Posts: 25,667
Threads: 2,064
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
12
What, he can't do what everyone else in the world who's unhappy with Vista has done, and installed XP in place of it?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Posts: 410
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
What I want to know is how you can possibly sped $2100 and not get a vista capable machine.
Posts: 2,072
Threads: 62
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
0
This sounds kind of strange to me. It wasn't actually Microsoft who sold the PCs (and thus, actually set the prices on them), right? Their labelling might
have provided the excuse, but why isn't the lawsuit aimed at the ones who actually jacked up the prices?
-Morgan.
Posts: 2,311
Threads: 148
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
Company store? That'd be my guess, anyway, for both questions.
===========
===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."
Morgan and Valles are both misinformed here. The computers were not sold by microsoft, nor were they priced directly by Microsoft.
The 'Vista Capable' labelling was a certification program available through MS, allowing OEMs to easily ensure to their customers that the machine they
were buying was going to run Vista, when it was available. The certification program probably costs XX$ for the OEM, which is then, of course, passed onto the
consumer.
Interestingly enough, the two people initiating the class action suit did not take part in this 'upgrade' procedure.
And it's relatively easy to drop two bones on a machine not capable of running Vista at anything approaching full tilt, if you don't know what
you're doing.
Most people simply don't.
Anyway, back a couple lines here. To answer S3Yang's inquiry - it's easy. Get an onboard graphics adapter, and try and run Aero.
And to answer Rob, the suit isn't actually from guys unhappy with Vista's performance on what is a perfectly capable XP machine, it's from people
unhappy with paying extra money for a 'vista capable' machine that isn't.. vista capable.
Personally, I'm just glad I got a copy of XP Pro when I bought all the hardware for my new machine.. of course, that's not an option everyone can use.Wire Geek - Burning the weak and trampling the dead since 1979
Posts: 668
Threads: 22
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
Personally, my solution to Vista on the laptop I got for writing term papers was to take Vista off and install Ubuntu.
- Grumpy Uncle Gearhead
Posts: 1,450
Threads: 168
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
2
I run Vista on my 2 year old work laptop. Of course, it's no slouch - it's a 2.16GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, with a 5400rpm drive and a Quadro 135M (approx equiv
to a Gefore 7400 Go). It runs fine.
Office runs fine. Java works a bit better than XP since I can actually shut it down properly when crappy code mem leaks. My virtual machines that I use for
testing run much faster - both VMware and VirtPC.
Heck, I can even play CoH on it - given at a lower level than I could when it ran XP, but a large portion of that is because I refuse to disable Aero when
playing.
It'll be nice to see how it runs on my new machine I'm getting in May/June. 2-year Evergreen plan FTW.
Posts: 1,450
Threads: 168
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
2
Wow. Pretty damning stuff there.
I should point out that even with all I've said about my work machine and Vista, I'd still prefer XP - I only run Vista because the IT group is
dedicated to becoming familiar with it before we have to start supporting it.
