<![CDATA[Gizmodo: Vista Capable]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gizmodo.com.png <![CDATA[Gizmodo: Vista Capable]]> http://gizmodo.com/tag/vista capable http://gizmodo.com/tag/vista capable <![CDATA[ Best Buy Pressured Microsoft To Create Crippled Vista Label; Intel Off the Hook? ]]> A month ago, everyone wanted to vilify Intel for pressuring Microsoft into approving the crippled "Vista Capable" label for certain low-grade PCs. But new evidence suggests A) that Best Buy was instrumental in approving the sinister two-tiered Vista approach very early on and B) that all of this hare-brained scheming seems to have originated at Microsoft itself.

According to CRN ChannelWeb, Vista marketing director Rajesh Srinivasan and others devised the now infamous two-tiered Vista Ready/Vista Capable plan— the latter category known to be incapable of handling the nice Vista Aero visual interface because of paltry Intel integrated graphics support—in the summer of 2005. Srinivasan pitched the idea to Best Buy as early as August 2005, and Best Buy was apparently gung-ho on it.

It was clear, at least to Srinivasan, that Best Buy liked the fact that "100% of PCs" would be associated with Vista, thanks to the creation of a "Vista Capable" category.
Here's where it gets funny, though. Originally, Srinivasan recommended that Vista Ready PCs got a logo, while Vista Capable PCs did not. Somewhere along the line, though, this changed and colorful Vista-friendly labels were stuck on both the geniune and crippled systems. (The article doesn't stipulate who pushed whom on this particular matter.)

As for hapless Intel, its involvement appears to have begun six months later, when Intel is said to have been happy that Microsoft dropped the ban on lower-end Aero-incapable chipsets like the 915. Better still, Srinivasan at one point suggested in an e-mail that Microsoft "put pressure on Intel to end of life by 915 by Oct 06," so it's very hard to call Intel the bully.

After looking at lots of evidence, CRN draws the most intelligent conclusion: "At the end of the day, Microsoft may have botched Vista Capable all by itself." I'll drink to that. [CRN via Inquirer]

]]>
Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:20:00 EDT Wilson Rothman http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=373415&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Vista Capable Sticker Lawsuit Becomes Class Action ]]> vista%20crappable2.jpgRemember the lawsuit filed a little while ago against Microsoft because PCs with "Windows Vista Capable" stickers weren't actually all that Vista Capable? A federal judge just granted that suit class action status, meaning that if you bought a Vista "Capable" PC during the 2006 Holidays, you might be in store to get a little bit of cash back.

The US District Court Judge says the suit can "pursue a 'price inflation' line of reasoning," which means that buyers were duped into paying more for a computer that did have that sticker than one that did not, even though the difference between the two were negligible (and both weren't actually Vista-capable). We'll update you as the case develops. [Computerworld via MacWorld UK]

]]>
Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:45:31 EST Jason Chen http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=361123&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Did Microsoft Deceive With 'Vista Capable'? ]]> vista_capable-736005.jpgA judge has ruled that a trial against Microsoft can proceed to decide whether they misled people with their "Vista Capable" advertising campaign. Two PC buyers have started a class action, and are arguing that they bought machines that weren't capable of running Aero, even though they were marked as "Vista Capable."

Microsoft is arguing that Vista can run on slower machines, albeit with some of the eye candy turned off, and that this was explained in their campaign. In any case, we'll probably not get to see this play out, because it's likely that the matter will be settled out of court. [The Register]

]]>
Thu, 09 Aug 2007 04:53:23 EDT msparkes http://gizmodo.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=287629&view=rss&microfeed=true