PC Makers Say Vista Is Not a Seller 319
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."
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah! Deal on that Defective by Design... (Score:2, Interesting)
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 company on the success of Vista. Not when I don't have to.
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.
Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms (Score:2, Interesting)
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 - while i know theres a gideon bible in the hotel room dont expect me to use it.
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: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...
What Linux should do (Score:2, Interesting)
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 but one that linux can serve if there was a really nice user friendly server version, which there isn't right now. Server editions are tuned for the expert linux users. What could this application be. Just guessing but suppose everyone had an Xbox 360 in each room, and they needed a common place to put all the music and videos?
Two is what I did, namely put on DSL linux onto my ancient win98 computer. Man what a difference!!! it was liek having a new computer. It suddenly booted in less than 30 seconds. Apps opened instantly. The interface was clean and crisp. Even networking functioned better. It became a very servicable laptop and is still in use when my wife needs something to take notes at a meeting. So there needs to be a version of linux (and as important: the applications) that is so lightweight it makes old hardware feel sprightly again. However the major distros and major apps are all going the opposite direction. Heavy feature laden and resource hungry. DSL would be good but it's not really a comsumer distro. We need a stripped consumer friendly distro.
Third is as a game machine for the little kids. But there's no software.
I think option 1 or 2 could be a killer app for linux in the home: All these computers that will be retiring.
Vista has found to be lacking (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not a hotcake? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A month and no success? (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 check out KDE 4!). I wouldn't say Vista is the sole reason as much as the last straw. I've already picked up Python in an attempt to ween myself off of such proprietary tools as C# and ASP.NET. Yes, I have tried Mono. No, I do not have the same high hopes for it as other developers seem to have. In any case, I rather enjoy the dynamic nature of Python programming. Plus, there is something to be said for writing a few thousand lines of code and being fairly certain that your program will run on many different platforms without modification. No
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 jumping to these apocalyptical conclusions.
In my opinion, that is one of the motivators behind such conclusions. If you cannot find a driver for commonly available hardware (how many millions of Linksys WiFi cards are out there?), how complete (e.g., usable) can Vista possibly be? At what price?
MS really dropped the ball, and it's plain to see. People aren't jumping to conclusions, they are simply pointing out the obvious.
Cheers,
Michael
Re:hmmm (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:What Linux should do (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess we can all dream 'eh?
Re:hmmm (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), new (albeit flawed) security model, etc.
I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch, but there is at least some benefit for me in it.
Jaded (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh it's driving demand all right (Score:1, Interesting)
You mean DirectX 10? Sure, DX10 could run on XP if MS wanted it to, but then nobody would need to buy Vista.
no UP button in explorer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I'm posting this from Ubuntu Edgy at home right now at least.
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?
Bought in December (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I didn't follow my own advice and my laptop expired a week ago. I had to replace Vista Home Ultimate (or whatever) with XP Professional Student Ultra Pirated edition. Luckilly for me, the Acer 5610Z is not only a decent laptop, but it has great drivers for good ol' XP.
games intact, functionality removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Rubber demand curve (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 Tax Credit from OEM vendors, or you could build your own box and throw Ubuntu on it or buy an Apple, but the simple fact is that the majority of people just plain won't.
The average consumer probably only cares about a few of the 'things' a computer can do: email, word processing, web, pr0n (and other basic multimedia) and printing. Their current machines can do all that stuff, so why buy a new one or upgrade just the OS? They'll wait until their current box craps out (or gets so loaded with viruses/spyware that they'd just as soon ditch it as fix it) and then get whatever is sold en masse by Dell, HP, Gateway and Best Buy. Hell, if Dell sold the majority of computers with BeOS installed, BeOS would be 'the next big thing'.
Corporate IT departments care about compatibility, stability, security and ease-of-support among other things. Mom and Pop end-users likely don't know enough about computers in general to even assess IF the new OS really is an advantage over the old one.
For ~95% of the desktops sold, Windows is the only easy option. Even beyond that, the big PC vendors will offer $399 desktops with free printers, monitors and even digital cameras and laptops for $599. Those are not price points that Apple seems to even care about, especially on the laptop side. All of those cheap-ass, kid's-going-back-to-school-and-I-need-a-cheap-comp uter boxes will ensure that Microsoft stays on top with Vista for at least one more OS iteration, regardless of how good or bad the OS actually is.
On the business side, I know very few places that upgrade to anything new immediately. The costs are too high, and the risks too great. In fact, many, many businesses can get by with older hardware and Win2000 or XP for a number of years to come. What does the AVERAGE employee do on a computer? Browse the web, type emails and type memos with the occasional PowerPoint presentation thrown in there. 6-year-old hardware with 2k or XP is perfectly capable of all that. Again, Vista will only permeate the business world on a large scale when it's been out for a while, is completely (as close as it ever gets) stable and, most importantly, is really the only OS available.
Microsoft doesn't really have to worry about making leaps and bounds with its new OSes. They will make money if only because of Microsoft's distribution deals with the big computer vendors.
I'm not saying Microsoft will be around forever, but they can ride the tide for a long time before they have to worry. If WinMe sold, so too will Vista.
But the article is right. In and of itself, Vista itself is not a seller.
Re:Why would it drive demand? (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 news is that with a Core 2 duo, SATA hard drives with RAID support, 4 meg RAM and a X1650 video card, XP performs much better than ever, especially with the audio and video production apps I use.
If Microsoft were to put out a new version of XP with an updated interface and more solid security, they'd have a winner, but Vista is a terrible product with absolutely nothing that compels one to purchase it.
Of course, if all new computers have Vista, then Microsoft will sell a lot of copies, but I could not in good conscience recommend it as an upgrade, and if XP is still an option, that would be the way I'd go.
Hell, the University I work at just found out that Blackboard has problems on Vista, so they definitely won't be upgrading.
Re:poor drivers = poor customer perception (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, a 4 year old system will handle the bulk of that with ease. There are still several reasons to upgrade, including snappy video editing, having a quiet, economical and eco-friendly applicance, and those who desire the latest games. But this is a much smaller subset of users. And those users now have an incentive to switch with MS malware issues.
Re:Oh it's driving demand all right (Score:3, Interesting)
So, I turn that back on you: How sad to be so shallow and assume everyone fits your little profiles.
Re:Oh it's driving demand all right (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Oh it's driving demand all right (Score:2, Interesting)