[Macworld]

Post your comments for Judge orders Ballmer to testify in 'Vista capable' case here

[pbour]

Much ado for nothing. Is there a personal computer, Vista capable, Vista ready or whatever, that can run any version of Vista satisfactorily, after all? And I don't mean compared to Mac OS X. I mean compared to the, at least, trustworthy Windows XP. Vista was a mess in the first place. Microsoft have been punished enough!!! It remains to be seen what will happen to Windows 7. By the way, any Windows 7 Capable machines around?

[ffistometer]

I think this IS rather significant. M$ has sought to keep Ballmer from taking the stand in this case as it's more than well aware he's a loose canon with a big mouth, quick temper and totally incapable of thinking on his feet.
I think this is a good day for any PC buyers who got sucker-punched into believing the "Windows Vista Capable" crap that M$ lied to people with.
Maybe this'll finally make people realise the only thing M$ can be trusted to do is shaft everyone for the last cent it can grab.

[medopal]

Didnt they already ask him and he blamed his senior vice presidents??
off-topic: i noticed today if u print "ver" in XP command line, its will give version 5. Means Vista is 6, and 7 on the way.
But if Windows 3.11 is 3, so 95,98,ME are all 4? weird!!

[gshake]

Windows versioning does get confusing. In fact Windows 7's current build is NT 6.1.6936.

Here's a nice table showing the version/build numbers for each product name: http://en.wikipedia....indows#Timelineofreleases.

[jpellino]

How's that let's-have-six-versions-for-no-defensible-reason thing working out?

[medopal]

oooh, so 95,98 and ME are all 4!! And Windows 7 is actually 6?? That made it more wierd to me

[alterbentzion]

Anyone who's had to service Windows machines can tell you that Win98 and the "Mistake Edition" were really only incremental upgrades to 95.
On second thought, 98 was an upgrade. ME was what The Peter Principal once described as a "Lateral Arabesque."

[tallscot]

This reminds me of Apple selling Macs with OS X with only 128 megs of RAM. That was really a joke.

[spim]

well .. for his disposition...
I think he'll do just fine as long he dances around like a Howler Monkey on Crack, all the while yelling, "GIVE IT UP FOR ME!!"
that ought to do it

[akira34]

Actually, if you get a reasonable system, hardware wise, it will run it at a level that is acceptable. Of course, I also upgrade important aspects of systems when I get them, often going for a faster processor and dedicated video whenever possible (and is in just about every system I own). I have run the three non-basic versions of Vista on different systems from laptops to high end workstations and find that you CAN get it to run very well IF you do just a minimal amount of tweaking. Turn off the UAC item (prompts you with a popup every time you do something like go to the control panels, annoying to say the least for the savvy people/users, but probably needed for the general masses), remove unneccessary software loaded by the system maker, and you're good. JUST like with the Mac OS 2GB really IS the minimum amount of RAM you want in a system. Yes, they will run with 512MB or 1GB, but you get much better performance when you go to 2GB and beyond.



People shouldn't be so quick to blame the OS for what a system maker tosses on top of it that bogs it down... Also, don't expect a cheap (sub $500 desktop or $1000 laptop) to perform like a high end system...

[Rhywun]

jpellino said:

How's that let's-have-six-versions-for-no-defensible-reason thing working out?

My guess is, it's working out fantastically well for them--or they wouldn't be doing it. It's less well for the consumer, of course.

Anyway, Vista works fine on a machine I have with 4GB RAM. The real question is do I want to use it and the answer to that is no. It's as inelegant and schizoid as every other version of Windows.

[spim]

Quote

{quote:title=akira34 wrote:}
Actually, if you get a reasonable system, hardware wise, it will run it at a level that is acceptable. Of course, I also upgrade ...

{quote}

well ... i believe the plaintiffs argument is that they were led to believe the systems were capable of running Vista acceptably in the condition in which they were purchased and made by the manufacturers

and as you point out in your own post, even your system doesn't run it well the way it comes to you - you have to tweak, uninstall junk, etc. - you've made the case for the plaintiffs actually

most people don't know how to tweak their machines - it's not their jobs - just as it's not my job to expect to have to tweak the transmission or engine when I buy a new car - I expect it to be able to handle city and highway driving as-bought - as the dealer and manufacturer assert

[Steve_S]

tallscot said:

This reminds me of Apple selling Macs with OS X with only 128 megs of RAM. That was really a joke.

yawn... Let's see, a story about Ballmer being forced to testify and tallscot comes out with his typical anti-Apple shot which is essentially unrelated to the topic at hand. How predictable...

Anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that if they plan on being a power user, running on the bare minimum requirements is probably not a good idea. Your comments seem to imply you may have been burned on that by Apple. That's a shame. But, that's not what the issue is about. The issue is that Ballmer is actually being called to testify about something he probably only has a cursory familiarity with. It's also about, Microsoft getting taken to task over the unnecessary confusion they created for having so many different versions of Vista. It's no wonder people were buying cheap PCs that read "Vista Capable" that didn't work properly on their Vista Ultimate edition and were likewise frustrated. Obviously, consumers should have been looking for the "Vista Premium Ready" label instead, right? Sorry, but you missed the mark on this one, again.