The Vista Capable mess: Intel pushes, Microsoft bends
 

Not sure if this has been posted / talked about here or not, but when
I followed Lawrence's Shuttle article to the ars technica web site,
I also wound up reading this article which some of you might find
interesting.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...oft-bends.html

Re: The Vista Capable mess: Intel pushes, Microsoft bends
 

Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
> Not sure if this has been posted / talked about here or not, but when
> I followed Lawrence's Shuttle article to the ars technica web site,
> I also wound up reading this article which some of you might find
> interesting.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...oft-bends.html

Thanks for that. Interesting indeed....
--
Shaun.

Re: The Vista Capable mess: Intel pushes, Microsoft bends
 

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 00:39:28 +1300, "~misfit~"
<misfit61nz@yahoot.com.au> wrote:

>Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
>> Not sure if this has been posted / talked about here or not, but when
>> I followed Lawrence's Shuttle article to the ars technica web site,
>> I also wound up reading this article which some of you might find
>> interesting.
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...oft-bends.html
>
>Thanks for that. Interesting indeed....

I wonder what Intel had over MS that they would cave like that.

Re: The Vista Capable mess: Intel pushes, Microsoft bends
 

"Craig Shore" <craigshore@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:sj13t3dv5umprb9alf8p9nh5e3t6mhce5i@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 00:39:28 +1300, "~misfit~"
> <misfit61nz@yahoot.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
>>> Not sure if this has been posted / talked about here or not, but when
>>> I followed Lawrence's Shuttle article to the ars technica web site,
>>> I also wound up reading this article which some of you might find
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...oft-bends.html
>>
>>Thanks for that. Interesting indeed....
>
> I wonder what Intel had over MS that they would cave like that.
>
>

A shortage of expensive WVDDM-compliant chipsets? Knowledge that no one else
had a better solution to offer?

Re: The Vista Capable mess: Intel pushes, Microsoft bends
 

On Mar 8, 9:29 am, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Craig Shore" <craigsh...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:sj13t3dv5umprb9alf8p9nh5e3t6mhce5i@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 00:39:28 +1300, "~misfit~"
> > <misfit6...@yahoot.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
> >>> Not sure if this has been posted / talked about here or not, but when
> >>> I followed Lawrence's Shuttle article to the ars technica web site,
> >>> I also wound up reading this article which some of you might find
> >>> interesting.
>
> >>>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-capable-debac...
>
> >>Thanks for that. Interesting indeed....
>
> > I wonder what Intel had over MS that they would cave like that.
>
> A shortage of expensive WVDDM-compliant chipsets? Knowledge that no one else
> had a better solution to offer?

Which was the vendors' problem (both hardware and software) at the
time, not the consumers' problem.

No one really wanted or wants Vista - the whole thing was a vendor
push at the time to stimulate hardware and software sales. It has
gone rather badly haywire and has left a whole lot of disgruntled
purchasers and users in the wake. Is it any wonder that purchasers
who feel 'short changed' following this fiasco are looking for
redress?

Many people wuld just rather that Vista and Office 2007 (with
its .docx etc formats) would just go away, or even better just never
happened. Windows XP, Office XP/2003 and computers with P4 processors
and 250 - 500M memory remain perfectly adequate to get the job done.

There is also the environment to think of - forcing computers
prematurely into obsolesence means wasted resources and more scrap
(with obnoxious substances) to contend with.

Re: The Vista Capable mess: Intel pushes, Microsoft bends
 

"peterwn" <peterwn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:912f7a78-6e3e-4edc-9078-71861dba3782@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 8, 9:29 am, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "Craig Shore" <craigsh...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>
>> news:sj13t3dv5umprb9alf8p9nh5e3t6mhce5i@4ax.com...
>>
>> > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 00:39:28 +1300, "~misfit~"
>> > <misfit6...@yahoot.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >>Somewhere on teh intarweb "Craig Shore" typed:
>> >>> Not sure if this has been posted / talked about here or not, but when
>> >>> I followed Lawrence's Shuttle article to the ars technica web site,
>> >>> I also wound up reading this article which some of you might find
>> >>> interesting.
>>
>> >>>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-capable-debac...
>>
>> >>Thanks for that. Interesting indeed....
>>
>> > I wonder what Intel had over MS that they would cave like that.
>>
>> A shortage of expensive WVDDM-compliant chipsets? Knowledge that no one
>> else
>> had a better solution to offer?
>
> Which was the vendors' problem (both hardware and software) at the
> time, not the consumers' problem.
>

Fault, you mean, not "problem". As in -- It was the vendors' fault, not the
consumers' fault.

> No one really wanted or wants Vista - the whole thing was a vendor
> push at the time to stimulate hardware and software sales.

If no one really wanted Vista, then the push to sell "Vista capable"
machines would have failed and no consumers would have been harmed in the
process. However, I'm quite sure the class action is arguing the opposite --
that consumers very much wanted Vista, with all the benfits advertised, but
they instead received machines that were never designed to run that
operating system. Shame on Microsoft, and shame on their oem partners.

> It has
> gone rather badly haywire and has left a whole lot of disgruntled
> purchasers and users in the wake. Is it any wonder that purchasers
> who feel 'short changed' following this fiasco are looking for
> redress?

No, not at all.

> Many people wuld just rather that Vista and Office 2007 (with
> its .docx etc formats) would just go away, or even better just never
> happened.
>
> Windows XP, Office XP/2003 and computers with P4 processors
> and 250 - 500M memory remain perfectly adequate to get the job done.
>
> There is also the environment to think of - forcing computers
> prematurely into obsolesence means wasted resources and more scrap
> (with obnoxious substances) to contend with.

If your budget is limited, I can certainly undertstand the desire not to
upgrade. Suit yourself, because there's certainly plenty of free software
around. But there's no sense in trying to make a virtue out of necessity.
The new hardware has become much more energy-efficient -- if you're serious
about conserevation, you'll lose that P4 hog for starters

Re: The Vista Capable mess: Intel pushes, Microsoft bends
 

Craig Shore wrote:
> Not sure if this has been posted / talked about here or not, but when
> I followed Lawrence's Shuttle article to the ars technica web site,
> I also wound up reading this article which some of you might find
> interesting.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...oft-bends.html
>
>

Good that at least some employees were thinking straight....pity they
did not carry the day....I wonder if this leaves MS open to a suit from
HP....such public information means HP are made to look like a bunch of
dummies in public....if it remained sealed/unknown HP would not have
lost huge face, this way....ouch

regards

Thing

Re: The Vista Capable mess: Intel pushes, Microsoft bends
 

"thingy" <thingy@not.here.commy> wrote in message
news:7avda5-8vp.ln1@news.vuw.ac.nz...
> Craig Shore wrote:
>> Not sure if this has been posted / talked about here or not, but when
>> I followed Lawrence's Shuttle article to the ars technica web site,
>> I also wound up reading this article which some of you might find
>> interesting.
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...oft-bends.html
>>
>>
>
> Good that at least some employees were thinking straight....pity they did
> not carry the day....I wonder if this leaves MS open to a suit from
> HP....such public information means HP are made to look like a bunch of
> dummies in public....if it remained sealed/unknown HP would not have lost
> huge face, this way....ouch
>

Let's not pretend that HP, or any of the other oem vendors, were innocent
here. They had almost 2 years to voice their objections, and they were at
all times free to withdraw from this bogus marketing scheme.