MS: "We really botched this."

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Blinky the Shark, Feb 13, 2008.

  1. Blinky the Shark, Feb 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Blinky the Shark

    richard Guest

    Amazing how these "emails" and memoranda things always show up on
    somebody's blog but are never seen anywhere else like in the media.

    These type of things can easily be fabricated and then "attributed to"
    such an such a person. And of course, it can be taken out of context
    and exploited to mean something entirely different.

    Like a movie reviewer says, "It is the worst movie of the year" and
    advertisers hype "movie of the year".
    richard, Feb 13, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Blinky the Shark

    Mara Guest

    Excuse me for just a second.


    Carry on.
    Mara, Feb 13, 2008
  4. Blinky the Shark

    Whiskers Guest

    I doubt if there's anything inherently wrong with the /machines/
    Whiskers, Feb 13, 2008
  5. It's from a class action suit. You'd know that if you read the article.
    The mainstream media don't cover class action suits very often/well.
    You might want to read the article.
    Try reading the article.

    Or the newspaper it cites:

    As for "the media", Computer World (the first link) is part of the medium
    "nationally distrubuted magazines" and The Seattle Post Intlligencer (the
    second link) is part of the medium "newspapers".
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 13, 2008
  6. The meaning is - how surprising! - explained in the article, so there's
    really no /need/ for guessing.
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 13, 2008
  7. Blinky the Shark

    catchme Guest

    actually, the blogger cites his source as coming from media- the Seattle
    Post Intelligencer.
    catchme, Feb 13, 2008
  8. Blinky the Shark

    VanguardLH Guest

    It's a blog. They aren't written using the same standards as for
    journalists. Blogs are hardly "articles" in the same sense as those
    reported via the media.

    I thought most class action suits required a public notice. Don't see
    a link in that "article" to the description of the class action suit.
    Could be that no one has yet transcribed it but it opens the distinct
    possible of misrepresentation.

    "Windows Vista Capable" PCs, which can run only the most basic version
    of Vista, are "junk," with Jim Allchin, then co-president of
    Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, saying in an email, "We
    really botched this."

    So what is so hard to figure out? Lots of users try to install an OS
    on very low-end crap hardware with the result that the OS and apps
    will run slow, if at all. What it seems is that the minimum
    requirements for Vista were set too low. And if you don't have the
    requisite hardware for a feature then it is obvious that the feature
    will be unavailable. For example, if you don't have a decent video
    card, you don't get their Aero UI. Same happens when you try to run
    Vista in a virtual machine since most have some rather old hardware
    emulated in that VM. Christ, what boob has ever gone by the *minimum*
    system requirements as a standard as to whether the OS will run well
    on that hardware? Boobs, cheap boobs, that's who. The same ones that
    buy $40 vacuum cleaners and wonder why they won't pick up pet hair.
    Look at any product. There is always some cheapest piece of shit that
    some boob is willing to buy.

    You also have to remember that all these customers that bought Vista
    did so without any clue as to WHY they would need Vista. It's new and
    that's the only reason why they got it.
    VanguardLH, Feb 13, 2008
  9. Of course, you gloss over the fact that this report is quoting a
    court record, which is pubicly available. It's not
    "fabricated," unlike the "logic" you use to criticize it.

    }:) Christopher Jahn

    The lion and the calf shall lie down together but the calf won't
    get much sleep. (Woody Allen)
    Christopher Jahn, Feb 14, 2008
  10. And, in keeping with that, I didn't create the thread to point a finger at
    the computers. I created it to point a figure at MS -- that's why my
    Subject was (and my tease included) "MS: 'We Really Botched This.", not
    "Vista Computers Are Junk".
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 14, 2008
  11. Which article I also linked, in a followup post.
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 14, 2008
  12. You're thinking he actually read the article. :)
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 14, 2008
  13. Blinky the Shark

    chuckcar Guest

    So people will buy computers as cheaply as you can make them. No news
    there, just the bell curve in action.
    chuckcar, Feb 14, 2008
  14. The point was the Vista-ready rating scheme, as the article explains. Not
    that anyone bothered to read the article.
    Blinky the Shark, Feb 14, 2008
  15. Blinky the Shark

    catchme Guest

    actually ppl. change their o/s on a variety of factors, including the
    hyped features of the latest thing, showing up in reviews on print and
    online- sometimes even in tech tv shows... so much eye candy that the
    home user becomes instantly convinced they cannot do without, and so
    feel ripped off when the software they bought which claims to
    even when they ensured that their hardware matched the requirements!
    and to top it off, the distributor claims its "their fault" (that of the
    buyer) for not buying the most advanced machine available to run those
    glorious features.
    if i were to have bought a car off the lot with a sticker on it
    advertising that it was "ferrari capable" (i.e. capable of running a
    ferrari), then i would damn well be able to not only bolt the engine in,
    but able to drive it without exploding!
    Also, that that "ferrari capable" car not require the addition of any
    after-market parts to achieve driveable status.
    Furthermore, once I have BOUGHT the engine, why NOT get under the bonnet
    and tinker with it like a greasemonkey would?
    why accept anything "as-is"...this runs entirely contrary to the whole
    "home-brew" concept that saw the personal computer become a reality in
    the first place!
    catchme, Feb 14, 2008
  16. Blinky the Shark

    chuckcar Guest

    Well, it's something that's *always* been going on. There were people
    running 95 on 486's with 8 meg of ram. It doesn't run very well, but if
    you're cheap it will run. I don't see a *reason* mentioned. Possibly
    nothing more than time/memory/swap/processor power contraints. Certainly
    intruction set limitations haven't been a factor since the time of the
    386/486. The response from GregM backs me up.
    chuckcar, Feb 14, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
There are no similar threads yet.