A few months after purchasing a Gateway 7215GX laptop through BestBuy.com, a reader decided to add memory to the system up to the 1,256 MB maximum the specs said it could take. "After the first 1-GB stick I bought only maxed out to 768 MB, I called Gateway's technical support who during the call told me my machine actually had a lower capacity," the reader wrote. "I, shocked, directed her to the page for my laptop on Gateway's own site and showed her the listed specification. After putting me on hold for thirty minutes, she came back and retracted her statement. I was slightly suspicious but still hopeful, so I sold the first stick at a loss and bought another brand's stick which, lo and behold, also maxed out to only 768 MB."

The reader searched far and wide for information about the problem he was having with his laptop, but what he discovered was not good news. "I informally found out on a forum from a person who claimed to work for Gateway that my 7215GX actually only had a capacity of 768 MB and that Gateway's site cannot be trusted," he wrote. "Not a completely reliable source, but I definitely became apprehensive. I decided to give it one more go and bought a stick identical to one Gateway sold on their own site. No longer shockingly, this stick also only maxed out to 768 MB. I called tech support a fourth time and finally got confirmation of the undeniable truth: my 7215GX only has the max RAM capacity of 768 MB, not the 1256MB listed on their site and the figure I was under the impression of when I purchased the laptop."

While the difference between a maximum capacity of 768 and 1,256 megs might not be a big deal to some, it was one of the factors the reader had considered in purchasing the system. "Now to a layman this difference might not seem much, but to a person who is at least moderately interested in computers, total RAM capacity is just as important as the total RAM included or any other spec, if not more," the reader wrote. "Besides that point, I was deceived and lied to about my product and there was no way I could have gotten the truth until after I bought the thing and went through the obstacle course of tech support. Basically, anywhere you search for the 7215GX on Google or Yahoo, you will find it listed to have a capacity of at least 1.2GB. There does not seem to be any site, at least that a consumer has access to, that says otherwise. It's also what they said on BestBuy.com when I bought it, although they have stopped carrying the product so, unfortunately, they have taken that page down."

After a number of futile attempts to deal with Gateway and Best Buy, the reader was finally directed to Gateway's corporate offices. "After speaking to various people there over the course of two weeks, they established that they were not going to take any action whatsoever," the reader wrote. "They would not even change the wrong specification on their site. They are going to continue deceiving customers about this product and who knows what else! All they would do is cite some fine print on their website that they say 'protects' them, like a duped customer is some sort of evil burglar trying to take their gold."

The fine print that Gateway officials claimed protected them was a footnote on the Gateway support page, text that a prospective customer was very unlikely to see. It reads:

This table provides minimum specifications. Actual specifications may vary according to the component options you selected. Specifications are subject to change regularly without notice or obligation. Components in the computer may have more than one supplier and may be custom engineered to Gateway specifications, which can vary from retail.

When the reader filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, Gateway responded by citing the same footnote. Since the reader had bought a retail unit, Gateway said that it can "per the disclaimer" vary the specifications as it chooses. When the reader retorted that this means Gateway could substitute cheaper components at will -- put a 1.5 GHz processor in a system that's advertised as being 2.2 GHz, for example -- Gateway didn't argue with him. That's their position, they said, and they're sticking to it.

Which I suppose should not be a surprise, given that was the Gateway philosophy a decade ago that led to the Hill case. With all the changes and problems it's suffered since, you'd think that's an attitude the company might have lost along the way, but apparently not. And I'd suggest it perhaps reflects a way of thinking about customers that is part of the reason for the diminished position Gateway now finds itself in.