"faulty advertising"
just another advertising strategy... too bad some people feed on the bad advertising and turned it again MS.
MS marketing people maybe smart but there are a whole lot of people in this world and one of them could be smarter.![]()
UPDATE:
The lawsuit was just granted class-action status. More trouble for M$.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...ml?source=mypi
Maybe the person sees it as windows XP. Because Windows Vista looks very similar if it doesn't have aero.
vista capable means it can run possibly any version of vista even the lowest which is home basic. be it aero or not its the consumers fault for not even TRYING to educate themselves about vista and stuff. consumer ignorance i think is to blame
What is illegal is the potential to deceive, which is interpreted to occur when consumers see the advertising to be stating to them, explicitly or implicitly, a claim that they may not realize is false and material. The latter means that the claim, if relied on for making a purchasing decision, is likely to be harmful by adversely affecting that decision. Evidence must be obtained for what consumers saw the ad saying, and for the materiality of that, and for the true facts about the advertised item, but no evidence is required that actual deception occurred, or that reliance occurred, or that the advertiser intended to deceive or knew that the claim was false.
What is Vista anyway?
the enhance graphics, remote control features and the many radical new improvements where vastly advertise by Microsoft as Vista yet "Vista Capable" couldnt even run these features as advertised. In summary - Microsoft advertised and used a strategy called "Bait and switch later" - buy Vista Capable - assuring customers that you can run "Vista Capable" but not the many features as advertised.
The "Windows Vista Capability" - this "Capability" does not include the core Windows vista experience.
Here's the problem.
1.You bought Vista Capable computers - assured you can buy Vista later as advertised by Microsoft.
2. Next, you bought Vista Premium for $$$ amount.(2x the price of Basic i believe).
3. Now, you found out you cant run Vista Premium. ($%# curse microsoft).
4. Your next option is to buy the Basic Vista or upgrade your computer.
5. Then, you decided to upgrade your computer.
6. You found out the the motherboard does not support the new Graphics card or at least cannot fit a 2gb or RAM.(%*$% curse microsoft again)
7. So you bougth a new Motherboard, and a new graphics card and a new RAMs.
8. until finally, you bought a completely new computer.
9. You bought a PC "Windows vista capable" - assured that it can run any versions of Vista only to find out that you need to buy a completely new PC.
10. So where was the assurance there. where's the vista capable.
Isn't that misleading advertising?
This continuing lack of clarity eventually led to a class action against Microsoft as people found themselves with new computers that were unable to run the new software despite assurances.
marukoy lagi. swerte ang gahulat, and are still waiting for the true - "Windows Vista Capable"
BUMP!!!
Vista Capable Lawsuit Blamed On Intel?
http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?new...VzaWFzdCwsLDE=
That “Vista Capable” class action suit we told you about last week looks like it just got a lot more interesting. Recently unsealed court documents are placing the blame on Intel. This stuff is better than daytime soap operas! Check out this juicy quote:
n the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded. This in turn did two things: 1. Decreased focus of OEMs planning and shipping higher end graphics for Vista-ready programs and 2. Reduced the focus by IHV’s to ready great WHQL qualified graphics drivers. We can see this today with Intel’s inability to ship a compelling full featured 945 graphics driver for Windows Vista.
Similar Threads |
|