Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Microsoft

Ballmer Says Vista Selling Really Well 692

An anonymous reader writes "Steve Ballmer is in no way disappointed with Windows Vista. It is selling 'incredibly well,' he told a press conference in Herzeliya, Israel today. 'Vista sells on almost 100 per cent of all the new consumer PCs around the world,' the Microsoft CEO proclaimed. He added that the operating system was also selling on '45 percent of all of new business PCs.' Which is enlightening, since business users are about the only buyers of new PCs that get a choice." Anyone know anybody who bought Vista except as bundled with hardware?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ballmer Says Vista Selling Really Well

Comments Filter:
  • by twitter ( 104583 ) * on Saturday May 24, 2008 @10:53AM (#23527708) Homepage Journal

    I wonder how he defines a business and how many of those businesses are exercising their "downgrade rights". There are a lot more small businesses than big ones. Small business has far less choice and sometimes it's cheaper to buy retail. Even big business may get a better deal when offered computers with Vista that did not sell in retail channels - M$ can make any deal it wants. The bottom line for big business is that Vista has single didgit deployment and many companies are talking about skipping Vista [slashdot.org].

  • Bad Vista (Score:5, Interesting)

    by awarrenfells ( 1289658 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @10:58AM (#23527748) Homepage
    I don't know anyone that bought vista unbundled with any hardware, but I think it is interesting to note that of all the customers I provide technical support for, nearly 90% of them have all stated how much they hated vista. The consumers speak for themselves. Maybe they should be given a choice as well. Though, given the current trend and opinion, that may very well cause Vista sales to bomb.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24, 2008 @11:06AM (#23527824)

    I bought a copy for compatibility testing that I run in a virtual machine. A side benefit is that I get to compare versions of Windows side-by-side. It's enlightening. Vista is slower in every respect than its predecessors, and it's more difficult to use.


    On the other hand, it is shinier.

  • XP? Really? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hankapobe ( 1290722 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @11:18AM (#23527942)

    XP. which has better compatibility and less security. making his statement true.

    Are business really just sticky with XP? Or are they moving over a Linux distro or OSX for that matter? I have a feeling that the Linux numbers are going to start increasing drastically. Just a hunch.

  • Counterfeit sales (Score:5, Interesting)

    by clarkn0va ( 807617 ) <<apt.get> <at> <gmail.com>> on Saturday May 24, 2008 @11:20AM (#23527960) Homepage
    My brother-in-law works for a small company (~60) and informs me that they recently bought some corporate vista licensing for the sole purpose of the continued right to install xp on new machines. So if by 'vista sales' they mean 'a sale of the right to continue to use xp on new installs' then yeah, I can account for a few of these 'vista sales'.

    Or at least that's how I understood the deal. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    db

  • by bloodninja ( 1291306 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @11:23AM (#23527990)

    the only problem I've had is a lack of printer drivers for a printer, and that's because Samsung want to sell new printers rather than make new drivers for their old ones...
    Hey, that's same same problem that I have with my lugg^H^H^H^H Ubuntu. Seriously, I've installed Ubuntu on a machine and told the user that it was the latest version of Windows. It's that easy to use, so long as the user is not tainted with the L word. What does paying for Vista get the average home user, who is not tied to some particular business software? That is the reason Vista is failing. It's only real market is for users who need applications that run on Windows, and many of those applications only run on XP.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24, 2008 @11:30AM (#23528056)
    I purchased a new XPS m1530 laptop from DELL which came only with Vista. I used it for a month or two, but even after SP1 it was still too slow to watch videos without hiccups, programs took too long to load, and although I liked the eye-candy it just wasn't worth the trouble.

    I found forums that listed the Windows XP drivers for for the hardware the laptop uses, installed XP and everything was so quick, and I had no hiccups when watching video. I do miss the eye-candy, but to go through a day without rebooting windows for a crash is heaven...

    I have also installed Linux on this laptop, and I got mostly everything, but there is a problem keeping the wi-fi working (after about an hour I would lose the connection and only a reboot would allow me to reconnect, so that got annoying and I put XP back on it.

    It may be the case Vista not working well with this laptop is DELL's fault, but XP has had absolutely no issues so far.
  • by fchambers ( 719227 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @11:32AM (#23528078)
    I was forced to take Vista. I tried it. It couldn't find anything on my network except my fax machine and the user interface for a modular print server, but not the printer. I finally hard coded the address and then it had driver issues. The printer was a plain vanilla HP laserjet. I replaced Vista ASAP with Ubuntu which immediately connected to everything. I wasted 90 minutes downloading approximately 150 updates out of the box. I guess HP didn't care if it was current or maybe Vista has so many issues that it needed that many new updates during shipping.
  • Ten Percent (Score:3, Interesting)

    by braindead_in ( 933655 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @11:35AM (#23528110) Homepage
    I distribute a moderately popular software for windows (simple call recording tool for Skype called Call Graph). But from my stats, only 10 % of my users are on Vista. :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24, 2008 @11:43AM (#23528186)
    No, that's not true. Really. Not only is Vista selling well, it also helps Win XP sales! Some people bought Vista with their new PC and then installed XP on it. That's 2 licenses of operating system per hardware! Never before in Microsoft history did people need 2 licenses for their brand new PC.

    Vista is Microsoft's new windfall.
  • by kullnd ( 760403 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @12:03PM (#23528400)
    I order all of our new Business PC's with Vista licenses, however I then load them with my volume licensing copy of XP excercising the downgrade rights that come with the Vista Business edition... I figure I may as well get the newest license, does not mean that I'm going to use it, as much as M$ would like to think that I am.
  • by e40 ( 448424 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @12:09PM (#23528454) Journal
    What does Vista do better than XP?

    Serious question.
  • Re:boughtVista (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24, 2008 @12:12PM (#23528488)
    This photo from Ballmer's strategy talk says it all: http://flickr.com/photos/paintitblack/2439080330/sizes/l/
    And, yes, as it eventually turned out this is actually Steve Ballmer's own personal Mac behind the large Microsoft sign.
  • Re:I believe it (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24, 2008 @12:13PM (#23528498)
    It's certainly going a lot better than it was a year or two ago [iraqbodycount.org].

    (Posted anonymously due to left-wing Slashdot bias and off-topicness of post.)
  • by Fanboys_Suck_Dick ( 1128411 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @12:16PM (#23528530)
    Every other Vista feature equals what exactly? I bought Vista on release day and also turned UAC off. The only other features of Vista I can think of that I vaguely care about are

    1. Aero
    2. The Apple Spotlight clone
    3. The Google Sidebar clone
    3. Windows Explorer now allows you to filter by file extension

    Not worth the $220 and 10% to 15% performance reduction I paid. I recently reinstalled XP after using Vista everyday for over a year.
  • by elteck ( 874753 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @12:38PM (#23528774)
    Vista came with my laptop, and it sure does work fine. The start was a bumpy road, blue screens, slow response. But now a few patches and a service pack later, it works fine, better then XP: Disk partitioning on the fly, less problems with broken user profiles, much less clumsy handling of multiple networks while traveling. Even though I am a hardcore Linux user, I am satisfied with Vista. To my opinion, XP is really outdated.
  • by Blue Stone ( 582566 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @12:41PM (#23528798) Homepage Journal
    Agreed. UAC is fine in regular use (I run 2 PCs with Vista with UAC turned on) but a poor implementation has resulted in unfavourable initial responses, souring many people's view of it (and not without good reasons, I may add).

    It is poorly implemented in that it doesn't have a grace period. As such every instance of requested elevation will hit a user instead of once in a reasonably short time window.

    This is a real problem when people are initially bumping up against the new Windows 'feature'. When they buy a new machine and are installing countless pieces of software, it's like being hammered over the head with near constant 'cancel/allow' requests.

    Once (if) the typical user gets past this initial Trial By UAC and aren't installing programs one after another, UAC is barely noticeable and is handy for the security it provides, but a user's introduction to the process is *extremely* negative and likely to sour them to the control mechanism, IMO.

  • Re:The Question (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Todrael ( 601100 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @12:56PM (#23528986) Homepage

    My brother, who isn't very tech savvy, came to me and asked me to build him a new computer for his birthday. I spec'd it out from component parts and managed to keep it all inside his price range. Then I spent about 3 weeks debating between Windows XP and Windows Vista. I eventually sided with Vista Home Premium OEM, for a few primary reasons.

    1) He's a gamer. Like it or not, DirectX 10 is only available on Vista. This gives him the ability to play newer games with more 'flashy' graphics - and yes, when it comes to game, looks matter quite a bit.

    2) The price was not significantly different. We needed to stay inside the budget, and if we're going to spend the same amount of cash on an OS, then it might as well be the one that's going to be around longer, to prolong the life of the machine (by the time the hardware needs upgrading, the OS will too).

    3) Media Center features and other eye candy. Vista looks nice. This is universally agreed upon. And so long as you don't use the built-in applications (Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, etc), everything works and functions very well. Yes, you can use the alternatives on other platforms as well, but the full effect won't be there.

    4) Security. XP has been hacked all to the nine hells by now. He generally knows not to click stuff and just install it, but he does partake of some of the seedier things the internet has to offer, so it's always best to be on something more secure that can play all his games, even if it's only a little more secure.

    5) He really doesn't care. He is Average Joe. He hasn't had a single complaint since I set it up, other than his rear speakers not working, and after 30 minutes of research, I got that fixed. All his peripherals work. All his games work. All the videos and music and whatever else he wants to do, he hasn't had an issue with.

    In the end, you have to decide on the right tool for the right job. At home, I use a MacBook for my laptop, a refurb $250 Dell with Debian as my server, a custom-built XP Pro rig for my desktop that also dual-boots Ubuntu. Sometimes, Vista is the right answer.

  • by Duke Blazingstix ( 803454 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:04PM (#23529096)
    There's a few positive comments in here somewhere, but you really have to dig for them (as you will no doubt have to for this one).

    Have any of you ever tried running Windows 95, lately. I did, and noticed there were alot of little things that I could do in 98/2k that were not possible to do in 95 (like right-click interactivity in the start menu), so much so that I cannot effeciently and effectively use Windows 95 today. The same thing also applied to windows 98 and XP for me.

    The very same thing applies also to XP and Vista. There are alot of small refinements in Vista that make it difficult to work the way I want in XP. Things that you wouldn't even notice until a few months of using Vista. In brief, here are a few of the things I find invaluable time savers:

    Take for example, file renaming in Explorer. When you hit F2 to rename a file, it no longer highlights the extension (when you have the extension visible) and you can press the TAB button to move to rename the next file, etc.

    The start button Search Field. I no longer have to go hunting around my start menu if I don't know where something is. And let's be honest, I have tonnes of crap on my start menu that I only need occasionally and never know where it is. Now, instead of wasting a few seconds (and losing my train of thought) searching for the program I need, can just type (a part of) the program name, and windows will load it.

    Default Folder names: Gone is the excessively verbose "Documents and Settings" replaced with "Users" and so too is My Documents no longer the root for all your personal files... now your username is the root folder (I just wish more programs realised that and stopped cluttering up my Documents folder with their useless settings.)

    Change Explorer Views: This one's a simple one... The view selection (i.e. detail, list, thumbnail) is now a button/dropdown, instead of just a dropdown. I'd much rather click the button 3 times instead of clicking it once, moving the mouse down to the name of the view I want and selecting it. Anything that can shave seconds off an already fairly easy process is awesome.

    I like the new insanely large thumbnail sizes when dealing with a pictures folder.

    UAC: I bought Vista for both my parents specifically because of UAC. If you're an administrator, UAC behaves stupidly. Granted. It becomes some weird twisted sort of double "Are you *really* sure?" confirmation. Useless. But, when you're not an administrator, it becomes the most obviously useful thing in the world. In XP, if you are a regular user, and you need to run some process as admin, you need to know beforehand. You need to find (sometimes by holding Shift when you right-click) the RunAs command, and use it to run this program as an Admin. In Vista, you can run it normally, and if it then finds out it needs admin rights, it will prompt you then and there to enter an admin user/password. That's the key difference. Needing to have foreknowledge and not.

    When I first installed a beta or RC of Vista, I immediately declared it a complete and utter failure and bomb. I proclaimed I would never use it fully, and most certainly not ever let my parents use it, for fear of all the questions I would be bombarded with.

    After I used it for a few months though, once things became familiar to me again, I greatly prefered it to XP. And it's a pain having to continue to use old clunky (interface-wise) XP.

    I realise that many of the improvements I mentioned can be applied to XP through some means or other, but the point is that by including that improved functionality in the OS, they have raised the baseline. And I do recognise that to use Vista, you'll need a bigger screen resolution (long gone are the days of 1024×768 being enough), and a faster machine. I just take it for granted that as machines become more powerful and have more resources, so too do the software programs use those resources. Anyway, that's just my personal take on Vista, for me and my family.
  • by Ira Sponsible ( 713467 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:13PM (#23529220) Journal

    Good for you. You turned UAC off. You know what you can't do anymore? If you're not logged in as the admin (and you never log in as an admin unless you NEED admin rights, right?) then you have no access to other user folders anymore at all. Example: you're logged in under MyAccount working on some progect, and you need to grab a photo your wife has in the Pictures folder of HerAccount. No problem right? It's your computer and you know the admin PW, so you explore to the HerAccount user folder and when it pops up the prompt saying you don't have permission, you click OK expecting to put in the admin PW and keep going. Doesn't happen. You're not allowed at all. No PW prompt. Nothing. You're just not allowed in. So you log in to the admin account, turn UAC on again, switch back to MyAccount, and try it again. This time it says you don't have permission to access HerAccount, but it does give you an opportunity to use the admin PW to get in, so you finally grab the photo from her Pictures photo, stick it in your project, and you're good to go. A couple of months later (you naturally have UAC turned off again), you're in MyAccount, and again you need to grab a picture from HerAccount. By now you've forgotten the hassle you went through before, and you just explore straight into HerAccount, and then her Pictures folder and you get what you're looking for in a snap. And then you realize that Vista didn't deny you permission this time, didn't ask for a password or anything, it just let you straight in. UAC gave you PERMANENT access to HerAccount while you were logged into MyAccount. That access wasn't permitted on a session only basis as would be expected in any real multi-user system. And then you remember that you used the same UAC enabled trick to help her get a document from MyAccount. Now you know that she still has access to MyAccount while she's logged into HerAccount. And now you understand why she's been acting so weird lately - She found your AnimalFootFetishPr0n folder. You sick bastard.

    Yeah. Just continue having your no problems with Vista. You can continue being happy with Vista as long as you ignore all the little braindead brokenness. I couldn't ignore Vista's performance-crippling, copyrights-restricting, user-rights-bungling, hardware-settings-losing, user unfriendliness anymore, and as soon as I can get Wine to run photoshop right, I can scrape that ungodly pile of crap off my laptop and stop having to dual-boot just to do a few tweaks in PS that I can't do in GIMP.

  • by lilfields ( 961485 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:19PM (#23529274) Homepage
    I've seen way more high-end laptops on my campus than I have Macintosh laptops...but anyhow, the Apple statistics on "dominating" the $1000+ price range is skewed because most PC users buying above 1000+ simply upgrade their systems. If you're buying an Alienware, Voodoo PC, Falcon NW, Build it yourself or any other high end PC you're not going to just go out and buy a new computer, you're just going to slap in a new $600 video card and some new RAM for a while. Apple pretty much forces you to buy an entirely new system, minus a few upgradeable modules...I'm sorry but it's true.

    Anyhow, I bought Vista Ultimate without it being bundled with the PC..I will admit it wasn't selling well though. The place I bought it from said I was the first customer to buy Vista Ultimate from them...-this was the first week of it's release though-...and that they actually only held one copy of Vista Ultimate in stock; I was pretty shocked. I do however like Vista, and find that most people who make fun of it, or hate on it, have actually never used it.
  • by Starayo ( 989319 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @02:09PM (#23529722) Homepage
    I'll admit that I did hate on vista for a while before ever trying it, but when I got a new laptop with vista preinstalled on it, after removing all the garbage that vendors throw on there, the sheer sluggishness of it...

    My old XP laptop with half the specs does things faster than vista. I had some hopes for SP1, but so far I've seen no real improvement... As far as I'm concerned, vista made things shiny, added a few handy but hardly necessary features, and slowed down my machine.
  • by WereCatf ( 1263464 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @02:32PM (#23529918)
    I don't "hate" Vista, I just dislike it. For several reasons, too. For example, Vista is stuffed with all this DRM stuff and if I am watching DRM enabled video I'll need a monitor and graphics card which both support protected video path or it'll downgrade the video quality. IMHO that's pretty fucked up. If I have bought a movie then of course I should be allowed to watch it at optimal quality settings too no matter what monitor (and connector) I am using :O So, generally, I hate the attitude "protect media from users" rather than "provide users with the best you can give them". Second thing I dislike about Vista...is that I don't have a single computer it'd run sufficiently well on. XP runs just fine on all of them, and so does Linux even though Linux does give me all the desktop bling, search and such that are the features that Vista is touted for. In essence: Vista requires much better hardware to run as well as either Linux or XP on my current hardware. And if I buy a new computer then I rather use the extra power it gives me to run the applications or games rather than the OS. I seriously can't see a single upside in moving any of my computers to Vista. It doesn't provide any new feature that I can't already have with XP or Linux, and they even require less powerful hardware.
  • by symbolset ( 646467 ) * on Saturday May 24, 2008 @03:01PM (#23530204) Journal

    If you think Linux users have to worry about "exploits, botnets, keyloggers, malware, [and] Trojans" then you probably shouldn't be on Slashdot.

    On my Linux box if a website manages to get a popup window open without asking, that's a major security breach requiring immediate examination and correction.

    On the average user's Window's box an unexpected new browser toolbar, websites that redirect to unfamiliar places and a short game of Kill the popups [heavygames.com] is such a common part of the landscape that people just don't notice them until they render the computer completely unusable [splasho.com].

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24, 2008 @03:34PM (#23530464)
    I have 3 laptops running XP, a home made desktop running XP and Linux (64 Studio upgraded to a full Debian distro)and my newer homemade desktop running Vista. All just work. There are no crashes except for memory hungry applications. The OSs do not produce problems (I reinstall them after 6 months to a year if they start to run slowly or unpredictably) though Vista has just been running since installed.
  • Re:Bad Vista (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gsarnold ( 52800 ) <gsarnold@nOsPAm.gmail.com> on Saturday May 24, 2008 @03:38PM (#23530500)
    I am currently working on financing a new home-built PC to replace my 5 year old Shuttle Athlon XP, and I am seriously considering Vista Ultimate, not because I actually want to run Vista, but because the OEM license can be downgraded to either XP-64 (which is what I actually want to run, but fear driver support problems) *or* XP-32, which is what I will probably end up running.

    At work, there is no way we can support Vista in its current form, the hardware requirements are simply too high and there isn't enough benefit to warrant the expense we would to do the upgrade. The only realistic way to deploy Vista across an enterprise would be by attrition - replacing XP PC's with Vista in the normal upgrade cycle, but then you are dual-platformed for about three years while that all plays out.

    I attended a Norex.net conference back in February and of the 50 or so organizations represented, fewer than five expected to have a significant Vista deployment in place by the end of next year (2009).

    Here's what I think MS needs to do to fix Windows:

    * Rename Windows 7 to "Windows Clean" and use that principle to guide its design.

    * Follow the Apple pricing model: One version $89 for everyone with no upgrades, ultimates or basics.

    * Adopt a philosophy that the CPU cycles belong to the user, not third party marketers and eliminate preloaders, updaters, ride-alongs and alerters. Strangely, many of the problems with Windows now are caused by third-party companies that won't keep their grubby hands off my CPU cycles. Software should only be running while the user is using it! Corporate rudeness must not be tolerated! Etc. ETc. Etc.

    * Along the same line, Adobe, Apple, Real and HP should be banninated from writing non-application software. ;)

    * "Modularity" should mean that the base install is clean, but offers the additional (free) component modules (enterprise networking, Media Center, UI Enhancements, etc...) from the install DVD.

    * Abandon DRM support - it is anti-user and invasive. SCREW THE xxAA's! It's my PC, not theirs!

    * Provide an EXPERT MODE that turns off UI handholding (...stupid Windows XP search dog!). Apps should obey this, too.

    * Help (especially from third-party vendors) must be more FAQ-like and informative, especially with fundamental descriptive informationlike "What does this app do?", "Who put it there?", "What depends on it?", "What impact is it having on my system?", "How do I remove/disable parts I'm not using?" Too may help files were written by marketroids.

    * Microsoft standardized printer support with Windows in the 90's, they should do the same for licensing (EULA) agreements now. I should be able to view the license agreements for every piece of software on my system and look at the conditions in a table for term-by-term comparison. It would provide an amazing amount of warm fuzzies and goodwill if Microsoft was willing to lead the way away from lawyer-ese and toward a simplicity that INCLUDES the customer, rather than alienating them.

    Ok, sorry I turned this into a bitch session. Besides, there's NO WAY IN HELL they're every gonna listen to me!

    [/soapbox=off.]
  • by uglyduckling ( 103926 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @04:05PM (#23530710) Homepage
    I 'upgraded' to Vista on my (fairly high-end) laptop. It is definitely slow. I would say that easy tasks (like copying files) have been made easier, with better GUI feedback. Complex tasks (like setting up networking) have been made more complicated. I bought a FON router and set my laptop Wi-Fi up with it. I found that the wireless settings are /still/ broken (as they were with XP) and on a new Vista install with all updates it is still necessary to reboot the machine between changes of network settings even though the GUI doesn't request it (it says 'unknown error' on the network settings dialog). There's lots of sillies like that which just shouldn't happen on a modern OS. The only thing that feels like a true upgrade is the standby/hibernate support, which is really quick and totally reliable on my Dell XPS notebook.
  • by loopkin ( 267769 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @04:41PM (#23531040) Homepage
    I work for a software editor. Several months ago, we had to port a part of our software to Vista. Since our software is web-based, the only part at stake was an ActiveX.
    It was the worst nightmare we ever had. After finguring out for several months what was going on, we came to the conclusion that it simply wasn't possible. To summarize (sorry for simplifying):
    - UAC is the worst design/implementation ever. Windows has several execution environments (unlike UNIX, which has... 2: user(s) and root), and UAC asks you for permission each time you cross a fence ! (in UNIX, sudo at leasts reminds the password for several minutes or so)
    - ActiveX are simply impossible to use under Vista+IE7. Problem is that Microsoft didn't care to offer a replacement technology.
    The consequence of all this is that our application was no longer available under Vista/IE. It worked well under Vista/Firefox, though.
    Finally, we hired an ex-microsoftie, who re-implemented the ActiveX part entirely, using MS _private_ APIs, and now it works - more ore less.
    Going through all this, i wonder if the NT platform can be secured at all. Since we also have a support department, i can tell you that users have fare more problems with Vista than XP.
    This is going to kill MS. Almost all techies i know, plus lots of "power users" are switching to Linux or OSX (even the ex-microsoftie we hired was using OSX as his primary OS). Only big companies are sticking to MS, because of the total lack of competence that reigns there.
  • Resources (Score:3, Interesting)

    by argent ( 18001 ) <peter@slashdot . ... t a r o nga.com> on Saturday May 24, 2008 @05:09PM (#23531240) Homepage Journal
    When Dell is selling laptops under $1k with 3GB of RAM and dual core procs, the argument that it uses more resources than XP is a little thin.

    The resources I worry about in a laptop aren't dollars... they're electrons. If your laptop is running Vista, you need a faster processor (less battery life) and more RAM (less battery life) and you run the CPU at a higher power level (less battery life) to get the same experience as you would with XP. Paying $200 more for a laptop isn't a big deal. Not having to play musical power cables in a meeting room is.

    Best laptop I ever had was a Toshiba Libretto. The battery pack was the size of a joke pen, and I got five hours of actual use out of it, so with two charged batteries I could go all day without ever needing to find a power point.

    I don't think you could even boot Vista on it.
  • Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by symbolset ( 646467 ) * on Saturday May 24, 2008 @08:55PM (#23532782) Journal

    In order for your comment to be true the exact opposite of what I illustrated happening in my post must be happening. Since I provided links, it would be fair to ask you for some.

    PC sales are up in a big way in units, dollars of sales and dollars of profit. Windows sales are off by 24%. Make of that what you will. I choose to believe that Microsoft is getting a lot less for Windows than they used to especially in emerging markets, they're bleeding share on high end retail units and they've fully booked the sales under Software Assurance. I also choose to believe this is because nobody wants Vista, especially on the cost effective platforms that don't run it well.

    We have run the circle:

    We're back at nothing but XP for you. All your base are belong to XP. Now you just also have to take the Vista License so they can book another Vista sale for their marketeering. That way Ballmer can say stuff like "almost 100% of retail PCs are Vista." If you'll remember, Saddam Hussein also got 100% of the "popular vote" in the last election before his execution. At least they aren't making you take a SuSE coupon as well -- yet.

  • by Gription ( 1006467 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @11:18PM (#23533311)
    Large computer companies are always interested in any major market segment. Apple hasn't handed Balmer anything though. Apple is still small compared to Microsoft and unless Apple can ship a network centric product it won't take the business end of the market.

    The real thing is that Microsoft has become so disconnected and arrogant that it has put itself in a position that its customers are willing (and wanting) to find any viable alternative to their products.

    I really believe that Microsoft believes their own stories. If you go to a computer/electronics store you won't find a choice between computers with Vista and XP. You will find Vista rammed down the consumer's throat. I think they really believe that the customers are really choosing Vista over XP even though they have no choice.

    As far as businesses: The company I work for purchases lots of computers from Dell (100+ a month) and last week I changed our purchasing from ordering only machines with XP licenses to only ordering systems with Vista licenses...
    ... But the truth is a little different. The large OEMs are selling computers with Vista Business licenses but are loading Windows XP on them as the downgrade rights allow. We have no intention of starting to even look at actually using Vista for more then a year.

    I'm certain that Microsoft will lie to themselves and tally this up as a successful sale of Vista instead of a customer who wants no part of it but is going to pick up the license for the same price and hedge his bets.

    When a company lies to itself and loses focus on trying to meet customer needs it is walking the road to failure. The only question is if there is a David out there that can capitalize on Goliath's faltering. (Can Linux pull a major rabit out of their hat? I just don't see it...)

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...