Slashdot Log In
PC Makers Say Vista Is Not a Seller
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Mar 31, 2007 06:32 PM
from the please-print-more-money dept.
from the please-print-more-money dept.
TekkaDon writes "According to computer and component manufacturers, Vista is not the hotcake that they were hoping for. Take Acer's president, Gianfranco Lanci, who has just said that 'PC makers are really not counting on Vista to drive high demands for the industry.' Or Samsung Electronics, who now says that DRAM demand has not matched anyone's predictions based on Vista's now failed projections, something that is being echoed by the industry as a whole. This seem to agree with Ars Technica article on the 20 million Vista copies sold as a 'huge success' by Microsoft, which can be accounted for by the natural growth of PC sales over the years."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not a hotcake? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not a hotcake? (Score:5, Funny)
Spam, spam, eggs, spam and Vista.
Spam, eggs, Vista and spam.
Spam, spam, spam, Vista and spam.
With apologies to Monty Python and brought to you by the Department of Silly Walks.
Parent
Why would it drive demand? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh it's driving demand all right (Score:5, Insightful)
On a more sober note. Maybe this is a testament to the quality of XP. Up until win2000 windows sucked. With win2000 the interface still sucked. XP made big strides in making the interface less sucky.
The point is that every generation of Windows (excluding Bob and ME) has not only an enormous improvement over the last, but almost at the level of an emergency repair that could not be foregone any longer. Thus it drove sales. Any idiot could see why each generation was desirable over the hell they where in.
Maybe with XP the quality finally reach a level where migrating to the next big thing was no longer an emergency. XP had sufficiently good behaviour that the operating system no longer drives sales.
So this time it's going to be the applications that drive sales. You won't upgrade your existing system till the apps start to need whatever Vista has that XP does not do well. Probably this will be some combination of 64bits/video
So Microsoft's big need is the Killer App that only runs well on Vista. You got it?
Parent
Re:Oh it's driving demand all right (Score:5, Insightful)
Less sucky in what way? Anyone who knows how uses the classic start menu and control panel. The only thing that really leaves is the theme and anyone who is at all concerned about performance uses the windows classic theme.
Parent
What sucks about the Windows UI? (Score:5, Insightful)
- Move the mouse pointer to the 'Start' button in the lower left corner,
- click,
- find the 'Programs' item,
- click,
- find the program you want,
- click.
The quick-launch bar was a major improvement but I still like the OS.X dock better because of the magnification feature which makes it easier to hit the icon you want and the fact that the dock is simply easier and quicker to use. The new Windows start menu was, if anything worse than the old one. It had some nice features but it was badly organized. My first action on an XP system is always to set it back to 'classic' lookI'm sure that all these things can either be changed by setting some radio button in a not so easy to find configuration window, tweaked with a third party utility or if all fails modified by changing registry settings but I chose to switch to something that works the way I want it to out of the box and it's into the bargain more secure but that's a matter for a whole other flame-war.
Parent
Re:What sucks about the Windows UI? (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who don't know, the quick launch bar was introduced as part of IE 4.0 in 1997, it is by no means a win2k/xp/vista feature. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was disabled by default in XP (but enabled by default in win2k and vista). I believe that in XP microsoft thought the 'recent apps' addition to the start menu replaced the need for quick launch, but by Vista the realized that it did not
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh it's driving demand all right (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish I gave a shit enough to bother digging up old slashdot posts.
When XP came out, there must have been 100 posts a day (slashdot was actually popular then) complaining about how stupid and childish the XP interface was. It was relentless. Unlike Vista, XP really DIDN'T offer anything Windows 2000 didn't already have, except for the improved interface and related APIs. Ok, it had system restore too - but that was pretty much it.
Personally, I think the Vista interface is far better than XP, which I hated.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh it's driving demand all right (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the same article, Windows Vista, as we know it, was rebuilt from the ground up in 2004. That means that if DirectX 10 needed any special functionality to work then the Vista people had to rewrite Vista from the ground up with that in mind, which doesn't say much on it's own. On the other hand, XP's service pack 2 was released in 2004, which means that if XP really needed any special features to handle DirectX 10 that, since DirectX is being worked on from the time XP was first launched and the supposed target platform for which DirectX was built was scrapped, that there was absolutely no reason for Microsoft to not support DirectX on XP.
So, as it is easy to see, the only reason that DirectX is not supported in Windows XP is simply due to Microsoft's decision of not doing it. Microsoft does not want to support DirectX 10 on other OS besides Vista. Period. For crying out loud, it's a fucking API. A fucking interface to handle hardware. Who in their right mind claims that certain pieces of hardware can only work on Windows Vista and not on Windows XP?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The web management is very nice and it will even act as an NT Primary domain controller for single sign on to a domain out of the box, with Samba shares, ftp, and email. It can act as your firewall/gateway or as just a stand alone server. It is based on CentOS 4.4 and it is great for hom
Re:Why would it drive demand? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My old box broke and I dumped Vista the very first day. It added nothing to my experience, my productivity, or the performance of my system. In fact, in every category it was inferior to Windows XP Pro SP2. Even without the DRM support (which was a deal-breaker all by itself) and the fact that none of my most important productivity apps run on it (still), I just couldn't come up with a single reason to keep Vista on that machine.
The good new
if it aint broke (Score:3, Insightful)
most windows machines out in circulation now would need an upgrade for vista.
Unless you are buying a new machine, why bother?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Balmer (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Balmer (Score:4, Interesting)
Exhibit A: Windows 1.0
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=GL4hyATkQ74 [youtube.com]
Exhibit B: Windows 386
- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=491587592
I mean it worked before....... right?
Parent
How many are unused Vista upgrades? (Score:3, Insightful)
I certainly know I'm not going to install Vista unless I absolutely have to, for the same reason I only switched to XP with my new computer a few months ago. It'll be interesting to see when the first pieces of Vista-only hardware come out - likely new DirectX-oriented video cards.
Ryan Fenton
I don't see people rushing out to buy hw now (Score:3, Insightful)
But I am always called insane here at
Rubber demand curve (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not analyst, but stagnant windows platform isn't living up to its promises, people will be forced to look elsewhere. Elsewhere as in Ubuntu desktop, OS X. Whichever. It will take time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For those of us not afraid of trying something different technology-wise, I agree with what you're saying. Some people might see this as a reason to go out and try a different OS.
But Microsoft has no reason in the immediate future to look at, or care about, those numbers. Most people will be bootstrapped into Vista when their old box dies not because they really want it, but because Dell, HP, and whatever you can get at Best Buy all come with Vista pre-installed.
Sure, you can apply for the Microsoft T
Well, this is pretty interesting: (Score:4, Funny)
1 - WGA is actually working, and the 20 million people who actually DO want to pay for windows have bought their copies (note, I have no stats to back up that statement)
2 - People really aren't convinced that Windows Vista is the answer to their software woes
3 - It just fscking costs too much to upgrade from an OS that seems to be working just fine right now.
4 - Too many people are trying to consolidate bills after the holiday seasons to spend more money.
5 - Businesses are waiting for SP2 (I think they should have just launched with Vista SP2)
6 - Statistics and studies only show you what they want you to see
7 - Viola! Windows Vista pretty much sucks... - this one seems quite plausible?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well, this is pretty interesting: (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Well, this is pretty interesting: (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
There are now alternatives (Score:4, Interesting)
The threats from Apple and Linux weren't really there when XP was released. Microsoft has to learn to deal with the fact that they have to compete and can't release any old rubbish.
hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's nothing to do with the DRM, which the average user is totally oblivious to.
It's the fact that there is currently no compelling reason to upgrade, from a "general use" perspective. Really - other than flip3d (and very few "normal users" i know even use alt-tab) and the new start menu, it's the same old shit, only with more irritating user access control. The fact that for most people's current PCs, performance will be significantly worse, and driver support just isn't there yet doesn't help.
As an aside - a major issue at the moment is the changes to DirectSound. Unless you've got an X-fi soundblaster and run creative's "Alchemy" software which translates Directsound into OpenAL, you're not going to get any EAX support in any games, and the sound support you do get is often scratchy and clicky (eg, neverwinter nights 2)
That said, I'm buying Vista - which is a drastic change in my attitude from 3 months ago. Why? Becuase Win2k is no longer supported, XP *really* is a steaming pile of shit, and Linux just isn't there yet for me to run exclusively (though i've been a user since 1996). I spend all day at work doing admin stuff - on my home pc all i want to do is run some games (and Falcon4: Allied Force, for example, will not run under Cedega), browse the net and media related stuff. From my testing this week, Vista is "good enough" for the tasks I ask of it (nwn2 had minor issues, F4:AF runs fine), and it's a currently supported product.
Also, it's inevitable that I'll have to support it at work sooner or later, so I may as well get a head start on the issues it has.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'm saying is that unless you have a specific reason for upgrading, there's little incentive. My "specific reasons" are DirectX10, and because I'd like to know the issues I'm dealing with before I have to fix them in the field...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why i think it's a steaming pile of shit - it was a definite step backwards for my purposes :)
Vista on the other hand, at least brings a few things to the table - UI that is much more capable (sure, at the moment the use of 3d is pretty lame, but the framework is there),
Jaded (Score:3, Interesting)
This matters why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Joe user (whoever the hell he is), does not reinstall his OS. Christ, most users have no concept of what an OS is. They buy a PC, they use what comes on it. That's why Linux will never really take off on the home desktop until a large vendor has real success selling pre-installed Linux PCs. Hopefully, Dell are about to do just that.
no UP button in explorer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I'm posting this from Ubuntu Edgy at home right now at least.
Truth in Marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
Truth is, with product activation required, MS could give you a truthful figure of just how many Vista systems have been activated. But, Nooo, that would be lower number and they wouldn't be able to try and convince the weak-minded that Vista is taking over the world and you need to jump onto the bandwagon now, or be left behind forever. What a load of absolute crap.
this is not the hotcake you're looking for... (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista is a solution looking for a problem. Or maybe a problem looking for a solution - it's difficult to say, really. The fact is that Vista is not the OS that people have been waiting for from Microsoft since the inception of Windows 2000.
People don't want more bling in their OS. They are, in almost every subset of user, wanting something which Just Works. Since 1995, we've been bombarded with bling widget after bling widget - multimedia this, multimedia that. Even the candy-ass Fischer Price default theme of Windows XP was too much for most people. Most people are just fine with the Windows interface - and, if they're not (a characteristic usually shared with the ability to do something about it) there are plenty of shell replacements to chose from.
Yet, that is principally what Vista offers: more bling. It does not deliver on any of its meritous promises. It does not improve the underlying operating system to any significant degree. They've crawled out onto a massive monolythic limb and have decided to start chopping firewood by destroying the one thing that has made Windows dominant: its highly marketed user interface. People do not want to learn new things, as a rule, when it's useless to do so. In a way, this is an example of them being an enemy of their own success: the Windows interface has been so widely accepted that it's become standard and expected, and with it installed on the vast majority of machines, why change?
Techies, on the other hand, do not have such a luxury, as it is our job to learn these new things and make them work for everyone else. If they'd only promised on half of the underlying technologies (just fix the infrastructure and security/defaults, thanks), it would've captured the Windows XP market by storm.
Similarly, techies view Vista as just as much of a change to another OS, like MacOS or Linux, without having any of the benefits. What would you get? New incompatibilities and technology without any inherrent gain by switching operating systems. This is Microsoft's own fault - not only for ignoring what people (techies and users) want in their OS, but also for building up a single, monolythic product, unable to be disassociated from any of its individual components and accessories. Where would Linux be if, for every minor kernel release, there was an associated base distro, X, and wm release? Nowhere - probably stuck somewhere around 2.0 still.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a little shortsighted. Large portions have been re-written as managed code, the network stack has been re-written, the security model is different, the audio subsystem is completely new, etc. Time will tell if the re-writing will actually be of any s
Windows OS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A month and no success? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Bought in December (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I didn't follow my own advice and my laptop expired a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there's still some time we need to wait before jumping to these apocalyptical conclusions.
I fail to see why Vista's possible failure should be seen as "apocalyptical". Ford survived the Edsel and the Pinto fiascos, IBM survived the PS2 insanity and OS/2. Big companies sometimes make big mistakes. If Vista proves to be a mistake, then if Microsoft has been managing its resources properly, it will be able to pick itself up and tag along after whoever emerges as the new market leader. Nothing particularly apocalyptic, or even catastrophic, about that. Merely a normal change from industry leader t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really true, so long as sales are dismal and compatibility issues overshadow Vista's features (assuming there are new features). It's a simple matter of ROI. Questionable sales + new, unproven APIs (new Winsock, anyone?) do not make for strong appeal. I'm a programmer, and most of my career has been spent on various Windows platforms. Vista is making me finally switch to Linux full-time (can't wait to c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:poor drivers = poor customer perception (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:poor drivers = poor customer perception (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is, however is that because Microsoft put out Vista, the drivers *will* get fixed, one way or another, and in pretty short order.
Will that happen with Linux? Eventually, yes maybe. The situation is definitely a hell of a lot better than it was 11 years ago when i started using Linux, but it's a long way behind.
Is it fair that virtually all the Linux drivers are written by volunteers, often without hardware specs? No, of course not - but in the real world, "but that's not fair?!" won't cut it. Results are what people are concerned about.
Linux really is *almost there* and once the hardware devs jump on board in a big way, it will get critical mass and start becoming more competitive. Unfortunately at the moment it's on the edge of that "chicken and eg" scenario where hardware (and commercial software) devs won't justify linux driver development for a small market, and the market is small because of driver/commercial software development.
Parent
Re:Many companies are holding back (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, the big vendors would love to sell Vista only. They thought that about XP, too... until several major corporate customers told them where to go. Then, suddenly, places like Dell were still selling Win2K and Microsoft was extending support for older business OSes.
Given that it tooks several years for XP to overtake Win2K, and a very significant proportion of businesses have never made the switch, I'm afraid your/Microsoft's theory that everyone will just move sooner or later may or may not hold. And that's before the big scare stories about how "your computer can be disabled remotely" and so on start really freaking out the big CIOs...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm unsure what you are talking about. There *is* a market of XP licenses already, and it always was, and probably will be for a while. I know because I build XP boxes, and the price of a license is today quite acceptable [tigerdirect.com], just about the cost of a motherboard, or about 1/3 of a decent CPU, or about 15% of the total cost of the hardware. Since these licenses are 100% legitim
Dell DOES sell naked PCs (Score:5, Informative)
Parent