So what?

Nobody ever complained about PC games having "recommended requirements" that do not allow for maxed out visuals.

This is Microsoft, so people are going to get on their case.

Ridiculous.

The average consumer will have no idea what aero is to begin with and will do just fine.

3-4 months from now all PCs will be aero ready and this point will be a non-issue.

It's not ridiculous. It's common sense. People who spend that much cash on a new OS should have the guarantee that all features will work with an average consumer PC.

An OS is not a high end video game. Dollar for dollar, you can get A LOT more features on Mac OS X that can run WELL on even the lowest end Macs.

People don't just have the right to be angry with Microsoft, they have several REASONS to be angry. Please stop defending a company that doesn't deserve it.

Anyone know when OS X Leopard is going to be released?

@Chewba,

Ridiculous?

The OS is the base, the core, the foundation of the user experience, so you'd expect it to just work on a recently manufactured computer. MS takes this many years to devcelop an OS and it can't even run pretty icons & animations on the desktop of a half decent mo0dern computer? Now that's ridiculous.

I've been running the latest version of OSX on a computer that was originally sold with OS9 on it and it runs just fine.

Vista is Generally Flawed IMO.

You know, I can't even be bothered responding any further, arghhhhhhhhhhh!

So they stickers say "Vista Capable." So what?

This just means, by definition, that they are capable of running Vista, which they are. Now, that's over, I'm going back to Flip3D.

kibets, the average consumer may not know what Aero is, but when they see pretty screenshots, plunk down a lot of cash, and see something very, very, different....they will be unhappy.

Vista's requirements are rather ridiculous....as mike says, this isn't a high end video game, and its quite reasonable for people to expect that a brand new computer that advertises itself as "Vista capable" will be able to do things a 3 year old Mac can do just fine.

@ mike016256:

Well I guess an Apple fan had to come along at some point and use OS X as an example. Color me unsurprised.

Seriously, this situation has nothing to do with OS X. And not only that, Vista Basic doesn't even include Aero, right?

That means that these low end PCs really are using all of (at least one version of) Vista's features.

It's such a stupid thing to complain about.

@Chebwa

You can call me an Apple fan, sure. But more importantly, I'm a consumer. I know what I want in an OS, and many useful features at a low CPU and memory cost is just that. Microsoft simply does not meet this criteria. As a consumer who needs to use the Windows OS, I have a reason to complain.

like the oh-so-fancy but oh-so-pointless Flip 3D

This isn't a jab at Vista for having pretty graphics, I hope, because I can think of a bunch of "oh-so-fancy but oh-so-pointless" graphical eye-candy features in OSX.

lol... i have used windows all my life, and i recently switched in the last year to OS X. This is another reason I do not believe in using windows.... they don't make things "easy"

@ mike016256 and Chebwa

I believe the point that mike was making is that Vista is not fulfilling its promises while its less-popular competitor consistently does, and then some. Chebwa's comparison to gaming in this case just doesn't work because the label on the box is addressing tech-noobs (the majority of consumers).

For the record, OS X 10.4 runs well on my sister's 400 Mhz G4 bought in 1999 for $2800 CDN. I threw in a new hard drive and a bunch of PC100 RAM. It can do pretty much anything except edit video. To me, that's impressive. That's a really efficient OS and it's worth mentioning.

I feel as though people who are buying $500 laptops and expecting a $400 operating system are greedy and uneducated. Yes, vista is expensive, no, I haven't bought a copy of it, but when I do, assuredly it will be either Home Premium or Ultimate (specifically for the media center). Anyone complaining that their NEW computer can't run the flavor of vista they want is only acting this way because they didn't buy the necessary hardware or do their homework before buying. This is not microsoft's fault nor is it the retailer's faults.
Don't call me an MS fanboy, even though I own two xp computers, nor do I support the high prices, but still, if you're going to buy a computer without knowing what's installed on it or what it's capable of, it's your own damn fault.

"Minimum" & "Recommended" requirements for software can hardly be compared to the Vista logo program. If you have a functioning brain - and a somewhat lax grip on literacy - they're unambiguous.

They really should have known better, especially since they didn't credit the public with enough intelligence to tell the obvious difference between Windows or Lindows.

Remember that? And when MS lost their case in the U.S., what did they do? They pulled out their fat wallets and launched multiple cases abroad to force concession via the financial burden of multiple defenses by a company that clearly could not afford it.

I hope they get bent over. Civil litigation works both ways :D

Evidently they need to learn the hard way.

Ph30nix sums it up best. Buyer beware. Always.

Easy for me to say since I was never "fooled" - for lack of a better term.

@ skinned

My eyes! Blinking tags are evil!

This is kinda stupid. I just got an IBM tablet with an ultra-low voltage processor and an integrated GPU but even it does aero flawlessly. If you buy a $350 computer don't complain if it can't run aero!

To be perfectly honest, this doesn't surprise me for a couple of main reasons. First off, I was knew well before that many of the "Vista Compatible" computers (especially laptops) aren't fully Vista compatible when it comes time to upgrade. Anyone who knows anything about Vista could tell you that one. Secondly, this isn't the first time companies have made this mistake of over-hyping a situation such as this. Many major companies make such mistakes. Microsoft just proved to be one of those companies [again].

Anyhow, what I'm trying to say is that it isn't just Microsoft's fault but also the [uneducated] consumers. Sure, Microsoft was misleading but anyone who is dumb enough to spend so much money on something without doing at least some research, got what they deserved.

Note on side-conversation:
While I'm not an Apple fan, I always have admitted that they've had an edge on the simplicity and efficiency side compared to Windows. So it doesn't surprise me that you can run OS X on their older computers.

see the problem is, you guys read gizmodo, the average consumer, doesn't, and they don't give a shit about system specs either. the see the smooth flashy OS in the store, and they want that one. that's what frustrates me, that the average consumer thinks that buying and using a computer must be a struggle, because that is all MS has ever presented to them. do i give a shit if pc makers put stupid stickers on boxes? no, i could care less about them, i just keep using OS X and laughing, i just wish more people realised.

i used to joke with my friend that had a brand new dell laptop that I was going to get an intel core 2 duo sticker for my mbp, and possibly even a vista capable sticker, and put them on it... maybe even one of those huge ones on the palm rest with all the stupid specs, and installed shit.

@karmaghost: I personally find Alt+Tab with the new Live Preview to be far more useful and less of a waste of resources than Flip 3D—or hell, even the live thumbnails in the taskbar. Usability-wise, those are my two favorite things in Vista honestly.

I'm not even that hot on Expose and I find it slightly more efficient than scrolling through every window with Flip 3D.

dj, but you have a macbook pro that you probably paid well over $1500 FOR... This was in regards to people expecting SUPER AMAZING OMG WTF experience similar to what you had after spending 1/3 or less the money that you did.

Just because something is "capable" doesn't mean it does it well. Example: Kia Rio vs. Chevy Corvette. Both are cars, both are "capable" of getting you from one place to another...but one can do it a hell of a lot faster and looks nicer to boot. You can't discuss a computer without addressing its innards...that's what makes it go. If you want the pretty screensavers and icons and stuff, know your shit and get the better computer. People just want to spend the least amount of money possible and get a $10K corvette.

I use OSX everyday and I'm so happy when I come home to my XP box. I can't wait to upgrade to vista. I have rc3, just need to buy the full version (i have home premium on a laptop and it runs flawlessly).

So what this really comes down to is people chosing to sue rather than excersize the 30 day return policy that just about every retailer has, or calling their credit card company and stopping the payment.

"I got it home and some minimum-wage employee didn't predicit that I'd be an idiot. I'm going to sue because a FUCKING STICKER didn't tell me enough information."

The system did exactly what they said it did, and their own compatibility standard was met to the letter. It ran the CORE functionality of Vista. It ran the version sold with it.

And what I find most entertaining is that all the Mac Fanboys are on here claiming "If you're that stupid, you should be on a Mac!" like it's some kind of bragging right to have users this dumb in your camp.

I guess when you're that unpopular, you'll take any action you can get.

Sony still hasn't sent me my free copy of Vista I was supposed to get with my "capable" vaio.

Well if people would just do a little research, it's kind of obvious that those tags aren't completely what you think they are. Capable, means that they are just able to do the task. The Vista Premium Ready tags, are kind of obvious in meaning, that they're just optimized for Vista, and will perform the task well. It's kind of real obvious. Vista Capable vs. Vista Premium Ready. Hmmm. I'll take a stab at it, and say that the 2nd one sounds better. Duh. You don't need to be a tech genius to understand which one is better. You get what you pay for. The people who are complaining obviously can't understand a simple label.

Again, those of you calling my gaming comparison into question are still ignoring that the sticker says Vista Capable.

@ skinned:

Alright, a lax grip leaves me with this definition of "capable."

Capable: having traits conducive to or features permitting

Does the PC have features permitting the use of Vista?

Yes, it does. The sticker didn't lie, and the buyer didn't get screwed. If your entire knowledge of Vista and its abilities is based on a two word STICKER anyway, I can't imagine you even know what you're missing.

I don't see what the dicking around is far.

To the consumer, Vista is the UI. Basic doesn't count. Many machines were sold that were Basic capable only. They're pissed about not having Aero. For Microsoft to claim that the UI is not a core feature is a pathetic and lame copout.

I always peel those stickers off anyway.

If a buyer bought a computer based on a sticker, then he should have also bought his car at sticker price......and thus should be ready for buyer's remorse

@ strider

lol, I always put them on my case.

It sure didn't take long for the apple lapdogs to show up.

It's simply a ploy by a money hungry lawyer and a publicity seeking surburbanite. She bought a computer, which is, indeed, Vista capable (albeit Basic), and she wants to complain because it won't run Aero?

She bought a computer that is Vista capable. Exactly how can she claim a lawsuit over this?

It's also amazing that iGizmodo devotes so much attention to any and every anti-Vista topic possible.

it's always meant the same thing, now it just has to be cleared up for the dumbasses that believe aero is a critical, or the only, feature of vista.

the information, disclaimers, requirements, features, are all there and have been from the very beginning. this was always the case. even prior to Vista's release, i've read in stores, store ads, everywhere that tell you the difference between "Vista Capable" and "Vista Premium Ready." Any issues experienced because the person bought the wrong one is their own fault for assuming everything and not reading what's in front of them. On the other hand, it could also be ignorant sales persons giving out false information for the sake of making a sale.

What's been here reported about what "Vista Capable" means has always been the case. "Vista Capable" never implied you could run Aero; that's where "Vista Premium Ready" came in. If you're going to make a big purchase, you should know these things.

This isn't an OS X vs Vista issue, so it's pointless to discuss it in that light.

It comes down to the fact that the average consumer probably didn't understand what the "core experiences" of Vista are. That's a pretty ambiguous way to say, "you're not getting the pretty stuff," and Microsoft/PC makers know that. That's exactly why the sticker was worded that way.

Microsoft was late delivering Vista, and was catching hell from their hardware partners who claimed the delay was going to decimate holiday sales. These stickers took a little pressure off by boosting pre-Vista sales at the expense of innocent consumers.

It's not fair to blame consumers for not realizing that "Vista Capable" really meant "We've Got to Do Something Quick, Because the Shit is Hitting the Fan!"

So I've been waiting for another Vista post to ask all of you for some advice:

Anyone know of a RECENT, educated and non biased review of Vista with all the pros and cons listed? Preferably one that touches on gaming too?

I have an extremely killer system and am wondering if I should upgrade. Some places I read that most games don't even work, which is what I use this particular machine for 70% of the time.

Thank you in advance!

Let's put it simply...imagine buying a car that says "gasoline-capable". Then, when filling it with gasoline, it doesn't work.

MS shouldn't have bothered putting that sticker on those computers pre-launch. It was nothing more than a marketing ploy, to help build the brand name VIsta.

I am not an apple fanboy. Nor do i hate MS. When XP first came out, i installed it on my machine. It was SHITTY. 2-3 years later, after MS finally got their shit together and fixed it all, XP became the best OS i've used. Why does MS insist on releasing OS'es that ARE SHITTY in the beginning?

Again, car analogy. Buying a brand new car with a brand new engine. But it won't work well for 2-3 years until the car company works out all the "bugs" in the engine.

It's ridiculous. Bravo, MS for releasing another half-baked OS.

The sticker does lie. I have a "Vista capable" Acer laptop, and Vista is unusable on it. With Aero off and everything set to "best performance" it runs like crap, with the mouse cursor chugging across the screen and about a 1 second delay for everything. This is a C2D laptop with 1GB of ram and GMA950 integrated video. The sticker is full of shit.

You guys are missing the point. This has nothing to do with MS. It's all the lame OEMs trying to get more mileage out of their POS hardware. They knew years ago that the requirements for Vista would be MUCH higher and whinned that people wouldn't buy their budget PCs without DX9 hardware. They are the ones that pushed MS into the two tier logos so that they could dishonestly sell cheap as stuff up right up till the Vista ship and snag a few more stupid customers who didn't do their research.

If you want to be mad, be mad but direct it at the right people. The Best Buy sales man isn't the one that made the Vista Capable sticker but he sure as hell should have explained it. The PC manufacture should be held accountable for marketing sub standard hardware. Microsoft should get a pat on the back for making it possible for people using old crap HW to run a newer OS...albeit without the eye candy.

The problem with the whole thing is that MS advertised Vista by SHOWING aero. They never said aero they said vista. To the average person aero and vista are one and the same.While aero might be a graphic enhancement people will just assume that Vista is going to look like it does in the ads. If microsoft had put a little blurb on the bottom of the screen during the aero shots saying that you would require a better rig to use this graphic ability this whole thing wouldnt be happening. Either that or using multiple stickers saying which version was the max you run COMPLETELY on the system. They did it on purpose because part of vistas "new features" is that you can upgrade to "better prettier" vista right in the os. they are trying to nickel and dime you at every turn. They dont care if you can use it they just care that you pay them.

Neight says:

So I've been waiting for another Vista post to ask all of you for some advice:
Anyone know of a RECENT, educated and non biased review of Vista with all the pros and cons listed? Preferably one that touches on gaming too?

I would say wait until you need to upgrade for a game you really want to play that needs vista to run. Despite the crooked way they are advertising the system it probably won't help your rig to have it now. By the time you are forced to upgrade they will have (hopefully) SP1'ed it. Also you should make sure all your hardware is up to snuff driver-wise.

Wow, some serious Apple zealot threadjacking going on here. Go buy a latte' you "Intel PC users with Apple sauce" zealots.

(snub)

I don't know why people have come to the defense of Microsoft. Their entire marketing campaign was based on the "wow" factor and in their commercials the "wow" factor was the aero effect. I think it is extremely misleading to the average consumer when most of the "Vista Capable" PC's aren't capable of having the "wow" factor.

"...capable implies the ability to do something, not choke on it."
Anyways, why come to the defense of Microsoft?

@ Chewba

I won't argue that it's capable or your definition of the word, but I think you're missing the point - and I'll take the blame for not making it as clear as I could have. I have not seen one single ad in print or on TV that shows vista running any UI but Aero. When people think Vista, they're not thinking of the drab UI (whatever it's called). Why is that? Simple - that's not what's being marketed (Wow?).

I disagree with statments saying anything about MS screwing any of these plaintiffs. I said they need to get screwed for karma's sake (in a nutshell). I have no sympathy for either party in this case.

I'll say it again - buyer beware.

I think maybe there's something you're not taking into account when you think your "game" example is a good analogy. There is no industry practice that I've seen in the last 15 years where feature-reduced versions of a game title are offered at a reduced price for any reason.

We are in total agreement of the fact that the consomer's reponsibity to get the facts (I think).

I guess where we differ is my belief that Microsoft uncessarily made the situation more confusing through advertising and their product line-up. And they have no one but themselves to blame for that.

@Neight:

ExtremeTech had a pretty good roundup of Vista vs. XP a few weeks ago, dealing specifically with gaming. You can read it here:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2096940,00.asp<...

The gist of it is this: if getting the absolute highest framerate is important to you, wait until NVidia and AT