To repeat what was posted before, Basic has: * No Aero (the cool glassy GUI for Vista) * No backup to anything but local * No DirectX10 * Doesn't come with new Vista games and themes * Windows Vista Meeting not present
In other words, Vista Basic has none of the "features" that make Vista a new OS and is very limited in how you can use it. And if your PC was labeled "Vista Capable" you can't run full Vista on it, only the Basic version. ----- Brian Weeden Technical Consultant Secure World Foundation On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ben Ruset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How is Vista Basic *not* Vista? > > Brian Weeden wrote: > > In this case there also happens to be an internal memo from a Microsoft > VP > > who bought a "Vista Capable" PC instead of a "Premium Ready" one and got > > burned. His memo asks the (rhetorical) question, "if we don't > understand > > our own marketing, what does that say about what we are doing to our > > customers?" > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080211-vista-capable-scheme-was-panned-at-microsoft.html > > > > As Arstechnica pointed out, the lawsuit was originally targeted at > > Microsoft's efforts to prop up XP sales right up until the release date > of > > Vista. In other words, to convince people to buy PCs with XP during the > > holiday season instead of waiting another couple of months for Vista > like > > many wanted to (and everyone who wanted Vista should have). > > > > So the judge limiting the lawsuit as explained in the OP article > basically > > removes this and means that instead of arguing the false advertising and > > market manipulation issue, they are forced to only focus on the "is > Vista > > Basic really Vista and worth XX?". That is a huge win for Microsoft and > > instead of having an actual, meaningful lawsuit this will be yet another > > long, drawn out legal battle with Microsoft that means nothing for the > > consumer that got screwed. >
