Vole proves Vista incapable
What can it mean?
NOT EVEN MICROSOFT is quite certain what the "Vista Capable " marketing slogan exactly means, it would seem, as a product manager failed to correctly explain exactly what it's all about, reports PC World.
A lawsuit filed earlier this year claimed that The Volish Ones misled the general geeky public with its Vista Capable slogan, claiming that "a large number" of Vista Capable PCs could only run Vista Home Basic, the very simplest (and crappiest?) version of the OS.
While Microsoft has argued that it's spent a fair bit of time on making clear to the public and OEM hardware partners about that Vista Capable malaerkey, a Volish manager was stuck for words when lawyers asked him to explain what capable exactly meant.
Mark Croft, marketing director, said, "Capable is a statement that has an interpretation for many that, in the context of this program, a PC would be able to run any version of the Windows Vista operating system."
He continues: "Ready may have prompted concerns that the PC would run in some improved or better way than capable, therefore this word capable was deemed to be a more fitting word for the program."
Hold on a minute Mark, Vista Capable doesn't mean that yer new box can fire up any copy of Vista, but only a specific version. Like the Crappy Version, Home Basic.
Croft later corrected his statement after a Vole caught his tongue. "Our intent with Capable was that the system would be able to run a version of Windows Vista," said he.
He admitted that Microsoft hadn't done any market research to see if Vista Capable could "cause any consumer to make the very mistake that you made."
He said, "nawrh." Or something to that effect. µ
Comments
So what's the bad news
And the consumer is harmed in what way by not being able to run Vista? They should be happy that they bought their computer before being forced into a Vista "downgrade". In addition, who actually believes MS's marketing anyway?BS can only get you so far...
Look at this "Microsoft speak"!Its neither direct, straight to the point, full of twists, or outright lies. Its a cross between a subset of normal English and lawyer talk. An indication of a true representative of Microsoft! Say one thing, but really mean another.
(I've always wondered if Microsoft has a course within their company to train all their employees to speak like this...I mean, they do it in their blogs as well!)
But then again, this isn't so surprising. Microsoft relies on deception, gullibility, and ignorance of the public and potential customers. Its how they've conduct their business in the last 20yrs+.
Its thanks to the internet, this behaviour is now more obvious and known. The more we collect and archive this type of information, the more we realise the true nature of what Microsoft is.
The more you lie, the more pressure is placed upon you. Sooner or later, you'll slip OR someone will realise the inconsistency with the accumulation of lies.
Teh stupids?
How can he even suggest that normal people would be able to discern that interpretation from the options "Capable" and "Ready"?What I generally tell people who ask what the difference is between the two labels, I tell them that they should go for the "Vista Ready" labeled ones regardless.
If they continue bothering me about that I simply tell them the truth.
"Vista Capable" means that under the threat of death by penstabbing the machine is "Capable" of starting the OS.
Yet the machine is "Incapable" of doing anything but the simplest tasks without developing suicidal tendencies.
This does not mean that I personally am a 1337 linux user, I use ubuntu on the side for certain tasks.
My primary OS is Vista Ultimate 64-bit, and I am damned satesfied with it.
vista capable?
i'd be pleased if my hardware was 'vista incapable' because i dont intend to use the beta-test power sapping bloatware anyway!its a load of uneccessary tat intent on draining you hard earned cash and turning your decent spec pc into an overgrown pocket calculator.
there was no demand for a new os - bill gates just felt compelled (by $) to make vista because 5 years had passed since xp had been released.
Whats wrong with basic?
Why the ragging all the while on Home Basic? It does everything that XP did with a little bit more (DX10 etc) and runs in a far smaller footprint than the more expensive bloatware versions.What more do most folks want? Pretty garnish, it seems!
I'm a gamer and hardware enthusiast and Basic fills all the requirements I need i.e a layer to allow me to run the applications I want.
Does it matter?
By now we've all got the idea that there's something seriously wrong with that software. Even allowing for the DRM, the 'tilt' switches to prevent driver snooping and so on there's just so much performance sapping bloat in there for any reasonable implementation (except, maybe, the most amateurish application of 'object' methodology).Great Win for Vista Basic
You've now been titled the "Crappiest of the Crappiest Crap."Vista is Incapable
If Vista isn’t capable of running on your machine because it is simply not up to specifications or you want to purchase Vista Incapable stickers, visit http://www.vistaincapable.com