on underpowered machines. Remind me of Detroit for some reason.

"Awesome! This $150 cracker jack box desktop PC with integrated Intel video will run Vista!!!"

*fails to run Aero Glass*

"OH NOES!!!! I HATE YOU MICROSOFT!!!!!111oneone"

While that is funny mtyermom it really is Microsoft's fault and is a wrong doing on their part to intentionally mislead the consumer. Those "Vista Capable" labels were meant to help people without much knowledge make a right choice. Like it or not Microsoft is in the wrong and will probably settle this case.

Never have I claimed to absolve Microsoft of any wrong doing in this matter.

Well your post seems to incline that people without knowledge of computer hardware are partly to blame. Sorry if I mistook it.

People without knowledge ARE to blame. If you're going to buy a product and not know what it is, you're susceptible to being ripped off. I thought the labeling of "capable" and "recommended" were quite clear.

I sold laptops and desktops at CompUSA when Vista first came out.

Microsoft distributed training material before the launch detailing the differences between Vista Capable (non-Aero) machines and Vista Ready (Aero) machines. The salespeople were informed of the differences before the program was launched. I know that I told people about the differences when asked.

There were sheets created by Microsoft available to the customers that described the differences.

Virtually every consumer computer magazine and technology column (in newspapers) described the differences at the time.

Customers were not mislead. Microsoft made significant efforts to make the distinction made. These consumers are looking for an easy buck.

If they win, I suspect that the lawyers behind the suit will make the bulk of the money and the consumers will get minor compensation.

his is a joke right...someone buys a really cheap PC bottom of the barrel computer & when it comes with only Windows Vista basic they think it is ok to sue because they were being cheap asses in the first place. I know for a fact that when you go out & buy a computer it will clearly state what windows comes with the PC you are buying because I work in tech & sales so these losers that are suing need ot wake up & smell the coffee already you bought a cheap computer if you can read you would of known it did not have the specs to run Vista in all its glory & as I said it is always stated in the spec sheet what is in the computer & what windows will come with it so these clowns have no one to blame but them selves. So stop wasting every ones time & money & get on with life or friggin buy a MAC I am sure you would fit right in with that crowd.

Well as a Ubuntu Linux user, even I think MS did nothing wrong. Like previous posters said they were clear on the difference between capable and ready. Why can't people do some research before buying a PC, like they would before buying anything else.

Seriously?
There once was a push toward truth in advertising, to hold companies accountable for what they say their product can do. Putting things like "Corn chips will let you lift 100,000 pounds!!! *

--note the asterisk" and then saying that the little asterisk absolves you from all your lies is not right. Everyone knows it is not right but they let it slide until a company with a lot of money does it, then they go after it because of the profit potential.
Wrong is only wrong when you can make money proving it is wrong. It is sad, but it is the current state of humanity at this point in time.

If common sense tells you it is misleading, then it is misleading. To say that people who purchase budget equipment have no right to be told the truth, only shows your ignorance or the fact you are working for the marketing department.

This really boils down to the fact that companies do anything they can to sell garbage to people. If you let them, they would sell you plastic replicas of computers with asterisks in fine print on the back that says "This is not an actual computer, but represents your investment in the possibility to receive a future computer that may or may not function as represented by the non-working replica". Which basically absolves the company from actually replacing the piece of plastic you bought with the real thing.

By the same analogy I could say that when you came into the hospital emergency room, because you where paying for cheap health insurance, I gave you all the tools necessary to diagnose your heart attack, but you died because you couldn't figure it out. All the information was there, and all the tools where at your disposal, so do you deserve to die?

I can hear you whining saying that selling electronics is not the same thing as your health care. Really? If you allow one industry to deceive it's customers, then are you not showing double standards? So I say if you think it's OK for electronic companies to mislead their customers, then it's OK for your Doctor to mislead you on which pills to take. He should give you 5 bottles, each with a small manual and asterisks. Pick the wrong bottle and you die, and it's your fault for not reading.
Oh goodie! It's fun being the devil isn't it? Be careful what you wish for, I just might give it to you.

frozenland - you better read the asterisks on your pill bottle.
You know, the part that says "may cause death".

"People without knowledge ARE to blame."

I've got a place set aside just for you... =)

So you're saying, that if something bad befalls you, it's your fault, not the criminal that robs you, or the drunk driver that hits you? because you should've known better than cross the street or let yourself be robbed?
You sure have a wierd sense of right and wrong.

guys, hold it. all of you are right, that's why this case won't be clear who would win.
yes, buyer's beware but we also can't allow companies misleading consumers.
microsoft will pay if there's evidence of substantial inconvenience caused to consumers.

Neiro, i think the idea is, if you see an ally marked 'unmonitored ally, may be unsafe' and you go into that ally, and get robbed, that's your problem. same with this situation, more or less. Microsoft never said Vista Capable pc's could run all features of vista. just that they could run vista basic.

this is about money grubbers, not about a corporate wrong doing.

So where exactly is the lie in calling these machines that were sold, "Vista Capable"? The machines run Windows Vista Basic, so as advertised, these machines are clearly capable of running Windows Vista, no asterisk needed. The fact that they do not run the Aero interface is moot since Aero is not officially available on Vista Basic.

Anyone ever see the Subaru Outback commercials from the late 90's that seemed to suggest the Outback's all-wheel drive made it the perfect off-road vehicle? The simple difference between all-wheel and four-wheels doesn't seem like a lot until your out in the desert.

That's the same here with Capable vs. Ready. It just doesn't make sense from a marketing choice unless you are purposefully trying to confuse your customers (which is illegal). Why confuse your customers who you know don't really understand what your selling them (obviously posters here on Tom's are more interested in computer technology than the average consumer)? The problem was Intel didn't have anything that was Vista-Ready, so they pressured Microsoft into Vista-Capable. They really should have labeled computers with the best OS it could handle, like Vista-Basic, Vista-Premium, Vista-Ultimate. If the name on the sticker matched the OS you could install, they would have worked around the whole issue. Instead, Intel didn't want Microsoft to label their computers as inferior, so they created Vista Capable, which doesn't mean anything, but they had plausible deniability when the computer couldn't run their OS. If they just hadn't caved-in to Intel, they could have avoided this whole mess. Instead they had to confuse the issue and now they might pay for it.

how the hell did this get so far.... Sigh how horrible my countries justice system is.

Hellwig, the only way MS could confuse people is user stupidity. Nothing MS can do about the amount of idiots in the world. This has nothing to do with MS and everything to do with idiots who never research anything, never mind a product they going to spend 100s on.

computer says "vista capable"
does the computer run the vista kernel?(even if it is the most basic version)
if "yes" then, case closed so STFU!
whats the big deal?
this is an issue of people wanting the best of something for free....
happens in body shops all the time people want their car painted for less then what it costs for the paint never mind the labor to do it.
!!!DON'T LET PEOPLE FOOL YOU!!!!
they know that when they go looking for the cheapest computer that it might not be the one with the most features PLAIN AND SIMPLE

as several people have stated before if you want something (eg. aero) you would want to look up that information before hand

you cannot blame others for your own stupidity
the whole premise on the lawsuit is flawed.... you get sold a "vista capable" laptop with windows vista basic pre-installed and running on it..... either the sales man lied to you (in which case this is a very valid claim but take it up with the guy that sold it to you)
or you just want fists full of cash without working you ass off like the rest of the world

sorry for the rant.... idiots make me angry