[aggregate reply to multiple messages] On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:47 AM, John Hornbuckle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't blame MS for this particular mess ...
I think there's enough blame to go around. Microsoft didn't have to tell the rest of the world, "We're changing everything in the next release of Windows. As usual. Bend over, here it comes again." But at the same time, it's not like this should have been a surprise to anyone -- Microsoft did the same thing (to various degrees) in Win 3.something, Win 95, Win 2000, Win XP, and Win XP SP2. At this point, I would expect vendors to just expect this, and plan for it. Supposedly, third-party vendors were reacting to end-user response, that people are just not that interested in yet another upgrade from Microsoft. I suppose you could say that if that's the case, "Works with Vista" becomes something like of a premium feature, kind of like how "Works with Linux" is sometimes used. There's a smaller market of people who actually want Vista. People who want Vista can expect to pay a premium for support for it. As a long-time Linux user, I find the irony somewhat delicious. Welcome to my world, Microsoft-fans. See how you like it. ;-) On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:09 PM, John Hornbuckle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... the "Vista capable" certification was confusing. But anyone could find > out exactly > what "Vista capable" meant, and the name wasn't a misnomer--those machines > WERE capable of running Vista. Some of the argument is based on the fact that the machines that were "Vista Capable" were not capable of running the features Microsoft was advertising for Vista. Which I suppose has some merit. Still, ultimately, I would still feel it's up the purchaser to understand what that certification sticker means -- "caveat emptor" and all that. It's not Microsoft's fault people didn't read the fine print. Except that there are allegedly some Microsoft memos which reveal internal disagreement and strife over the "Vista Capable" label. IANAL, but one thing courts supposedly look at is "intent to deceive". If a courts discovers that Microsoft intentionally mislead people, it's more likely Microsoft will be held liable for something. On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Phillip Partipilo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If there weren't mounds of mandatory DRM, maybe they could have implemented > a mode where you could go with XP drivers in order to use your hardware, While DRM certainly plays a role in Vista incompatibility, that's not the whole story, or even the biggest part. Microsoft redesigned a bunch of APIs and ABIs in Vista. Supposedly this is done to improve things. They may actually be improvements -- I don't know -- but it does seem like this time around, more people are asking Microsoft how many tries it's going to take for them to get it right. -- Ben ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
