Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software Businesses The Almighty Buck IT

PC Makers Say Vista Is Not a Seller 319

Posted by Zonk
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This discussion has been archived.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.

PC Makers Say Vista Is Not a Seller

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31, 2007 @07:34PM (#18560809)
    Of course not, it's a waffle with a side of Spam.
  • by jibjibjib (889679) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @07:37PM (#18560835) Journal
    Most businesses won't buy Vista boxes until it's a bit more mature. Most consumers won't buy Vista boxes until their old box breaks. Why would you expect Vista to increase PC sales? Really, you'd expect it to decrease sales, because the price is higher than XP.
    • by goombah99 (560566) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @08:00PM (#18561129)
      For Macs and Linux.

      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 /big memory or....drum roll...DRM. If not then you wait till your harddrive seems puny or you get so rooted that your faced with wiping the disk and reinstalling XP then a chain of service packs. At that point buying a new machine looks attractive.

      So Microsoft's big need is the Killer App that only runs well on Vista. You got it?

      • by shaitand (626655) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @08:21PM (#18561319) Journal
        'With win2000 the interface still sucked. XP made big strides in making the interface less sucky.'

        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.
        • by daniel23 (605413)

          I'm with you there, but the sorry truth is that w2k is now at the point where applications start to force the switch over to XP - vmware ie. runs so awfully bad on my w2k 2GB dualhead athlon 3800+ desktop I started to run the vms on an acer banyas laptop with just 1 GB amd XP. Games - well, don't really care for them, but they count in that category, too.
        • by smash (1351)
          If you're really concerned about performance, you go one step further than that, and disable the windows theme service...
        • by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @09:45PM (#18562171)

          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.
          My gripes with the Windows 2000/XP interface...
          • To say it was ugly is going to far it was more like mind numbingly dull. XP helped a little.
          • I never much liked the start menu:
            1. Move the mouse pointer to the 'Start' button in the lower left corner,
            2. click,
            3. find the 'Programs' item,
            4. click,
            5. find the program you want,
            6. 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' look .
          • The Windows UI behaves in a way that I find infuriating, especially the way that applications steal the focus. This didn't change much with XP. It can be tweaked [pctools.com] though.
          • Endless reboots. XP was an improvement because it decreased their frequency.
          • The endless OK and Apply buttons are annoying. Somehow OS.X and some Linux desktops and even Windows Mobile seem to manage without them.
          • The ceaseless stupid questions about whether or not I am sure I want to do this that or the other thing are annoying. I'm not saying they are alwasy unwanted but it would be nice if Microsoft were to reduce their number.
          • Having to click one's way through endless configuration app windows to perform simple reconfigurations is annoying. I can modify system preferences in OS.X with far fewer mouse clicks than I can in Windows 2000 or XP.
          • When you have a large number of windows open in 2000 and XP finding a particular one is not easy. They tried to solve this in XP by grouping buttons for a particular app. It helped but it wasn't a good solution. I haven't used Vista, but judging from demonstrations of the 'Rolodex' feature they added in to trump 'Exposé' it looks like a huge improvement.

          I'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.
          • The dock is better than quicklaunch but I really miss the taskbar.
          • by dabraun (626287) on Sunday April 01, 2007 @12:31AM (#18563627)

            The quick-launch bar was a major improvement


            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 ...
        • by ceeam (39911)
          My mom's computer is K6@500MHz with whopping 160 megs of PC100 RAM. It does not break a sweat with XP themes at all. I cannot see any difference at all with or without themes. Of course I put Royale there 'cos built-in ones are sucky (aesthetics-wise). And as funny as it is - Office 2k3 also works pretty nice.
        • by drsmithy (35869)

          Anyone who knows how uses the classic start menu and control panel.

          I don't. Why would I ? The "new" Start Menu is superior in basically every measurable way.

      • What Linux should do (Score:2, Interesting)

        by goombah99 (560566)
        If the above theory is right-- with vista people are going to hold onto their XP boxes longer-- then what's going to happen is that down the road a bit there's going to be a lot of boxes out there that are just too slow to be worth upgrading. People will buy new boxes.

        So what do they do with their old ones? Linux should aim to get people to install linux on these.

        There's three reasons I can see to do this:.

        One is if there were some reason people needed a server in their homes. Probably not a huge market
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by gripen40k (957933)
          I totally agree that's what we need in a Linux, and for me it would be the server one. I have a crumby computer that could really use the PC-to-server treatment. I dunno, Ubunto maybe, but I'm still a little concerned that if something goes wrong I'll have to go on IRC or something equally unappealing just to get it fixed, as opposed to WinXP where I just 'know' how to fix it.

          I guess we can all dream 'eh?
          • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

            by lpcustom (579886)

            I'm still a little concerned that if something goes wrong I'll have to go on IRC or something equally unappealing just to get it fixed, as opposed to WinXP where I just 'know' how to fix it.

            If everyone is so afraid to READ these days, why are posts so high on sites like Slashdot? Are you using the Opera text-to-speech engine to read Slashdot? All sarcasm aside... Googling any Linux prob you may have as a beginner will yield an answer 99% of the time, and anyone who feels the need to reply to me saying tha

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Fyzzler (1058716)
            I highly recommend SME Server at http://www.smeserver.org/ [smeserver.org] as a trivially easy to use server version of Linux. You can install it in 15-20 minutes and then configure it using a nice web interface in another 15 minutes.

            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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by smash (1351)

        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.

        Err....

        WinXP = Win2k + overly large and garish buttons that consume vastly more resources? As to a killer-app for Vista, my current thought on that is "Crysis".

      • by benzapp (464105) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @08:51PM (#18561617)
        XP made big strides in making the interface less sucky.

        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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by unother (712929) *
        I think that the argument could be made that only every other version of Windows became "vital". Windows 3.1 was vital. Windows 95 was liked, but Windows 98 was vital. Windows 2000 was liked, but Windows XP was vital. Windows ME is best forgotten, obviously. As is Bob.
      • 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.

        The current stagnation of OS development is a sign of monopoly, not quality.

    • by edwardpickman (965122) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @08:15PM (#18561259)
      Actually that's the whole point. If it was an in demand upgrade the numbers would be higher. I have no plans to upgrade current machines and may pick up a copy or two of XP to avoid shifting to it as long as possible with newly built machines. OSX Leopard may show the difference. Personally I can't wait and plan to upgrade my Mac machine ASAP. A lot of Mac users will upgrade especially those with newer machines. I'm also waiting on that to do a dual boot with XP. Vista may be a next generation OS but it's hardly a hot upgrade. Given the massive development cost that has to be a serious disappointment. Mac upgrades are pretty seamless where as everyone other than Microsoft are not recommending upgrading XP they all recommend doing fresh installs. That's got to give everyone pause on upgrading XP machines. Love it or hate it Apple is doing it the right way.
    • by nbritton (823086)
      "Why would you expect Vista to increase"?

      Because two months after XP came out it had 9% market share, Vista currently has less then 2%.
    • Why would you expect Vista to increase PC sales?

      It would if Vista was different than XP and very innovative, but it isn't. For most of people, Vista is just XP with a different theme.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PopeRatzo (965947) *

      Most consumers won't buy Vista boxes until their old box breaks.

      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

  • Let's see...it was released generally to the public less than 2 months ago. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that qualifies as a good enough sample time to really see a trend. It's a fad, it'll die down once that aspect is gone. It will also be the newest thing, which means everyone is going to start programming for that now (at least the bigger companies...)

    Considering there's not even a driver for my Wireless Card (Linksys, common one too...) I think there's still some time we need to wait before j
    • by gravesb (967413) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @07:40PM (#18560875) Homepage
      True, but some previous releases of Windows did drive computer sales and had large numbers after such a short time. Windows 95, for instance. I don't think any reasonable predictions about Vista expected the same thing, but some unreasonable ones did.
      • Bought in December (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dj245 (732906)
        Anyone who took a minute to think about it bought their new machines back in December when computer makers were clearing out all their XP machines at fantastic discounts (in many cases). Often desktops and laptops alike were marked down $100 or $200 on a $700 machine. I told all my friends that if they wanted a new machine, December was the time to get it; probably before christmas because after Vista would start to rear its ugly head.

        Unfortunately, I didn't follow my own advice and my laptop expired a
    • I disagree. Am I the only one around here who remembers the round-the-block lines for Windows 95 back when it first came out? Compared to that degree of "Star Wars-esque" popularity, Vista is a flop.
      • by beckerist (985855)
        Your options in 1995 were....well...Windows 3.1, Windows 95 and maybe a few other distros that noob's (like me at the time) didn't even know existed. We're in a different world than 1995 and not only are we smarter, we have more choices and it still all costs money! I'm not saying that Vista isn't a flop, I'm merely saying that it's too early to tell.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Skidge (316075)
        What I remember about Windows 95 is a four inch stack of 3.5" floppies that I switched in and out for a few hours during installation. Now that was a good time.
        • by smash (1351)
          Heh.

          The last version of office before office 97 (4.2?) came on about 25 floppy disks from memory :D

          • by Andy Dodd (701)
            I can't remember if it was Office or Windows, but I remember a 40+ floppy stack at some point...
            • by smash (1351)
              Ahaha... maybe it was 45... was so long ago, only ever installed it once :)
            • by CastrTroy (595695)
              I don't think it wasn windows 95. I remember getting a copy of windows 95 off of someone, and it was only around 13 disks.
      • by smash (1351)
        A few reasons I can think of the lack of queues off the top of my head...

        Well, in 1995 you had dos or Windows 3.x (which was shit).

        Windows 3.1 was totlly useless for gaming, so basically if you ran games, you used DOS. Windows 95 was a *major* technology leap. Irrespective of how crusty and dodgy the kernel was, it brought in DirectX - which meant that there was finally a reliable way to support video for gaming at higher than 320x240 res without needing to re-write large parts of your game for every

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mysticgoat (582871)

      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)

      by mcpkaaos (449561)
      which means everyone is going to start programming for that now (at least the bigger companies...)

      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
  • by Anonymous Coward
    truly this article will be the most obvious article of the millenium.
  • if it aint broke (Score:3, Insightful)

    by night_flyer (453866) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @07:39PM (#18560863) Homepage
    why fix it?
    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)

      by flyingfsck (986395)
      You mean: If it ain't broke, why break it? Since Vista isn't going to make a working PC work better, it can only make it worse. MS is the only OS manufacturer that consistently brings out upgrades that are slower than the previous version. That is just plain stupid.
  • What I'm seeing is a fear of Vista - the same MS-bashing that happened when XP came out. But what joe-public aren't seeing is that most of the faults are just poor drivers and that vista really *is* a large step up!

    I think once the dust has settled and there are more success-cases around then momentum will rapidly pick up!

    (example #1 = me. I've used Linux on the desktop for the last 5 years - and it's Vista that's making me change back to Windows. Can't even be arsed to repair my aging Mac Powerbook. Ye
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31, 2007 @07:48PM (#18560985)
      Of course, most of the faults of linux nowadays are just poor drivers - you hear a zillion complaints about complicated installation and driver configuration issues, reviewers seldom bother to get as far as e.g. a KDE (or GNOME) Compiz or Beryl desktop, which makes vista's "new" interface look like a trabant. There's a certain hypocrisy at work: In the windows weenie world, Microsoft doesn't get the blame when hardware manufacturers supply shoddy drivers. Yet when hardware manufacturers fail to support linux, it's always "linux sux"...

      • by smash (1351) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @08:50PM (#18561605) Homepage Journal
        Oh yes, I agree 100%, some of Linux's problems are driver development.

        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.

    • Most Vista sales are bundled, while it its possible to remove it is a 'forced' sale - if you are happy with xp, why would you want to use vista on a new machine.

      People did the 95->98->windows 2000->windows xp thing so is the penny dropping out there and what they have is good enough ?

      If you run games use probably have a wii/ps3/xbox - next gen dvd is still up in the air. I dont see that uber game you need vista for, and the dvd format winner is going to mean more upgrading.

      Its a hard sale -

  • Balmer (Score:5, Funny)

    by rasputin465 (1032646) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @07:41PM (#18560887)
    Well maybe if Steve Ballmer went this crazy [youtube.com] more often more people would be interested in Vista.

    ...or maybe that could go the other way too.
  • Many universities are holding back on Vista because of compatibility issues with Blackboard software. Many companies find there is no urgent "must get" feature in Vista, and due to compatibility issues they too are having a moratorium on new purchases. And all the big PC vendors have completely retooled and are not selling XPs anymore. Now a days they dont make PCs before they sell, so there wont be too much of unsold PCs on the warehouses. But the parts do pile up. This might actually pressure the companie
    • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @08:18PM (#18561297)

      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...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by tftp (111690)
      Is there going to be an active market for XP licenses? Will WGA prevent people from buying ne naked PCs and loading old XP licenses?

      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

    • by plasticsquirrel (637166) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @09:56PM (#18562285)
      Every time some issue like this comes up, someone writes about how they wish Dell sold naked PC's. They have -- for years. Dell's naked PC's are called the n-Series desktops [dell.com]. They're listed as "open source desktops" on the Dell website. They only contain a minimal FreeDOS installation for legal reasons, which is meant to be wiped clean by your favorite OS installer. And from what I've seen, they're the same price or less than the Windows models.
  • by RyanFenton (230700) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @07:44PM (#18560919)
    Not that it has been easy to order a copy of the upgrade - but I wonder how many of those 20 million copies of Vista that have been sold are actually the $12 (after shipping) upgrades one could get when they ordered a copy of XP before Vista was sold. I know I did that, because if I needed to use an application that needed Vista, I could throw it on for that case.

    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
  • by gelfling (6534) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @07:45PM (#18560935) Homepage Journal
    None of the retailers have any incentives to cause anyone to run out and plunk down new cash for a new machine, just because it runs Vista. Here is it the beginning of April and the sales cycle is going to be flat until at least mid August when the kiddies go back to school. At that point, unless there are new incentives in place I think a combination of school discounts on XP/Hardware, schools becoming more software agnostic and competitive pricing from Apple will be a real threat to that segment too.

    But I am always called insane here at /. when I say things like this. So don't listen to me. Just keep being fanboys.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by cyphercell (843398)

      Funny I don't think you're that far off, all you have to do to get an XP box is go to the business section of any large vendor. The more people that know that, the more it will happen. Come school time I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't at least somewhat common knowledge, it was a well kept secret that you could get Windows 2000 for a long time after XP came out. I don't think the secret will be that well kept this time.

  • I don't think that anyone familiar with the PC market was expecting anything different. Windows Vista is not a revolutionary OS, it is an improvement on what most people already have. Simply put, there is no reason for the vast majority of consumers to purchase a new computer for the sake of Vista.
  • by zoftie (195518) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @07:54PM (#18561051) Homepage
    All it takes, is time. It may well be that apple with parallels and in future some deeper emulation integration with windows, will drive demand for people who abandon insecure windows environments for usable OS X. As Microsoft fails to meet its own promises, people will be forced to look elsewhere. Perhaps OS X with its demanding video applications will drive the next big rise in sales.

    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)

      by photomonkey (987563)

      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

  • DRM and Defective by Design has not just ticked off the usual pro-Linus /. crowd.

    This time, it scared off a lot of hardcore mainstream computer enthusiasts. When the tech geeks in your lif badmouth the product and don't want to install it unless they have to - what the hell did you expect would happen with the average Joe computer user?

    Being involved in Windows development, I can tell you that there is NO WAY we are creating for Vista only. We'll be able to run on it - but there's no way I would bet the co
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @07:57PM (#18561095) Journal
    We can draw from several possible conclusions from such numbers:

    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)

      Actually, WGA isn't really working. There's currently a crack floating around that simulates an OEM BIOS, and always checks out A-OK on WGA checks and associated scum.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by RobertM1968 (951074)

      6 - Statistics and studies only show you what they want you to see

      MS is counting the Vista Upgrade coupons into those numbers (the 20 million). NOT the used coupons... the total coupons "given out" (ie: 12 million PCs sold during the qualifying period, 12 million coupons... and 8 million machines with Vista or copies purchased to upgrade - figures for example purposes only).

      What are the actual figures? Who knows? MS isnt telling. And to count the "coupons" would require the OEMs and retailers to produ

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cyrtainne (1078481)
      Well everyone that is forcing themselves to either use, or develop Vista would disagree about that. Wouldn't it be nice to buy a game and have your choice of 3 or 4 operating systems to play that game on instead of just one? If the operating system manufacturers had to build to a blueprint set out by the application software designers instead of the other way around. I guess in a more perfect world.
  • by gilesjuk (604902) <giles@jones.zen@co@uk> on Saturday March 31, 2007 @08:06PM (#18561177)
    XP is still a lot more stable than Win9x ever was. Vista has clear disadvantages (over zealous DRM).

    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)

    by smash (1351) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @08:14PM (#18561253) Homepage Journal
    As someone who's currently got a dodgy copy of Vista running at home (30 day grace period... yeah, yeah, i'm going to buy it when i get home this week), i can see why it's not *currently* selling well for most people (this will change of course when you can no longer buy XP easily).

    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.

  • When I first heard about Vista/Longhorn it seemed like it would be good. Usable userlevel accounts, video driver handling that wouldn't BSOD the whole system if they faulted. Since then, its just become the reason I format my systems and re-install from scratch to avoid the bloat ware. Its backwards compat leaves something to be desired, IE7 doesn't even show to be much better than 6, breaking things like SSL (at least at first) blackboard which is essential to some classes at many Universities is unaccep
  • Jaded (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @08:43PM (#18561551)
    Let's be realistic. Who actually NEEDS Vista right now? Not many if anyone. Eventually people will need it to run something, but that day isn't here now and until it is Vista is a pain in the tookus because of DRM, compatability issues and hardware requirements.

  • This matters why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Toby_Tyke (797359) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @08:48PM (#18561581) Journal
    Really, the last time I can remember people rushing out in their masses to buy a windows upgrade was '95. Remember when XP came out? Sure, you get the usual early adopters rushing out to buy the thing on release day, but by and large they sell the things via pre-installs on OEM systems. The AT article points out that the growth in VIsta sales over XP sales track exactly to the growth in PC sales XP's release. That hardly means Vista is a failure, it just means that, like XP, the vast majority of users are waiting till they upgrade their PCs to buy Vista. Vista will almost certainly have a 50 percent or more share of the consumer desktop market in 2 or 3 years time, just like XP did. By the time we get the next windows iteration in 5 years (or whenever) it will have over 80 percent, just like XP does.

    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.
  • by alucinor (849600) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @08:56PM (#18561675) Journal
    Just someone tell me PLEASE how I can get the UP navigation button in Windows Explorer? My job just forced us all to upgrade to Vista, and our laptops can *barely* run it plus IBM's RAD6 for development. And no up button is just the straw, you know, the freakin' straw.

    Well, I'm posting this from Ubuntu Edgy at home right now at least. :-D
    • I just tried Vista briefly during the Beta period -- even I will have to support it for friends and family sooner or later, though I use Gentoo for all my personal needs -- so I'm not sure about this, but if memory serves, you can click each path element in the address bar to go directly to the corresponding directory. I guess that would be the replacement for the up button.
  • Businesses buy new computers, not hardware parts. Replacing parts takes time, and manhours cost money. More money than the new computers do. So what they buy is complete crates, and they don't buy them when some system comes out (unless it's a must-have 'cause SAP says so), they buy it when the time comes. So there is no increase in hardware sales, 'cause whatever sales exist would exist anyway when the life cycle of the old machines runs out.

    Inexperienced home users do the same. They don't have the know ho
  • I'm about to pick up a brand spanking new laptop in a couple of days. It comes complete with Vista, I have no choice in the matter. The first thing I am going to do is to slap a Kubuntu CD in the drive and get things set up the way I want it. I'm not holding my breath regarding getting a refund for Vista, and whilst I realize that actually bundling an Operating System with a new computer may help prevent piracy or even increase market share for Microsoft, it does not take on board the fact that not everybo
  • 1. Make sure DirectX 10 is Vista only.
    2. Pressure Blizzard to upgrade WoW to DirectX 10
    3. ???
    4. Profit!!

    Eight million copies of Vista will be sold in the next week, I promise you.
  • Boycotting Vista (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Andypcguy (1052300)
    Im not planning to run Vista on my box unless I find that I have to in order to do the things I want to with my PC. I refuse to purchase DRM riddled products that prevent me from using the media I legitimately purchased, the way that I want to. Im not interested in backroom deals that determine that if I buy song X at store A I can only play it on player 123. Sorry Microshaft and Itunes until you guys start representing me Im voting with my dollarsIm siding with the independent party.
  • I had to order it pronto to help a customer who could not access our app using COM (9-pin connector in back). Also found out upon arrival, there was no place to plug in the printer and the MIDI gear. Ok to leave out the solitaire game but it doesn't seem like business sense to leave out so much connectivity in one upgrade.
    • by cdrguru (88047)
      And the dropping of "legacy" hardware is somehow Microsoft's issue with Vista?

      I will agree that removing parallel, MIDI/Game ports, 2 serial ports and so on from desktop machines doesn't really make a lot of sense. The assumption seems to be that everyone has migrated over to USB completely.

      But this isn't a Microsoft issue at all and has nothing to do with Vista.
  • I bet you $100 that if it's not already the case, there will be more Vista desktops than XXX desktops by the end of the year for any choice of free XXX.
  • Truth in Marketing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @11:13PM (#18562965)
    I've ordered the free Vista upgrade for the systems I bought in January, but have no intent of installing them any time soon.

    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.

  • by CAIMLAS (41445) on Saturday March 31, 2007 @11:28PM (#18563099) Homepage
    However, it most certainly is a hotcake: people can't get rid of it fast enough. :)

    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)

      by smash (1351)
      Have you actually used vista much yet? On semi-decent hardware?

      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.

      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)

    by browng (953782) on Sunday April 01, 2007 @12:22AM (#18563571)
    The operating system is focused on when installing/uninstalling programs and peripherals which for the average user may account for a relatively small amount of time vs. checking e-mail, surfing the web and writing documents. Therefore, most of the time, people are using applications instead of the OS. In this case, the most important feature of the OS is stability. For virtually everyone I know, XP home and professional reached a reasonable level of stability.

When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"

Working...