Quote Originally Posted by nihil
I guess there is at least one Federal Judge who sees things more clearly? Which is why MS are now facing a class action suit, with their own internal memoranda being used in evidence against them.......... they did know.

I was gladdened to hear this:
As is pointed out in the article you took those quotes from... they are taken out of context. There's no way to know for sure when this was stated or what it described. People are taken by marketing all the time... I remember reading a Microsoft website a couple years back that clearly stated the difference between the various Vista stickers and what they meant. I would argue that the judge simply has no clue. I think this is a big problem with law that we're going to see going forward. Without insight from the technical generation, the generation that consists of most judges and lawyers will cannot make a fair ruling... they can't even get the facts straight or understand the problem most of the time... Legal issues involving IT in any way, shape or forum, require insight from those versed in IT and this doesn't include those who are easily paid to say anything... it should come from an impartial team... essentially a "tech jury" outside of the regular jury that declares all technical comments legitimate or not... I think the Julie Amero happening at all was evidence that those in a position to enforce the law don't understand it... and it took an outside team of volunteers to step in and clarify things.




And there is some very interesting stuff here:

http://blogs.computerworld.com/more_...unk_pc_lawsuit
There's nothing really interesting here... Microsoft is saying why vendors haven't provided driver support... Essentially the same thing that you say below... A lot of people seem to forget that Vista was a code rewrite... which was part of the reason it took so long, so old drivers won't work.. new drivers are required... a lot of hardware vendors didn't want the added expense of supporting hardware they'd already collected the money on.

As for existing hardware, well, when I buy something I make sure it is supported by the operating system I intend to run it under. That is my deal with the manufacturer, and I expect it to work properly. I also expect them to support any service packs and patches for that operating system until it reaches EOL.
I'd say your expectation is reasonable... However the people who bought "Vista Capable" computers clearly had no idea if there operating system was properly supported... They didn't properly research their purchase. Computers are becoming cheaper and cheaper... almost to the point of being disposable... For that reason people don't properly research their purchases... Not like they do when buying a home, or a car, or making any other major purchase... and I, for one, still consider a computer to be a major purchase.. .It requires research and time... You don't walk into the store without any knowledge and rely on the labels and the sales person... it's like buying a car because you like the paint job.


What I do not expect is for it to be supported for NEW operating systems. That is quite unreasonable, and in no way legally enforceable, unless they clearly stated that was the case. If they chose to provide the support then I would consider that a bonus, but in no way my right.

So, if MS want to sell their swanky new operating system, it is up to them to provide the generic drivers for equipment that was sold to run under an earlier version of Windows, if they so chose.
I agree 100%... which is why I don't get why you posted the second link.. since it is essentially whining about the fact that Vista doesn't support old hardware.