Jesus christ that's dumb.

There was a DIFFERENT sticker called "Vista Premium Ready." Guess what that means? It does the high end stuff.

People are smart as ... rocks.

ca·pa·ble
?adjective
1. having power and ability; efficient; competent: a capable instructor.

This isn't false advertising. This is what todays world is about as far as marketing. Companies "Blacksmith" phrases and words to get us consumers to purchase the product. As long as the machine can run Vista Home Basic there not faseley advertising. Yes, its bad business to not specify what version of vista it can and can not run. Thats there decision though. It's up to the consumer to ask questions or research the product. Also I don't remember ever seeing a "Microsoft" branded computer. if HP released a notebook with 512mb of ram instead 1GB and put a Vista Capable sticker on the thing how is that Microsofts fault. There many ways to look at this law-suit and debate it. I honestly think the consumer is to blame. We all want something for nothing, but the truth still stands "You get what you PAY FOR!"

Robbie
Business Owner
IT Professional
MCSE certified.

Robbie, as IT Professional and MCSE certified I would think that you would know that Microsoft is the one that set the standards for what a Vista Capable machine was. HP, Dell, etc just slapped the stickers on the machines that MS said qualified.

Regardless of who made the vista capable specs Robbie is still correct. Its up to the customer to inform themselves of what the advertising catch phrases actually means. You don't buy a Nissan Z expecting all the same features as the Infinity g35 just because their both built on the same platform by the same company (technically).

No, Robbie is not correct. Nissan doesn't give the SAME name to two different cars, or put stickers on them to lead consumers to think they are identical. In fact, Nissan doesn't even explain to consumers that the two cars are built on the 'same platform.' Nissan is very up-front about the differences between the two cars, and consumers can easily distinguish between them. Just because some consumers will be able to see through the advertising BS (and I agree with you that consumers should be encouraged to find out all they can) that doesn't let Microsoft off the hook if the advertising was basically false. If you accept Robbie's argument then you accept that advertisers should be able to claim anything, since there is surely some web-forum out there that will set people straight if they were only able to find it. Also I disagree with joex444. Experienced PC users (and those used to Microsoft deception) might easily realize there are different versions of Vista, and different levels of performance. But what about consumers who are buying a first PC? They've heard that 'Vista' is the newest OS, and this PC has a sticker which says 'Vista Capable,' so they buy it. Maybe they didn't see any other PC with a 'Vista Premium Capable' sticker on it; maybe the shop didn't have any. To them 'Vista Capable' means Vista (whatever version) can run on this machine, and that turned out to be false. Microsoft could easily have foreseen this problem and made 'Vista Home Basic Capable' stickers, but they didn't. Gee, I wonder why...

Well, Vista home basic is still Vista though, and a computer capable of running it is therefore Vista capable, right?

Another stupid lawsuit.

Vista basic IS vista.....

I think microsoft has the upper hand in this, look what it says on their site (I added some caps):

"A new PC running Windows XP that carries the Windows Vista Capable PC logo can run Windows Vista. All editions of Windows Vista will deliver CORE experiences such as innovations in organizing and finding information, security, and reliability. All Windows Vista Capable PCs will run these CORE EXPERIENCES at a MINIMUM. Some features available in the premium editions of Windows Vista?like the new WINDOWS AERO user experience?MAY REQUIRE ADVANCED OR ADDITIONAL HARDWARE."

Microsoft said that you may not be able to run Aero, so I don't think this has alot of ground to stand on. Of course the judge will probably side with the little guy anyway.

Yes, but Vista Premium is ALSO Vista, and many so-called 'Vista Capable' computers cannot run that. So on the face of it it's false advertising. The little Microsoft sticker (the one that specifically says 'Vista Capable') does not explain this distinction, and therefore falsely implies that the PC in question will run ANY version of Vista. If that's not the case (and it's not) then Microsoft must clarify the situation. Why is it incumbent on the consumer to find out every possible caveat? The sticker said 'Vista Capable,' the consumer bought it and a version of Vista, and the computer couldn't run it. False advertising, plain and simple.

The question at hand isn't what it says on their website, but what it says on the sticker. If a company makes two TV ads, one which tells the truth and one which tells a lie, would it be a valid defense to simply say, 'hey, they told the truth in the OTHER ad, so it's ok'? Think about consumers who are not so PC savvy, and who might be buying a first PC. They go to the shop and buy a PC based largely on the advertising they are exposed to at the shop. If that advertising is false or misleading, it's no excuse to say that Microsoft was honest and upfront in some other media venue. Yes, PC savvy people understood right away that there were these distinctions. But Microsoft still falsely represented it's product (or certified PC makers to falsely represent products), and that is illegal. Imagine you were buying something besides a PC, say an expensive microwave oven. You get it home and discover that it doesn't have functions you were lead to believe it had at the shop. You'd be pissed, too.

But it does run (thank you to whoever added text formatting today). The sticker says it's is capable of running windows vista, and it is, it just isn't capable of running it butter smooth. There is no false advertising here, but there is misleading advertising because the desciption is extremely vague.

pfffttt, a p3 can run vista, does it deserve "vista capable"?
systems come with "designed for xp" etc - are any of us game to run xp with the minimum 64mb of ram? or even 256mb for that matter?

Obviously most of you aren't lawyers. Yes people are idiots and sue for anything. Still, every ad that I ever saw for Vista was touting the aero interface, how on earth is a computer novice going to know the difference? They couldn't get on the net to find out, s/he probably didn't have a computer for God's sake. Some of these people probably know as much about computers as you know about nuclear physics (ie. nothing). Think grandparents.

i would like to see a lawsuit against "HD Ready" marked Tvs aswell...

i think they deserved this, the normal consumer would not think that "Vista Ready" means that they can only use the basic Vista, remember we are not talking about the minority that use this site but the average Joe.... I very strongly believe the same action should also be took against "HD ready" TVs because they are not HD.

And we could also go against the game-ready xbox's because they do not run wii games or something. Microsoft does not LEGALLY have to distinguish between the types of vistas these box PCs can run.

It's a freaking catch phrase, like 'intel inside'. If people take it as a detailed outline of what the system can do it's their fault, just like the 'intel inside' buyers who get a cheap celeron. What would you prefer, a two paragraph sticker?

"I very strongly believe the same action should also be took against "HD ready" TVs because they are not HD."

Sure they are, HD-ready just meant that they didn't have a built in HD tuner to receive OTA broadcasts, but they still had the resolution.

The issue here is that a 'Vista capable' sticker makes no distinction of the system's performance, which is really the sticking point on what can run on it. If the user did no research 'i.e. does it have a graphics card for good 3D support?' on the actual system performance, and instead used the 'vista capable' sticker as a performance benchmark then they're at fault.

"Some of these people probably know as much about computers as you know about nuclear physics (ie. nothing). Think grandparents."

If I were shopping for plutonium and got the wrong thing I also wouldn't blame the vendor, I'd think "oh shit, I know nothing about nuclear physics, what was I thinking when I decided to go buy this?".

"think they deserved this, the normal consumer would not think that "Vista Ready" means that they can only use the basic Vista, remember we are not talking about the minority that use this site but the average Joe.... I very strongly believe the same action should also be took against "HD ready" TVs because they are not HD."

HD-ready is in fact HD. It simply means that it doesn't include a tuner for over the air HD broadcast, but it's still got the resolution.

The issue here is that the sticker 'vista capable' doesn't discern the system performance, but people are using it as a performance benchmark. Under this lawsuit, an 'ATI' or 'Nvidia' sticker on a computer could be false advertising to someone expecting it to automatically run the latest games. If the users still don't take initiative to understand the system's performance then it's their problem.

"Some of these people probably know as much about computers as you know about nuclear physics (ie. nothing). Think grandparents."

Yet if I went out shopping for plutonium and got the wrong type I wouldn't blame the vendor, I'd blame myself for not doing my homework. People rely too much on the legal system for bailing them out on their poor decisions.

Thank you for your obviously expert legal opinion. I'm sure your opinion is based on heaps of precedent case study...

As someone who maybe knows the law a little better, I'd say that Microsoft IS legally obligated to fairly and accurately represent their products in advertising. Failure to fully disclose relevant information in an advertising claim (e.g. 'this PC is capable of running Windows Vista' without specifying that it can't run certain versions of Vista) has been ruled illegal countless times in US courts. Microsoft made a blanket claim in their 'Vista Capable' sticker, a claim which is not true in all cases, and they gave no notice in the ad about exceptions or limitations. Furthermore, that little sticker was touted by Microsoft as virtually 'the guarantee' that a specific PC could run 'Windows Vista.' If you wanted to use 'Windows Vista' you had to make sure the PC had that 'Vista Capable' sticker. Then you get home and find out it DOESN'T run a particular version of Vista. That's deceptive advertising. Ask anyone who actually has studied law and they will tell you there is a valid case against Microsoft here.

Any computer labeled "Vista Capable" can run any version of Vista... period. That includes Business and Premium and what have you. Microsoft states that even "capable" machines may not be able to run all functions of Vista. This is a well-known practice in the computer and electronics industry and is not in violation of any regulations. This lawsuit has no ground and will only reflect poorly on the US court system yet again if it actually makes it through.

Do car commercials show the basic car? No, they show the fully loaded version.

Sorry, no. Your example is worlds apart from the Vista case. If a PC has an 'Nvidia' sticker, and you open it up, and sure enough there is an Nvidia card inside, then the sticker accurately represented the product. That sticker makes no claims about performance. It simply states that an Nvidia product is used. Same goes with the 'Intel Inside' example someone else mentioned. These stickers do not make ANY performance claims. They simply state that a particular maker's parts are inside. So long as that's true, there is no misrepresentation.

However, the 'Vista Capable' sticker makes a PERFORMANCE claim. It explicitly says what this PC is capable of, namely, running Windows 'Vista.' It does NOT distinguish between versions of Vista, it does not list (or even offer any clue) that there are exceptions, limitations, etc. It makes a blanket claim, which in many cases, is not true unreservedly. If an advertiser makes a blanket performance based claim like this, then it should be true in all instances.

To reiterate, the 'Vista Capable' sticker makes a performance claim and is quite different than the 'Intel Inside' type stickers that just identify a brand.

They only should have made one version of the crappy OS as it is, and not the 32 bit at all... They might have been able to spend more time on making the thing work right if they weren't so worried about how to get the most money out of it. Anyway. If you really think about it, there could have been a differentiation between the versions that certain hardware was capable of. labeling it either "basic" or "premium" or whatever. Having said that. I also think that it's only fair to say that "hardware certification" or whatever you want to call it, is a really stupid idea to begin with. This is why you get somebody intelligent to build your computer for you if you can't do it yourself, and good luck asking anyone at some of the bigger companies to answer intelligent questions intelligently, especially without spending 4 hours or more on the phone. :-p The fault is not only on MS, it's on the "manufacturer" or place that you bought your PC from and it's also your own fault. Having said that, This should not be solved by a lawsuit, but by a change of where and how you buy a PC and what operating system is on it... but alas, the american public is not that smart, instead they'll just continue to support the companies that give them turds. :-p

Yes, they do state that--on the Windows Vista package, but not on the PC sticker in question! A lot of people buy their PC and OS at different times. Some people probably bought a PC with the intention of continuing to use XP, or some other OS, but wanted the option to upgrade to Vista at some future time. In fact, that's how I worked my current PC (I built it myself and used XP for a while, but I made sure at the time I built it that it was totally capable of running Vista Premium for when I would upgrade). Those people, in particular, were mislead by that little 'Vista Capable' sticker. That's deceptive advertising.
Your statement is valid for the disclaimer on the Windows Vista box, but is irrelevant to the question at hand, that of the sticker on the PC itself. Furthermore, much of what passes for 'well-known practice' in the computer (particularly software) industry is in very murky legal ground. European law, for example, takes a very different view of what is deemed 'legal' in the US (for the present, at least). Microsoft always seems to be skirting that line between 'acceptable practice' and 'illegal.' I'll bet most people who follow these issues would agree that Microsoft has been on the wrong side of that line many times. But they are the schoolyard bully of the computer world, and even when they're wrong they can get away with it.

Does this mean I can sue Mazda because their Mazda3 isn't as fast I thought it would be? I mean they all are suppose to be Zoom-Zoom right?

This is ridiculous. These machines are Vista capable. End of story. It's just some scumbag lawyers looking for a big payday, so they found some people willing to whine.

Just because a user can't run all of the extra features of Vista Premium doesn't mean the PC isn't Vista Capable. As it has been mentioned many times before, all versions of Vista can run on these machines, but some of the features may not work. This is like me trying to sue Dell because their PC said it had a 3D video card but isn't capable of rendering 3D objects in something like AutoCAD/SolidWorks.

Also, most people I know who have little to no knowledge about PCs and do get one rarely upgrade anything on their PC for a long time (3+ years).

To sum it up, Vista Capable does not mean it can run Ultimate with all the features turned on, it just means it?s capable of running Vista. Shame on Microsoft for being sly with words, but it?s a true statement.

What is wrong with this country that so many people believe their mistakes are somebody else's fault. And when is our country finally going to quit letting them think that. So much time and money is wasted in this country because of people trying to disprove the fact that for every action there is a reaction. In this case the action is a consumer buying a product without questioning or researching it and the reaction is that the consumer now owns a lower quality product then he expected. I mean the sticker doesn't say "YOU CAN BUY THIS COMPUTER WITH VISTA AND MICROSOFT GUARANTEES IT WILL BE EVERYTHING YOU WANT IT TO BE AND MORE OR ELSE YOU CAN SUE US FOR LOTS OF MONEY" it says "Vista Capable" and it's simply a guideline. HEY! While they're at it I'm gonna go sue every company who ever put a sticker on any product because none of them informed me exactly what the product could do. I mean apparently I'm not an American unless i lower myself to that level.