Think that Microsoft's "Windows Vista Capable" logo was too confusing? You're not alone. It seems that the program also caught out at least one Microsoft employee.
Note: For background on the logo programs see this post. Far background to the case see this post. For thoughts I had at the time, see this post.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Joseph Tartakoff attended a hearing before U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman on Friday and reports on some of Microsoft's internal e-mails quoted during the hearing. And it makes very interesting reading. In fact, the three excerpts quoted are priceless.
Another employee, Mike Nash, currently a corporate vice president for Windows product management, wrote in an e-mail, "I PERSONALLY got burnt. ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."
That's pretty bad - that's also a lot of money to spend on a machine that was only "Vista Capable". But there's more:
Jim Allchin, then the co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, wrote in another e-mail, "We really botched this. ... You guys have to do a better job with our customers."
And this employee doesn't have much faith in the "Windows Vista Capable" logo:
"Even a piece of junk will qualify" for the "Windows Vista Capable" designation, wrote one employee in an e-mail that Tilden read out loud.
I long held the belief that Vista Basic was Microsoft's way to allow OEMs to continue to sell low-spec systems and still call them Vista machines, and that the "Windows Vista Capable" program would be used to push these machines onto unsuspecting customers. Seems I was right to be concerned.
I feel sorry for people who purchased these machines with visions of Vista (and Aero) in their heads. These people ended up with systems which could barely run Vista.