Did Microsoft engage in deceptive marketing tricks to sell Vista?

According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Microsoft is being sued over deceptive marketing practices that allowed PC makers promote computers as "Windows Vista Capable" even if they couldn't run the new operating system's "signature" features.

The proposed class action has been filed on behalf of Dianne Kelley of Camano Island. The issue surrounds PCs carrying the "Windows Vista Capable" stickers. These PCs were designed to meet the very basic requirements for Windows Vista Home Basic and would not be capable of making use of Vista more advanced features such as Aero, Flip 3D and media center support. In order to be able to fully leverage these features customers will need to have bought a "Premium Ready" PC in order to run Vista Home Premium or higher.
Microsoft claims that the suit ignores the lengths that the company took to make clear the differences between the different versions of Windows Vista.

I've written about this issue several times before (the last time I touched on this was in the post entitled "Is Vista Home Basic a way for vendors to sell low-spec PCs?") and my take is that having a situation where you have so many different operating systems all falling under the "Vista" banner, and then having two sets of system requirements and two logo programs for PCs is just too complicated for the average user to navigate. Not only that, but the scope for confusion and misrepresentation at the store level is also high. Microsoft then went on to market Vista based on features such as Aero which aren't guaranteed all round. Take this passage directly off the Microsoft Vista website:

In the Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate editions of Windows Vista, you'll see everything you're working on more clearly through the stunning new Windows Aero interface, which includes Windows Flip 3D to help you quickly switch between windows and tasks.

Makes it sound like a done deal to me no matter what your hardware. The small print might make it clear that "some product features are only available in certain editions of Windows Vista and may require advanced or additional hardware" (the wording that you come across on the Microsoft site quite often), but the main text and images gloss over the differences. OK, a few minutes researching Vista will tell most people what they need to know about the different versions, but if all consumers researched before they purchased PCs, we probably wouldn't have the "Vista Capable" logo in the first place.

Personally, I don't feel that this deserves a lawsuit (I'm no real fan of them because the only winners are lawyers, and in this case I'm almost certain it's going to get thrown out anyway), but I do think that Microsoft needs to make it clear to customers what they need in order to see the WOW. Windows Vista is not just about Aero and Flip 3D but Microsoft does promise a lot of WOW! After all, if you bought a new PC, bought it home and didn't see the WOW, wouldn't you feel just a little bit cheated?

By the way, do you feel that the wording on the "Vista Capable" stickers is a bit, well, misleading? What does "Windows Vista Capable" mean to you?

Military Defends MySpace Ban

The Defense Department isn't trying to "muzzle" troops by banning YouTube and MySpace on their networks, a top military information technology officer tells DANGER ROOM.   Rear Admiral Elizabeth Hight, Deputy Commander of Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations, says that the decision to block access to social networking, video-sharing, and other "recreational" sites is purely at attempt to "preserve military bandwidth for operational missions."

Not that the 11 blocked sites are clogging networks all that much today, she adds. But YouTube, MySpace, and the like "could present a potential problem," at some point in the future.  So the military wanted to "get ahead of the problem before it became a problem."

The Admiral won't say, however -- despite repeated questions during a Thursday conference call -- exactly how much bandwidth the sites were absorbing before they were blocked.   She notes only that they were these were the 11 Internet sites taking up the most network traffic on military networks.  And that checking these sites for viruses and malware before they hit Defense Department computers was also a significant concern.  Other sites -- including popular blogging sites, like wordpress and blogspot -- could be blocked in the future, if they appear to present network issues.

The decision to block YouTube and MySpace sparked controversy earlier this week -- especially coming after a new set of Army regulations on operations security, or OPSEC, which put severe restrictions on soldiers' blogging and e-mail.  Top generals have called the now-banned sites a "significant operational security challenge"; there's no telling, after all, what sensitive information troops might disclose in those videos or MySpace blog posts.  But the Admiral claims that "OPSEC played absolutely no part in the decision" to restrict access to the sites.

Troops will still be able to engage in their "recreational hobbies" by going to YouTube and MySpace, she says.  They just can't do it on official Defense Department computers.

Military officials who were using the video and social-networking sites -- Multi-National Force-Iraq has its own YouTube channel, for example -- will be able to request a waiver that allows them to continue to do so.  Individual troops, working on their own to spread the word about operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, say, may not be as lucky. 

When asked whether these Internet-enabled troops are a valuable part of the information war against insurgents and Islamic extremists,  Admiral Hight replies, "That's a great public affairs question.  And I'm not a public affairs officer."