More dirt in Vista Capable case surfaces

Shakil published 17 Nov 2008, 10:34 in main - 305 views

Fav

A new 29-page filing made available through TechFlash, which follows a 158-page filing that was published in February, raises new concerns over PC buyers who were intentionally misled with Vista logos that were placed on PCs in 2006. As in the previous filing, the attorneys of the plaintiffs list plenty of emails that discuss support for the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) as a requirement for PCs to carry the Vista Capable/Ready logo prior to the launch of the new operating system as well as Microsoft’s knowledge that computers equipped with the Intel i915 GM IGC do not meet this requirement and were, as a result, generally considered not to be capable enough to run Windows Vista.

The problem was that especially because Intel held a 40%+ market share of the PC graphics market with its IGCs at the beginning of 2006, less than 30% of PCs at the time were considered to be able to run Windows Vista. Of course, that created a huge problem and the prospect of lots of PCs being stuck in the channel with consumers unwilling to buy them. And it was clear that Intel would be unhappy. Not surprisingly, the company complained about the WDDM requirement and asked Microsoft to temporarily drop this clause.

The filing leads up to an email conversation between Microsoft and Intel executives on January 30, 2006, a communication which apparently had already reached the very top of both companies by that date, that resulted in Microsoft dropping the WDDM requirement on January 31, 2006. Intel was happy and was able to ship millions of suddenly “Vista Capable” systems into the market (by that time, Vista Capable meant that a PC would be able to run Vista without the AeroGlass surface), an exposure that was estimated at about $200 million per month, according to the filing.

The decision was greeted with enthusiasm by Sony (which had invested in the 915 chipset), confusion (Dell, which described the new strategy as “clear as mud”) and anger (HP, which had invested in higher-end graphics systems to prepare for Vista). Microsoft’s internal reaction reflected previous communication – emails of several employees and executives quoted in the filing described the decision, which, as it appears, was mainly carried by corporate vice president Will Poole (left Microsoft in September 2008) as wrong with the potential impact of misleading customers.