Hacker News Reader

OP explicitly states that the machine was part of Microsoft's "Signature Device" program and as such MS certainly has a responsibility for allowing these hardware specs onto the street. Nonetheless, I totally agree with notion that I would personally never have been caught in that situation due to being able to read tech specs and having internalized rough idea of Windows performance in relation to hardware setup...

View on HN

OP is mistaken. The signature designation only implies that it's free of pre-installed crapware and junkware. If one wants a real Nexus like device(branded Google), then Surface is their friend(made by MS).

>as such MS certainly has a responsibility for allowing these hardware specs onto the street

And then get sued by the DoJ and split up by a court. Thanks to the antitrust ruling, MS cannot force anything on the OEMs. If you can install Windows on a 512MB RAM machine and sell it, MS can't do shit to stop you.

Surely Microsoft can choose which devices they put some signature branding on, and which ones they choose to stock in their own retail stores though? They can't control the hardware running Windows but they absolutely should control be aware of what their 'signature' on an OEM device implies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com