Microsoft doesn't understand what "Vista capable" means

 

Gallery

By Barry Collins

Posted on 28 Nov 2007 at 10:47

Microsoft's own marketing director tripped up over the definition of "Vista Capable" whilst giving evidence to a court, in which he was trying to prove the logos were easy to understand.

Microsoft is being sued in a Seattle court by two plaintiffs who claim that the "Windows Vista Capable" logos that were added to PCs before the operating system's launch were misleading. They claim that the label suggested the PC could run any version of Vista, when in fact it was only guaranteed to run Vista Home Basic.

In a court filing, the plaintiffs' lawyers claim even Microsoft executives were confused by the distinction between "Vista Capable" and "Vista Ready".

"That consumers would fall prey to Microsoft's marketing is not remarkable considering the testimony of Microsoft's director of marketing, Mark Croft," the filing claims.

"Mr Croft candidly acknowledged that the 'Capable' in 'Windows Vista Capable' meant a PC with the logo could run 'any version of Vista'."

However, it appears that after a 10-minute break to consult Microsoft's lawyers, Croft changed his mind.

"Mr Croft attempted to change his testimony (albeit quite awkwardly)," the filing claims, before quoting Croft's garbled explanation to the court:

"Oh the error - when I was explaining - we were talking about ready and capable, and I made a statement that capable - we ended up with capable with the intention that - I made the statement that we ended up with capable would be able to run any version of Windows Vista, whereas, in reality, our intent, with capable, was that the system would be able to run a version of Windows Vista. So quite an important difference in the two - two terms, there."

Too Basic

The plaintiffs claim that Vista Basic "isn't the real Vista" because it's so feature-stripped. The filing cites PC Pro contributing editor Jon Honeyball's interview with Acer Corporate Vice President, Jim Wong, in which he claimed "Premium is the real Vista".

It also cites a quote from the Microsoft-licensed Windows Vista: The Official Magazine, which claims Basic is an operating system for "those who only want to do the bare minimum with their PCs."

Microsoft is fighting the charges.