Don't worry, they have asked the court to stop being mean to them. Everything should be back to normal soon...

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121140

I think most of us are clear on the fact that Ballmer was the man in charge, and therefore, was the one that made the decision. It is most doubtful that the court will put the blame on Poole, this is only a way for MS to buy time in court and prolong the case. This is the standard playbook by which MS handles its court cases. Why would you expect honesty from a company that lied under oath in the antitrust trials about Internet Exploder not possible to remove or unbundle? So this is just another attempt at damage control by MS.

Neither am I a lawyer, Joe. But my guess, if MS follows its standard playbook, it will settle, but only for a very low amount of money. Otherwise, its extend (delay) embrace (lie) and extinguish (hope for dismissal) in court.

What is interesting is how many other cases like this one could go forward if this case wins. The damages to Vista Basic users around the world, could be a very very high amount. Therefore, MS might figure that they have to fight this case, and if nothing else, delay the outcome.

"I think most of us are clear on the fact that Ballmer was the man in charge, and therefore, was the one that made the decision.".........

Agreed he did. But if by his excuse, that he did not, then he left a huge decision to be made by those under him that should not have that authority, and therefore did not know what was going on in his own company. For that, the Shareholders (Bill) should fire Ballmer for.

Ballmer: and ...how could us please to Intel and avoid the risks that this would bring? (Ballmer knows the answer but he is waiting that Poole bit the bait )

Poole: Not problems at all , only we ( I ) could transform it into a semantic issue.(Capable)

Ballmer:Well, well it is yours, but if something would be wrong I do not know nothing about that (you know I am MS' CEO!), if all is OK the merits will be all yours .

Poole: (happy stupidly happy) you will not regret this.

----------------
“My interest here is Microsoft.”

Shame on you! are you licking MS' feet?
Remember a yours readers.

@Joe

I have to say, this particular article you've written has more typos and grammatical mistakes than any I've ever seen you write. That usually means the writing was a stressful exercise and was done in a hurry with an aversion to a thorough reread and edit. Just how concerned are you "lovable" Ballmer has his ass in a narrowing crack?

You say, by MSFT lawyers allowing Ballmer to testify, "...the company risks exposing its chief executive to unnecessary scrutiny and liability."

And you don't like this sort of thing, Joe?

Are you telling us you would rather Ballmer and his chain of command be shielded from charges of illegality? Is that what you're saying?

You say: "There is too much risk he will say something that will expose either himself or the company—quite possibly both—to further liability."

So, if a suspected criminal is placed on the stand, and you're a journalist covering the situation, and there's the chance that suspected criminal will say something to implicate himself and those who acted as accomplices... you're advising the criminal's wealthy family to pay off those harmed and flaunt the law?

Granted, that's the kind of thing a lawyer would say, but, as you pointed out, you're supposed to be a journalist... not a lawyer.

In 2005, Intel expected to be able to sell chips. They had far too many older chipsets in stock that were not going to be sold (for some reason - want to discuss why?).

For "some" reason they came to Microsoft and demanded MSFT accept that older chipset into the Vista program.

That suggests Microsoft had promised to include those older Intel chipsets in some program which went away in 2005, leaving that mass of chips orphaned and pressed (through collusion, one would assume) into Vista service.

The chain of command apparently understood the reason for the pressure Intel was applying. The other faction (we'll call them the clueless-and-couldn't-care-less gang) in Microsoft did not understand that pressure.

What did the chain of command know in 2005, Joe?

Aren't you the least interested in finding out why Microsoft canceled whatever project Intel planned on having that would have used the older Intel chipset?

I'm interested in finding out. I've been interested since December 2005. (We can likewise discuss what happened then to cause such suspicion, if you would like.)

We all saw Vista limp along since March 2006 using the Intel chipsets and pissing off partners and customers until only this past few months ago when MSFT finally caved and announced an internet based operating system to replace Vista.

We all saw Microsoft stand fast in claiming they intended it all to be that way all along.

Really? REALLY? Are we ALL fools in Microsoft management's eyes? Bull$#!@.

Aren't you interested in finding out why they did all that, Joe? I'm sure other journalists would be interested. I'm sure other lawyers would be interested as well.

Well, I guess this is going to be a race between what the journalists find out and what the lawyers find out.

I love watching a good race. It's always more productive than watching a game of chicken.

Ballmer is not a hothead, he's an idiot. At least Gates was a genuinely smart guy with terrible aesthetics. Ballmer is just a moron. Think of all the missteps in the last five years. If there's anyone who has singlehandedly destroyed the most powerful company in IT, it's Mr. Ballmer.

For some reason Joe thinks Ballmer has done no wrong ever and can never do no wrong.

I don't understand his position on a Ballmer lead Microsoft.

He gave Gate way more h3ll ...
Maybe that's another story.

correction:
He gave "Gates" way more h3ll ...

@Portuno. You've summed it up completely, and many of the questions you have been asking, we have too. They wont respond IMO. I think we wont get any explanations about Vista until Windows 7 is due to be out. That way a whole new set of claims can be made about it in the hope they will sell more copies.
-
Its quite funny though, the other explanation about the Vista "problems" was partially blamed on the Sellers of PC systems by Andre Da Costa on his Windows 7 preview.
-
I quote: "OEMs did a bad job of communicating Vista by sending systems out of their factories without properly testing real world scenario’s of what the average consumer will be doing with such a system leaving them with just the bare minimum"
-
Now since this is on Activewin.com, I presume that the statement has the blessing of MS, and offers another story in the whole sorry affair of Vista.
-
I dont think Ballmer is a good advert for MS. To me (as I have said before) he appears aggressive in interviews, talks over people and has any answer for everything, without answering anything.
Thats just my opinion, showing some of his "youtube classics" to people who dont know who he is, is met with "who on earth is this xxxxxxxx?"
Regardless of my views of MS, I do believe the Billy Gates was the better image for MS than Steve. With all the recent issues MS has had, to me it should be top priority to be seen to be as open and honest as possible. For me I dont think Steve fits the bill. (No pun intended)

IF MFST is guilty, the BEST that can happen to them is a fine (which they will write it off as a business expense).

IF MSFT is guilty, the WORST that can happen is a fine (which they will write it off as a business expense) and MSFT would likely provide $10 OFF (for future Windows products) coupons to all involved in a class action.

Summary ...the outcome won't affect the company financially. Maybe after this is settled the shareholders and investors will oust Ballmer...but thats about it.

All those 915-based systems may not cope with Vista, but they run Linux, complete with 3D visual effects, quite nicely. I'm holding one in my hand right now.

The problem is, Joe, your relationship -- and therefore understanding of Microsoft inner workings -- is distant.

You assume there's some SteveB smoking gun waiting to come out. If there was, there would be evidence of it somewhere.

If you did understand anything about the way Microsoft works, you'd understand that executives at the VP level are given large discretion to run programs of this nature. I mean, what's the point of making someone a VP if you're not willing to trust their judgement on something.

Folks like SteveB only get involved when something is going wrong and someone gets pulled in. In general, however, MS likes to keep its laundry internal -- there are lots of divisions and arguments, but the company likes to present a unified front externally. So if someone like Will Poole has been given authority to run the Vista logo program (which he was#, his management will back him externally even while ripping him a new one internally.

The sequence of events as I read it #fully supported by the emails, unlike your speculation):
(1# Intel screams bloody murder about the decision to keep 915 out of it. They screwed up, and they know its going to cost them money.
#2# Like any smart partner, they escalate to SteveB. Paul calls Steve and tells him that this decision is going to cost him billions.
#3# Steve, who made Jim Allchin president of the Windows division so that he #Steve# could run the freaking company instead of worrying about which graphics chip made it into which marketing program, basically tells Jim and Will to deal with the issues that Paul complained about.
- importantly, in MS, this basically means, make Paul either #a# happy or #b# quiet. It does *not* mean, bend over and do whatever Paul wants. MS did not get where it is by capitulating to every partners whim.
#4# At this point, Will does the stupid thing and tries to make everyone happy, completely failing to see the long-term impact of his decision.
#5# Jim comes back from vacation, sees this decision and goes ballistic. He gets the idea from somewhere that Steve made this decision and contacts him about it.
#6# Steve reiterates that he didn't make this decision. It was all Will. And besides, from his conversation with Paul, it was about more than just graphics. This is the evidence that #a# Paul blew smoke up his ass about all of the problems and #b# Steve really didn't have a horse in this fight -- he didn't know enough about the pros and cons to know what the right thing to do is #and this is the important point: he shouldn't have needed to -- Jim was a President and Will was a VP... they aren't children needing daddy-Steve to take care of them. They are supposed to run their businesses.
(7# At this point, however, neither Jim nor Steve can really do anything about it. Will has told Intel that the new plan as if it was always the plan #he was being clever, remember#. It would also be far worse to pull back, because it would make Microsoft look stupid and indecisive in front of partners.

To recap, Microsoft gives executives leewaay. It expects them to make the right decisions, and when they don't, they pay the price #and when they do, they get rewarded).

From a legal perspective, Will Poole was clearly an officer of the company, so it actually doesn't matter whether SteveB signed off on it or not -- the company is still liable for his decisions.

One final thing:
In the grand scheme of things, SteveB did screw up here. His mistake was to put Will in charge. He does have ultimate responsibility. I believe the company is in the wrong here, and it *should* settle this as quickly as possible.

@bob

Just one problem with your surmising:

How is it Intel suddenly realizes 915 would be kept out of Vista so late in the development game?

Why would Intel have ever assumed the 915 chip set would be a part of Vista in the first place?

The 915 chipset was clearly last generation according to the Vista specification in place for both Intel and HP. So, who in Intel would have reasonably thought 915 would have a place in Vista in the first place?

915 was not a bad product. It was simply "old technology" suited for use in existing OS requirements of the day but not slated to serve Vista. It works well to this day in moderate demand requirements as noted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro in his note pointing out 915 works fine with Linux.

But 915 was obviously not part of the first specifications for Vista and you base your #1 premise on Intel "finding out" 915 would not be used in Vista. That can't be the key cause. Intel knew all along 915 would not be used in Vista per the WDDM specifications or they would not have demanded room be made for 915.

What we see, however, is an Intel that was smoking mad because the 915 chipset was going to go unused, leaving them with orphaned product in inventory... but (again I reiterate to drive the point home) that chipset did not belong in Vista at the time and that was well known.

I think the answer can be found in a look-see around an aborted medical devices project Intel began in February 2005 to deliver portable medical data devices on distributed data frameworks.

That didn't happen and the "Why?" around that aborted project would probably shed light on Intel having 915 sets laying around unused.

Based on what’s in view from the trial revelations, Intel was hopping mad because they were stuck with surplus 915 chipsets.

The first question to ask, then, is WHO in Microsoft gave Intel the idea they would NOT be stuck with that 915 inventory and why?

Then, WHO in Microsoft delivered the news to them the 915 chipset inventory would not be used as previously planned?

Then we could pick up where you began with #1 "Intel screamed bloody murder..." and things would make sense.

Intel clearly had the impression (and it seems rightly so) they could force MSFT to make an adjustment to the Vista specifications in order to absorb that surplus inventory. It's an adjustment Intel would have been unable to logically or reasonably demand based on what all sides knew would be the original specifications for a Vista machine.

Surplus chips is not Microsoft's problem unless Microsoft created the problem for Intel in the first place and that seems to be glossed over in all this.

So, logic and reason be damned, Microsoft bastardized their Vista specification to appease Intel and sell the surplus 915 inventory for them; an inventory that was not originally intended for Vista.

Uhhhh... Something doesn’t make sense, does it? When something doesn’t make sense, somebody is holding out on information. I look forward to Mister Ballmer brining clarity to this question.

So, if you could preface your #1, #2, #3 with a #0: "Intel found out they would be stuck with the 915 chips because (insert prime mover here)", THEN you could say "Intel screamed bloody murder...”and we would all say "Oh. So that’s why they were so mad." and it would all make sense.

Microsoft basically foddered under pressure. They are basically screwed up because of it.

Problem look at SCO trying to make this go away is not going to happen.

Really the best thing MS can try to do is settle and hope the other side does not go for killing blow.

From Intel themselfs. "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." http://www.sumo.tv/video/2605767

Basically how to kick yourself in the teeth. Without a WDDM driver even that 915 is able to do the job of running Aero grade graphics due to not being allowed to use a software replacement in there driver for Hardware Scheduler its stuffed.

Besides when MS woke up to there mistake there is no reason why MS could not have released there own 915 WDDM driver so machines marked vista capable worked as such with full features. Intel gives anyone who asks the full specs of there cards to build drivers at no cost. Since they want to sell the hardware they are very nice about it.

Idea that old technology should fail to work due to a new graphics system is majority flawed. MS basically changed the requirements part way threw. Early on in Vista development Hardware Scheduler in graphics card was not required. Yes most cards like ATI and NVidia had one. Intel is the odd exception.

MS has screwed up with the exception.

Take a close look at the Netbook market lot of it is old technology. Major reason older more produced chips are cheaper to produce. Reason for defective chips being produced on the production lines has been sorted out. Every percent less of failures in production cuts production prices a lot.

Vista is a complete case of miss reading the market. Yes years ago new OS equals new hardware. That has kinda ground to a sudden stop.

Linux Developers don't have that stupidity. Its always fine to software emulate missing hardware features so the hardware works.

Funny enough it was MS who really invented the idea of major software emulate with winmodems.

Joe Willcox says (in his last paragraph):
"My interest here is Microsoft. Steve is a hothead, even if a lovable one. You don't want him testifying here, Microsoft attorneys. There is too much risk he will say something that will expose either himself or the company—quite possibly both—to further liability. Intel and Microsoft are both monopolies, which designation creates special legal circumstances around some of their interactions. Reduce the risk and eliminate the embarrassment by settling. Now."
----------------------------------------------------
It is of course the angle, or perhaps, the advocate position that you are coming from when you say: "My interest here is Microsoft." The question I have asked right along, is should your interest be Microsoft, or the consumers, who are include the buying public, It, and businesses? Personally, I can see how it might be hard to sometimes separate those thoughts, writing for a site called Microsoft Watch. And furthermore, I think you really are not meaning to defend, promote, or even advocate, for Micro$oft, at all in this article. It just came out wrong again, and your thinking mode after writing this blog for 2 years is hard to change, is my guess. Still, when you leave it to the commentators, to be the consumer advocates mostly, then the site does not own up to its namesake.

While I do agree with you from an "advocate for MS" position that Steve testifying is not a good thing for the Borg, it in no way distresses me to see this happen. In fact, I look forward to it, not because I hate MS, but because I believe there is a price to be paid for this behavior. Long term Microsoft will be a better company when they are made to follow the rules and be a good (well, at least a better) neighbor.

Settling now will only be a legal measure of damage control. It will not repair the damage it inflicted on HP for one thing. And that alone, could end up being another court case arising from the data gained in this court case. There could also be antitrust cases arising from the data gained in this case, for both Microsoft, and Intel.

And now for something completely differnet:
Microsoft's "Dead Cow" Patch Was 7 Years In the Making
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/12/199215&from=rss

Quote from the link: "Now, a mere seven and a half years later, Microsoft has released a patch. Buchbinder's attack, called a SMB relay attack, 'showed how easy it was to take control of a remote machine without knowing the password,' he said."
--------------------------------------------------
Windows, unsecure on any internet.
distrowatch.com download and try some free linux live cd's, it will set you free from the problems of Micro$oft.

More Vista court cases:
Firms charge employees for Vista boot-up times
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/11/19/firms-charge-employees-vista

"TIGHT ARSED employers are refusing to pay employees for the 20 or so minutes it takes for their computers to boot-up or shut down.

Apparently it has become an issue since the introduction of Windows Vista where boot up and log out times are a lot longer. Several outfits – including AT &T, United Health Group and Cigna – have refused to stump up for time that their employees are idle waiting for their computers to get in the mood to do some work. It could only happen in America and since the companies are in the Land of the Free they are also now being hit by some serious class actions."

Receive $130 Paid to You Immediately

The LWS Freedom program makes it possible!
Click here to discover how
http://www.lwsfreedom.com/id/greentitan

I just hope all the chairs are bolted to the floor in the courtroom...

I do believe there could have been better communication. But I don't see any wrong doing on Microsoft's part. Vista Capable means, your system can run Vista, but not necessarily all of its aesthetic features like Aero Glass or high end features reliably like Media Center.

I had a Dell Latitude c840 that ran Vista just fine minus Glass. So the issue here was the lack of specifics, but its not anything illegal. OEM's are mostly to blame, they didn't test their units properly and didn't add enough RAM.

Time will heal everything. After Windows 7, people will eventually get over this. Vista is a stepping stone for some amazing new technologies. At some point we've to break away from traditional Windows like 98 and XP.History will remember Vista as a soldier who sacrificed his life for the betterment of future generations.

Really With all the time that went into vista its been a costly mistake.

Windows 7 reviews have been mixed. That may mean MS might have two lemons in a row.

Windows Vista might be just remembered as the Version of windows before the fall of Microsoft.

This is the most absurd lawsuit in the history of computing. The sticker said Vista capable. Were the PC's able to run Vista? Answer: YES.
Are they Capable of Running Vista? Answer YES.
The rest is a bunch of Bull Shit for idiots and for laywers to win money out of nothing.
I bought one of these PC's myself and I refuse to get any money, even if the lawsuit is successfull, bc as far as I am concerned it was crystal clear what I was buying. And Yes I run Vista on this PC, cause IT'S VISTA CAPABLE.

@Evan,

it's not a matter if the machine could run vista basic, it's the perception that MSFT was out there pimping AeroGlass & there were machines out there advertised as "Vista Capable" without consumer (the average consumer who blindly buys an OEM PC & will never upgrade it) disclosure the units were underpowered & unable to run the features being advertised.

and if it does come out that certain standards were lowered so Intel could move out obsolete, underpowered graphics chips, well, the lawyers will make out ok, but the consumer will get a coupon off their next purchase of a MSFT product. And don't forget, MSFT will build in the cost of fees & coupons into their price structure.

cloudshine :wrote

"Time will heal everything. After Windows 7, people will eventually get over this. Vista is a stepping stone for some amazing new technologies. At some point we've to break away from traditional Windows like 98 and XP.History will remember Vista as a soldier who sacrificed his life for the betterment of future generations."
-----------------------------------------------------

Microsoft could not break away from XP (on the netbooks) since Vista cannot run on netbooks (because of Vista's bloat). Yes, thats REAL innovation!

And since Windows 7 is based on Vista, are we supposed to believe that miraculously will run fine on these lean running netbooks?

Yes, Yes vista is real popular, thats why you see ads from Microsoft promoting Windows and not Vista.

Vista is a stepping stone for amazing technologies? Like Aero? Which Linux runs circles around with compiz fusion using less than half the resources.

Amazing technologies like DRM built into the OS which checks you (the owner of the computer) every 30 seconds to make sure you aren't doing something MSFT doesn't want you to do?

Oh yes people will break away from traditional Windows OS...and move away to Apple and to Linux. in fact..they have been breaking away...did you check Apple's market share lately...compared to say a year and a half ago?

About how wonderful and innovative Vista is. Is that why people are now dual booting with Linux so their computers can run faster and without the threats of malware and spyware? In fact dual booting with a "traditional" Windows OS is a very fast growing segment.

Yes Vista has been a stepping stone alright, for those who were fed up with all the problems of Windows in the first place. History will remember Vista as the OS that pushed consumers to Apple and Linux.

So once again we read how Vista was been innovative and a steppingstone.

"A newly-publicised flaw in Vista’s networking system could allow hackers to attack computers using Windows itself. Microsoft is aware of the problem but won’t be issuing a fix until the next Service Pack at the earliest.

The problem affects a part of Vista named iphlpapi.dll. This affects local networking, specifically the system used to identify each individual machine on a network.

Austrian security firm Phion has discovered a bug which makes it possible to create a buffer overflow. That involves writing a string of information that is bigger than the section of memory allocated to it; some of the data then spills over into a separate section of memory, which can cause problems. "

http://vista.blorge.com/2008/11/24/microsoft-buffer-lets-get-ready-to-grumble/

Quote Andre Da Costa "I do believe there could have been better communication. But I don't see any wrong doing on Microsoft's part. Vista Capable means, your system can run Vista"
-
I hope then everyone considers this when Windows 7 is released. According to MS then you machine will be capable, but how capable, how functional? Thats up to you to find out.
-
To me by definition if something is capable then that means it is "acceptable, functional, problem free" - According to Andre then, thats not what was meant and when MS said capable they had very different ideas to what the end user had.
-
So when it says proudly on a Netbook "Windows 7 capable" are we to take that to mean "well, it will work, but we are not going to commit ourselves to how well"
-
Quote "But I don't see any wrong doing on Microsoft's part." - Andre, you ever thought of a career in politics?

Quote: "Andre, you ever thought of a career in politics?"

No Goblin, the truth gets twisted too much.

@Andre
LOL - For once, Im going to give you credit.
That was a pretty sharp come back!
I believe I walked into that one.

Joe says:
"Steve is a hothead, even if a lovable one. You don't want him testifying here, Microsoft attorneys. There is too much risk that he will say something that will expose either himself or the company—quite possibly both—to further liability.".......

So let me translate what you are saying here Joe, into simple words: "Steve is an idiot that cannot be trusted on the witness stand."

And you are also afraid that he might purger himself, or the company that he runs.