Beta
×

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!

Vista Shipped On 39% of PCs In 2007

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the another-massive-success-could-sink-the-company dept.

Microsoft 321

Stony Stevenson writes "Vista is proving far less popular than XP did with new PC buyers during the earlier OS's first year on the market. This conclusion follows from statements by Bill Gates at this week's Consumer Electronics Show. Gates boasted that Microsoft has sold more than 100 million copies of Windows Vista since the OS launched last January. Based on Gates's statement, Windows Vista was aboard just 39% of the PC's that shipped in 2007. And Vista, in terms of units shipped, only outperformed first-year sales of XP by 10%, according to Gates's numbers, while PC shipments have doubled in the years since XP's release."

cancel ×

321 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Jon Stewart, Scab (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21950374)

Jon Stewart is a Jew rat picket line crossing scab.

Re:Jon Stewart, Scab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21950454)

Hi, Mr. Ballmer! Nice to see you on Slashdot. *ducks chair*

Re:Jon Stewart, Scab (1)

antixogh (1022049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950934)

iirc, Jon Stewart paid the writers out of his own pocket which happens to be allowed according to the union rules.

none (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21950380)

1st one

Re:none (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21951576)

more pathetic than firstposter-racer is not be the first.

Looser.

Poll Troll Toll (1)

PollTroll (764214) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950386)

What's better...
 
  Vista [impoll.net]
  XP [impoll.net]
  OS X [impoll.net]
  Sex with a mare [impoll.net]

What about Win Xp... (1)

Eastender (910391) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950388)

How many copies of XP shipped in the same period? Will still go to show dominance of Windows and potential upsell opportunity to Vista as time goes by. This is a blip in the product life cycle. They still call the shots, don't they?

Re:What about Win Xp... (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950472)

And besides them shipping, do they know how many VISTA installs where replaced with XP or even better, Linux? I don't think we should be popping the champagne at the Vista funeral just yet. MS is a juggernaut, they will find a way to try and make their OS even more prevalent.

Besides, Joe Bloggs sitting at home wanting to buy a PC reads this kind of marketing schpiel and thinks to himself:

"A hundred million copies eh? Wow I better get me a PC with vista, seems everybody is doing that..."

MS has a brilliant marketing strategy, its called FUD.

Re:What about Win Xp... (4, Insightful)

joto (134244) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950876)

I doubt it. Joe Bloggs is in my opinion one of these people
  1. Doesn't know anything. Doesn't care. Buys whatever the salesman wants to sell him, assuming the price-range is right.
  2. Doesn't know anything. Doesn't care. Buys the one with a colour she likes (which suprisingly often is a pretty good strategy ;-)
  3. Doesn't know anything. Asks his fourteen year old cousin. Ends up with a monster PC for gaming that is just as outdated in three years as the cheap one the salesman wanted to sell him

I doubt any of them will reflect much upon the choice of Vista or XP (or mac or linux). Given that the average PC-buyer doesn't know the difference between Gigabytes and Megahertz, they are not going to reflect much upon number of copies of this or that. Vista is newer, and therefore better. Those who complain about Vista are PC enthusiasts or corporate buyers.

Besides, selling Joe Bloggs anything but Windows is a recipe for disaster. What's he going to do when it will not work with his GPS, camera, cellphone, PDA, mp3-player, or other favourite gadget? Linux is good, but I still need access to windows once in a while.

Re:What about Win Xp... (2, Insightful)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950922)

What's he going to do when it will not work with his GPS, camera, cellphone, PDA, mp3-player, or other favourite gadget?

Support for these things are getting better by the day. Pretty soon this will be a nonissue. Right now I have all my peripherals working fine with Linux. It's a perception thing mostly...

Re:What about Win Xp... (0, Flamebait)

blackdew (1161277) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951682)

It's getting better by the day for the last 10 years and still not anywhere close to being there...

Re:What about Win Xp... (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950942)

Ends up with a monster PC for gaming that is just as outdated in three years as the cheap one the salesman wanted to sell him
While I don't doubt that scenario: my wife has a gaming machine (at least it was in 2003), because her ex seemed to think it was necessary. However, salesmen are going to sell you the most expensive machine they'll be able to sell you. So, yes that 600$ laptop is going to be sufficient, but if they can get away with selling you a 1200$ machine, they most definitely will!

Re:What about Win Xp... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950572)

No, they are panicking. Hadn't you noticed? (No, I am not being sarcastic. They really are. Look at some of the things they have been doing.)

Re:What about Win Xp... (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951096)

>Look at some of the things they have been doing.
Such as...?

There is no potential upsell opportunity (3, Insightful)

igb (28052) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950616)

potential upsell opportunity
Retail end users don't upgrade operating systems, ever. This may not be 100% true, but it's certainly 95% true. When consumers buy a new PC in order eradicate spyware, what makes you think OS upgrades are on the agenda (even if they actually work with the hardware present, which is a whole other story). Businesses might, but OEM pricing of licensing is so low relative to Select/Enterprise that usually it makes no economic sense. So I believe a seat sold with XP is a seat lost to Vista for 2-4 years.

ian

What? (3, Interesting)

poptones (653660) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950682)

We get computers in the shop all the time with XP on them and people wanting them reloaded - machines that surely didnt come from the shop with XP... hell, some of them probably didn't even come with ME.

Not to mention all those Vista machines of late that folks want reloaded with XP or ubuntu.

LOTS of them. They might have shipped Vista at 39 percent, but I bet the number still using it after a month is less than 35%.

Re:There is no potential upsell opportunity (1)

daveewart (66895) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951244)

Retail end users don't upgrade operating systems, ever.

Rarely in a "walk into a shop and buy Windows In A Box of money", no. But I bet there is a moderate number of pirated upgrades. Probably more than the Walk Into A Shop variety, anyway...

Re:What about Win Xp... (1)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950984)

This is a blip ... They still call the shots, don't they?



Well this getting to be more than a blip we are already a year deep... And any sales figures quoted are most likely OEM shipments. I think the important thing here is to compare Vista to ME. As they are going through similar pains initially. I think it's important to note I do not equate Vista to ME, and I did enjoy the ME release. Booted quickly and ran fantastic in it's day for me. But I think public perception is similar and Vista suffers from extraordinary hardware requirements further hampering it's adoption. So given the time frame and expectations, this is far, far from a blip. This is a significant blow to Microsoft and their road maps in regards to Windows Releases. I think the bright side of all this will be the accelerated development of Windows7 perhaps they will finally understand less=more in regards to the software running our uber-hardware these days.

In regards to MS calling the shots, even as an avid Windows user. I must say that I think Microsoft OS software is as irrelevant as it has ever been in many years. We have already seen OEM's calling the shots and bring back XP as pre-installed on desktops. We're seeing MS struggle with the EU in regards to business practices. So really I think if there ever was a time where MS wasn't calling the shots in recent memory, that would be today.

That's not to say they should be discounted. In fact I would dare say MS might pull an AMD and release something like the first-gen Athlon of the OS world. /fingers crossed

Explaining Vista's flop? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21950390)

1. Smart Microsoft employees design smart features.
2. Smart Microsoft employees flock to Google.
3. Dumb Microsoft employees can't implement the designed features.
4. ?
5. Profit.

the missing links (5, Funny)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950882)

4. Chairs spotted on Earth orbit.

Re:the missing links (0, Redundant)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951036)

4. Chairs spotted on Earth orbit.

This got a belly laugh out of me. I wish I had mod points.

I'm surprised that number isn't higher. (2, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950404)

For some reason, a lot of PC manufacturers don't give the consumer an option for a pre-loaded OS. For example, Dell Canada doesn't offer XP for their Inspiron line (although Dell USA does offer XP, for some reason, Canadians get screwed), and almost all Asus laptops come pre-loaded with Vista. I think it's the same BS for consumer line HP laptops too. I ended up buying a business line laptop, which came pre-loaded with Vista, but came with Vista and XP discs.

It seems to me that Microsoft is strong-arming PC manufacturers to offer Vista only, so I'm surprised that number isn't higher.

Re:I'm surprised that number isn't higher. (5, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950456)

Most machines are sold to businesses. They've had the option to get XP instead all along.

Re:I'm surprised that number isn't higher. (2, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950526)

Good point. My company is a software development house, which uses everything Microsoft (even Visual SourceSafe!!!). And my company hasn't even considered moving anyone to Vista. Unfortunately, I got downgraded to Office 2007...

Re:I'm surprised that number isn't higher. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21950648)

indeed this is true but of course most businesses are dinos and don't know better or need faster comps for say games n such

Re:I'm surprised that number isn't higher. (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950470)

It seems to me that Microsoft is strong-arming PC manufacturers to offer Vista only, so I'm surprised that number isn't higher.
Vista is the new MS OS, every new release gave people something to upgrade for and this time they expected the same to be true here, after all it's been 6 years since XP and people might have had an interest in upgrading to the new OS. except for one little snag, the new OS didn't really offer much worth upgrading relative to previous MS releases. People are holding back more than they did with XP just like they did with ME. That's not good for hardware manufacturers, they need people to upgrade their computers every so often and one of the reasons for upgrading is getting the new MS OS as well as some shiny new hardware that hopefully does more. Again, that's not what happened, Vista uses a lot more resources than XP and frankly gets in the way for a lot of people. For now at least, it's preferable for most people to just buy a new computer with XP installed rather than Vista. It does exactly what they want, they are familiar with it and it is arguably much more responsive.

Re:I'm surprised that number isn't higher. (2, Funny)

Hucko (998827) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950558)

Vista is the new MS OS
Really? When did it come out? After all these years of waiting, surely it would have at least made the news in tech circles. Pull the other one.

Re:I'm surprised that number isn't higher. (1)

concernedadmin (1054160) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951000)

Buy a 'small business' laptop from Dell. It's clear that Dell only forces people into the various groups (home, business, small business, etc.) to obfuscate their marketing strategy.

Re:I'm surprised that number isn't higher. (4, Informative)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951336)

For some reason, a lot of PC manufacturers don't give the consumer an option for a pre-loaded OS.

This is true. In the past (DOS days) people would ask me regarding computer purchase selections. What I said then is just as true today. Find out what programs you need to run and then find the hardware which is capabile of running it.

Many people wanting to do multimedia, photography, video production, etc are needing something with realtime hardware support. Those people are moving to hardware and OS that support the required applications. Vista is not a real time OS and is unsuitable for many capture devices. Alternatives to fill the gap often include Apple and some Linux distributions such as Ubuntu Studio.

Nothing kills a live session more than a request for an Adobe PDF viewer update request in the middle of a session. I got this one during a live presentation while playing a DVD. The DVD on the projector simply stopped. Going to the laptop, we discovered that despite the fact were in the field with no internet connection, Adobe needed our permission to get an update. The fact a PDF viewer has permission to stop the show by having Windows Vista stop it to ask permission for an update without a net connection convinced me that Vista is unsuitable for presentation and digital audio workstation applications.

My Digital Audio Workstation is now Ubuntu Studio based with low latency and no interruptions of a live recording session. Some people prefer an Apple soulution.

Audacity is OSS and cross platform. It works fine on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

Many capture devices have serious latency and breakup problems in Vista. Audacity works in Vista, but capturing sound should be done on another platform.

Many popular USB capture devices simply are not supported on Vista because of the non-real time nature of the OS. Here are a few popular interfaces without Vista support;
Roland http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.aspx?ObjectId=743&ParentId=114 [rolandus.com]
http://www.roland.com/products/en/UA-101/specs.html [roland.com]
Beringer http://img3.musiciansfriend.com/dbase/pdf/man/m_702540.pdf [musiciansfriend.com]

I found some of the Yamaha mixers with built-in USB interfaces list Vista, but the manual was quick to point out problems are caused if it has too little memory, has a slower processor, or several other items that can cause problems with multi-track recordings.

For real-time capture, I prefer to use a hardware priority OS. I have used this instead of Vista for Digital Music Studio work.
http://ubuntustudio.org/ [ubuntustudio.org]

How many are actually running XP? (3, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950408)

I believe lots of companies get to use an older version instead of Vista even though they have a Vista license.

Microsoft gets to count it as a Vista sale (and brag), and Big Corp gets to use Win2K/XP.

Same goes for MS Office 2007.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (5, Informative)

aliatgb (997100) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950424)

You have to wonder how many of the people that did get Vista on their laptop/desktop remove Vista and install XP? I work for a major electronics retailer and we always have people that buy Vista machines and have us install windows xp on them for a fee. Sort of related but we get an ungodly high amount of computer returns with the reason being Vista sucks.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (0)

Tragek (772040) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950464)

I'm in the same situation: electronics retailer; with epic fail for vista being the common thread. I do wonder though if a lot of it was microsoft shooting itself in the foot. When vista was first released in january, most of the (Cheap/affordable) laptops we sold were running vista basic, and running it poorly on 512 ram, and a crappy video card. People got the impression that vista was crappy, and slow from those laptops. Certainly, its changed now, but that first impression has soured a lot of people, people who then talk to their brother, cousin, sister, (hopefully not all the same person :P). Perhaps vista would be more of a success if had been delayed and released now, on hardware that could allow people to appreciate it.

Disclaimer: I use a mac.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21950744)

I just bought a computer from BB and as far as I can tell, there are no XP drivers for the integrated ethernet or video. PC builder wouldn't provide XP drivers. The mainboard manufacturer didn't have any. I gave up a little sooner than maybe i should have a reverted back to vista, but for the average consumer, there is no choice. You buy a new, cheap PC at a retailer, then you will be running vista.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (3, Insightful)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950612)

You have to wonder how many of the people that did get Vista on their laptop/desktop remove Vista and install XP? I work for a major electronics retailer and we always have people that buy Vista machines and have us install windows xp on them for a fee. Sort of related but we get an ungodly high amount of computer returns with the reason being Vista sucks.


Honestly, I would expect that in the retail channel, the vast majority of PC's sold with Vista are running Vista. In a corporate environment, a lot of IT departments are probably not bothering with Vista while others beta test it, and won't have any interest in investigating deploying it until SP1 is well understood. On the common home user front, however, people use whatever their machine came with. most of them don't know what the difference is between Office and Windows. Hell, some of them have trouble grasping the difference between "MSN Windows" and "AOL Instant Messenger." Yes, really.

Vista may drive some people to insist that their new machine be made to "work like the old one." But the vast majority of the consumer base just isn't well educated enough in the subject to be able to make a choice between XP and Vista. They are still using Windows 98, and just want to replace the old busted one as conveniently as possible.

It seems that all the statistics and reports about how Vista is doing well, or Vista is doing badly seem to ignore the fact that when it comes to consumer sales, the average buyer is simply incapable of being "excited about the new hotness" or of "rejecting the new beast." Whenever you read these sorts of information tidbits, just assume that about a third of all computers are sold to iguanas.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (1)

joto (134244) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950902)

But the vast majority of the consumer base just isn't well educated enough in the subject to be able to make a choice between XP and Vista. They are still using Windows 98, and just want to replace the old busted one as conveniently as possible.
The vast majority of PC buyers certainly don't use Windows 98. Those are the guys who never buys a new PC. Either you are into buying PCs, or you're not. And people who buy PCs upgrade a little more often than that.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (3, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951004)

But the vast majority of the consumer base just isn't well educated enough in the subject to be able to make a choice between XP and Vista.

I know it's nice to feel all elite, but that simply isn't true.

Plenty of my friends don't use computers as part of their employment (concrete workers, fitters etc) but are quite capable of basic computer tasks like email, web, games etc. They are also quite capable of recognising that the Vista interface is more confusing, inconsistent and sluggish that the one which preceded it, and are asking tech-minded friends to help them get rid of it. I'd say at least half of the people I know who've bought a machine with Vista installed have asked for the computer to be upgraded to XP or Linux within a month.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (1)

i_liek_turtles (1110703) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951454)

My iguana can write an email, you insensitive clod!

Re:How many are actually running XP? (5, Interesting)

kemushi88 (1156073) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950450)

I work for the University of Washington. This past summer, we ordered around 200 new Dells, that came preloaded with Vista (we had no choice in the matter). As soon as we got them, we used our site license to replace Vista with XP on all of our computers. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens in other corporate environments.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21950508)

That's an incredibly stupid waste of time. How many man hours went into that operation, in a move no doubt spearheaded by the pigheaded ignorance of the IT staff? And they wonder why tuition is so high....

Re:How many are actually running XP? (3, Informative)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950544)

Uhhh... I would assume that all the systems were imaged using Ghost or something similar. They would have been anyway with Vista in order to avoid manually setting them up for deployment, so no additional time was spent versus deploying with Vista, and the site license would mean that no dollars were spent versus Vista. So, that hardly seems like an act of pigheaded ignorance. I would have done exactly the same thing, under the circumstances.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21951318)

Installing XP didn't cost them any more money, but they did have to pay for all those Vista pre-installed licenses that they subsequently wiped from all those machines. And regardless of whether or not Dell can get them for $30 or whatever, it'd probably cost the institution significantly more than the OEM price to put them back (if for some god-awful reason they needed to; volume licensing on Vista is a bitch).

So no, it doesn't cost any more, but I think it's pretty regrettable that they had to pay the Microsoft tax one way or another. I mean, they already had an XP site license, so why couldn't they have arranged to buy clean machines? I find it a little weird that there was apparently no choice in the matter, too; Dell's business division will gladly sell you XP boxes. I'm guessing it was probably some cheapo boxes from the consumer division to be installed in a walk-in lab or something.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (2, Insightful)

an.echte.trilingue (1063180) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951596)

The school will never put vista back on these boxes, I assure you. The first rule of IT support is "once the box is doing what it should be, don't fuck with it." So that concern is moot.

As for why they bought boxes with Vista instead of XP, anything we can come up with is pure speculation and pretty much worthless. However, I would guess that whoever made that decision, knowing that he would just ghost XP onto the boxes with the volume license, just took the cheapest option. Maybe there was a promotion on that particular configuration; who knows.

I would like to point out that nobody buys 200 computers from dell without going through the business division. Even the with the cheapest boxes, you are still looking at a $100,000 of expenditures. That is not huge volume, but it is enough to get draw attention from higher budgetary authorities in any institution, which means whoever is making the purchase has researched his options and is able to justify himself to that authority.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21951056)

Heh. You maybe want to go work in an IT department before making stupid, pig headed comments like that :)

200 PC's could easily be loaded with XP + all software + all security patches in one day by one person using the magic of network boot and a drive image system like Ghost.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950844)

No only corporate, also in private. All people I have spoken to who have bought a PC (Mainly portables) have removed Vista and replaced it by either XP or some sort of Linux.

The few that still run Vista is basicaly people who want to see what it is and will remove it sooner or later.

The fact that Microsoft sells X amount doesn't mean anything, exept for the fact that you can measure how much money they are making. These are not voluntairy sales.
It is like saying the people in Guantanamo like waering orange, because that is what they wear all the time.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950864)

Due to my job, I know of a number of companies that do the same thing with much larger volumes of machines.
Basically, and 100+ sized company is likely to use images for their machines, and those are likely XP since there's no need to replace it with Vista.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950900)

Did you bother getting a refund on the bundled copies of Vista? I'd imagine you could get a lot back for 200 machines.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (2, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950964)

They couldn't. The Windows site license from Microsoft is strictly upgrade only - you have to have a valid retail or OEM license to accompany the PC to begin with.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950952)

I work for the University of Washington. This past summer, we ordered around 200 new Dells, that came preloaded with Vista (we had no choice in the matter). As soon as we got them, we used our site license to replace Vista with XP on all of our computers. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens in other corporate environments.

I'd be very suprised if there are any corporate environments (other than "mom and pop") which would run OEM preloads at all. Though the likes of Dell just don't get this.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950978)

I'd be very suprised if there are any corporate environments (other than "mom and pop") which would run OEM preloads at all. Though the likes of Dell just don't get this.

Not true, actually. Dell offer a service whereby you can have PCs shipped preloaded with your own image rather than their OEM one.

The only problem is Dell don't offer it unless you're ordering something like 100 PCs per year - fair enough, any less than that probably isn't cost effective for them. But 100 PCs per year is a fair few for a smaller business - and IMO it starts becoming time-effective to ditch OEM preloads and start putting your own custom build on somewhere closer to around 20 reloads/new PCs per year.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (1)

Bazman (4849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950994)

Good job you didn't buy Sony. One of our staff wanted a Sony laptop, we got it, it had Vista on it, half the software the user wanted doesn't run on Vista, so we stick XP on it.

Ummmm. No graphics driver? No sound? No support? After much googling and forum-digging our techie managed to hack together some older Sony drivers and a .inf file that got most things working. Took a while though.

  Then over Xmas we think the laptop got bounced and now the CD drive doesn't work. If it goes back it'll either come back with the 'You put another OS on this, it's not under warranty' stupidity, or it'll come back with Vista (but we'll take a disk image beforehand).

Re:How many are actually running XP? (1)

tor528 (896250) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951358)

As a UW student and employee that uses both the Student Tech Fee computers and the Nebula computers, everyday when I walk into a computer lab I am grateful to see a complete lack of Vista machines. Let's just hope it stays that way.

Re:How many are actually running XP? (1)

Blackhalo (572408) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951476)

I hate to admit it but 2k is a brilliant OS. I only wish that MS had said "Perfect and done."

Vista achieves the impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21950442)

Vista made me appreciate Windows XP.

I'm using Vista Home Premium on a laptop, and it keeps losing my wireless network settings.

I've lost count of how many times I configured my built-in wireless adapter for static IP, but it mysteriously comes back as DHCP upon reboot or upon reawakening from sleeping, hibernation, etc.

Super annoying.

Just one question... (2, Insightful)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950444)

If 39% of new PCs initially Shipped with Vista in 2007, what percentage were promptly un-boxed, reformatted, and then a *better* OS was then installed?

(I know of 2 new OEM PCs in my home business that were immediately 'Upgraded' to XP fresh out of their Vista promoting boxes in PY2007.) http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/15/1944206 [slashdot.org]

Re:Just one question... (1)

Nullav (1053766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950954)

How many people are informed enough to be opinionated against Vista, and feel competent enough to swap out an OS, but still buy prebuilts laden with crapware rather than building one? I could see it for offices and schools swapping out old hardware en masse, but why would this be the case for an individual?

Why does everyone seem so worried about Vista? (1, Interesting)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950480)

I'm not going to install it myself unless I have to, but I fully accept that almost everyone else is going to have Vista in the next few months. Such is the current way things work.

Re:Why does everyone seem so worried about Vista? (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950764)

I'm not going to install it myself unless I have to, but I fully accept that almost everyone else is going to have Vista in the next few months. Such is the current way things work.
(Emphasis mine.)

Months? Surely you meant 'years'. No one, even in Microsoft, thinks almost everyone is going to have Vista in a matter of months.

And even regarding 'years', I'm not so sure. Perhaps demand will force Microsoft to extend sales of XP for another few years, as they have done already; perhaps Apple will rise to 15% market share; perhaps a lot of things will happen. Vista dominating the OS scene like previous Microsoft OSes did is not a given.

Re:Why does everyone seem so worried about Vista? (1)

ranton (36917) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950870)

but I fully accept that almost everyone else is going to have Vista in the next few months

I wonder how many people said in early 2001 that everyone else is going to have Windows ME in the next few months. I think the main reason why everyone is constantly trying to point out how crappy Vista has been is to help Microsoft see that they need to make big changes. Either a widely different SP2 or a completely new operating system.

I for one hope that Microsoft has a new operating system out before I need to upgrade my current PC.

Do consumers have a choice? (3, Insightful)

multipass666 (1213904) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950484)

No kidding, try get a laptop these days without Vista already installed. The Dell XPS is a good example. Like buying a new car, its a mandatory extra. Want to boot linux? Still have to buy Vista anyway, yay!

Re:Do consumers have a choice? (2, Informative)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950524)

I'm typing this on a Dell Inspiron 1420 laptop with Ubuntu factory installed.

Re:Do consumers have a choice? (1)

trey_killer (85110) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950702)

Impressive, you used a computer to buy a linux computer (assuming you got it off their website).

The harm of the MS monopoly is that Joe sixpack can't get linux at the corner store.

Re:Do consumers have a choice? (1)

TBerben (1061176) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950668)

Yes, consumers have a choice. There was an article about this a while ago about someone who got his Windows Tax refunded. http://www.linux.com/articles/59381 [linux.com] Here it is. Basicly, when you're asked to accept the Windows EULA, hit the "Do not accept" button and call the store to return your license. Most stores won't give you the money back without a fight, of course, but it says they have to right there in the EULA.

Re:Do consumers have a choice? (1)

danwat1234 (942579) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950788)

Yes, they do have a choice. They can just download cracked windows XP off bittorrent or other p-2-p systems and walla! The only trick is getting drivers to work on certain new systems that don't have support for XP drivers on the product's web site.

Didn't get it (1, Interesting)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950486)

How come Vista is less popular during the first year compared to the first year of XP? It sold 10% more if I read it right.

Or maybe they're still counting those pc that came with Vista Basic / Vista Starter editions that was willingly replaced with another Vista edition (x2 Vista sales) or a XP or a Linux...

What they should count is not the number of sales but the number of Vista machines pinging their update servers. (Well since most are connected now anyway, that could at least be an alternative way to count)

Re:Didn't get it (3, Funny)

digitalbountyhunter (845899) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950578)

That would require many abaci.

Re:Didn't get it (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950878)

10% more sales of Vista compared to XP more than 6 years ago.
How many more PC's are in use since then? I dare bet it's a lot more than 10%.

Re:Didn't get it (1)

ConanG (699649) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950988)

Think of it like this...

We sold 100 buggy whips this year! (out of 200 sold by all manufacturers)

Six years pass...

We sold 110 new and improved buggy whips this year! (out of 300 sold by all manufacturers)
Meanwhile, 30 people traded their new buggy whips in for the older model buggy whips. Another 5 people converted theirs to an open source buggy whip.

They sold 10% more, but their actual market share decreased because more are being sold than six years ago. In addition to that, a good portion of those "sales" were effectively for the older model or a competitor.

Breaking the cycle (3, Interesting)

pez (54) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950522)

There's no doubting that the wintel duopoly is a cycle that's nearly impossible to break. As we see more and more services transition to the web, however, compatibility at the OS layer becomes less and less important. Five years ago one used to lament over how they would love to use a different OS, but "the applications I use" are Windows-only. That day has come and gone... these days many people don't even know that a computer can be used for things other than browsing the web -- heck even that term is out-dated, as today's web-based applications are far more sophisticated than simply browsing.

As a very biased Mac convert, I'm constantly amazed at just how incredibly crappy XP and Vista are. Tonight, in fact, I set up a new computer for my wife who is using XP on a brand-new Dell laptop. There were about 5 times during the setup process where I honestly had no idea which option to select, because the wording of the choices were either esoteric, or what I really wanted was a fourth option "none of the above" yet that option didn't exist. Then, after all was finally said and done, using the thing was an amazingly frustrating experience, with seemingly endless offers/popups, some masquerading as os-level services, some more obvious overtures to purchase 3rd party software.

I've never been more convinced that the market is ripe for a shakeup... and more specifically that OS X (and Leopard) have the chance to break the Windows monopoly. Once MS's marketshare dips into the 70% range, there will no longer be an assumption that you "have" to run Windows for any reason other than you prefer it -- and once that happens watch out. There isn't a sane person who can look at Windows and OS X side-by-side, for a mass-market consumer audience, and actually say that Windows is the better choice.

[Remember I said I was biased... the point here wasn't to chest-thump about the Mac, but to point out that MS's advantage of being the "default choice" might disappear... and if so we might see their marketshare plummet faster than you can imagine]

The question... (1)

FreonTrip (694097) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950610)

...will ultimately be whether Apple is willing to sacrifice its high margins to gain optimal market penetration before some *nix derivative succeeds in being easy to use and "good enough" for most people. I'm glad to see Apple systems gaining ground - diversity of any kind is entirely welcome after seeing everything get eaten up by Microsoft in the last fifteen years - but Apple seems awfully content to exist as a relatively high margin, low unit number OEM. Also keep in mind just how far Linux has come in the last three years... What's clear is that something is going to move into the vacuum opening under Vista. What that will be isn't as cut 'n' dry as assuming that products manufactured by a company with no prior history of conquering an entrenched market sector will satisfy that requirement just because they're pretty and well-designed.

Re:Breaking the cycle (1)

kongit (758125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950718)

I for one would love to run osx over windows, however I am not going to buy a new computer to run osx. My computer is just fine and I don't want to have to invest in another computer of equal or greater value to run a different operating system.

Re:Breaking the cycle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21950932)

As we see more and more services transition to the web, however, compatibility at the OS layer becomes less and less important.

"The network is the computer." Where have I heard that one before? LOL

Sure, crummy web apps will work fine for word processing and other non-intensive apps. So what, those applications are such old news that even open source has gotten around to implementing them. (I kid, I kid! Now put down those pitchforks...)

Two things:
Rule 1) Shuttling junk back and forth across the web is never, ever going to work for anything that require CPU oomph. That takes a local app doing all its work on a local CPU.
Rule 2) Programmers will always eventually find something that the public wants that will consume as much CPU as you can throw at it.

Today, grandma's doing photo touchup (using an appropriately dumbed down app), tomorrow she'll be doing video editing, a few years from now she'll be watching 3D holographic movies in Apple's latest OS LXVII. And none of that crap is ever going to work over the web.

I bet 100% of all PC's will come with Vista (3, Funny)

boldit (1214774) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950560)

Since Microsoft is now forcing sellers to only sell Vista, Vista will be 100% in 2008.

Re:I bet 100% of all PC's will come with Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21951070)

Oh yes, they'll ALL come with Vista preloaded! Let me call Jobs and tell him the good news, MS is providing Apple's OS!

Dumbass.

Well, be fair. XP was based on old tech. (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950606)

Nobody, but nobody, buys version 1 of a product - if they've any sense. It's bad enough to buy a whole-number release (those are likely to be the buggiest) but version 1 is a huge no-no. In the case of Microsoft, the first service pack has acquired a reputation for not being good either. Virtually all Windows SP1 releases have been followed rapidly by hotfixes and even other service packs. This isn't unique to Windows - the majority of brown paper bag releases of the Linux kernel that seriously impact users are also x.y.0 releases. It's a fundamental principle of software purchase that has always been true and will likely always be true.

On the other hand, Vista was under-developed, rushed, and had integral features removed. That last part is more significant than it might first appear. If you remove chunks out of the foundations of a building, you can expect the building to collapse. The same is true in software - if it's designed to be present, then removing that feature will destabilize everything depending on it. Yes, it was late. So what. The contribution Vista is making to Microsoft is negligible in terms of sales and disastrous in terms of PR in the European courts. Investing a year or two more work into the project would have been cheaper, produced a better product and generally given Microsoft a lot of plusses.

There was pressure for Vista being released. Yeah, and a company that can pay billions in daily fines without working up a sweat needs to pay attention to such pressure why? Due to lost market share? Lost to whom? Other OS' may be catching up, but it'll be five to ten years before they can capture significant marketshare. Three or four years more development would have kept Microsoft's lead and secured it with far less risk of legal retribution.

All in all, Vista's release marked very poor marketing decisions, not just very poor technical ones, although it need not have been that way.

Re:Well, be fair. XP was based on old tech. (1)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950866)

This isn't unique to Windows - the majority of brown paper bag releases of the Linux kernel that seriously impact users are also x.y.0 releases.

This is true, but I don't pay for Linux. I expect to have problems with something I got for free and then spend time tinkering with it, but a $100+ (I'm not entirely sure of the market price...) piece of software better be damn near perfect, minor problems (with quick fixes) aside.

It's a fundamental principle of software purchase that has always been true and will likely always be true.

Only if people continue to buy the bad software. I for one didn't even touch XP until well into SP2 and likely won't even give Vista a thought. Am I more tech oriented than the average user and would know not to buy Vista as-is? I read Slashdot, so of course I am, which also means I should (and do) help others not buy bad software. If enough tech people do this than the market will speak for itself.

Re:Well, be fair. XP was based on old tech. (4, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950992)

Vista was very long in development for very little to show. Software complexity grows exonentially with the size. You can do a lot by proper moularization and resuse.

However my impression is, that MS basically has a failed project in Vista and that they would actually have had to scrap it 3-4 years into development, learn the lesson that they are subjects to laws of nature (or mathematic) as well and start over. They obviouly were not smart or gutsy enough for that.

On the other hand, it is possible that MS is not large enough to develop a new operating system with the fature profile they wanted Vista to have. It may in fact be impossible today to write an integrated OS with these features, because of complexity. Look at the rest of the world: Apple did not build a new OS with OSX, they basically took a working kernel and tools and customized them to some degree at the interface level. Linux is a reimplementation of Unix that keeps the original structure and API to a high degree. Any other (non-embedded) OSes in the last years/decade that were actually written from scratch and not based strongly on a previous design? I don't know any.

But there is one other thing. As OSX and Linux demonstrate, writing it from scratch is entirely unecessary. The technology is there and works. Use it. Possibly MS cannot see this or their market strategy does not allow it. After all they have to tie their cistomers to them. Who would otherwise suffer such abuse? If so, they may very well be screwed.

Vista hasn't been out for a full year yet (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950628)

The sales figures quoted are not comparable. The XP figure quoted was for 14 months while the Vista sales period was less than 12 months. The launch date of XP was October 25, while Vista was launched January 30 - yet both speeches were made on January 8. That's three months of sales that XP had over Vista.

To be honest, I am surprised that Vista has sold as much as it has, considering that the upgrade from Windows 9x to XP was a much bigger step than from XP to Vista. But based on the figures given, I would say that the Vista sales were pretty much on track for Microsoft.

Re:Vista hasn't been out for a full year yet (3, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950826)

To be honest, I am surprised that Vista has sold as much as it has, considering that the upgrade from Windows 9x to XP was a much bigger step than from XP to Vista.

9x to XP was a bigger step, but XP was a 0.1 upgrade from w2k, which meant that even when XP was "new" it was already a few years old in a lot of key respects. Most drivers for 2k worked with XP and were already mature, for example. The networking stack was essentially 2k, and it fit into w2k networks exactly the same...pro even came with the CALs 2k pro did... etc, etc... so there was a lot less resistance.

It was essentially already a "mature established product" even when it was new.

Re:Vista hasn't been out for a full year yet (4, Insightful)

MojoStan (776183) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951544)

The sales figures quoted are not comparable. The XP figure quoted was for 14 months while the Vista sales period was less than 12 months. The launch date of XP was October 25, while Vista was launched January 30 - yet both speeches were made on January 8. That's three months of sales that XP had over Vista.
What you say seemed so obvious (those dates are mentioned in the article and its links) that I re-read the article to see if I was missing something. I did: that 255.7 million of total 2007 PC shipments is based on an estimate from March 20 [gartner.com] . So the "Vista Shipped on 39% of PCs" estimate is calculated by assuming the floor ("more than 100 million copies") of 11¼ months of Vista sales, then dividing that by a nine-month-old estimate of the last 12 months of PC shipments. However, that's not nearly as bad as how he calculated "Windows XP captured about 67% of the new PC market during its first year."

I have to conclude that the article's author, Paul McDougall, must be a moron and/or a troll. McDougall's math:

  • Vista shipped on 39% of PCs in 2007: (floor of Bill Gates's "more than 100 million copies" boast for 11¼ months) divided by (nine-month-old estimate of the last 12 months of PC shipments)
  • XP shipped on 67% of PCs in 2002: (14 months of XP sales) divided by (12 months of PC shipments)
I think it's obvious that Vista sales percentages are well below initial XP sales percentages, but we don't need dishonest math to exaggerate this point.

XP solved problems, Vista creates them. (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950636)

Most computers running Win98SE would also run XP, if maybe a bit slow. Vista requires a major hardware upgrade for most people to run acceptably or at all. For example, I was developing on an XP machine, and it performed acceptably if not exactly snappy. But it won't run Vista... at all. So what do you get for that major hardware upgrade? Better performance? Nope. Vista often runs more sluggishly on the new machines than XP did on the old. Graphics? Well, maybe a little. But OS X and Linux are adding that, too, without all the extra overhead. Freedom? Not on your life! One of the major performance-robbing "features" is that DRM has been "built in" at a very fundamental and low level. So everything you do on the machine, you are being checked every which way to make sure you are not doing something "wrong"! Why would anybody spend that much money for something that hardly benefits them at all, but benefits "the industry" a lot? When you can figure that out, then mayby you can sell Vista to them.

Of course its not selling... (3, Funny)

Agent__Smith (168715) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950638)

It takes a CRAY to run it, and it is buggier than an entomology lab.

Vista and XP (5, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950670)

The thing that no one, here especially, wants to admit is that the problems with Vista are going to start disappearing real soon. Disappearing in the way the problems with XP have disappeared...you're still using Windows after all.

When you buy a new computer with Vista it's going to be so powerful that the bloat that's been added since XP (and this isn't a Microsoft problem, OSX and Ubuntu all have gotten bigger) wont be noticed, or even noticeable. You could make the argument that there's no reason a home user needs a dual core processor and two gigs of RAM but that's what is being sold. If the upcoming service pack does most of what MS claims it can do the differences between XP and Vista will be even further reduced. Hardware and software compatibility is a big problem, but it's one that MS has dealt with before. XP had the same issues. Eventually software got updated or replaced and it isn't a problem. It's the same cycle as last time. Machines get faster and software gets updated. The new MS OS goes through some growing pains but eventually becomes accepted. XP was too slow, no compelling reasons to upgrade, 2000 was good enough and faster. Now the lines are: Vista is too slow, there's no reasons to upgrade, XP is good enough.

If you remember back when XP was released it did suck compared to 2000. 2000 was the mature product. You want a fair comparison you'll need compare Vista now to XP 1 year after release. Or compare XP SP2 to Vista SP2, but since we can't look into the future we'll have to settle for the first option.

Mod Parent Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21950740)

Finally something realistic said about Vista. Google for reviews of early XP vs. 2000 and they are largely the same as reviews of Vista vs. XP now. Consumer hardware always catches up with Windows eventually as the public are accustomed to buying a new PC every now and then -- businesses of course realise there's no benefit and don't bother. The point is whether Vista is 'a good OS' or not won't matter in a couple of years (and Microsoft trades on this).

Re:Vista and XP (1)

ranton (36917) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950944)

If you remember back when XP was released it did suck compared to 2000. 2000 was the mature product. You want a fair comparison you'll need compare Vista now to XP 1 year after release.

Actually, a fair comparison would be to compare Windows XP to Windows ME (or Windows 98). And I was actually able to find one: ZDNet Review [zdnet.com.au]

They seam to be pretty happy with the upgrade, saying that it is "Definitely worth the cost of the upgrade! ... Two thumbs up! While some of the features in this new operating system aren't all that exciting, the overall consensus is that those features in the areas of stability and support definitely make Windows XP Home Edition worth the cost of upgrading. ".

I know that this is just one review, but I am pretty sure that most reviews did agree. A company can release an upgrade that is better right away, as even Microsoft has done it before. This review was dated Sept 15 2001, a month before Windows XP's release.

Thinking that Windows Vista must be the future of the Windows OS is like going back to early 2001 and saying that Windows ME is the future of Windows. If enough people keep complaining (especially with their pocket books) then Microsoft might actually listen. They did with Windows ME.

--

Re:Vista and XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21951016)

The other thing to consider is that Vista's UAC may well be the death blow to open source OSes. Hear me out.

By forcing all of those application developers to move to a limited user model, the same model unix uses, M$ eliminates an enormous category of security problems caused by stupid user syndrome or, if not, they'll at least will be able to credibly push the blame onto the user. Sure, they'll still have holes introduced by backwards compatibility for Vista and probably for the version after that but then it's over!

XP was already adequately secure when running as a limited user. M$es future OSes will be able to claim the same kind of security as Linux and the BSDs.

*sigh* okay I know this will start a flame war BUT (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951420)

When you buy a new computer with Vista it's going to be so powerful that the bloat that's been added since XP (and this isn't a Microsoft problem, OSX and Ubuntu all have gotten bigger)

The Ubuntu comment caught my attention. I run Ubuntu/Linux Mint/PCLOS on my Dell C610 with 256mb ram, PIII 1ghz and 16mb ATI with Beryl/Compiz/Compiz-Fusion. Fancy desktop effects aside, I'd love to see how anyone can clump Vista and Ubuntu/Any Distro in the same camp as far as bloat is concerned.

Right now I am using only about 170mb ram while I am typing this.

You could make the argument that there's no reason a home user needs a dual core processor and two gigs of RAM but that's what is being sold.

The question is WHY. WHY are those spec machines being sold? Because Vista needs it. If Vista did not need such a lot of stuff to carry it, the average home Joe would be able to get away with half the specs you quoted.

Machines get faster and software gets updated.

Yes, there is that law about processor speeds doubling every 18 months or so, in this case MS has released a product that makes even the fastest machines just good enough. It would almost seem as if they are purposely pushing the specs...

MS just blunders ahead and everybody tags along because of the old analogy: Microsoft, because it's there.

Re:Vista and XP (1)

Blackhalo (572408) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951446)

Still running 2K. Let me know when Vista catches up. You can polish a turd as long as you like but all you have is a piece of shit.

I'm running Vista Home Premium ...so what? (0)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950672)

It has it's upside, it has its' downside. I haven't had any serious problems with it since I bought my computer back in october.

I really don't get what all the bitching's about.

Re:I'm running Vista Home Premium ...so what? (4, Funny)

kypper (446750) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950716)

It has it's upside, it has its' downside.

The grammar check on it sucks.

I call bull (1, Redundant)

grilled-cheese (889107) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950792)

I call bull. Those numbers are worthless since most consumers didn't have a choice in getting Vista with their new machines. I think a more important fact is that this is the first version of Windows where users have demanded either an alternative or just to keep the previous version. If they really want metrics, make all the running copies of vista for 3 months phone home and then count how many are still in use. I don't think my debian lappy will be responding to them.

More computers sold? (1)

GuyfromTrinidad (1074909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950828)

I hate these kind of comparison articles because they make the assumption that all things remain equal. I have Vista, no major problems for me, but in the spirit in being objective... don't people buy more computers today than they did when xp came out meaning that of course even with the horrible marketing and bad decisions regarding Vista more copies would still be sold. However, it also points to how much Vista is struggling because I am sure if we do a more comparative analysis we would find that actually less copies were sold. I also expect Apple to release figures next week of fantastic sales of what is definitely a better OS with its own teething problems (though not nearly as bad as Vista and we can always forgive Steve) without taking into consideration that macs are becoming much more mainstream and garnering bigger sales than when Tiger was released.

Re:More computers sold? (1)

boldit (1214774) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950924)

Name 3 problems with OS X Leopard. Here are 3 for 3: Vista sucks: 1. Hardware upgrades - I have to upgrade my 2 Gzh, 1 GB ram, 250 gb computer to be able to run Vista. Recommend Specs 2 GB ram, Aero graphics card. 2. A major loss in ease of system administering ability 3. IE 7 - IE 7 doesn't work with everything a Systems admin needs, most times I have to use FF because all the stuff I work doesn't support IE 4. Bonus - Made by Microsoft who is know less for innovation and more for viruses, theft, and bugs. 5. Ugly skin 6. No general feature change, Leopard came with over 300 features where as Vista, like 20.

just maybe (2, Funny)

theheadlessrabbit (1022587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950852)

has anyone considered that this whole 'vista' thing might be a brilliant move by microsoft to break its own monopoly.

when Linux and *shudders* OSX gain a higher market share, M$ won't be the monopoly they once were, and they can get out of paying all those fines.

i'm sorry. I just typed 'brilliant move by microsoft' and almost kept a straight face. someone throw a chair at me.

Microsoft: if it runs like crap we likely made it (1)

boldit (1214774) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950892)

Vista sucks for many reasons, one of which is: It was made to suck.
Microsoft doesn't care about making good products, they just want to sell what ever crap they can. Look at Windows ME. That thing was a piece of sh*t; BSODs all the time. Microsoft isn't about making great products that meet peoples needs, they're all about making stuff that sells.



Microsoft's motto: if it runs like crap we likely made it.

Nothing for the OSS crowd to cheer about. (3, Insightful)

shikra (751390) | more than 6 years ago | (#21950904)

39% is plenty. As OSes mature, improvements are gonna be evolutionary at best. To be able to achieve a 39% adoption rate over a relatively stable OS (XP) is pretty good. No, in fact, it's a very good result considering the bad press MS has been getting lately. I for one wouldn't consider 39% to be a failure given the quality of the product.

Extrapolating the figures given in the summary, we can assume XP has a take-up rate of 60~70%ish within the same period of introduction. That's when most computers were still running on crappy 98 mind you -- hence accounting for the greater adoption rate due to the significant upgrade.

So no, saying it is far less popular is a stretch. 19% would be far less, not 39%.

Re:Nothing for the OSS crowd to cheer about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21951416)

As has been pointed out before, the adoption rate is as high as 39% not because people *want* Vista, but because Vista is what's pre-installed on new computers. The adoption rate would be much higher, if it were not for the fact that many are actively looking for other options, staying with XP being the main one. The larger adoption rate of XP in the past was indicative of people not being as vehement in rather sticking with 98. In that sense, it is a stretch to say that a Vista uptake of 39% is pretty good. Given the monopoly power of Microsoft, it's awful. It is a sign of people being fed up.

It has been a meme in the industry that "nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft." In my company at least, we have made it clear to our outsource IT service company, that bringing Vista onto the network is in fact an action that would get them fired.

Slashdot doesn't like Vista (5, Funny)

heffrey (229704) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951074)

I'm picking up a little vibe here that Slashdot editors and readers don't like Vista.

Has anyone else noticed or am I just imagining it....

until ms admits v sucks, progress is impossible (2, Insightful)

astrashe (7452) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951354)

You can see MS compounding their errors here, by spinning Vista's successes, and not facing honestly up to the things that people don't like about it, and coming up with solutions.

Customers says, "We don't like Vista!" and MS says, "Yes you do!"

If that doesn't prove that they have a monopolist's attitude, nothing does.

OT: what will happen to the MS-icon? (4, Interesting)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951386)

I just wondered what will happen to the slashdot MS-icon http://images.slashdot.org/topics/topicms.gif [slashdot.org] now that Billy is gone...will it be replaced by a borgified version of Ballmer?

/me shudders...

How many of the 39% were forced to buy? (1)

Abuzar (732558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21951658)

I wonder how many people like me were forced to buy it only to wipe the drive and install XP and Ubuntu. There are plenty of companies like Dell where you can't unselect the Windows Vista option when buying their laptop. I know several other people whose computers also came with Vista without them asking and unlike me they actually gave it a fair shot. They all ended up reverting back to XP.

I'd be interested in knowing how many of the 39% actually wanted Vista in the first place and how many kept it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?