×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Sees Stronger XP Sales in FY08

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the everyone-is-a-winner dept.

Microsoft 243

Rude Awakening wrote with a PC World article, saying that XP sales will actually be higher next year than they were in 2007. Despite Vista's release, Microsoft admitted this week that it expects the previous version of its operating system to make up a larger percentage of its OS sales in 2008. "According to Liddell, Microsoft will generate the same revenue, more or less, under the new Vista vs. XP numbers, although there might be some slight differences because Vista sales have tended to involve more of the higher-priced versions, dubbed premium by the company, than has XP. The financial forecast didn't spell out that directly, however. The only clue was a US$120 million difference in what Microsoft pegged as the 'undelivered elements' it assigned to unearned income for the coming year."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

243 comments

Oy (-1)

dosius (230542) | more than 6 years ago | (#19936917)

Vista's going down like a lead balloon and even Microsoft is seeing it. o.O Vista is truly the Titanic of OSes.

-uso.

Re:Oy (4, Informative)

Deviate_X (578495) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937131)

No is isn't people are just too stupid to read properly, the article is about microsoft changing their predictions about XP sales for next year from 15% up to 22% and vista from 85% down to 78%.

Its amazing how people can get facts so wrong when its practically written in your face

Re:Oy (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937379)

You must be new here. These smucks never read the articals, they just feed off each other with poor grammer.

Yup (-1, Troll)

Gription (1006467) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937923)

You must be new here. These smucks never read the articals, they just feed off each other with poor grammer.
Hmmm...
Let me help you with that a bit. This will take care of the spelling but I guess that isn't your issue with schmucks...
"You must be new here. These schmucks never read the articles, they just feed off each other with poor grammar."

Ok. Now that we have all those pesky letters in the correct order let's just tidy up the punctuation...
The comma just isn't correct. We could go this way...
"You must be new here. These schmucks never read the articles; they just feed off each other with poor grammar."
You could make the argument that using a semicolon is correct but I think most of us would agree that it isn't really what you would really want. (unless you are a "smuck" and you don't read the "articals"...)

I really think this is what you were shooting for...
"You must be new here. These schmucks never read the articles. They just feed off each other with poor grammar."


Jeeze... You must harbor a really odd Freudian self-loathing to slip that out.

Re:Oy (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937835)

Its amazing how people can get facts so wrong when its practically written in your face

They might have gotten the facts wrong, but they got the statistics right!

- RG>

Upgrade Train is Out of Steam. (0)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938101)

Deviate_X provides fanboy irony:

Its amazing how people can get facts so wrong when its practically written in your face.

Ah, but the more fundamental observation is that M$'s new OS did not drive sales or growth. As noticed by The Register [theregister.co.uk], M$ has managed to grow despite Vista but not by much.

I've got a few images to help people like you get the idea. You will have to adjust your bay image settings to remove your corporate blinders, because someone marked these images as offensive within seconds of their post. Study carefully:

As Vista tanks, so does M$'s option pyramid scheme. They are already missing their own expectations, soon they will be missing Wall Street's, then it's all over for them.

A couple reasons for this (5, Interesting)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 6 years ago | (#19936931)

I can think of a couple reasons why XP sales would be higher, both related to the release of Vista. First, you have people who don't want to switch (rather than "upgrade" or "downgrade"--I'm trying not to troll) to Vista, and so they're buying XP while they still can. Secondly, you have people buying computers with Vista, deciding they don't like it, and buying a license of XP instead. And on top of that, many of the Tier 1 OEMs still offer XP as an option. Sometimes it's the default option. And sometimes it's the only option.

I'll admit that this is pure speculation, but if true, I find it interesting that the release of the new, "better than ever" version of a product is driving sales of the old (but still serviceable) version. It kinda reminds me of when Linksys came out with their WRT54G v.5.

Re:A couple reasons for this (4, Interesting)

sapgau (413511) | more than 6 years ago | (#19936977)

Agreed, the other big reason is that corporate users haven't switched to Vista. I still haven't heard of any of our customers planning on Vista yet. If they take months before releasing a security update or service pack for XP, I can't see how they could be preparing for Vista now.

At the very minimum corporate users will wait until their lease expires on their Dells and then will see if they demand XP to be included in their new machines!!!

Re:A couple reasons for this (4, Insightful)

aborchers (471342) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937273)

Exactly. The corporate world is always miles behind. My company is just still malingering on 2K on a lot of boxes, just now getting to XP. Big companies are not known for leaping forward into new and unproven technologies, especially when most of the improvement is just user eye-candy.

Re:A couple reasons for this (4, Interesting)

FractalZone (950570) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937435)

Big companies are not known for leaping forward into new and unproven technologies, especially when most of the improvement is just user eye-candy.

Exactly. XP was a disaster when it was first released, but like most Microsoft products, it benefitted from being beaten up by users for several years. I know of savvy computer users who still run Win2K, not because of corporate lethargy, but because it is arguably faster and more stable than XP, and has a smaller footprint, even after all the multitudinous Service Packs and other patches have been applied. Honestly, I don't do anything that depends on XP that I couldn't do with Win2K, and think downgrading to Vista would be a major step in the wrong direction. Microsoft OSes need to "age" at least three or four years before they can be trusted in the real world.

I still say that Windows Vista is the best advertisement around for Ubuntu Linux.

Re:A couple reasons for this (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937669)

I still say that Windows Vista is the best advertisement around for Ubuntu Linux.
Or perhaps the best advertisement for XP. Whether or not MS fails in releasing Vista isn't really an issue, as it gives thousands of people buying from OEMs reason to pay MS twice. I have to say this is a brilliant move on Microsoft's part.

Re:A couple reasons for this (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937881)

Microsoft OSes need to "age" at least three or four years before they can be trusted in the real world.


Windows != a fine wine

Windows is more like the fish you put under the seat of your evil neighbor's car three days ago while he was away.

Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who said that fish and Windows are alike in that after three days both stink? ;)

Re:A couple reasons for this (1)

Windowser (191974) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938023)

Windows != a fine wine

Except if you're running Linux. Latest version of wine looks "fine" to me.

Re:A couple reasons for this (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937475)

The corporate world is always miles behind. My company is just still malingering on 2K on a lot of boxes, just now getting to XP. Big companies are not known for leaping forward into new and unproven technologies, especially when most of the improvement is just user eye-candy.
This is very true. Even huge corporates like Shell are just now migrating from Win NT 4.0 to Win2K on the servers; while the desktops are Win2K and XP - no Vista. And again, on the desktops IE7 has been banned and the old office apps that need the quirks and ActiveX of broken IE6 is still the only choice.

Moving to Vista will mean changing the entire infrastructure including the Office package, the browser, the server apps, the tools to manage and program the server apps etc. etc. Win2K to WinXP on the desktop wasn't any major hassle - some posters here saying people will eventually be forced to move to Vista like they adopted XP will be disappointed. And last but not the least, supporting Vista on the desktop is a nightmare for sysadmins; and leaves a hole in the IT hardware budget - so the beancounters will stick to XP for atleast 3 years from now.

If desktop apps are still not available for Vista by then, or they are flaky and expensive; large migrations to Web services hosted within Corporate intranets will be the in-thing. None of which will be based around Active Directory, Sharepoint or Office Applications, however - developers have abandoned these platforms after getting bitten by crazy problems with every new version of Windows Server, Desktop or Office.

Re:A couple reasons for this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937005)

Either way, this is the sort of thing that will make shareholders start to ask questions. If the new product isn't selling as well as the old one, what will that do to long term growth? They'll want answers and they'll want to know what Microsofts strategy is for dealing with the problem. Some of the more attentive ones may question the millions of dollars spent on producing a product Microsoft can't sell.

It may be good for Microsoft to have to start answering some awkward questions.

Re:A couple reasons for this (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937523)

if you read the article vista is outselling XP by a factor of 4:1. It's just that they expected it to be a slightly higher factor. The article summary is rather misleading. Who would've expected that on slashdot.... i'm so disillusioned...

Re:A couple reasons for this (2, Insightful)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937733)

Keep in mind, however, that the 4:1 ratio is a number released by Microsoft. Considering the amount of effort and money they are expending to promote Vista, I find even this number hard to believe. Remember the vouchers Microsoft gave out at the end of last year? The ones they gave out before Christmas because Vista wouldn't be released by then? They counted every one of those as a sale of Vista, despite the fact that very few of those vouchers have been or will be redeemed. They also count every machine shipped with Vista today, regardless of its eventual fate. That means that all the computers sold to big companies (that receive these computers and immediately image them to XP or 2000 or Linux) count as sales of Vista.

Look at it this way: even after spending millions and millions of dollars on marketing, and then ...ah... "massaging" the statistics, the best they could come up with was still less than what they expected.

Re:A couple reasons for this (2, Insightful)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937081)

Your first point doesn't really hold water. What were these people supposedly buying XP "while they can" running before? I don't see Linux people suddenly deciding they need XP because of Vista's arrival, and everyone else will have been running windows on PCs anyway, be it XP or 2000, and the 2000 crowd tend to be the type who made a conscious choice to stick to that OS instead of XP. I guess if someone somewhere was running Windows 95 or something on a PC capable of running XP, they might buy XP while they still can.

Re:A couple reasons for this (4, Insightful)

NeoTron (6020) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937329)

I, for one, run Linux practically exclusively on my machines. However, my sister-in-law, for example, wanted to purchase a new laptop. Now, the particular model she wanted came with Vista, but I advised her to get the shop to install XP instead, for numerous reasons (the incompatibility with a lot of older programs, drivers, etc. (I'm too lazy to list ALL the reasons right now)), so she has followed my advice and is a happy person. The point of this post? Vista, in my opinion anyway, is rather like Windows ME of the past - a bit of an abortion from Microsoft - they have quite obviously released Vista FAR too early - it's an unfinished product, rushed out of the factory, because it perceived its competitor's products (Linux-based, OSX-based for example) being released with certain innovations which it wanted to claim for itself as its own innovations, and now because of that is paying the price of that rush. People percieve Vista to be what it is - a rushed out Operating System with many bugs, failed claims, and as a - to be extremely kind - beta quality product at the very most.

Unfinished... (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937691)

Vista, in my opinion anyway, is rather like Windows ME of the past - a bit of an abortion from Microsoft - they have quite obviously released Vista FAR too early - it's an unfinished product, rushed out of the factory, because it perceived its competitor's products (Linux-based, OSX-based for example) being released with certain innovations which it wanted to claim for itself as its own innovations, and now because of that is paying the price of that rush. People percieve Vista to be what it is - a rushed out Operating System with many bugs, failed claims, and as a - to be extremely kind - beta quality product at the very most.
Which is kind of funny when you think about it, they started working on Vista (or Longhorn as it was known back then in 2001), they dropped a whole pile of features and Vista still gives the impression of being an unfinished product. If I compare Vista's state to that of a major OS.X release, for one thing I don't feel Im going to get anything form Vista that OS X 10.4.10 does not already have and certainly nothing 10.5.X wont have. Not that there aren't any problems with a new major OS X release, you always have some problems with major OS X releases. All sorts of OS components and apps have bugs and Samba in particular seems to prone to getting broken but by and large Apple manages to put out a more finished product than Vista is. And Apple usually adds selection of new features to each major release that (IMHO) make the purchase of a major OS X release worth while if you can spare the cash. Since I'm not a Windows user I can't judge accurately how appealing Vista's features are but the increase in hardware requirements alone would make me hesitate. I'd still not recommend using a new major variant of OS.X (i.e. 10.X.0) right off the bat until either the first minor version of it is released (i.e. 10.X.1) or the first reports on any major bugs are out. The same pretty much goes for Windows, wait until the worst bugs have been weeded out which in the case of Vista probably means waiting until service pack 1.

Re:Unfinished... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937869)

If you're not a windows user, what exactly are you trying to say? You've never used Vista and yet say OSX is a better finished product. On what basis? Your entire post is a well typed FUD package. Not to mention completely off topic.
And if it is as you say the development (of Vista) began in 2001, then OSX must have copied over the features from Vista and not the other way round? In any event, next time learn to disguise your FUD better.
kthxbye

Re:A couple reasons for this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19938093)

>>Linux-based, OSX-based for example

Listen up hotshot... OS-X is based on BSD - not Linux!

If that's an indicator of your knowledge of operating systems, I'd say you were in no position to advise anyone else which OS to use.

Re:A couple reasons for this (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937485)

I imagine there are quite a few people out there who are either building new machines or have older machines, who want to run Windows but don't want to install Vista for various reasons (hardware compatibility, software compatibility, performance, DRM, take your pick). Or people who are planning on buying a computer from the Tier 1 OEMs, but don't want Vista, so they're getting XP while it's still offered and supported.

Re:A couple reasons for this (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937519)

True enough, but that's more akin to the grandparent's point #2. Point #1 seemed to imply people "stocking up" while they still can.

Re:A couple reasons for this (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937661)

Sorry I gave that impression. What I meant to convey in point #1 is that people who are building new computers for themselves/friends/family or who want to upgrade to a Windows OS will want to get XP while it's still available, and also to people buying from Dell/HP/whoever and who want to get a computer with XP while it's still supported. Point #2 was meant to apply to people buying a new computer on which Vista is the only option, and switching to XP. I'll grant that I didn't word it very clearly, and didn't define the categories in the best way, but hopefully the point still stands.

Re:A couple reasons for this (2, Insightful)

evilbessie (873633) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937177)

Unless of course you are stupid enough (seriously why are they still shipping Core Solo machines running vista, because that's not a good experience of Vista) to buy a VAIO which ONLY have Vista drivers, damn stupid Sony, yet another reason not to give them money.

Re:A couple reasons for this (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937293)

Even without the slashdot tolling but from ordinary non-computer people. People are having a lot of problems with Vista. The Technical People say it is slow. But the non-technical people are having a hell of a time getting their old software, hardware to work. Microsoft when making Vista was way to ambitious at the start of the project (Longhorn Days) so we are getting pieces that were designed to work with more advanced other sections that hasn't been added... Say for example the Mythical WinFS Which allows for a lot of faster reading, So many components were probably designed with that in mind and used some extra disk activity to do work because with WinFS it was faster, but then they dropped WinFS from the OS so now we have code that is doing more disk reads then it would do otherwise thus bog the system down.

Besides proLinux and proMac Feeling. Windows XP is now actually a decent OS that is stable. Lately I have been seeing more Macs semitransparent Black Screen of death then Windows Blue Screens of death (Although to be fair it is often because I am using Parallels to boot windows on my Mac). The fact that it hasent had a major upgrade in 6 years now actually makes it a pretty fast OS which modern software supports.
Much like how in the early 90s how X-Windows had a bad name because of all the resources it use, and windows 3.1 was much lighter... Then Ten and a half years later X-Windows is the lightweight.

Re:A couple reasons for this (2, Insightful)

GLowder (622780) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937461)

Or, you do like my wife and I did, we've changed over to Mac OS X. We still have a few commercial apps that are currently "windows only". I bought each of us a new XP license in order to install them on Parallels. XP is ok for the time being for a few apps, but I'm just not happy letting Vista in the house.

Re:A couple reasons for this (2, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937539)

Secondly, you have people buying computers with Vista, deciding they don't like it, and buying a license of XP instead I'll admit that this is pure speculation

All Microsoft is saying is that XP sales in FY08 will probably be up a little and Vista sales down a little from earlier projections.

Systems entering the consumer market this fall will be "designed for Vista."

They will perform well running Vista and will ship with DX 10 video as standard, perhaps with integrated ReadyBooost flash, hybrid hard drives, etc., as standard. They will be running second or third generation Vista drivers.

Vista Premium has the media-center features that appeal in the home market, Ultimate the security features you want in a high-end laptop.

How many of these buyers are likely to drift back to XP - and can you really believe that the numbers will be statistically significant?

Re:A couple reasons for this (4, Informative)

Petaris (771874) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937569)

Secondly, you have people buying computers with Vista, deciding they don't like it, and buying a license of XP instead.

If you have a MS lic for an OS or Office suite you can install either of the two versions before it, you can contact MS for the nessesary lic code. Our new machines will come with Vista Business lics with WinXP Pro installed, and we could have even asked for Win2k installed. I am not disagreeing with you at all, just pointing out a perhaps not so well known MS lic feature. That way you can always install Vista if/when you decide you are ready for it.


Re:A couple reasons for this (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937769)

I suspect that what your business does with the machines is conveniently ignored for the purpose of the 4:1 statistic. If it shipped with Vista, it counted as a sale of Vista, regardless of what you did with the machines.

Vista sales (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19936933)

Wow, 78% of sales? That's pretty impressive, considering how many people are actually using Vista. [w3counter.com]

Re:Vista sales (3, Informative)

lukisi (1075563) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937037)

W3counter stats are based on some 5031 websites.
Impressive indeed!

Re:Vista sales (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937465)

I know. Damn Google - WHY did they rip the useful stuff (OS, browser, etc.) out of their Zeitgeist? It was extremely useful from probably the most representative site on the planet.

Re:Vista sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19938109)

Google stopped reporting OS and browser statistics for the same reason as Slashdot: because they publicly confirmed that Windows was the overwhelmingly dominant OS, and the Linux was making virtually no inroads on the desktop at all. In the last OS figures reported by Google, not only was Mac OS far ahead of Linux, but even the ancient and decrepit Windows 95 managed to edge ahead of it (both rounded to 1% as I recall, but with Windows 95 fractionally ahead).

Linux fanboys have a natural tendency to like Google and Slashdot (both seen as anti-Microsoft), but when faced with hard evidence of the failure of Linux on the desktop, they tend to start throwing their toys out of the pram. They can even come to view messengers like Google or Slashdot as allies of "the monopoly" (Microsoft in GNU-speak), and target their hatred and rage at them. Google effectively admitted this, in more diplomatic language, when announcing the removal of the OS and browser statistics:

"As a result of user feedback we have decided to focus our efforts on the international expansion of the Google Zeitgeist and will no longer be publishing data about Web browsers, operating systems and languages used to access Google. You can view historic data in the Google Zeitgeist archives."

So, you can thank the Linux fanboys for getting rid of the OS figures from Google's Zeitgeist. Like religious fanatics who can't cope with evidence that goes against their faith, the Linux fanboys couldn't cope with the reality of Linux's dismal market share, and the rest of us have to suffer so they can enjoy their blissful ignorance.

Re:Vista sales (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937599)

W3counter stats are based on some 5031 websites.

If high-traffic sites like Yahoo, CNN, Amazon and Disney are on the list - then the numbers are "good enough."

Re:Vista sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937847)

Well, that might be enough if the sample were representative, but based on the site, I doubt it is. According to Net Applications [hitslink.com], Vista's market share is a bit higher (second after XP, having just pushed Windows 2000 into third place), but the reality is that there hasn't been a major PC buying cycle since Vista was released. The first will come when PCs are bought for students in the autumn, and the second will be the Christmas buying cycle.

The student and Christmas buying cycles will probably give Vista a big push in market share, since most new PCs are sold with Vista rather than XP, but even if Vista's market share growth continues at the modest pace seen since it was launched to consumers in January, it's only a matter of time before it overtakes XP to become the leading PC OS.

The people comparing it to Windows ME really haven't got a clue. Windows ME was mostly a cosmetic update to Windows 98, and the last of the Windows 9x line. It was obsolete before it was released, with Windows 2000 having been released shortly before it. If anything, the Vista release looks more like the Windows 2000 release: it includes a lot of technical improvements, which increase the hardware requirements, and mean that drivers in some cases will be in relatively short supply at first.

Thankfully, with Vista as another 'Windows 2000', Microsoft didn't do another 'Windows ME' by releasing a 'final version' of XP or something like that (to placate firms that don't want to develop new drivers for their old hardware). Instead, they're letting the 'ME' customers (i.e. the ones buying cheap/old hardware) continue to buy XP itself, so they should know they're buying an old version of the OS. This contrasts with the unfortunate people who bought Windows ME, mistakenly thinking it was a technologically up-to-date version of Windows. Owing to Microsoft's confusing naming conventions, some of them actually thought Windows ME (v4.9) was an upgrade from Windows 2000 (v5.0), rather than a minor update to Windows 98 (v4.1).

Re:Vista sales (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937053)

Not really, it just means that most people use computers they bought before Vista came out. 78% is not so much when you consider that the majority of PCs sold come with Vista.

Re:Vista sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937701)

While it's interesting that vista precentages aren't even twice that of windows 98, it's also interesting that people seem to be actively resisting upgrading to Internet Explorer 7. It seems like Microsoft is having a hard time pushing updates in a lot of areas.

Re:Vista sales (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937789)

For the lazy, the chart shows Vista at 2.53% and XP as 84%ish. That means that one out of forty internet-connected computers is running Vista, six months after release. Extrapolating a bit, that means another 15 years or so until Vista reaches the popularity that XP now enjoys.

It will be interesting to see if Vista continues at a 5%-per-year pace or whether it will pick up.

Re:Vista sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937823)

or extrapolate ouyt further, another 5 years before linux even catches up to Vista's current numbers :(.

Really these numbers mean very little and if anything show Vista is doing incredibly well. already double Linux install base. Remember most installs of Vista come with a new machine. So already 1 in 40 computers on the web has Vista. That is bloody impressive.

The Cynic in me... (5, Interesting)

NeoTron (6020) | more than 6 years ago | (#19936951)

The Ironic Cynic in me says Microsoft released Vista /EXACTLY/ to increase it's sales of XP :P

Re:The Cynic in me... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937167)

I was going to come at the point from a slightly different angle:
It would be interesting to see sales of Win2K after the release of XP,
as well as sales of XP after the release of Vista, to get an idea of the adoption/abortion rate.

Re:The Cynic in me... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937169)

Ah, now it all makes sense. Vista is the New Coke of Microsoft's Windows OS. Brilliant!

Re:The Cynic in me... (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937209)

I think this is probably their strategy. MS has said they're not working on SP3 for XP (they might be, but I think the aim at least is to leave the impression). This makes the task of corporate support more difficult.

WIth a lot of businesses using Windows 2000, I suppose if they're not going to upgrade to XP, might as well make 2 sales out of them. Upgrade them to XP while its still being supported and their machines still run it. Then pull XP from the market, with their next upgrade cycle they might have to buy Vista anyways (if nothing else, the support contract for Vista will be up longer).

Vista is a failure (5, Interesting)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 6 years ago | (#19936959)

Vista is a failure. It always has been, and it still is. Microsoft try to tell you otherwise, but that doesn't make it any less of a failure.

I hope and think that people are starting to realize that newer is not always better, and at the same time realizing that Microsoft doesn't always tell the truth. I also hope and think that this will speed up the adoption of Linux for the desktop, even if it is not quite ready for everybody yet.

(Excuse my English, I am Norwegian.)

Re:Vista is a failure (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937025)

I hope and think that people are starting to realize that newer is not always better, and at the same time realizing that Microsoft doesn't always tell the truth. I also hope and think that this will speed up the adoption of Linux for the desktop, even if it is not quite ready for everybody yet.

I am a Linux user at my workplace but the Windows systems we have all run XP. Our IT people will buy Vista when they can use it across the entire site. Until then they will deploy new systems with the old OS.

Excuse my English, I am Norwegian.

There is nothing wrong with your English.

Re:Vista is a failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937119)

Please don't write "excuse my English" - it is probably better than many people who have English as their native language.

Re:Vista is a failure (1)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937173)

Probably. I am just tired of idiots always picking on every little mistake. But I'll stop writing excuses anyway.

Re:Vista is a failure (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937281)

Personally I see this more as Microsoft being in a position where their biggest competition is , well, Microsoft. That's a very good position to be in for a company.

I don't quite see how such a situation benefits Linux. Nor do I quite see how it makes Vista a failure. When XP was released, allot of people hung on to Windows 2000, until SP1 was released. And finally, when 2000 was finally EoL'ed, the majority of people using it moved to either 2k3 or XP. Same thing will happen with Vista.

One of the largest problems with Vista is that not everything works on it (yet). which is something it has in common with Linux. The key difference is that such will begin to change with the release of SP1, the same isn't true for Linux. Vista will even out after SP1. I know it, and as much as you'd like to claim otherwise, so do you.

Troll, flamebait, whatever. Just because I can see/accept it, doesn't mean I like it.

Re:Vista is a failure (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937889)

You're right that it's a good position to be in. It can also be dangerous. And this isn't the first time Microsoft have been in this situation--it was similar back when Windows XP was released.

There are a few key differences this time, however. Firstly, for hardware and software companies, making old hardware and applications work on XP was relatively simple, as it was based on the same code as Windows 2000. Now, it is a much tougher proposition to make old stuff work on the new OS, and many well-known companies (like HP and Creative) are either deferring or outright abandoning driver development for existing hardware. Secondly, this time there are a couple of very viable competitors. Apple is steadily gaining marketshare (and perhaps more importantly, mindshare). And Linux is definitely on the rise. The fact of the matter is that for most users, it's now actually easier to do a clean install and get your hardware working under Linux than it is for Vista. Thirdly, lots of people are quite happy with the computers they bought any time in the last, oh say, five years at least, so there's little motivation to upgrade.

Timing has a lot to do with it--Linux maturing sufficiently and Apple gaining ground at the same time Microsoft is faltering. Yes, Vista will eventually gain a large share of the market. I suspect, however, that all of that marketshare will come at the expense of XP. In the meantime, Linux and Apple will continue to chip away.

Incidentally, I just talked a co-worker into trying out Ubuntu. He had never heard of it, but you should have seen the look on his face when I told him it was free, and that he didn't need an anti-virus program for it.

Microsoft:Vista is a clusterfuck extraordinaire (1)

FractalZone (950570) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937535)

Vista is a failure. It always has been, and it still is. Microsoft try to tell you otherwise, but that doesn't make it any less of a failure.

... (Excuse my English, I am Norwegian.)


Have soimeone translate this for you: "An accurate technical description of Microsoft Vista can be found in any good guide to computing under the heading 'clusterfuck'."

BTW, does Norway have a Bikini Team? It should!

Re:Microsoft:Vista is a clusterfuck extraordinaire (1)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937613)

Have soimeone translate this for you: "An accurate technical description of Microsoft Vista can be found in any good guide to computing under the heading 'clusterfuck'."
I understand you well without translation. And yeah, Vista is definitely a clusterfuck (I have to admit I had to google that).

BTW, does Norway have a Bikini Team? It should!
No, I am afraid not.

Re:Microsoft:Vista is a clusterfuck extraordinaire (1)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937811)

Have soimeone translate this for you: "An accurate technical description of Microsoft Vista can be found in any good guide to computing under the heading 'clusterfuck'."
I understand you well without translation. And yeah, Vista is definitely a clusterfuck (I have to admit I had to google that).


As a previous poster pointed out - there's nothing wrong with your english and you in fact are clearer spoken than most Slashdot posters.

On-topic it's interesting to note that a Google search for "Vista clusterfuck" actually produces relevant results. That says something about how people are describing the situation I think. ;-)

BTW, does Norway have a Bikini Team? It should!
No, I am afraid not.


More's the pity....

Re:Microsoft:Vista is a clusterfuck extraordinaire (1)

realdodgeman (1113225) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937885)

On-topic it's interesting to note that a Google search for "Vista clusterfuck" actually produces relevant results.
I find this more interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcARXN7cr9Y [youtube.com]

Re:Microsoft:Vista is a clusterfuck extraordinaire (1)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937955)

On-topic it's interesting to note that a Google search for "Vista clusterfuck" actually produces relevant results.
I find this more interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcARXN7cr9Y [youtube.com]

Yes but Vista clusterfuck still beats XP clusterfuck by quite a margin [se-fight.com] though by nowhere near as big a margin as your video shows for Vista sucks/XP sucks. ;-)

tempting... (2, Funny)

jadin (65295) | more than 6 years ago | (#19936961)

I'd vote with my money and buy XP, but then I'd be, you know, voting with my money and buying XP!

Re:tempting... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19936995)

Apparently many people voted with their money and bought a mac. [engadget.com]

So basically (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19936991)

Microsoft is admitting that Vista is the Windows ME of this generation?

Vista is Alpha software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937011)

It's appalling that after 6 years Microsoft has only been able to get out an alpha version of an OS. XP will continue to sell strong and the expectation of a SP3 will add up to those sales.

Vista... well, in a year or so will become a version 1.0 product, with all that means...

Microsoft Says (0, Troll)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937013)

"XP is continuing its huge sales performance with even better statisitcs, even though we're thinking about stopping it"

Slashdot says

"Vista is absolutely crap and their new operating system isn't making sales"

Guys, XP sales != Vista lack of sales

Re:Microsoft Says (3, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937179)

Um...XP sales increasing AFTER Vista is released either means that the sale of computers has jumped exponentially or people dont want Vista.

If people dont want Vista then I cant see their sales being very high.

Re:Microsoft Says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937773)

Why can't /. retards even read the article. XP is not forecast to outsell Vista, in fact it isn't even close. XP sales are expected to be slightly higher, 22% instead of 15%. Vista is the OTHER 78%.

I swear the M$ folk must get a giggle at some of the moronic articles on here lately.

Re:Microsoft Says (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937495)

'Guys, XP sales != Vista lack of sales'

Not true, since this is Microsofts predictions of 2008 RATIO of vista to XP.

'the company has changed its fiscal year 2008 forecast from an 85/15 split in sales between Vista and XP to a 78/22 split.'

78% 85%

so, that is, according to Microsoft predictions, less Vista sales, and more XP sales..

Dear Microsoft... (4, Funny)

skinfitz (564041) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937021)

Dear Microsoft - you lost me as a customer about 15 seconds into the 'Monkey Boy' video, the day of which I immediately went out and bought a Mac. (serious). My exact thought process was 'I seriously see no future in a company that has a f**king a**hole as a CEO.'

Now how to 'fix' your Vista 'issue' - cut the multiple versions bullsh*t and make 'Ultimate' the only version, and sell it for $120.

Be amazed as profits rocket.

That is all.

Dumbasses.

ps on second thoughts ignore all this and carry on as normal as it's really helping Linux and OSX gain ground.

Goddamn mongoloid editards (0, Flamebait)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937075)

The article does not claim that XP sales will be higher in FY08 than FY07, just that MS has changed their projection of the proportion of Vista/XP sales for FY08. There's no mention of FY07 at all. Pathetic, truly pathetic.

Re:Goddamn mongoloid editards (1, Insightful)

joseph449008 (1121209) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937711)

Mongoloid is an offensive and outdated term. It was replaced by Down's syndrome. I'm being serious.

Vista Sucks... (5, Informative)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937087)

I'm sorry, some people will flat out disagree but it sucks. Reasons I think it sucks and I'm going out and getting a copy of XP before they totally yank it is as follows:

* 0x80073712 error in doing updates. I've ran in to this problem and did the registry fix to remove StoreDirty, cleaned out the update download directory, and threw up a voodoo doll on the machine to get Windows Updates to install. From what I've read on their forums and other sites I got as results from my Googling, repair install or reinstall is about the only fix.

* Video drivers, I'm still waiting on a 7900gtx nvidia driver that works properly. I'm not at all happy with Vista's performance and driver compatabilities. I spent over $300 on that card FOR VISTA. Why the hell ain't it working properly on my games which aren't even DX10 games. This is more of an Nvidia problem but it just adds another reason for me to not like Vista.

* Renaming everything. Jesus christ I can't find Add/Remove Programs because it was changed to something else. Consistancy for god sake people! I seriously feel like I did after I first installed a copy of Linux, which runs great, but I had this lost feeling and no clue where anything was.

XP may have had more holes in it but it just WORKED. I can't say the same for Vista at all.

Re:Vista Sucks... (3, Insightful)

Conor Turton (639827) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937245)

XP may have had more holes in it but it just WORKED. I can't say the same for Vista at all.
Oh how short a memory you have. For a start SLOW NETWORK SHARES BROWSING which is still a major issue on XP. XP when it first came out had a whole slew of issues and SP1 did a massive job of clearing them up. In fact, it can only really be argued that XP fully matured with SP2. Drivers were less of a problem because XP was based on Win2k, so you could always try Win2k drivers, but for those of us who've been around a while, we can remember the problems with Win2k driver model caused in the early stages.

The same is happening with Vista. Remember that like Win2k, Vista uses a different driver model from what came before. Drivers will improve, service packs will address the issues. 3 years from now, you'll have forgotten about the problems existing.

Re:Vista Sucks... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937325)

Three years from now I'll still be using Solaris,in a $18000 workstation thank you very much.

Vista's Content Protection (4, Interesting)

Ilmarin77 (964467) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937581)

* Video drivers, I'm still waiting on a 7900gtx nvidia driver that works properly. I'm not at all happy with Vista's performance and driver compatabilities. I spent over $300 on that card FOR VISTA. Why the hell ain't it working properly on my games which aren't even DX10 games. This is more of an Nvidia problem but it just adds another reason for me to not like Vista.

Here is the explanation, why it takes so long: Vista's Content Protection: [auckland.ac.nz] In short, apparently it is very difficult to make a proper video driver for Vista.

Re:Vista's Content Protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19937905)

Are people still linking that out of date pig swill? just about everything in that NZ article has been PROVEN to be completely false. Yes there are lots of issues with the new driver model, but being a developer I can tell you it aint anything to do with the BS on the page you linked.

Re:Vista Sucks... (1)

Mode_Locrian (1130249) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937929)

I'm not so sure about the claim that XP "just worked" (a lot of stuff works well now, but it wasn't so nice pre-SP1).

That said, I agree with your overall sentiment. I tried out Vista for a while and was really rather unimpressed. The new eye candy was pretty neat for a little while, until I realized that it was actually completely unhelpful with respect to easily switching between programs/windows (Beryl and OSX's expose are both many orders of magnitude more useful, not to mention the fact that Beryl beats the pants off Aero in the eye candy department anyway).

The real kicker for me, though, was performance. You'd think 1GB of ram would be sufficient to run *an operating system* smoothly, but my disks were definitely thrashing away quite a bit, which was rather annoying. Driver support is also a disaster. Some games (in particular Oblivion) were unplayable unless I turned off the sound. Now I know that people say that this is Creative's fault for not getting drivers out in time, but MS shares a large part of the blame here for *changing things that didn't need to be changed* (though I now note that you can buy a "compatibility driver" from Creative for $10... what a scam). Plus, even with no sound, my 7800GS wasn't doing as well as it does under XP either. Considering the fact that *the only* reason I even have a windows installation is for gaming, Vista offers absolutely no positive aspects for me. (Ok, well I will admit that I did like the fact that I could install RAID drivers from a flash drive instead of a *floppy disk* while installing the OS.)

Ok, rant over.

This is in spite of skewing results a little (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937091)

I have been considering purchasing volume licenses for WinXP and office 2003 at the office where I work. (At the moment, they all run the OS that they shipped with and all installs are performed manually and individually.) Volume licensing will enable me to create images and deploy software and system loads consistently and uniformly (not to mention quickly and efficiently). The first annoying thing about this, I discovered, is that I have to buy Vista and Office 2007! I'm told I cannot get WinXP and 2003. So if/when I buy all these seats, they count as numbers in favor of software I have no intention of rolling out.

Re:This is in spite of skewing results a little (1)

Darkinspiration (901976) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937267)

look at you license you are allowed to downgrade to windows XP and/or office 2003 even if you buy vista and office 2007 seats.

Re:This is in spite of skewing results a little (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937707)

I know this... I'm just saying that in terms of sales reporting, it counts as a Vista/Office2007 sale even though we would be using XP/2003.

Vista is a big change (2, Insightful)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937101)

XP sales will thrive until businesses switch over, which will take some time. And the more saavy businesses will wait for service pack one before switching. This is not surprising - we saw a similar phenomena back when XP came out. Here is an article from as recent as 2005 talking about the slow switchover from 98/2000 to XP http://www.betanews.com/article/Windows_XP_Adoptio n_Rates_Slow/1118943913 [betanews.com]

I am in the process of learning Vista right now. My first impressions are that there are some things to like (lots of problem diagnosis tools, configuration history tracking, network mapping, etc) and some things that make you scratch your head (I have yet to figure out how to coerce Vista to allow my backup service to start each time I boot - I always have to "give permission". I know I can turn off User Access Control entirely, but that seems a bit draconian and not really "in the spirit" of Vista).

Re:Vista is a big change (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937927)

XP sales will thrive until businesses switch over, which will take some time. And the more saavy businesses will wait for service pack one before switching.
The only problem is that you can't get a site license [slashdot.org] for XP any more. You can only get Vista site licenses that allow you to alternatively install XP. So no matter what you do, it still counts as a sale of Vista. In other words, the new 4:1 forecast is...ah....optimistic at best.

The other difference between the 2000->XP migration and today's XP->Vista migration is that there was XP was released only three years after Win98 and less than two years after Win2k. Businesses who had recently bought computers (or upgraded old ones) weren't willing to pay more money when the old stuff still worked fine and was still supported by MS. By that standard, the migration rate from XP to Vista should be much, much higher.

Has msft "revised their statement" (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937163)

But . . . but . . . I thought msft was saying that Vista sales were through the roof? Remember, just a few months ago, msft was saying that Vista was selling twice as much as XP sold when XP was first released?

Remember that scene from "The Fugive" ?

U.S. Marshal Erin Poole: Care to revise your statement, sir?
Prison Guard: What?
U.S. Marshal Samuel Gerard: Do you want to change your bullshit story!

Re:Has msft "revised their statement" (1)

FractalZone (950570) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937583)

U.S. Marshal Samuel Gerard: Do you want to change your bullshit story!

When it comes from Microsoft, especially from Ballmer's asshmouth, you know it is the purest, unadulterated bullshit. Microsoft Vista is Windows ME2.

Corporate customers still deploying XP (1)

zerofoo (262795) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937239)

And will continue to do so for a long time.

Windows XP professional will continute to be supported through 2012 or so. I recently bought licenses for a bunch of new machines - Vista licenses, but I used my "downgrade rights" to actually deploy Windows XP pro. I'm sure i'm not the only IT manager doing this. This type of purchasing and deployment may actually inflate sales of Vista.

The reasons were quite simple. Vista has no real benefits to justify the headaches of mandatory activation, V2 profile incompatibility, and absolutely awful network file copy performance.

I'm sure the file copy bug will be resolved in time, but the first two probably won't be.

-ted

A couple of reasons for this (2, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937261)

First, companies became aware that a finished MS product has at least a SP2 attached to it. Not trolling here, but look back and think for a moment. Which MS OS was really considerably reliable to produce no undesired effects before it was an SP2 version?

Then there's that driver issue. For much legacy hardware, you'll not get certified Vista drivers, or drivers that won't work 100% reliably under Vista. Even for current hardware, you sometimes still have troubles integrating it seamlessly. Not really the fault of MS, just a matter of a lot of very different hardware in existance with manufacturers who're slow to adopt to a market that isn't as large as it was predicted to be.

Then there's TCP/DRM. A lot of people are actually insecure of just how it works, a lot of spin has been delivered and a lot of scare has been dealt. Some of it was justified, but I've heard so much nonsensical BS that I can see why some people think their beloved copied movies will cease to work if they use Vista.

Then there's the licensing model of "phoning home" at least once every 6 months or it stops working. Not to mention the monthly revelation of just what Vista keeps stored and transmits to MS.

And finally that a lot of the new features in Vista are not really a seller. Yes, they're nice to have and offer some value, but nothing new that cannot be achived by third party tools. Many people who want these features will rather try to get a tool for free instead of switching to a new OS.

Bottom line: People prefer to use what they know. Especially when they've learned by now that an MS system takes about 1-2 years after release to be "finished". People don't want to be paying Betatesters anymore. And neither do companies.

Is vista win ME? (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937373)

With all the sales figures and general negativity about Vista, it's got me wondering if Vista is the modern equilivant for Windows ME. Like Vista ME had a handfull of genuinely usefull features (the high EMS dos mode was a godsend to gamers) but it wasn't considered worth upgrading. With Vista it's the price and the fact it eats resources, with ME it was that it was too unreliable and wasn't worth the upgrade price.

However after ME they came up with XP which, despite what Linux users say, was a huge leap in reliability (generally XP will only crash completely for hardware/driver reasons). Makes you wonder if the next OS MS are working on will be a similar leap.

Re:Is vista win ME? (1)

pho3nixtar (924810) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937813)

I'm ignorant of ME's development/life-cycle and have never had it installed on any machine I've used. Did Microsoft ever invest as much of their efforts into ME as they have Vista? And did they have the problems with delays and such that they had with Vista? It just seems like they've put more of their eggs into this basket, almost always a flawed strategy, and are likely to suffer the same consequences.

We linux users should help promote Vista because.. (4, Interesting)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937389)

...vista sucking will result in promotion for Linux.

Only don't promote Vista as a Linux user, Instead promote it like you work for MS.

Lets all face it, new and improved functionality must be weighed against new and improved problems and user constraints to have to again learn all about and deal with.

Who really wants to do that?

I was resistant to XP when it came out and I have never purchased a copy but use it at work and find it installed on systems people toss and I grab up or systems others give me. Do I like XP better than windows 98? Yes, some, as it has improvements that I could do without but are nicer than windows 98. But it also has irritations I'd rather not have that windows 98 doesn't have.

And that just a comparison of windows to windows. I use Linux 90%, or better, of the time at home. I have used Knoppix, still have it installed on one system but use ubuntu on my main system. (having drive trays is useful as I can swap out for windows98 as I have purchased several third party software packages and installed them on windows 98).

Of the windows XP boxes, I use one briefly for bellsouth/AT&T and linksys router control, because they only support windows (idiots). But I can and do run the live cd of linux dynebolic on them.

I have numerious systems including several PPC macs pre-osx and one imac post osx (interesting machine).
I have systems that have MS DOS - pre-windows and later versions and onece had to deal with MS ME trash.
Somewhere I have a MFM drive dual bootable (probably doesn't spin anymore) with old Minix on it.

I still have an Amiga 1000 and an Amiga 4000/toaster system.

The point is: I've tried a lot of different system, more than mentioned.

But what do I really want of an OS?

Of course I want a wide range of quality software I'm interested in, to run on it, thats a given.

The Amiga is the closest, and I'd probably like BeOS too.

But the problem here is that they are no longer reasonably supported and off shoots like AROS and BeOS's open source versions are yet to reach production level.

DragonFly BSD seems promising as does the Hurd and Minix 3, but they too lack in current state.

Overall I am greatly disappointed with the computer industry in regards to Operating Systems.

All things weighed, GNU/Linux currently gets the most points, But I don't consider it 100% Free Software, as there really are a lot of built in constraints.

100% FreeSoftware will only happen when software is easy enough to create that most anyone can do it, just as today most anyone can use a calculator.

Windows is very much the opposite of free, and the most pathetic example of MS dumbing down the users (a crime against consumers) is changing the names of applications and functionality and in general taking away functionality that should be considered fundamental. Philosophy being - make the users think they are stupid while giving teh professionals more to re-learn and charge for.

While GNU/Linux applies has it constraints one what the users can do for themselves.

So promote Vista ..... Remember you are an IT professional and must support your income. When the users see past windows you still can have a go at them via Linux.

And remember, when this barbaric OS mentality is finally overcome, it won't matter to you cause you long be dead.

Re:We linux users should help promote Vista becaus (1)

dhasenan (758719) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937565)

So...you don't want to use Linux because it's harder to program for it than to use a calculator, and thus misses one of your requirements for being free software.

WTF?

I see the barrier to entry argument, but while that can be lowered slightly, programming is inherently difficult. Not everyone could do it, and some people can program much better than others.

Be happy when there are no *artificial* barriers to entry. There's jack you can do about natural barriers to entry.

First experience with Vista yesterday and done (1)

hirschma (187820) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937463)

I bought my niece a computer that she wanted. It only came with Vista. I ordered it anyway.

The machine arrived from Dell yesterday. I fired it up to see Vista. The damn thing blue-screened on first boot. It has since booted fine.

This tells me that either the software is broken, or the hardware is. Either way, it is going back for a refund.

Nice job, Dell. Nice job, MS.

Nothing New Here (3, Insightful)

Prototerm (762512) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937579)

I'm a consultant and get to talk with IT folks in various organizations. When I ask their opinion of Vista, it's like they just sucked on a lemon. XP is bad enough -- a lot of their computers are still running 2000 -- but Vista is not an option. There are two reasons: hardware drivers that they've heard are either buggy or unavailable for existing equipment, and the inability of existing computers to run it. Not to mention the high cost of new computers capable of running it. Everyone has gotten used to being able to buy cheap, name-brand machines for the organization. Then there's the concern about mixing Vista with XP in the organization. Supporting the users on Vista is no slam-dunk.

It will take a while for these organizations to start buying into the whole Vista thing, and will only happen once the older computers and peripherals are retired. Until then, and only then, XP will remain the preferred operating system over Vista. This shouldn't be earth-shaking news, since a lot of old companies are still using older versions of windows (I wouldn't be surprised if there are still a few Windows 98 and NT4 installations out there), and are only now considering a migration to XP. Microsoft justs needs to have a little patience. Vista will start gaining traction with these organizations in 2009.

money talks (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937609)

If this can be confirmed, then I hope Microsoft takes the hint... their PR always says if there really was a better alternative, that more people would buy that one.

If only... (2, Insightful)

elsJake (1129889) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937725)

So people paid a lot of money on hardware to run Vista but would never do that to run say ...GNU/Linux ? I mean think about it , if everybody that upgraded for Vista put their money in a jar , said I'll buy this GFX card and this and that. Those hardware manufacturers would have actually worked on a driver , merged in the kernel and everybody had a 100% fully functional GNU/Linux PC for only the cost of the hardware , whereas for Vista they would have also paid for the operating system itself. But wait , what about games you say ? People were paying for the hardware to run DirectX 10 games,not older ones , hence game developers would have had to develop these new games , what if they developed them under OpenGL instead ? (and worked with the guys creating DirectX 10 GFX cards to create something open for Linux instead).

A non-technical user's experience with Vista (1)

NPN_Transistor (844657) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937731)

Someone I know told me about his experience with Vista yesterday. He was a non-technical person, so he didn't complain about speed, bugs, etc. He complained that there were many changes in the interface that forced him to re-learn many of the things he was used to (e.g. menus, Office 2007 interface), and that they didn't amount to any serious improvement. As silly as it seems to me and other more technically inclined people, the differences in the Vista interface are discouraging people from switching to it - people like what they are used to. He also mentioned that certain pieces of software and hardware don't run on Vista, and for these two reasons he would much rather have bought a Windows XP computer than a Vista one.

These are also reasons as to why people are discouraged from switching to Linux or Mac, but if they have to deal with these problems while upgrading to Vista, some people might decide that they might as well switch to Linux/Mac (which have more substantial advantages over XP than Vista does).

XP (1)

Keruo (771880) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937755)

If given choice, I'd buy new computer without any OS at all and run linux on it, but if I had to choose between microsoft systems, I'd buy XP SP2 over Vista anytime.
XP is just much more tested, stable and user friendly than Vista.

Vista does not offer anything which would benefit home users by upgrading.
Like all other MS operating systems, Vista won't be useable before service pack X,
where x seems to range from 1 to 6.

Why vista sucks (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 6 years ago | (#19937983)

1.Adding extra crap just to keep the movie studios and record companies happy
2.Adding features that make Vista appear to be more secure instead of features that actually make it more secure.
3.Changing the driver model and forcing hardware vendors to rewrite the drivers
4.Too many editions. Aeroglass should have been part of Home Basic with the media crap (like DVD authoring, HD movie maker, media center etc) and other Home Premium addons being released as a seperate extra pack. Enterprise should not exist as a seperate edition. BitLocker and other features should have been added to vista Business. Enterprise would then only exist as a modified version of Business capable of running in "I can install this to all my machines and have them activate off my corporate license server without having to activate them all manually" type mode. So have Vista Home, Vista Addons (all the stuff currently in Home Premium), Vista Business and Vista Ultimate (plus the no media player versions of Home and Business)
and 5.Vista attempts to make a "clean break" in some areas (e.g. with the new Windows Presentation Foundation UI toolkit) yet it is still full of a decade or more of cruft. Why can't Microsoft pull an Apple and do a clean slate new set of APIs and run the old APIs as a seperate subsystem (similar to how Services For Unix works) which talks to the new APIs.

Let the market decide (1)

Enrique1218 (603187) | more than 6 years ago | (#19938127)

I not surprise that people are choosing XP over Vista. Windows user have weathered a stormy 6 years with XP. People as a whole have learn to secure the OS and I haven't heard of a major malware outbreak in years. No one going to abandon a devil they know for one they don't . Instead of foisting Vista on the consumer, continue to sell both and let people naturally migrate over to Vista. If Vista is truly better than XP, people will migrate. Microsoft would be wise to use the time to listen to user feedback and continue to improve Vista incrementally. Microsoft has the monopoly so they won't lose anything in that scenario.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...