My compliments, Joe on some good tight writing that is helping me to better understand this thickening, unfolding plot.

Joe says: "I was a working analyst at the time. The story told by the e-mails is different from the one I got from Microsoft in early 2006. I was briefed that Windows Ready was the main program and that the company always planned two programs. Microsoft spokespeople also explained that the Capable program came at the request OEMs, which wanted a certification that would allow them to sell lower-cost PCs with Windows Basic. That story is irreconcilable with the one told by the timeline"

Come on, Joe. Are you telling us they lied? Microsoft lied to you, a working analyst? That can't be true, because if they would lie to you with the kind of reach you have, just imagine what any poor shmuck with no recourse was told.

And, as for what your lawyer friend said:
"If that were the case, that would be a serious [legal] problem for two quasi-monopolies to overstate the art in the industry," Goldman said.

My dear man, "overstating the art" is what Microsoft has been doing for almost a decade now.

The irony of this all is that Beryl (compiz fusion) is a better visual experience than Aero and it runs fine on the 915 chipset.

Personally, I don't think there was any deliberate attempt to protect monopolies here, I think it's just a good ol' fashioned clusterf**k.

I'm not being an apologist here, mis-management is no excuse - but its not the same thing as deliberate criminal actions.

Incidently, I've been using Vista Ulimate on and nVidia 680i mobo with 8800 GTS GPU, and it runs so nicely, I wondered at the extend of negativity towards Vista. Reading those figures about the how many PC's aren't really equipped to provide to intended experience, I have to say I am a little surprised its not been more roundly rejected.

I'd love not know how things would have played out if Microsoft had stuck to single higher requirement. Also not well, I suspect.

Now that "Vista-gate" has come home to roost, Microsoft can wave bye-bye to even more of the slender thread of good will it may have built up within the professional tech world and among savvy computer users.

What makes me kinda sad is there really are some sharp and dedicated people within the company who have worked hard to put together some pretty nice products. Office, and OneNote come to mind to me as a home user.

Okay, so: Microsoft adjusted its Vista plans based on the hardware that 30% of a particular market segment is running. And that's criminal?

Microsoft allowed one of its most vital partners to contribute to the specifications of its principal product--something that every company does, by necessity. And that's a crime?

The only valid question of criminal (or even unethical) behavior that I can imagine is whether or not Microsoft committed fraud in its Vista marketing. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but these emails don't answer that question in any way--they merely point out that Microsoft allowed the market and a very important partner to determine the architecture of an operating system.

In fact, the more I read this post, the angrier I become. Microsoft made it quite clear, as far as I can tell, that a very select group of systems would be capable of running Aero Glass, and indeed there are a number of UI options available for systems that can't run Aero Glass. Why is this a problem? Isn't this exactly how an OS is supposed to be constructed--to take advantage of more powerful hardware when it's available, but to drop down to lower levels where it's not?

How in the world could it be criminal that "The seemingly sudden turnabout in January 2006 established a lower standard, and one inadequate to meet Vista's real world requirements." This was clearly occuring because of the state of the graphics market at the time. What was Microsoft supposed to do--drop Aero Glass completely and only offer Vista with the lower graphics standard? Or, what was Intel supposed to do--drop its 915 chipset and only offer a more expensive option that was capable of running Aero Glass?

This entire argument makes no sense. If you can show proof that Microsoft misled the market by stating that certain hardware could run Aero Glass when it really couldn't, then fine. I'll bet you can't, though, because I numerous statements from Microsoft, its partners, and the press on how systems would require higher level of graphics power to run Aero Glass, and indeed I remember picking a notebook in January of 2006 based in large part on its being ABLE to run Aero Glass. If Microsoft were being deceptive in its marketing, how could I possibly have known to do this?

And, finally, I find this offensive: "So, less than half the notebooks shipping for holiday 2006, when Microsoft offered Vista upgrade coupons, were fully capable of running the operating system. That's a shocking number." Give me a break, will you? That's like complaining today that only systems costing $5000 or more are fully capable of running Crysis. That's not a knock against the game, it's a mere statement about the current state-of-the-art in PC hardware.

Of course there's hardware that can't utilize every feature of a new operating system, or a new game, or any other piece of software--that's how it's always been, and always will be. Otherwise, there would be no progress in the industry at all.

The only way to avoid this is to hold a complete monopoly over the hardware and software, which is, of course, what Apple enjoys.

I think the comment from Gerardo Tasistro bears some thought here :

"The irony of this all is that Beryl (compiz fusion) is a better visual experience than Aero and it runs fine on the 915 chipset."
--------------------------------------------------
This is a very true statement, that anyone who runs Linux with Beryl knows. So the question has to be; "why does Aero on Vista need so many graphic horsepower, just to run?"

My anwser is it dosen't. Just like DirectX 10 could run on XP, but MS chosed not to let it. Aero, however, is another can of worms, as it was designed to run in the new protected pipeline video subsystems in Vista, which is just another phase that boils down to DRM. Although the DRM in Vista goes even further into the audio subsystems, and drivers/hardware itself. The DRM is the real reason that the 915 chipset is lacking.

The only reason you all of a sudden need all this new horsepower to run Vi$ta and Aero, is DRM. You are paying extra for Microsoft and Hollywood to control what you can do with your computers. Enjoy.

Chips: I won't argue the technical merits of what you say. For all I know, you're entirely correct that this is what Aero is intended to do.

However, your last statement is false. DRM does NOT control what you can do with your computer. It controls what you can do with protected content (which by definition is not your property because its creator decided not to make it so). You remain completely free to do whatever you want with whatever content you create or that someone decides to provide access to without protection.

Mark, when DRM doesn't let me use my TV or projector to view a high quality DVD I just bought because neither have a secure digital channel, then yes Hollywood is telling me what I can and can not do with it. They are preemptively accusing me of a crime, limiting the my hardware usage (which was not limited pre-Vista) and forcing me to upgrade to new hardware to see things. And I don't mean computer hardware I mean home entertainment hardware.

Overall we have seen a decline in our freedom to use our hardware and no decline in the amount of piracy out there. Is this working? IMHO, no. It is only alienating the legit users.

Sony already alienated me as a consumer. Blockbuster is on the way there. Why do I have to see a "Piracy is a crime" clip on every rented movie? Are Blockbuster's movies bootlegged? And Microsoft, well that gets used when I have projects with Microsoft shops. Otherwise I'll stick to Mac (which is just as DRMish, but a whole lot better user experience) or Linux.

Gerardo - I think you are describing the unavoidable growing pains of an industry that simply must do something to protect intellectual property. This wasn't an issue in the past, when VHS recordings were very poor substitutes for the real thing.

Today, it's possible--no, it's relatively trivial--to make and distribute near-perfect digital copies of protected works. If you don't want professional content to disappear, or to see a reversion to patron style of artistic development, then sure--fight against DRM with all your heart.

I'm sure it's an inconvenience, but really: is it anything other than a technical problem that's causing you to be unable to watch your DVD? Is it that Hollywood is telling you that you can't watch your DVD, or rather that hardware manufacturers simply haven't done a good enough job to make everything work together?

Regarding not seeing a decline in piracy, I agree. However, that's because the technologies used haven't been effective--I think in part because they haven't been aggressive enough.

A sign of the times, that perhaps Vista standalone boxed versions are doing even worse than the 20% share it had held. Is that share even slipping now? As 80% get Vista because they have little choice, as it comes on the computer they buy.

Microsoft chops Vista retail prices

http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9882510-56.html

Quotes from the link; "In what may be an unprecedented decision, Microsoft said Thursday that it plans to lower the retail prices for several flavors of Windows Vista.

For those in the U.S., Microsoft is cutting prices only on the higher-end versions of Vista, and only for the upgrade version used to move from XP or another copy of Vista. The suggested price for Vista Ultimate drops to $219 from $299, while Home Premium falls to $129, from $159."
--------------------------------------------------
I have been predicting that M$ would have to reduce its price of Windows. After all, the real competition is Free GNU/Linux, Free BSD, Free OpenSolarius, Pirated XP. Pirated Vi$ta, Cheaper Mac OSX. So how does MS justifly even this reduced price against the competition, which produces a better free product? The price still needs to come down, and a lot.

Mark, in the past VHS recordings were the real thing. It was the best you had and everyone got bootleg copies of them. Then DVDs became the real thing and we got copies of them too. You think things will be different with BluRay?

In regards to your second paragraph. You are absolutely right. If it is so trivial to make perfect digital copies of protected works, why do we keep paying such high prices for DVDs? They should sell for a buck each by now. After all the market is growing and as production increases so should price drop. It happens with CPUs (which have at most a two year life span) why doesn't it happen with digital media.

Now unless those DVDs got beamed down from Mars I'm sure its Hollywood who is responsible for telling me I can't watch it. Or the record companies for that matter. After all they made them.

Finally I do want to see an en to current artistic development and I'm glad it is coming to an end in some areas. A break away from the classic "professional content" is giving way to newer and fresher content. People are finding new ways to publish their work which circumvents the old establish system of production and distribution.

Vista was originally supposed to be released prior to the Christmas shopping season '06, but for reasons of our own we had to put off the release until '07 (for Vista this was the 17th and last time we changed the release date).
The PC vendors went wild, Mikey Dell fell to his knees before me and pleaded for help, "Half of our sales are during this quarter, people won't buy! They'll wait! Oh my God! Oh my God!"
I calmly got him up and said, "Really Mike! I'm not your God! But I do know what you mean, we have a plan! Buck up dude."
Still sniffling he whimpered, "Thank you God! What's you plan Bill?"
I Replied, "Stop calling me that!" I sat him down in MY chair and explained, "You guys can just slap a sticker on the low-end crap! Have it say 'Windows Vista CapAble', the half decent ones slap 'Premium Ready" on 'em!"
Sounding worried he stuttered, "those boat anchors won't run Vista".
I looked him straight in the eye, "I have the Nasal toned Nerds (NtN's) down in the basement stripping Vista down to Windows 95! We are gonna' call it Vista Home edition, we'll let them upgrade to that!", we both had a good little chuckle. I went over to him, grabbed a pen and paper and wrote - "CapAble"
I winked at him and said "get it?" He stared at it for a few seconds then smiled and slooowly said, "yeah, Cap Able! ... able but with a cap!" He stood and high fived me, he screamed, "Jesus! You are slick!"

... maybe I am, maybe I am!

"Mark Coppock :

Gerardo - I think you are describing the unavoidable growing pains of an industry that simply must do something to protect intellectual property."

Mark, the "Industry" you, and they, we, are talking about here, doing something to protect IP from its users, is MICROSOFT. Not Hollywood. MICROSOFT is doing the DRM embedded into Vista, not Hollywood, although they will have a switch to decide later what you can watch in Vistaland.

Now, MS should be looked at more about this DRM. which Joe Willcox never wants to discuss. After all, MSFT has its tenicles in everything these days, including Hollywood media. In effect, MSFT is a Hollywood Media company, as well as a major news outlet. Just look at MSNBC as an example.

DRM was put in Vista to satisfy the needs of the industry rather the needs of its customers. What about my needs? DRM does not belong in ANY operating system. While XP plays DRM product as well as non DRM product, the operating system is not DRM laden. It is the DRM in Vista that makes one needs high hardware requirements just to run it.

The last thing I want is a slow running, bloated, DRM laden, incompatible, buggy Operating system just so I might be able to watch a Blue Ray or some hi-def video on some cramped 19" computer screen.

I'd rather just buy a stand alone player for my hi def TV and have a operating system for my computer that actually works like its supposed to without having bloated DRM spyware on it.

If anyone did not notice, DRM in music is about dead. DRM is and wasn't ever popular with the public, yet MS decided against conventional wisdom and forced the will of the entertainment industry and came up with this bloated mess called Vista.

Microsoft's best bet is to bury Vista, extend XP until Windows 7 is released. MS needs to get its head out of the sand and realize that more and more government agencies are moving to open source. Vista did nothing for Microsoft except set them back a year or two.

By the time Win 7 gets released more government agencies, governments, and IT will have moved to open source.Proprietary, bloated and expensive are on the way out if anyone has not noticed.

Microsoft the "White collar mafia"

It is possible that in the future, when remembering Ms, we think of them not as merely Ms, but as a the 'MSmafia' or the 'White collar mafia'

Why could we say Ms is a new mafia?

-they have deep political involvement.
-legions of lawyers.
-they get off scot free of any offence they might have committed (thanks to effectively 'convincing' witnesses by any means necessary: read as out of court settlements or fine-payment)
-exterminating rivals.
-use of propaganda through 'bought' press (Ms' bloggers),etc.

Reasons for which this might've happened:
-a new unopened field with barely any regulations.
-abundant money.
-desire to maintain power at any cost.

We could remember that Mafias generally appear when a window of opportunity is present(“Opportunity makes the thief”).

-Thoughts: when a new society is being built, or a new field developed, we can differentiate between which is a positive force and which a negative. Whilst the first strives towards common good (yes, its own too), the second just looks to fulfil its own objectives without caring about the means it has got to recur to to get them.

Well, these comments have gotten a bit off-topic, and I've contributed to that. I'll only say to Gerardo: only a small part of the overall cost of a DVD comes from manufacturing the DVD, or even of distributing it. Surely you know that. My point about how trivial it is to make copies of it was to point out the reason for DRM.

I don't think this is a meaningful venue for discussing the topic further. And, it's just turned into an MS-bashing thread, which isn't worth the bits it's written in.

Mark Coppock says,

"My point about how trivial it is to make copies of it was to point out the reason for DRM.

I don't think this is a meaningful venue for discussing the topic further. And, it's just turned into an MS-bashing thread, which isn't worth the bits it's written in."

I disagree respectfully.

Actually if it informs reader about what MSFT is up to, then its worth a lot more than the bits it's written on. I maintain that the DRM ebedded thoughout Vista is what is causing the code bloat. slowness, and general unstability on most machines.

Also I maintain that MSFT is a media company, and a new outlet as well. And we will see more involvement from MSFT in this field. This is the reason they (MSFT) wants to be able to control what you can and cannot play on your computer, that and the fact that MSFT has patents on many different types of computer media file types.

A ditzy diatribe on DRM can't take away the glaring elephant in the room. Vista was holding their graphic specification to a high performance level up to November 2005. After December 2005, Microsoft was taking orders from Intel... and most likely involuntarily.

Who had the most to gain? Intel. Microsoft had the most to lose and it shows through the degree of desperation and risk to business in the move: that is what shows who was on the driving end of this "VistaGate".

Now, the question is, how could Intel hold enough information over Microsoft's head to make Microsoft come up with and seal that kind of deal. And how high up did the OK have to come from??? In both companies?

Pefro: I'm confused. What exactly did Microsoft do wrong here? Are you saying that Microsoft was fraudulent in its marketing of what systems Vista was capable of running on with all features enabled? That's the only thing I can think of that one can accuse Microsoft of doing that could be criminal or even unethical.

If that's what you're saying, than I guess I just don't get it. I remember Microsoft being very clear about what systems would run with all features enable, in particular Aero Glass. I was very clear on the fact that a system with the Intel 915 chipset would not run Aero, or, more specifically, wouldn't have WDDM drivers.

Here's the first link on a very simple search for "Intel 915 chipset and Aero Glass":

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=2&SiteID=1&PageID=2&PostID=2798835

The link reproduces an FAQ discussing how the 915 chipset DOES NOT enable Aero Glass OR the WDDM driver model because its performance is lacking. The post itself is from May 2007, but I'm fairly certain the FAQ is from much earlier.

The next link is from a forum toward the end of 2006, where it's clear that support of Aero Glass, or at least the WDDM model (which is required for Aero Glass) was lacking on the 915 chipset.

Here's a quick quote from an Intel person:

"The short version (if you're impatient): The WDDM Vista driver spec came out long after the 915 design was complete and in production, and even though it has advanced features like Pixel Shader 2.0, there is a missing hardware feature, called the Hardware Scheduler, that 915 lacks, and without that, it doesn't meet the WDDM spec from Microsoft, and we (Intel) can't release a WDDM driver for it."

That seems to show that Microsoft did NOT do what otherwise seems implied in this whole kerfuffle, specifically that Microsoft somehow changed the WDDM specs to accomodate the 915. It rather sounds like Microsoft did NOT change the spec, thus rendering the 915 unable to utilize WDDM. Again, my question is: what's all of this about? Is the implication that Microsoft and/or Intel misrepresented the capability of the OS and the chipset to run Aero Glass together?

Here's a link from May 2006 that discusses the differences between the Vista-Capable and Premium-Ready specifications. To me, it's quite clear that there IS a difference and that one of the differences is the ability to run the Aero UI.

To me, this whole thing seems like more of an attempt to attack the big guys with deep pockets, based on the same sort of litigious and entitlement mentalities that pay millions of dollars for some spilt hot coffee, and a bunch of whining children, than a real case of fraud, collusion, and, it would appear, mass murder.

Show me a Vista-Capable sticker that didn't reference the limitations that went with it, and I'll perhaps buy the idea that there was deceptive marketing going on here. But so far, to me, it seems like another case of Big Brother protecting the little guy from having to do even a tiny bit of research into the products they buy.

Sorry, forgot the second link that I referenced in my previous post:

http://www.vistax64.com/vista-hardware-devices/7003-intel-915-aero-2.html

Okay, sorry again. Here's the OTHER link that I reference but didn't post. Yeesh.

http://www.news.com/Microsoft-Set-your-systems-for-Vista/2100-1016_3-6073779.html

Mark, I'm most curious about the period between November 2005 and January 2006 - the period between 1) Microsoft demonstrably seeing and showing the Vista specifications as aiming for a high performance across the breadth of the software distribution and 2) Microsoft lowering the standards to include a supplier's inventory that would subvert the experience expected by every customer buying a hardware platform and software designed to work.

I'll leave whether laws were broken or not to the US and EU birds circling overhead the Microsoft news feed like buzzards in a thermal.

What I'm looking for is the motivation that would cause Microsoft to shift their position so quickly between November 2005 and January 2006 on something that was obviously such a disappointing decision to engineering and marketing.

I'm watching for the essential reasons in Microsoft's inability to deliver on technology Intel was thrilled with until they were told that wasn't the technology that was going to be showing up in Vista... for one reason or another.

No doubt Intel would be severely disappointed and would request some help in recouping what would eventually become lost opportunity. Would Microsoft accommodate? It looks like there was strong reason to convince them to accommodate. And the question here is: Why?

I don't care who did it. I don't care whether laws are broken. I don't care who has to face the music and I don't care who has to dance. I only want to know "why?".

You can go ahead and save your "was there a crime" script for those that are concerned about whether Microsoft has violated yet another set of laws.

But, I would appreciate it if you can explain "why?" Microsoft would have done what they did for Intel when it was clearly not something that would end up useful for Microsoft.

"The link reproduces an FAQ discussing how the 915 chipset DOES NOT enable Aero Glass OR the WDDM driver model because its performance is lacking. The post itself is from May 2007, but I'm fairly certain the FAQ is from much earlier."

Well, that certainly is the question, isn't it? When did everyone realize this question of whether or not the computer you bought (and probably can't return) will not run the flashy view and functionality of the Vista you see in the commercials?

You say you're "fairly certain" the FAQ is from much earlier than May 2007. How certain are you? And how well did Microsoft communicate what is obviously a subject that stirred up a whole lot of talk... and the controversy doesn't seem to have cropped up until people actually buying machines and not being happy with what they bought.

I happen to be one of those unhappy people who wishes I could just bite the bullet and replace the crapped out LCD on a Sony VAIO running XP, and I would drop (accidentally of course) this new Compaq running a thoroughly inadequate pile of Vista on a very disappointing computer response time and service.

So, like I said, Microsoft had to turn around in December, say, and run like hell and they didn't mind how bad it looked, it had to be done with no explanation at all.

If you would like to examine the subject on a timeline basis as Joe is preparing to do, I think a meshing series of events and occassions will surprise the average reader, and, meanwhile your law explanations will inform others who can come to some pretty sophisticated conclusions given the usefulness of Joe's forum here.

And, one last thing. How is it when people like Joe are horrified and saying Microsoft screwed the pooch and industry experts are aghast, you can flitter in with a very artful (but somehow misplaced in time) response.

How do we have it your explanation and the explanations of those who've been watching the industry for years are so opposed as to sound like they're from two completely different events?

I think we all know the answer, but, we would like you to tell us just how deep you are in the Intel legal department. Or, are you a technologist?

By the way, the "pefro" typo showed me something I didn't know about Joe's comment page. You can write any name you want in - there's no registration so I might as well point out my usual posting name elsewhere if I can get an unhassled use of that username at a forum. It's difficult so we'll see how long I last here.

But, back to you, Mark. I certainly would like to know how an arrangement such as happened would be advantageous to Vista. Are you saying both sides in this situation made a wonderful decision?

chips. Could you give tell us the most basic explanation why DRM and 915 don't go together? And why DRM slows Vista? We're not talking content like videos and audio. The slowness is in the reponse of applications as they end up hanging on the needs of the graphics package and that is what is slowing the applications down.

How does DRM fit in with graphics for applications?

Pedro (sorry for the type, just noticed): I'm certainly not affiliated with Intel or Microsoft, but I have been in the industry for about 20 years. So, I'm not ignorant of these issues.

My point is this: So what if Microsoft changed Vista's specs along the way to product, for whatever reason? Companies do that all the time. I think you're forgetting that the Intel 915 chipset, which wasn't fully capable of running WDDM, simply represented a very large segment of the market. So, Microsoft either had to ignore that segment completely, or define a different Vista experience.

Again, if someone produces evidence that the "Vista-Capable" designation (a marketing designation, don't forget) was deceptive, then there's an issue. And, it won't matter WHY Microsoft made that decision, unless the courts want to say that Intel is guilty of inducing Microsoft to commit the act.

If that evidence doesn't surface, though, I'm left wondering what, exactly, is the issue? Like I said, I remember an incredible amount of buzz around the issue of what systems will support Aero Glass, and I remember there being all sorts of talk about what systems will fully support Vista--and thinking that they were, at the time, rather high-end systems.

But, again, the very fact that Microsoft changed the Vista specs is not at all uncommon and I just can't see what this is all about. And speaking of the industry "experts," I think it's fair to say that they spend a great deal of their time looking for something that any successful company has done wrong.

It's a bit of a leap from "Walmart disagreed with Microsoft's terminology" to "Microsoft wanted the confusion." And, it's a huge leap from there to "Microsoft purposefully misled the consumer," which would be the crime here.

And, Microsoft did NOT "cerfify" the 915 chipset. In fact, that's been a point of contention for some people, that Intel couldn't make a WDDM driver for the 915 chipset because of missing hardware capabilities, and thus the 915 can't run Aero Glass even though it might have the horsepower to do so.

Finally, the 915 chipset IS Vista-capable. It runs Vista with no problems. Rather, it's not Vista Premium Ready, which is the level required for full functionality, including Aero Glass. To me, that's the important distinction, and in fact it's entirely appropriate to say that a system is Vista-Capable even if it can't run Aero Glass. And, in fact, a non-Premium Ready machine gets just about the same experience as it would get running Windows XP, and so what's the difference for the average consumer?

Except, perhaps, that the complexity of purchasing a computer requires one to give it some thought and to learn something, which apparently people with today's entitlement mentality don't feel they would have to do. Hence, let's blame Intel and Microsoft for people's ignorance, and let's use a few emails amongst the millions of emails created by Intel and Microsoft every year (or month?) to define their entire relationship and the development of Vista over a number of years.

Quote;

Mark Coppock :

"It's a bit of a leap from "Walmart disagreed with Microsoft's terminology" to "Microsoft wanted the confusion." And, it's a huge leap from there to "Microsoft purposefully misled the consumer," which would be the crime here.

And, Microsoft did NOT "cerfify" the 915 chipset. In fact, that's been a point of contention for some people, that Intel couldn't make a WDDM driver for the 915 chipset because of missing hardware capabilities, and thus the 915 can't run Aero Glass even though it might have the horsepower to do so."
--------------------------------------------------
So the key is here, does the court go with "MS terminology" as Mark seems to suggest, or does the court and users go with the Webster's dictionary meaning of the word, "capable."

I submitt that if Webster prevails as the standard for the English Language in a court of law, then MS is going to lose this case. And once you add in the "emails" that Joe is talking about, MS is in serious trouble.

I agree with the hand.

"Successful" companies don't have to resort to underhanded and anti-competitive and deceptive business to conduct a "successful" business.

Mark, you said; "My point is this: So what if Microsoft changed Vista's specs along the way to product, for whatever reason? Companies do that all the time. I think you're forgetting that the Intel 915 chipset, which wasn't fully capable of running WDDM, simply represented a very large segment of the market. So, Microsoft either had to ignore that segment completely, or define a different Vista experience."

1) "So what if Microsoft changed Vista's specs along the way to product, for whatever reason? Companies do that all the time."
Companies change specs on products in some sort of rational process. Companies don't always do that all the time. The ones who are in trouble or are doing something underhanded do things that can most likely be described in a transcript neutral setting but, when seen under a candle of common-sense and logic, they look screwy. This one is screwy.

2) "I think you're forgetting that the Intel 915 chipset, which wasn't fully capable of running WDDM, simply represented a very large segment of the market.
So because an inferior chip made up a large part of the market, Microsoft somehow reasoned they would make more money by certifying Vista for these low pass graphics drivers. So, in a sense, they decided to sell Vista for low-ball graphics and they called that "Vista Home Basic". Sure. That makes sense to provide an OS that touts the visual interface as a must have and then sell a version without that feature. To you, it's sheer economics. Well, please explain how a company that's supposed to sell a premium experience software is going to do that by selling an inferior version of the product to push sales an old chipset that's destined to provide a substandard experience.

3) "Microsoft either had to ignore that segment completely, or define a different Vista experience"
They could have easily sold more of the XP for those machines (which were perfectly happy with the 915 chipset). This throws additional demonstration of disturbance in the Intel mindset. They expected to have great sales on all their latest chips with a Vista launch. That is, with a Vista launch that had things like Longhorn in it. But, facing the launch of what came out as Vista in 2006, Intel would have definitely been able to track a projected failure to meet expected chip sales by a lackluster Vista as oppossed to the Digital Decade vision Bill Gates promised all along.

Most people don't care on the "why" in things until everyone is asking "why?" when they hear what happened.

Why is an area that is the last bastion; The last ditch defense for a lost argument is always "Well, do you think these people are stupid?" "Why would they do something like that?"

Examining why smart people act even more stupid than somebody who would have committed an error on purpose is what always leads to what's called a "motive". A motive is a force that will make individuals work in certain ways.

Patterns happen.

VARs Vindicated By Microsoft Vista E-mails

http://www.crn.com/software/206901121

quotes from the link;

"Intel and Microsoft have both been in the spotlight over legal issues in recent weeks. European Commission regulators earlier this month raided Intel's Germany offices as part of the EC's ongoing investigation of the chipmaker for anti-competitive practices. Intel faces a closed-door hearing on those proceedings in Brussels on March 11 and 12.

The European Consumers' Organization (BEUC) is interested in the discovery unsealed Wednesday in the U.S. class action suit, said Cornelia Kutterer, senior legal advisor at the Brussels-based consumer watchdog.

"In such a high-profile case, where a dominant firm squeezes out a competitor, it has significant effect on price competition, innovation and consumer choice," said Kutterer.

Intel also faces several anti-trust lawsuits in the United States, including a case brought against the chipmaker by its chief rival in the x86 microprocessor market, Advanced Micro Devices. Depositions by major witnesses in the AMD suit, including Michael Dell, are scheduled for mid-March, according to legal sources.

Microsoft, for its part, was slapped with a record $1.35 billion fine by European regulators Wednesday for failing to comply with orders issued in the landmark 2004 anti-trust ruling against the software giant."
--------------------------------------------------
The EU seems to be seriously going after M$, and they need it.

EU Slams Microsoft With Record $1.35 Billion

Finehttp://crn.com/software/206900563

Quotes;

"European Union regulators bared their teeth in stunning fashion Wednesday, fining Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT) a record 899 million euros ($1.35 billion) for failure to comply with the European Commission's 2004 anti-trust ruling against the software giant.

The fine, the largest single penalty ever levied against one company by the EU for anti-competitive practices, brings Microsoft's total bill for the landmark 2004 decision and later non-compliance rulings to nearly $2.5 billion. That figure includes the $723 million Microsoft was fined as result of the original EC decision and an additional $416.5 million in later penalties for non-compliance with orders to open key portions of its software to competitors trying to build compatible products.

The latest fine, associated with Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft's overcharging open-source developers for Windows server operating system communications protocols, was the summation of daily fines accrued from June 21, 2006 to October 21, 2007. Microsoft, which can appeal Wednesday's fine, fought the original 2004 ruling for years but appeared contrite after its appeal efforts ran aground with a ruling against the company by the European Court of First Instance last September."

We're not debating here whether what Microsoft did makes sense, is good for it or the industry, was smart or stupid, etc., etc. What we're debating is whether what Microsoft did was _illegal_. I submit that it's ludicrous to suppose that by introducing a poor product (which, I don't agree that Microsoft actually did), for whatever reason, Microsoft broke the law.

And, again, Microsoft DID NOT "certify" Vista for the 915 chipset. At worst, they simply changed their marketing for Vista, essentially telling people, "Here, this is a version of Vista that will run on lower-end systems. We're not going to REQUIRE you to upgrade your hardware to upgrade to Vista. We're going to charge you less, and we're going to create different levels of the product depending on what capabilities you want to purchase."

That's all they did. And again, only if Microsoft was deceptive in Marketing Vista should they be charged with a crime.

Mark Coppock says:
DRM does NOT control what you can do with your computer. It controls what you can do with protected content (which by definition is not your property because its creator decided not to make it so).
@Mark Coppock:
Not quite. When the advertisements of those owners of the protected content implore me to "Own the DVD!", they are saying that my purchase will cause me to own the DVD.
They don't say "License the DVD." They didn't say "Borrow the DVD". They didn't say "Lease the DVD". They say "OWN THE DVD".
No one has ever been able to tell me how these content owners can claim that I can own the DVD and yet I don't own the DVD but only license it under strict draconian terms. With my purchase:

I actually own the DVD and am therefore the content owner, or
The content owners are guilty of deceptive marketing practices.

The thugs running the Hollywood studios and claiming to be content owners cannot have it both ways.

Mark Coppock :
"And, again, Microsoft DID NOT "certify" Vista for the 915 chipset."

Unless I miss my guess, MSFT did certify the Vista driver for the 915 and 945 Intel Video chipsteps, as they do all drivers for Vista. MSFT has a certification program thats Manufacturers must submit to for testing and approval of drivers before getting certification for drivers, and in addition, the label Vista Crapable.

It is my understanding that Vista drivers must be certified by MSFT or they cannot be intstalled. Certification of the driver and then the Vista Label certification, is double proof of MSFT guilt in this matter. Plus the emails. End of Story, Mark, no matter how hard you try to put lipstick on this pig.

Vista’s Price Falls; How Long Before Yahoo’s Price Rises?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/vistas-price-falls-how-long-before-yahoos-price-rises/?ref=technology

Quotes from the link;
"The price people are willing to pay for software is coming down.

A software package — even an operating system — seems out of whack at $299 or even $159, when there is so much that can now be done free over the Web or through free downloads like iTunes and Google’s Picasa. Those prices also don’t really jibe with the cost of personal computers, which now start at $500.

Microsoft itself has already confronted this by creating the “Student and Teacher” version of Office. Now you can buy Word, Excel and PowerPoint (not Outlook) for $129 (plus whatever guilt you feel as you justify the purchase by saying that your spinning class at the gym makes you a student).

One look at Microsoft’s high profit margins certainly raises questions about how long this business model can continue before someone creates a more efficient model. The combination of the open source movement, the Web, and the advertising-supported software model epitomized by Google are starting to have the long-predicted effect.

So while the prices Microsoft can charge for its boxed software may be falling, the price it will pay for its own Web software and advertising play — Yahoo — is likely to rise."

Sorry, Mark. The hand slapped your position again. You certainly seem to be doing some lawyerly bending of small details to determine the readers' view.

Nope, no slappage yet. The 915 chipset did not receive WDDM certification, ever. That means, it can't run Aero Glass or anything that depends on it. So, given the context of Vista, Aero Glass, and the 915 chipset, I'd say that it's not mere semantics to point out that the 915 never was supposed to be certified, and never was. Let's not confuse the word, in this context, with digitally signed drivers, which are an entirely different thing.

And, I'm curious by chips' comment: "One look at Microsoft's high profit margins certainly raises questions about how long this business model can continue before someone creates a more efficient model." I'm not sure what that means--profitability and efficiency go hand-in-hand. I think what "more efficient" means is that someone doesn't make any profit. Of course, that's ludicrous, because Google, who is Microsoft's most meaningful competitor, likely makes even more profits than does Microsoft.

Well, Mark, we'll know your version works when Intel and Microsoft start feeding the industry your view through their network of journalists.

So far, how do you think your version is working?

Hey Mark Coppock.
Try to get it right when you say;
"And, I'm curious by chips' comment"

The comment you stated, is not mine at all. Its a quote from a link. Perhaps you should reread it. And do check out the link. Enjoy.

Also your point about Vista drivers being signed, while somewhat correct, is mostly misleading.

As to have a working Vista laptop, or computer, you will need to have Vista drivers for it, those approved, or signed, if you will, by MS.

Amazingly, its possible to get hardware that has a Vista Capable Label for it, that does not work with Vista, as there is not a driver yet.

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=390

Can A Graphics Card Be Vista-Certified Without A Working Driver?
--------------------------------------------------
While Mark is correct about the signing of Vista drivers, still I think the hand is basically correct, in that Micro$oft had to approve the drivers and/or the Capable Label. It becomes a play on the word signed or certified. Sort of like the meaning of the word Capable, which only the courts will know for sure.

Bet on the EU to follow up on this story.

Microsoft top brass 'burned' by Vista problems
-------
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/microsoft-bosses-burned-by-vista/2008/02/29/1204226975087.html
"But the emails show that it wasn't just end-users who were incensed by Vista's teething issues. In fact, Microsoft's top brass were fully aware of them from the outset."

"One executive, Mike Nash, complained he was "burned" so badly by compatibility issues he was left with "a $2100 email machine".

"Steven Sinofsky, the Microsoft executive in charge of Windows, struggled to even get his home printer working with Vista."
-------------

Mark, please don't counter my points with my own points. I know DVD manufacture costs are a small part of the total cost. That is exactly my point. They should cost less by now, but they don't. Prices are pretty much the same as 10 years ago.

My other point is why does DRM try to limit my hardware usage? And in the process leads me to have to acquire more expensive hardware.

Getting back to the matter of Vista. I do believe there was a deceptive marketing. After all prior to Vista there were two "commercial" Windows versions: XP Home and XP Pro. They both ran the same on the same hardware. Most differences were internal (network and user related).

Now comes Vista with a rainbow of options ( a bad idea to start with ) and people become confused. A great deal of people don't know how many Vista versions there are. Much less so the differences. When you quote all those links I can only laugh at the idea. Do you think those links are posted on the entrance of every Best Buy and Circuit City? Honestly do you think there is a popup in their sites saying "Read this first then shop with us."

The average person doesn't care and after seeing all those nice Vista adds they think they'll get it with a brand new "Capable" PC. They won't read those links or visit those forums. More so they probably won't even read the voucher they signed their card for and the sales person probably won't even compare the signatures. That is how things are. Period.

So unless you make the differences perfectly clear on the exhibit room. That means making the 915 computers "Vista Home Basic Capable" and not "Capable" as the others that can run more elaborate Vista versions. You are cruising for a lot of trouble and that is exactly what Microsoft and Intel are getting now.

The fact that this class action moved ahead means there is the possibility of the branding breaking some laws. That will inevitably be resolved by a judge. I'm no judge so I can't say if it illegal or not. I am a consumer though and I can say it looks really really rotten.

Gerardo, you're not getting the point: the manufacture and distribution of the physical DVD is only a small part of the overall cost of distributing music. That cost must be covered as well, hence the higher price for DVD's.

It's like pharmaceuticals (or any other product, but pharmaceuticals make for a clear example): it costs hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to develop a successful drug, but only a few dollars (or cents, maybe even) to physically manufacture it. The cost of a drug, therefore, doesn't represent its manufacturing cost, which is trivial, but rather the cost of R&D (and regulatory costs, marketing, etc., etc.).

As I said, if anyone shows where Microsoft was clearly (and purposefully) deceptive, then there's a case. If not, then there's nothing criminal. End of story.

Its interesting that Mark Coppock, the self appointed apologist for MSFT, is comparing Vista Crapable to "pharmaceuticals," or a drug. Windows is in fact like a drug, and MSFT does all it can to hook poor users on it, so in that regard, it is similar. One wonders, although not too much, why Mark Coppock wants to defend MSFT so much, when clearly they are so dirty on this subject?

And as Mark says, "As I said, if anyone shows where Microsoft was clearly (and purposefully) deceptive, then there's a case." Now if you want to call the "Vista Crapable" label as just a bad choice of words, ok. But they were warned, by at least Walmart and Dell, proven in the emails, that this was/is a problem. And yet they continue down this path with their "Vista Crapable" label scam.

I have believed we have done that. I believe Joe Willcox has done that. Walmart and Dell Warned MSFT among others. And I believe that the courts are in the process of doing that.

Collusion:

Most criminal antitrust prosecutions involve price fixing, bid rigging, or market division or allocation schemes. Each of these forms of collusion may be prosecuted criminally if they occurred, at least in part, within the past five years. Proving such a crime does not require us to show that the conspirators entered into a formal written or express agreement. Price fixing, bid rigging, and other collusive agreements can be established either by direct evidence, such as the testimony of a participant, or by circumstantial evidence, such as suspicious bid patterns, travel and expense reports, telephone records, and business diary entries.

We could not forgot:

Most criminal antitrust prosecutions involve market division ......other collusive agreements can be established.....circumstantial evidence, ..... telephone records, and business diary entries.

"John Kalkman explains that Microsoft "lowered" the Vista Capable requirements to accommodate Intel: "We lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded."

"Antitrust violations are serious crimes that can cost a company hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and can send an executive to jail for up to ten years"

Mark, I understand that and that is precisely my point. The cost of production has dropped in all the fields. It costs less to manufacture the physical disk and it costs less to distribute it and it costs less to make the special effects etc etc etc. On top of that more and more people have access and are purchasing those products. Why then do we still get the same price?

Your example of pharmaceuticals is a terrible one to use in this case. Pharmaceutical companies have been greatly benefited by modern technology. What before was a great trial and error process today computers can and actually do model substances which are then tested.

A better example would be CPUs. Those have a life of say two years. After which they become low end hardware. Processor companies have to recover the investment in that short period of time, but record companies? C'mon please! At least with CPUs when I break them and get a new one it has better performance. A CD has the same exact songs.

So, now this has turned into an antitrust issue? Does anyone here even understand what antitrust means? I sure hope the court does... I'll say it yet again: whether or not this is a legal issue will be down to the issue of whether Microsoft purposefully and successfully deceived consumers with their Vista labeling. The courts will decide that, of course. My point is: it's not at all clear, the arguments being made here are specious or, at least, so far unfounded (I don't personally find the emails all that meaningful). But, of course we'll see--and we can only hope that two giants of our industry aren't hung out to dry in the courts as they're being hung out here.

Gerardo: The cost of physically creating and distributing a DVD has ALWAYS been a relatively trivial part of the overall cost of creating and distributing (i.e., marketing) the movies themselves. And so, if there's been a reduction in THAT cost, then it would be framed in very small percentages. As far as the cost of making movies, I don't have the statistics to say whether it's increased or decreased on average. But, I'm sure it hasn't changed to a level that would result in a change in the cost of DVD's, and I don't believe there's anything structurally that has changed to reduce the cost (i.e., no real technical changes).

Whether or not pharmaceuticals is a good example remains open to debate. However, I'm not sure that your discussion of it is really relevant or accurate. Sure, computers make it easier to test a greater number of possible drugs, but that only impact drug efficacy and variety, not overall cost. It STILL takes just as much time and money to test resulting drugs in human trials. Maybe someday, when a simulation is created that can account for all of the potential human variations, then your point might have some validity.

Finally, you're making a different (if valid in its own context) point when you speak of CPU's. Ultimately, the same can of course be said for pharmaceuticals, in that drugs need to provide a return on investment before patents expire and generics become available. Now, there's also a point to be made that DVDs have a very specific life cycle, in that they sell more, obviously, when first released and far fewer over time. Thus, one could argue that the price remains high because the window for recouping the investment is increasingly smaller. But, that's speculative at best.

Competition law, known in the United States as "antitrust law", has three main elements:

* prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
------
It's similar to?
--------------
* banning abusive behaviour by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal and many others.
--------
It's similar to?
-------
* supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licences or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.
----------
Perhaps Micro-hoo?
----------

3 of 3 not 'bad' Microsoft.

Yes, yes ,google 60-65% of the Market
fifty-fifty
2.5 of 3 still not 'bad' Ms

Well, this thread has obviously fallen apart. Of course, there's nothing in that description of antitrust law that applies to the issue at hand, but apparently that's not relevant. Because discussions of Microsoft relative to antitrust laws and of antitrust laws in general are completely outside the scope of the thread, I'll not say anything more on the matter.

I do hope, though, that people reading this thread recognize that the issue of whether or not Microsoft engaged in deceptive marketing practices has absolutely NOTHING to do with antitrust.

And, Gerardo: I just re-read my post, and (typos aside, grrr, wish I could edit) and notice that actually the nature of the DVD market and your point regarding CPUs actually means that DVD prices should INCREASE over time. Consider that movies sell the most immediately after their release (when pent-up demand is being satisfied, and when marketing is at its greatest). DVD sales for a given movie then naturally taper off, until they're a mere trickle. Unit costs are at their highest at this point--that is, since there's a fixed cost to making a DVD (mastering, tooling up a production line, etc.), then the unit cost is highest when the least number of DVDs are being produced.

Now, that's not the strongest argument, because I'm not that certain that the specifics I list here are actually valid. But, it's something to think about.

Mark- the deeper import is not what Microsoft and Intel did in this situation. Yes, I do believe Microsoft and Intel have some serious SEC issues that will need (be necessitated by the EU and continued US governmment scrutiny) be examined closely.

Microsoft did what Intel asked because Microsoft got something from Intel in return. That's the law of business. Now, HOW the reciprocation of benefit is accomplish is only one facet of the questions that radiate from just a few simple ones. There's WHAT was traded, and, my favorite since I was a little kid "WHY?"

WHY? WHY? WHY?

No company does things as stupid as this whole situation looks and smells without having motivating factors that cause normally sensible and astute people to act like complete fools.

So, like many of us, this particular blogger I'm cutting and pasting has 5 questions he would like answered. I would like the answers as well and I'm sure there are a whole lot that want to also. Would you, Mark? Here's 5 unanswered questions:

March 3, 2008 - 3:35 P.M.
Five unanswered questions in the Vista 'junk PC' lawsuit

1. What did Intel give Microsoft in return for Microsoft launching the ill-fated Vista Capable scheme?

2. Is Vista Home Basic really Windows Vista?

3. Why didn't Microsoft settle this suit right away?

4. How could top Microsoft execs let this happen?

5. Why haven't any heads rolled?

The post is worth reading at the URL.

And, Mark, if you have answers for these, I think I can speak for a lot of people reading here who would like to hear some soothing words... and them words ain't "we could beat this".

Those words would be "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED TO MAKE US TO ACT SO BIZARRELY" from a management principle... hopefully Ballmer... and not from an apologist, but you'll have to do for our feeble eyes.

Otherwise, we're still on the hunt for what Microsoft got in return for bastardizing their fresh new project deliverable. Unless, of course, Microsoft executives are all incompetent and the whole lot of them involved in that situation should be fired.

Wooops forgot the URL for the blog for the 5 unanswered questions.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/five_unanswered_questions_in_the_vista_junk_pc_lawsuit

Portuno: Nobody seems to want to answer the simple question: is there evidence to support the notion that Microsoft was intentionally deceptive in its marketing of Vista? If there is, then Microsoft is open to criminal charges. If not, then Microsoft could still be open to civil liability if it's shown that Vista marketing was misleading to a reasonable person.

I've seen a great deal of discussion around the mere fact that Microsoft changed Vista in order to meet the needs of a very large segment of market. And, much talk about how "stupid" the Vista-Capable designation is. Even to the point of question #2, "Is Vista Basic really Windows Vista," which seems silly on its face. Silly, to be kind; "stupid," to be less than kind.

Since I won't get away with merely dismissing the five questions, as the "apologist" on the thread (actually, I'm just a pro-capitalist who's tired to death of rants and raves against successful people) I'll answer thusly:

1. What did Intel give Microsoft in return for Microsoft launching the ill-fated Vista Capable scheme?

- I have no idea. Probably nothing. Intel probably said, "Jeez, guys, you're killing us here. We thought you'd certify our 915 chipset as WDDM-capable, but you didn't, and now we're kind of hosed. Isn't there something you can do?"

To which Microsoft might have responded something like, "Well, yeah, I suppose we could recognize that some systems won't run Aero Glass, and just be literal about it. I mean, of course, there are loads of systems out there that WON'T be able to run Aero, kind of like when we introduced DirectX 9 there were systems that couldn't take advantage of its features. Those systems will just load up with the Standard or Basic UI, depending on their GPU, and so why don't we just make these 'Vista-Capable' systems? They'll still have the enhanced security model, integrated search, improvide file-handling capabilities, simpler wireless networking, etc. etc. that Vista provides. They'll just not have the higher-end GUI."

Really, I'm more interested in the word "scheme" as it's used here, in the nauseatingly common tactic of sticking it after something to make it sound nefarious. Like, "What was Mother Teresa thinking with that whole charity SCHEME?"

Again, personally, I don't think that Vista-Capable was misleading at all. I remember understanding it perfectly at the time, when I read Microsoft's description of it that said it was a limited version. I mean, the very idea of having different levels implies that some are higher and some are lower, no? Finally, and this is the part that really bugs me in this thread: it matters not a whit that things changed during Vista's development--MANY things change during a product's development.

2. Is Vista Home Basic really Windows Vista?

- I commented on this above. And I've decided that it's indeed a _stupid_ question (or, really, a stupid assertion, as it's written). Consider: when I installed Vista Ultimate on my Toshiba M200, and Aero Glass wouldn't run, was it really Vista? When I disable Aero Glass on my current notebook to save battery power, am I really disabling Vista?

See how stupid that sounds? Is Aero Glass REALLY so essential an element of Vista that, without it, it's not really Vista? For real? So the kernel doesn't matter? The security model (for good or bad)? The networking stack? The integrated search? The enhanced Tablet PC functionality? Come now--isn't that all just a bit ridiculous?

3. Why didn't Microsoft settle this suit right away?

- I don't know. Maybe they didn't see any merit in it? Maybe they thought it's so frivolous that they'd--this might be a huge stretch here--actually WIN? This, in spite of the fact that in our current litigious society, the "little guy" (read, trial lawyers) usually wins out against the "evil corporation" (read, deep pockets), and so company's settle to avoid adding loads of court expenses on top of ridiculous punitive damages for non-existent causes. I'd say, if Microsoft didn't settle, then they probably were pretty sure they didn't do anything wrong.

Funny--when a company settles a suit immediately, people assume it's because they're guilty and are trying to sweep the dirt under the rug. But, nevertheless, the question doesn't seem to imply anything evil on Microsoft's part, but rather stupidity. Which leads to...

4. How could top Microsoft execs let this happen?

- Maybe Microsoft execs simply didn't agree with Walmart (!) and HP and others about Vista-Capable. Perhaps Microsoft execs thought they could design their marketing campaign to be clear about the differences between Vista-capable and Vista Premium-Ready?

Or, maybe they just goofed, big-time? Or maybe a mix of both?

Or, to refer back to my ultimate position, maybe they really didn't do anything wrong? After all, I'm still waiting for some evidence that Microsoft was purposefully and successfully deceptive in their Vista marketing (although perhaps the mere attempt to be deceptive would be enough; I'll grant that, for giggles).

5. Why haven't any heads rolled?

- Maybe because Microsoft management isn't into witch hunts, unlike some people. Maybe they'd rather wait until the discovery process is complete and all the facts can be examine. Hmmm....

One last thought in this much-too-long post: I found it remarkable that Martha Stewart went to jail for lying about something that wasn't even illegal. Sort of like if the police came to you and accused you of going through an intersection on a green light, and you said "No I didn't!" Wham. Six months in the pokey. Appropriate? I think not.

For some, this particular case is very similar. People are accusing Microsoft of doing something wrong because THEY CHANGED VISTA FROM ITS ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS TO SOMETHING LESSER. Think about that. While some seem to be implying that Microsoft was being deceptive, others are merely saying that Microsoft is guilty of caving to Intel's pressure and MAKING AN INFERIOR PRODUCT.

I'll tell you, if making a bad product is illegal, then our jails would be even more full than they already are...

Mark, clearly there are a lot of people looking to answer your simple question "is there evidence to support the notion that Microsoft was intentionally deceptive in its marketing of Vista?". There is Microsoft's and Intel's defense attorneys, there are the prosecutors and of course the one that matters most: the judge.

Nobody here is questioning the right Microsoft has to change the product. The issue here is did Microsoft forget the "batteries not included" or the "accessories sold separately" line. I believe they did. So do many posting here.

I do find your "pro-capitalist" line very amusing. There is nothing more "anti-capitalist" than wasting your hard earned money in garbage which will produce no revenue, benefit or pleasure. Capitalism isn't defined as giving money to a successful person just because. It is actually the contrary you bargain and you try to get the best deal. Now if you're offered a good deal (915 chipset) which doesn't turn out to be that good a deal (can't install Vista Home Premium and run it smoothly), well that isn't capitalism at all. Just plain ol' wasting money. Of course you're free to burn your money if you please. It is after all yours.

Gerardo, the lecture on capitalism aside (and, I was making a broader point, but no matter), that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. I'm glad that you and I, at least, are on the same page.

I think we agree that if Microsoft was truly deceptive in its Vista marketing, then there should be repercussions. Probably not criminal, more likely civil, although I fear that in the ongoing, anti-business frenzy (again, larger point here), Microsoft will be hung out to dry.

Read the postings in this thread, however. I think you'll find that many (most?) of them do NOT make the point that you're making. And again I refer to this quote from the original post:

"So, less than half the notebooks shipping for holiday 2006, when Microsoft offered Vista upgrade coupons, were fully capable of running the operating system. That's a shocking number.

The story that came after the 915 chip set and WDDM changes hasn't been yet told—and it may never be fully understood because of "What-if" scenarios. No one can say what might have happened if Microsoft acted differently.

Based on the Microsoft e-mails, the software giant and its OEM partners had moved at least 18 months down a certain path with respect to Vista graphics. The seemingly sudden turnabout in January 2006 established a lower standard, and one inadequate to meet Vista's real world requirements."

In here, what Microsoft seems to have done wrong isn't being deceptive, but rather merely producing a product that wasn't the same as it had been earlier portrayed. And, it's confused: Microsoft did NOT change the WDDM spec in order to meet the abilities of the 915 chipset. In fact, Intel was upset that the 915 was NOT WDDM certified. Rather, Microsoft merely created a designation for systems that would have suffered the same experience.

Note again: Systems with the 915 chipset would not have run Aero Glass in any case. Microsoft did nothing to change this (such as, allowing systems to run Aero Glass with very poor performance). Rather, they merely made the limitation EXPLICIT with the Vista-Capable program. Personally, i see nothing wrong with Microsoft offering the other features of Vista to lower-end systems.

Also once again: Is Vista really nothing but Aero Glass? And, is Aero Glass the only meaningful capability of the OS? Absolutely not, and in fact I think it's ridiculous to even make that claim.

Well according to Microsoft there seems to be more to vista than just Aero.

" Vista Premium Ready PCs

Some Windows Vista Capable PCs have been designated Premium Ready. These PCs will provide an even better Windows Vista experience, including the Windows Aero user experience. Features available in specific premium editions of Windows Vista, such as the ability to watch and record live TV, may require additional hardware."

www.microsoft.com/ windows/products/windowsvista/ buyorupgrade/capable.mspx

As I understand it the "better Windows Vista experience" is enhanced by a set of features. One of which is Aero. Microsoft does not list exactly which are the "other" features. You can get an idea here though:

www.microsoft.com/windows/ products/windowsvista/ editions/choose.mspx

Out of 17 features Vista Home Basic has only 3.

Gerardo: Sure, that's true. But correct me if I'm wrong here. You CAN run Vista Ultimate on any system you want, and those other features will work. The only thing that won't WORK on a non-Premium Ready system is Aero Glass.

Now, sure, these systems came with Vista Basic by default--but that simple fact is reflected in the systems' lower pricing. People who bought those systems paid less than they would have for systems with Vista Ultimate, meaning that they were free to upgrade if they wanted to do so.

Again, we're back to the same question: was Microsoft's Vista marketing deceptive or even misleading? And, if so, was it intentional? If intentional, then that could be criminal. If not intentional, it could still create civil liabilies.

Was the information about a system's capabilities clearly listed on the box and/or other marketing materials (as provided by Microsoft)? Or, did the marketing materials FOR THOSE SYSTEMS talk about Vista's great "additional" capabilities but fail to mention that the systems themselves didn't have them? If the latter, then Microsoft could have a problem.

However, I also submit that Microsoft DID make the differences clear in its own marketing efforts. Perhaps given system manufacturers (HP, Dell, whomever) didn't make it as clear as THEY should have? If THAT's the case, then it's not really on Microsoft, but on the entire industry.

And that's the rub: I see all of this controversy surrounding emails and such, with some people rubbing their hands in glee to pin charges like "collusion" and such on both Microsoft and Intel, and yet I haven't yet seen a good analysis of Microsoft's Vista marketing to show that it was actually deceptive.

And, I haven't seen anything to show how a consumer was actually DAMAGED. Was it that a person bought the wrong system, albeit for a lower price? Again, anyone who bought a system with Vista Basic didn't fail to receive something they paid for, since they paid less by virtue of Vista Basic's lower cost.

If you have an example of that analysis, then please point it out and I'll give it a read. Until then, nobody can say that Microsoft actually did anything wrong.

And as Mark says, "As I said, if anyone shows where Microsoft was clearly (and purposefully) deceptive, then there's a case."

I have believed we have done that. I believe Joe Willcox has done that. The emails are proof. Walmart and Dell Warned MSFT among others. And I believe that the courts are in the process of doing that. Further I believe that the EU will conduct another investigation on this issue as well.

And not matter how you try to spin it Mark, MSFT did wrong.

Clearly -for any reason whatsoever- Ms didn't say the complete truth about the meaning of Vista Capable. Thus, it led to confusion to Distributors and customers. Obviously the one most harmed in this situation was the costumer.
Is this situation crime or not?
At first 'vista' (sight): it seems be a confusion of terms and it is that Ms' lawyers will be trying to make people think.
BUT NO, It's clear that Ms lied or-at the very least-did not say the complete truth because they were looking for get all of their objetives (to get Vista in the market and the money and power that it signifies)
It did not matter to them if Vista was half-baked (they knew it was) and it will have to finish being baked inside the clients' 'oven' with all the money/time that would mean. THEY are a monopoly. THEY have done it before, they have done it now and they will be doing the same as long as they think we'll be as stupid as ever.
Ms had a little problem with Intel and they had an agreement. It does not matter if it was against antitrust laws (problem? Ms is over the Law). I am pretty sure there will be more of these incidents. Therefore Ms' lawyers will be trying cunningly for these to be seen only as a 'confusion of terms', not as what it is: an abuse of its dominant market position -read monopoly- and a violation of competition laws (and surely lawyers will not want to speak about it further either).
The problem is that we know and there is evidence.

I'm very happy that the courts look at specific evidence before reaching conclusions. That evidence has NOT been presented here, certainly, and I haven't seen it elsewhere.

Question: Did Microsoft engage in deceptive or misleading marketing for Vista? This means, were SPECIFIC customers misled or deceived by the SPECIFIC marketing conducted when they purchased their product. In other words, when they bought their computers, were they led to believe that they were getting something other than what they were provided?

It is NOT a question of whether, in the general computer press, in blog postings, in idle conversation, in Apple anti-PC ads, etc., etc., was Vista talked about in a certain way? That's irrelevant when it comes down to real people making real decisions about real products.

And for the love of God, the emails that have been discussed on here, at least, do NOT show that Micorosft did anything misleading or deceptive. They only show that Microsoft released a version of Vista that some people thought might create confusion in the market. That does not mean that Microsoft actually conducted their marketing in a confusing fashion, and that those people were right.

My golly: the Intel 915 chipset was not capable of running Aero Glass. And so, had Microsoft just released a single version of Vista, how confusing would THAT have been when systems based on the 915 were unable to run Aero Glass? Isn't it LESS confusing to have a product version that is specifically differentiated?

If this all comes down to the words "Vista Capable," then it will be a travesty of justice. What it SHOULD come down to is whether or not the product packaging defined what "Vista Capable" meant, and/or if it represented the product improperly.

Since I don't have a PC box from circa January 2007 to look at, I can't make that determination. And, of course, it would be the system manufacturer, not Microsoft, that would have created that packaging. And so Microsoft's culpability is suspect.

You know, if I read Joe's post again, I'm even more confused as to what Microsoft's supposed to have done wrong. Joe is saying that Microsoft "lowered the graphics requirement" of Vista to accomodate Intel's 915 chipset, and came out with a "Vista Capable" (e.g., lesser) product to designate systems that could not run Aero Glass (e.g., Vista Home Basic).

Now, it's not true that Microsoft "lowered the graphics requirements" of vista. They didn't lower them--the 915 chipset couldn't run Aero Glass because it was missing hardware requirements. Rather, Microsoft just made it explicit that certain systems were different from others. As I've mentioned before, Microsoft COULD HAVE simply sold Vista as-is, and let people deal with the fact that their systems wouldn't run Aero Glass (something that's NOT limited to 915-based systems).

And, Joe seems to be saying that what Microsoft did wrong was SPECIFICALLY that they "lowered the requirements." Here's a quote:

---

"Quick recap: As part of the discovery process for the Windows Vista Capable lawsuit, on Wednesday the court publicly disclosed 158 pages of internal Microsoft documents. On page 30, unidentified Microsoft employee John Kalkman writes in an e-mail about Vista certification for an Intel chip set: "We lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded." Later, after explaining some of negative market results, he admits: "It was a mistake on our part to change the original graphics requirements."

What's indisputable, based on the e-mail thread: Microsoft lowered graphics requirements to accommodate the 915 chip set, which wasn't fully capable of running Windows Vista. But the story behind the decision is more nebulous. Who knew what and when, and why was the decision made?

Behind the Kalkman statement is a story. Actually, it's probably several intertwined stories with overlapping plot lines. "We lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings" is too simple an explanation. Both Intel and Microsoft had much at stake with the Windows Vista launch—and their objectives probably weren't all that complementary.

The Lawyer's Spin Story. If I were on the Windows Vista Capable plaintiff legal team, the story would be simple. The one logo program, Windows Vista Ready, makes sense because PCs support all versions. The second, lesser Windows Capable program makes no real sense, in context. Why should Microsoft certify systems to run only one version, Home Basic?

In the lawyer's tale, the Kalkman e-mail would be the smoking gun: Microsoft introduced the Capable program to accommodate Intel's 915 chip set, which could acceptably run Vista Basic but no other version. Based on other e-mails, the lawyer's story would show how other Microsoft partners opposed the Capable program—that the company acted against the best interests of its partners and customers.

The lawyer would explain that Microsoft's irrational business behavior—which made way for bad Windows Vista customer experiences—only makes sense if there was some other explanation: Wintel—two, interdependent monopolies protecting one another."

---

A challenge: who can point out the contradiction in that chunk of copy? It's really quite glaring.

And, consider the last paragraph: So WHAT if Microsoft acted irrationally and produced a "bad Windows Vista customer experience" because of their relationship with Intel? Is it against the law to make a bad product? Can one even be SUED for making a bad product? Can you imagine what that would mean?

Well Mark,

all I can say is you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in the side of the head like a brick. Your long winded posts in support of MSFT in this matter, really makes me question your motives as well. I suspect, that you somehow either work for one of the involved companies, or derive some sort of monetary compensations directly, or indirectly from them.

And all the long posts and ignoring the facts in this case, and repeating your "challege," is not going change what MSFT has done. My suggestion to you is, if you do not already work for MSFT, you should apply for their evangelist postion, or better, if you are a lawyer, that one. But somehow, I think all the weasel words in the world, are not going be enough to get MSFT out of this one.

Mark, did you also notice, that you alone are the sole defender of Microsoft? Should that not have told you something?

Hand - The fact that I'm the sole defender of Microsoft (on this thread) tells me nothing except that this thread hasn't gotten all that much traffic. I'm also used to being along on issues like this, unfortunately.

It remains remarkable to me that nobody here has caught on to what I'm saying here. Nobody wants to address the issue at hand, which is that the actual "crime" that Microsoft is supposed to have committed hasn't actually been define--which truly frightens me.

I'll not enter into ad hominems, it's certainly not worth it. I think this whole thing merits some extra thought on my part, to understand exactly what sort of mob entitlement mentality is really reflected here.

From a consumers point of view, what MSFT did with its Vista Crapable Label on new machines was dishonest. They made it sound like it would run all versions of Vista by putting that label on it. Now you and I would know better, but I submit that 95% of the public, would not know. And to say that MSFT did there best to educate is BS. Will you sell a product and put a label on the box, you better put that knowledge on the box too, as that is where 95% of the public is going look only.

And the fact that MSFT ignored the pleas, and emails, from Walmart and Dell, to change the labeling, is damaging to say the least. That will perhaps be settled in the class action law suite. Which I believe when that lawsuit started, before it was a class action lawsuit, was only suing for 5 million dollars. I wonder how much they are suing for now that its a class action lawsuit? MSFT could have settled cheap, but did not. But perhaps they are correct in thinking that a class action suite ends the court cases. But only in the USA. These tend to be civil types of lawsuits.

Now the security exchange issue is another matter, and here the emails are even more important. Two monopolies that seem to have a history of protecting the others monopoly. Certainly here there needs to be a criminal investigation as there is some evidence of wrongdoing here. Especially since MSFT is under the looking glass for another 2 years as a monopoly, and still doing this type of behavior. Do you not see anything at all wrong here?

Furthermore, not only should the DOJ be investigating the conduct of MSFT in regards to collaboration with the Intel monopoly, but the SEC should also be investigating MSFT for stock price fixing. Since according to at least one internal email, MSFT was worried about helping Intel with its quarterly profit statement, it should be investigated to see how much Intel stock was being bought and sold by both MSFT, Intel, and the corporate bigwigs of both companies, right up to Billy Gates himself.

The Hand is correct that Insider Trading is a crime. Where as the other, are civil, or anti-trust.

But here is another thought, and other possible civil trials. If Microsoft gave unfair treatment to the Intel 915/945 chipsets, which had a 30% share of the market, to make sure of Intel's profits, then who did that hurt besides the consumers?

How about the products that would have been bought from competitors that made the better products, like ATI (AMD) and Nvidia? Don't they have a possible lawsuit as well against both Microsoft and Intel, for lose of profit?

Oh my golly, but this is all just a jumbled-up mess. This whole thing has absolutely NOTHING to do with antitrust, insider trading, the SEC, or anything else.

And it's downright libelous to imply that anyone at Microsoft did anything illegal to pump up Intel's stock. I suppose that anytime a partner helps another partner sell its product (which is, of course, what partnerships are FOR) it's now a legal issue?

Once again, ad nauseum, there's nothing wrong with changing a product, or how it's marketed. Doing so to help Intel isn't a bad thing. And, good gracious, there's NOTHING that says that Microsoft did anything to give "unfair treatment" to the Intel 915 chipset.

Sam, even if Microsoft DID do something to enhance Intel's position, that's not grounds for lawsuits. Microsoft isn't responsible for making every chipset work the same, and to make sure that one vendor enjoys the same profitability as another. It might be in Microsoft's interest to do so, to avoid alienating one vendor or another, but it's not within their fiduciary responsibilities to do so. That's just silly talk.

And, golly gee whiz, but once again: Microsoft did NOT "change Vista" to accomodate the 915 chipset. Microsoft created a lower-end version of Vista to accomodate ALL SORTS of systems that aren't capable of running Aero Glass (or, more specifically, WDDM), and they priced it accordingly. That would go for other chipsets, including various nVidia and AMD chipsets, that also aren't capable of running Aero Glass (and that weren't when Vista was released).

This is just beyond silly at this point... Frankly, I'm no longer sure why I'm still contributing to this thread....

Mark, you are truly unbelievable. You come here and challenge everyone yet speak as if you were the owner of the truth. I believe you are not involved in the case, have not been in the court room nor are you the judge in the case. Thus you, just like us, can not make a statement of guild or innocence for Intel and Microsoft.

We can express our opinion as consumers though. Should Microsoft and/or Intel be fined? I don't know and I can't determine that. I didn't study law. Should I boycott Intel and Microsoft whenever possible. Certainly, I'm a consumer and entitled to do that.

In my opinion, which I share with others here, Microsoft and Intel did wrong. The matter of being fined I leave to the courts. The matter of being penalized by consumers I leave to us and yes they should be penalized.

The problem here is not if the 915 chipset was changed (which it was not) or if Vista was changed (which can be questioned). The fact here is that a group of computers that could only run "subset" of Vista was labeled just like ones that could run the super sets of Vista(premium and business versions).

The proper label would have been "Vista Basic Capable" or something along those lines (like Walmart said). Yet "Vista Capable" was used. People can and do understand that means all Vista versions. People could then be lead to buy a computer that would not fit their future needs. That is clearly dishonest from a consumer's point of view and worth penalizing. Once again the court will have its opinion, one neither you nor I can say at this point what it will be. But as consumers we can have a different opinion than the courts and surely act based on it.

There is a larger question here, than just the Vista Capable label being so wrong. It would seem that Microsoft did some sort of favor for Intel, by changing the requirements for the Vista Labeling system, by its own internal emails.

As Joe asks, why in his article? That answer has to be that Intel did something for Microsoft in exchange, or somewhere money changed hands, would be my guess. Insider Trading is one possibility, that should be looked into. The other possibilities would involve some sort of antitrust violations, no doubt. But something smells bad in all of this.

"golly gee whiz"???

What is this, "Leave it to Beaver"? Gosh, Ward, you sound like the perfect pitch man for the ethics of post war boomer commercialism. Nobody ever did a bad thing in all their dealings and, shucks, some people just manage to get run over like that once in a while.

Something's screwy, Larry. Something's screwy and I'm going to find out what.

Wowee. I don't know, Mark. What you're spreading is more like cheez whiz. I don't know what TV Show that Company sponsored.