I agree with you. But you'd still be pretty pissed if you spent $2,000 on a new PC in November 2007 and find out that you have to buy a new one in two months later to run the full windows Vista when the salesmen assured you that it was "Vista Capable". It was all about driving Christmas sales of PCs even though Vista wasn't shipping until after the holidays.
Like I said, when the judge said the lawsuit has to argue whether Vista Basic is still Vista, that's a win for Microsoft. ----- Brian Weeden Technical Consultant Secure World Foundation On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Ben Ruset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't agree. It's still the Vista code base. It has more "features" > and changes from XP. > > A BMW 3 series is still a BMW, despite it not having all of the features > of the 7 series. > > Vista Basic is designed for cheap/low-end PC's, so it's not like they'd > be able to run Aero. Is a cheap home PC going to back up to a network > share? It's likely to be the only PC in the house. I'm not sure about > DX10, but again, is it going to be a gaming PC with a crap video card? > Games? Oh no, no Chess Titans! And Vista Meeting? What's that - the > replacement for Netmeeting? Is the target demographic going to care > about it? > > If any version of Vista will boot and run on the thing, it's "Vista > Capable" in my book. > > Brian Weeden wrote: > > 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 >
