[tallscot]

Quote

LOL is right because you're apparently incapable of comprehending the issue here. The current issue is about the "Vista Capable" sticker being put on new computers purchased (after the Vista release).

Steve, this is just another example of you arguing about things you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You do this all the time. It's the reason everyone should ignore you. You just like arguing.

From the very article you are arguing about:
>A federal judge in Seattle has ordered Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to testify in a class action lawsuit against Microsoft that alleges the company misled consumers in a marketing campaign for its Windows Vista operating system in which computers sold with an older Microsoft OS were labeled 'Vista Capable' when in fact they could only run a basic version of Vista.

Quote

The plaintiffs allege that most computers labeled 'Vista Capable' in the marketing campaign, which began in early 2006, cannot run or run poorly Vista Premium, the version of Vista with the most popular features.

This is about PC manufacturers having a "Vista Capable" sticker on Windows XP PCs. Are they capable of running Vista? Yes, they are, but just like OS X 10.2's Quartz Extreme had certain video-related requirements, so does Aero Glass.

Is it sinking in yet?

Why do you continue to argue about things when you clearly have no ability to even read the articles you are arguing about?

http://seattlepi.nws...42_vista23.html

Quote

The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the 2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of Windows Vista was delayed.

Quote

Yet, on the Mac side, you're twisting the story to talk about older Macs that cannot use all of the features of a newer Mac OS X release

No, I'm talking about brand new Macs in 2002 and 2003 that shipped with OS X as the default OS that shipped with 128 megs of RAM, which is insufficient.

Quote

That's about what I expected. You made claims about all of these angry OS X owners that nobody but you seems to remember. For your sake, I was hoping maybe you could point to an angry discussion thread, etc. Of course, didn't actually expect you to come through.

The fact that I'm unwilling or unable to sift through message boards from 2002 to find people who were angry that their Mac didn't come with enough RAM doesn't negate the fact that Apple did indeed ship OS X Macs with insufficient RAM.

Again, this is Apple actually shipping Macs with OS X with insufficient RAM versus Microsoft putting stickers on Windows XP PCs saying they were "Vista Capable".

If you are going to start arguing that 128 megs of RAM is sufficient for OS X, nobody on this board will take you seriously.

Yeah, and? I ran OS X from the beta days forward on an older iMac G3 500mhz with 128MB. That was perfectly fine for common tasks at the time. That machine was never intended to be a power user machine, but it ran internet, office and even Quake III just fine on OS X. That machine was sold well before OS X came out.

And I run Vista on PCs from 2006 just fine too. You seem to be unable to even follow your own side of the argument.

LOL! Every software product sold has a minimum requirements label on the box.

Yes, and that equates to "Vista Capable". Again, you aren't even following your own side of the argument. Apple telling their customers that a Mac that can't do Quartz Extreme works with OS X is the same as Microsoft telling a customer that a PC that can't do Aero Glass is Vista Capable.

>Apple didn't have a program called OS X capable, did it?

No, but to this day they are telling their customers that Macs that can't do Quartz Extreme are compatible with OS X just like Microsoft had a sticker on systems without DirectX 9 video cards that they were "Vista Capable". Do you get it now?

[Steve_S]

tallscot said:

Steve, this is just another example of you arguing about things you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You do this all the time. It's the reason everyone should ignore you. You just like arguing.

LOL! ;) Ummm.... hello pot, meet the kettle. Really, perhaps you should look in the mirror before posting such nonsense. Also, do you really think putting your drivel in bold somehow makes it true? Really, look at this thread. You have several people politely letting you know that you're off base on this one. Maybe you should try making all of your posts in bold if you think that would help.

Quote

The fact that I'm unwilling or unable to sift through message boards from 2002 to find people who were angry that their Mac didn't come with enough RAM doesn't negate the fact that Apple did indeed ship OS X Macs with insufficient RAM.

Your comments are just bizarre. Having enough memory is clearly a subjective thing and it has as much to do with the workload you are trying to accomplish as the OS you're trying to run. You claimed 128MB was insufficient for OS X. I'm claiming that at the time, it may have been on the low end, but it was sufficient. I say that from personal experience. You're making a point about some low end eMacs which I think we can agree would not be the power users running doing extreme tasks. Surely 128MB would be insufficient to run Leopard. But, in it's day, it was sufficient for common tasks, including running classic which is contrary to your claims. That doesn't mean there wouldn't have been some performance improvement with 256MB. There would, just like my 2GB Mac pro would benefit from 4GB.

Quote

>Apple didn't have a program called OS X capable, did it?

No, but

Then why are you still arguing. It's different. Just because you find some vague similarities, doesn't mean Apple is guilty of the same thing. You are comparing the minimum requirements on the back of any software box to Microsoft's advertising campaign. You're also neglecting to address the deception involved by having so many versions of Vista while knowing full well that their "Vista capable" only applied to the lowest/cheapest Vista product. Even funnier is that you can't demonstrate something even a low end Mac couldn't do that shipped with OS X. Once again (and for the final time in this thread) I get to point out that... (ready for the bold?) you don't have a clue what you are talking about. ;) Still, thanks for the entertainment.

[tallscot]

Steve, there's no point in continuing to have a discussion with you when you have shown us you can't even read the article that you are arguing about and then when you find out you were wrong, you keep going.

Steve said:
>The current issue is about the "Vista Capable" sticker being put on new computers purchased (after the Vista release).

Article said:
>A federal judge in Seattle has ordered Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to testify in a class action lawsuit against Microsoft that alleges the company misled consumers in a marketing campaign for its Windows Vista operating system in which computers sold with an older Microsoft OS were labeled 'Vista Capable' when in fact they could only run a basic version of Vista.
>
>The plaintiffs allege that most computers labeled 'Vista Capable' in the marketing campaign, which began in early 2006, cannot run or run poorly Vista Premium, the version of Vista with the most popular features.

Yes, that article about Windows XP PCs with "Vista Capable" stickers reminds me of Apple shipping OS X Macs with 128 megs of RAM, which was insufficient, from personal experience.

[mdawson]

In all this bickering, you continue to miss the point tallscot. As Steve_S has stated several times over Apple never had an ?OS X compatible? campaign, so your point of argument is completely non sequitur. Microsoft intentionally releases a dizzying array of versions of Windows for simultaneous release. In Microsoft?s campaign the Vista Compatible decal in no way indicated to Joe Know-Nothing-About-Technology that if they opted to buy a cheap POS PC then they could only ever use the cheapest POS, stripped down version of Vista.

Apple does not guarantee that any Mac sold will be able to fully exploit new technologies in a forthcoming version of OS X. At no time in the past 24 year of the Mac?s existence has Apple ever had a Mac OS compatible campaign, because Apple is a hardware company and does not engage in OS advertising. In fact, Apple learned early on with OS X that stating which hardware a given release of OS X will be compatible with before the final release only leads to trouble; or have you forgotten the G3 debacle?

Lastly, every Wintel PC on the market does not come with the latest version of Windows as soon as Microsoft releases a new Windows because Microsoft has nothing to do with the assemblage and sale of the hardware upon which their operating system functions. Apple does and therefore further has little need to engage in OS campaigning. When you buy a new Mac it has the latest OS within days of the release not months to a year plus.

[tallscot]

Quote

In all this bickering, you continue to miss the point tallscot. As Steve_S has stated several times over Apple never had an ?OS X compatible? campaign

I never said they did have an "OS X compatible" campaign, but Apple is telling their customers which Macs are compatible to run OS X yet they are Macs that can't do Quartz Extreme, which is the same thing as Microsoft telling their customers that a PC that can't do Aero Glass is capable of running Vista.

Quote

so your point of argument is completely non sequitur

My comment wasn't a response to any other statement, it was an opinion about how this reminds me of Apple shipping Macs with OS X with insufficient RAM and remembering Mac users being upset that the Macs they bought recently couldn't do Quartz Extreme in 10.2, but had to buy a new Mac to get that feature, much like there are "upset" Joes out there with 2006 Windows XP PCs that can't do Aero Glass. But it's really easy to get a desktop PC updated with a $40 video card and some RAM.

Quote

Microsoft intentionally releases a dizzying array of versions of Windows for simultaneous release

So? Talk about non sequitur.

Quote

Microsoft?s campaign the Vista Compatible decal in no way indicated to Joe Know-Nothing-About-Technology that if they opted to buy a cheap POS PC then they could only ever use the cheapest POS, stripped down version of Vista.

It's "Vista Capable", not "Vista Compatible". When Joe Know-Nothing-About-Technology gave Apple $129 for OS X 10.2 (versus the other version of OS X, OS X Server), for their existing Mac computer, there was nothing, and still nothing, to indicate that it won't do Quartz Extreme and that it will run ridiculously slow because they opted to buy a cheap iBook instead of a PowerBook. So?

Like I said, both of these companies fudge in their marketing. You guys are trying to act like Apple is more noble than Microsoft, that this isn't something Apple would pull themselves when right now they are running ads that say Microsoft is spending money on advertising Vista but not "fixing" Vista. Give me a break! Apple can do no wrong! Microsoft is evil! Do you really think Apple's ads are 100% straightforward and accurate?

I agree that Vista is a POS, but your whole argument is a laugh because Joe Know-Nothing-About-Technology is going to be just fine with Home Basic instead of Home Premium. You have a contradiction there. You can't argue that Joe knows nothing so he's easily mislead by a sticker but he requires Premium features. And your "stripped down" comments make me believe you don't use Vista at all or know the differences, so I'll clarify that for you.

Windows Vista Home Basic versus Premium:
No Aero interface
No Media Center
Five included Windows games, instead of nine
No automatic network backup
No relationship between PC and Xbox 360
No advanced slideshows
No Movie Maker / DVD Maker
Weak Tablet PC functionality
No SideShow Support

Wow, how can Joe live without those features?!!! :)

Again, if Joe spends $40 on a GeForce 7300 video card and $25 on RAM (if his PC from 2006 only has , he can have those "Premium" features - some of those features that he doesn't get with an OS X upgrade either (what a POS). ;)

> Apple does not guarantee that any Mac sold will be able to fully exploit new technologies in a forthcoming version of OS X

"Vista Capable" isn't a guarantee that the PC will be able to fully exploit new technologies in a forthcoming version of Vista. Remember, this "Vista Capable" sticker was on Windows XP PCs before Vista shipped. Is it capable of running Vista? Yep. And again, a desktop PC can be upgraded to DirectX 9, but an iBook could not be upgraded to 2X AGP for Quartz Extreme.

Quote

Apple is a hardware company and does not engage in OS advertising

I don't really see how it's relevant, but who do you think buys new versions of OS X and now do they know about it?

Lastly, every Wintel PC on the market does not come with the latest version of Windows as soon as Microsoft releases a new Windows because Microsoft has nothing to do with the assemblage and sale of the hardware upon which their operating system functions

Relevance? But, again, you are inaccurate. Microsoft does dictate to the PC manufacturers which versions of their OS they can distribute. The reason you can still get Windows XP on a brand new PC is because Microsoft allows it. Microsoft is selling their OS to PC manufacturers.

Apple does and therefore further has little need to engage in OS campaigning.

You can't be serious. Where do you live, in a hole? Of course Apple advertises OS X. Who do you think buys OS X? Existing Mac users! LOL You've never ever seen an OS X banner ad on a Mac site before? You've never ever seen an OS X ad in a Mac magazine? Give me a break. Right now, Apple has a list of 300+ reasons (features) I should get OS X Leopard and they say it's going to "transform" my Mac.

[tallscot]

Seriously, the idea that Apple isn't misleading with their marketing is total hogwash:

Lawsuit - Apple ad said MacBook has "millions" of colors, but it doesn't:
http://www.consumera...ple_colors.html

Quote

Apple is duping its customers into thinking they?re buying 'new and improved' when in fact they?re getting stuck with new and inferior," said managing partner Brian Kabatech

Lawsuit - Joe Know-Nothing-About-Technology suing Apple because Apple's iPod marketing say 8 gigs but it comes with less than 8 gigs:
http://communities.c...-have-legs.aspx

Lawsuit - Apple mislead customers about the battery life of iPods:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355078,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/personaltechnology

Lawsuit - Apple's misleading marketing on the iPhone 3G's data speeds:
http://www.appleinsi.../08/09/04/thirdlawsuitjoinsintocomplaintsaboutiphone3gspeeds_bugs.html

UK yanks Apple's iPhone ads for being misleading:
http://www.engadget....ad-for-being-m/

Apple's iPhone/MobileMe advertising states "push", but it's not, and Apple apologized for it:
http://www.betanews.com/article/UsersallegeMobileMelackstrue_push/1216066796

Steve Jobs lies about how much faster a new iMac is (includes Jason Snell):
http://www.mcelhearn...060111134305176

BBB tells Apple to yank "world's fastest personal computer" marketing because it's misleading:
http://windowsitpro....eading-ads.html

I'm a Mac ad that says Macs don't come with trial software is an outright lie. They came with iWork Trial and, ironically, Microsoft Office Trial.

Misleading I'm A Mac ad that implies Macs come with built-in camera and PCs don't. In fact, PCs had built-in cameras before Macs did.

Misleading I'm a Mac ad says Mac was made for fun stuff and PC was not.

Misleading I'm a Mac ad states you need to authorize "pretty much everything I do" on Vista. This one is really blatant because you authorize the same things in OS X.

[thebiggfrogg]

Oh, tallscot, you lovable scamp!