Windows XP Still Outselling Windows Vista 498
nandemoari writes with an excerpt from an InfoPackets article that says "While Microsoft excitedly tries to sway public opinion by touting that Windows Vista License sales top 180 Million units, Hewlett-Packard (HP) was busy smacking Microsoft down — reportedly shipping PCs with a Vista Business license but with Windows XP pre-loaded in the majority of business computers sold since the June 30 Windows XP execution date established by Microsoft — casting a lot of doubt over how many copies of Vista have actually been sold."
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Although quoting the statistics from "a survey reportedly conducted by a systems management appliance company" is mighty vague, I'll bet it's not far off. Add to that the rise of the netbook, and it's just looking better and better for Linux.
Does this even matter?... (Score:5, Insightful)
'cause Microsoft still gets the $$$, no matter what OS sells more...
Re:Stop paying MS for bad software... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is absolutely no reason to run any variety of Windows as a web browser or email checker as far as I'm concerned. Most distributions of Linux are easy enough for anyone to use.
Same thing I'm seeing (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what Microsoft's thinking. Vista does have _some_ nice features, but a very long list of things to worry about. Every one of my IT peers I've talked to (I'm a desktop systems guy) has said their large company is putting off Vista migrations and waiting for Windows 7. We are too, not because we hate it, but because it's just not necessary yet.
It's been a pretty bad combination of factors:
- Features cut from the original Vista release that might have made it worth the pain
- IT departments who just spent 6 years getting XP stable enough
- Bad economy means that IT departments are cutting back, so it's not feasable to implement Vista even if you're a volume license customer. No one has time to research it properly with a reduced staff.
- XP SP3 is out, and is looking really good.
- Just a general "Oh no, here we go with a new OS again" malaise across IT departments in general.
Small businesses, on the other hand, are perfect Vista candidates. 3-user companies who don't run anything more complex than QuickBooks are Vista's target market right now. And now that it's on every computer you buy at any retail store, there's no reason for a small business to switch back. Large companies are basically not affected by June 30th because we can just buy Vista licenses and downgrade, which explains the inflated sales numbers.
On the "big company" side, I have lots of fun stuff to deal with. Internal web-based apps that were written when ActiveX was king. Business critical software last updated in 1996 and sometimes even before that. A constant mix of brand-new and 8-year-old hardware. Plus a user population that's not necessarily the earliest adopters.
I really hope Microsoft has something big planned for the next release. Swithing to Linux or Mac is totally not feasable for us (again, when you don't have 20 years of legacy Windows code to deal with, it's definitely a consideration.) It would take another major flop on their part to even think about migrating some of our business apps away from Windows.
TFA and summary are wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
The quote in the summary misunderstands the slight-of-hand going on in an illustrative way. The controversy IN NO WAY casts doubt on how many copies of Vista have been SOLD. It casts doubt on how many copies of Vista are INSTALLED and being USED.
All the HP sales involve the sale of a Vista license. They're just installing XP instead of Vista (something the Vista license expressly allows). The customer's paying for a Vista license.
The clever marketing trick is MS would like you to believe the 2 numbers are similar, desipte significant evidence to the contrary. They want you to look at the big "sold Vista licenses" number and think "Wow, a lot of people are USING Vista".
I said it before in the Blu-Ray thread (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no real advantage to upgrading to Vista or BluRay for most people
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I said it before in the Blu-Ray thread (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no real advantage to upgrading to Vista or BluRay for most people
Actually, both come with a major disadvantage, DRM. Coincidence, I think not!
Re:Same thing I'm seeing (Score:4, Insightful)
It's even harder when you're not just *using* 20 years of legacy Windows code, but *developing* it...
Re:Numbers are accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose you believed Bill Clinton when he said he did not inhale (right) and that other time when it all depended on what the meaning of is *IS*...
I needed a copy of Windows XP for my Dell, but in compliance with Ebay's policy, software could only be sold with hardware.
So, I ordered a metal blank case slot cover that said Dell on it, and what do you know? It came with a free copy of Windows XP Professional SP2 for Dell OEM PC's...
Does this mean that metal case bracket sales are up? NO decidedly not.
Even if Microsoft shipped a glazed canned ham and a 6-Pack of Bawlz with a downgrade disk copy of WinXP, they still sold a copy of XP (and some other crap people did not really want). This would not entitle the canned ham department over at Microsoft to claim superior sales versus XP at this point...
-Nobody pays the premium OEM charge for their "downgrade to XP rights and media disk" unless they intend on NOT using Vista and only using XP...
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it not? It may not be exponentially great, but it certainly isn't bad.
Those "Business Users" decide to use it for their home use, you start seeing more and more computers coming with it, more Linux boxes on store shelves, headlines about " X Company Switched To X Linux" then comes "hey, I should check that out too"
With "Business Users" generally creates a little more pressure on the dev's to fix/update/perfect the distro they are working on, and those that develop software packages, are more prone to add support to "Linux X".
However, although a lot of the time it creates more demand for interoperability (which I consider a good thing), it's also possible that it will narrow the Linux Field down to a Linux Patch Of Grass, ie: make the "popular" distro's a bit fewer/merged, but that isn't going to stop anyone from making new distro's, and will have very little effect on those that know the ins & outs of Linux.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does this even matter?... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm certainly no MS fan I gotta admit that its sort of a compliment that people like XP so much they refuse to upgrade to Vista.
That's like saying having a dog that pees on your rug isn't that bad because at least he doesn't eat your children.
People bought XP for years because they had no alternative they can live with. And that's still true. It's just that the alternatives they can't live with have gotten a little more diverse.
Re:Stop paying MS for bad software... (Score:3, Insightful)
So driving someplace and paying for software is a better than downloading free software?
For my dad? Fuck yes. I'm not tech support.
Re:Same thing I'm seeing (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, as a regular Slashdot reader I won't install Vista anytime soon because of the... well, the "FUD" this site (and some others) has generated.
No, really. I imagine Vista as an incompatible-to-XP and constantly crashing DRM-laden OS full of bugs with an evil UAC-Clippy constantly nagging me because I moved the mouse and prohibiting me from installing Firefox or third party media players, which also needs 10 minutes to copy a 1MB file because it probably sends another copy straight to Redmond and all drivers are still in beta or not available.
Even if that weren't far off, there are simply no interesting features worth the price-tag.
Re:Stop paying MS for bad software... (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the reason? (Score:2, Insightful)
Usually, I would say the reason for Vista not selling is that XP is just a very good and stable OS and there is no need. Unlike the switch from 95 to 98 to XP, which was needed because the former Systems constantly crashed.
The same strategy seems to work for many other companys though... e.g. who needs the latest Photoshop, when you can archieve the same functionality with some freeware-plugins? Still, it sells like sliced bread. What's the difference?
Re:Same thing I'm seeing (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows XP with sp2 or sp3 is rock stable. There is tons of support to be found around the web if you do run in to trouble. You can't imagine a device, no matter how obscure, and you can find decent drivers for it.
Almost all the software you can think of runs on XP by now (except for the odd highly specific packages perhaps) XP will run nicely on older hardware by now, so no need to upgrade.
Most of the users use XP at home or are already familiar with it, so there is little to none training required.
I know I'm talking to the wrong crowd here but Microsoft actually made XP too good. Businesses and home users have little to none reason to upgrade.
The extra security added in Vista? If configured properly XP can be just as safe.
DirectX 10? Hardly any use for that in a business environment.
Other then that? Not much except for the eye candy.. Woohoo.. yes, that will make your office a lot more productive!
So why would any sane organization go through the trouble of upgrading all the machines, training the employees and running after all the new security holes and troubles that come with a new OS?
Linux and Apple are clearly taking advantage of this situation and MS... Windows 7 must be damn good otherwise Windows domination will soon be a thing of the past.
I think this whole Vista thing will be a disaster for MS far greater then Windows ME ever could be.
MS knew ME wasn't all that good and it was presented as a in-between OS, no big marketing and probbaly not so high expectations profitwise. Vista however was hailed as the 2nd coming of Christ.. well hello there Satan..
Not For Sale (Score:3, Insightful)
Difference between sold and used (Score:3, Insightful)
" reportedly shipping PCs with a Vista Business license but with Windows XP pre-loaded in the majority of business computers sold since the June 30 Windows XP execution date established by Microsoft â" casting a lot of doubt over how many copies of Vista have actually been sold."
While there may be doubt over how many have actually been sold, what this datapoint highlights is not how many copies are being sold but rather how many are being sold but not used.
Re:More statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, GP didn't even mention the word "Linux" - he simply cited a statistic that showed Vista is not doing good in comparison with XP.
And besides, you have to remember that Vista took these 15% from XP, not from Linux. This is not newly-taken market share. It is simply a newer version of the same thing. In fact, it shows that only 15% of people upgraded to it, the remaining didn't think the price (or whatever else) was worth it. And since MS is cutting off support and sales of XP, this means these people have nothing from the Windows line to switch to in a few years (unless MS is a bit quicker about Windows 7 and it isn't as much a failure as Vista), and will have to look for an alternative, be it Linux, OS X, or anything else.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind that those "Business Users" also use Linux in a managed environment, with all the nasty details like updates and configuration largely taken care of. Seen this way, the switch to home use is still a big leap for a lot of people.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
How is MSDN counted? Action Pack? (Score:3, Insightful)
We have MSDN subscriptions for development and testing work. How are MSDN subscriptions counted for the purpose of this PR? Is each subscription counted as 10 Vista licenses since each subscriber can install 10 concurrent instances (for the use of that subscriber)?
How are the Action Pack subscription counted? Are they counted as 10 licenses per subscriber, or as one?
How are evaluations counted?
How are software assurance licenses counted?
I suspect that in addition to the Vista sold/XP installed sales, the number is vastly inflated due to non-retail and non-oem licenses.
Re:Numbers are accurate (Score:1, Insightful)
This does not imply that they did not sell an XP license. It does imply that Microsoft can claim to have sold a Vista license... it just so happens that they also sold an XP license at the same time. The trick is, Microsoft can't tell which OS the user is using (without other metrics like website reports, automatic update records, etc).
Re:Gamers: 98 vs XP (Score:5, Insightful)
Gamers came over to XP as soon as they bought a new PC.
Those of us who couldn't afford to upgrade stuck with 98 since XP ran like a pig.
Vista does not really bring anything. (Score:2, Insightful)
Vista does not bring anything worth the effort, expense and hard work of implementing it at a business. If you have spent four years working the worst kinks out of a platform its really not that fun implementing a new one that isn't any perceivable improvement.
The only security enhancement comes from the fact that any security related decision is lumped onto the lap of your average corporate drone.
Its incompatible with scoures of business applications and some webapp vendors even tell their customers to use firefox on Vista instead of making them IE7 compatible.
If you have an older client enviroment that runs pretty well on XP you can rest assured that imlementing Vista will demand a rip and replace of most hardware.
The drawbacks are big and the reward is a step back in many areas without any benefit business wise. For most its a matter of holding out on Vista as long as humanly possible in the hope that Windows 7 will be right. Like a step back to let say a polished version of W2k8 for desktops.
The sad part for Microsoft is that they can only finetune what they have and lag behind everyone else. Any major mucking about in the spaghetti they trapped themselves in will b futile.
Mod parent up (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not really surprising. Gamers stuck it out with Windows 98 long after XP Pro became the defacto corporate standard. It took a good 3 years for XP driver support to get to the point where XP outperformed Windows 98, and I expect nothing less from Vista. The thing that should drive Vista is DX10 and future implementations of DX, and that really falls on game developers before it will drive OS sales to gamers.
By the way I am a gamer, I use Vista, and while performance is not on par to XP on this computer, in most games it isn't bad enough to be noticeable or at least not to warrant a reboot into XP.
Parent post is spot on. This is something so many people forget when comparing Vista with XP now. Many of the people complaining about Vista are home users who didn't get their first PC until after XP SP2 was out. They know nothing about XP's first few years.
And in case you're wondering, no I'm not a Vista fan. For the moment, I still hate using it. I'll probably switch to it when it's been out a few years - just like I did with XP. But facts are facts, and rose-colored glasses don't change history.
Forced OEM copies (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stop paying MS for bad software... (Score:4, Insightful)
You've never played Civilization, right? :-)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Add to that the rise of the netbook, and it's just looking better and better for Windows XP.
There, fixed that for you.
I'm not knocking linux, it's a perfectly fine OS, but it's not even on the radar for most people.
The headline is a red herring. It doesn't *matter* whether more computers are running vista. The simple fact is that vista licenses are being sold. I'll reiterate that because it's important: People are paying money for vista. It does not matter whether they're installing it.
Large corporations have the agility of 10 story buildings, if they have volume license for XP, they'll run XP into the ground. It's not that they're afraid of vista, they're afraid of change. Linux is a *much* bigger change than Vista for them.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is the OS that propeller heads use. If a noob tries to install it, encounters a problem and asks for help, they get the standard "RTFM" response, or perhaps a lecture on why something that doesn't work for them or is difficult to use is actually what they want. Ubuntu is the free alternative to windows which is heaps easier to use and has community support which is friendly, welcoming and extremely helpful.
Yeah, yeah, I know Ubuntu uses a Linux kernel and gnu tools, but it has established a brand which is seen as friendlier to non technical users than the Linux brand. The fact that one is an essential part of the other doesn't matter to people who don't no any better or care.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm the AC you replied to above.
No, the learning curve is NOT harder. Most people just completely discount the thousands of hours they have spent learning Windows, but keep track of the time they spend learning Linux. Thus it's "harder" to learn Linux.
I've spent approximately the same amount of time in using both OS's, and it doesn't take any longer to learn one than it does the other.
In many ways Linux is actually easier to learn because nothing is hidden from you. You're not locked out of anything. The only reason some people have a "hard time" learning Linux is because they go into the process thinking the only way anything can be accomplished on a computer is the way MS does things. As a result they "think" Linux is "harder" because it's different.
I don't see how anyone can say it's a "difficult" to see a blinking icon, put your mouse over it and read that you have updates available, click on the icon. then click on a button in the window that pops up that tells the system to update itself. That's easier than Windows update.
And, if you're not allegic to a bash prompt/command prompt entering two very easily memorized commands is not difficult. I prefer the text-based ways to update a system myself. The text based tools will always be more powerful and flexible than any gui.
And installing software? I don't have to go downtown to the big box store or hunt around on the web for software. I open up a gui, search a wizard for software packages sorted into different sections of usage such as "Games and Amusement", "Editors", "Graphics", "Email", "World Wide Web", and so on. I get to choose from 18,000+ packages in one application, in one window. Then just click the checkbox and tell the Synaptic to Apply my choices. That's it. All dependencies are downloaded in installed as well as the choices I made. The packages are all given basic user settings, and there is some documentation for those packages installed at the same time.
Windows has nothing like in function or ease of use.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
As a long time Linux User, I would love to see Linux take over the desktop mainstream computers.
As a long time Unix and Linux developer/user, I would love to see Linux take over the desktop enterprise computers. How many people use Microsoft at home because that is the environment used at work?
Oh wait ... advancing enterprise Linux usage at work is in my job description.
Can I just say... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mod parent up (Score:1, Insightful)
And in case you're wondering, no I'm not a Vista fan. For the moment, I still hate using it. I'll probably switch to it when it's been out a few years - just like I did with XP. But facts are facts, and rose-colored glasses don't change history.
Those rosey glasses won't change the future either. With MSFT targeting 2010 for the next major release, Vista is likely to never be like XP. They would have to fix A LOT OF PROBLEMS! By the time they do, why waste money on it? Vista compatability won't be important. The timing really does make Vista look more like ME and less like XP. And if MSFT doesn't create the impression of a stable platform beyond XP, then they will lose.
And this is why you get the RTFM response (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the real reason windows is such a bad product is that it tries to cater to people with your attitude.
The problem with that however is that computers are still fairly complex pieces of machinery. It is not so much that a computer is so complex, countless hopeless people use computers numerous times each day. I see people who have trouble opening a web page operaring unix machinery. Modern copiers for instance run on a unix system, factory machines rarely run on Windows.
The advantage with these systems is that they have one task and that task is the only thing they do and all their hardware is pre-selected and pre-configured.
Most of the trouble with PC's comes from the fact that so many people have different configurations and desires as to how they should operate. Easy of use goes out of the window when you want flexibility. Good luck programming a wizard that can deal with every network setup people have dreamed up in their homes.
At a given point, sooner or later the user when he is going to do something more then the most basic tasks on the most basic setup is going to have to get his head around more advanced concepts like IP address. So it is better if he is introduced to it gently overtime rather then having to learn it all at once when he has a task to complete.
Time for the famous car analogy. When do you teach a new driver how to break. When the car is standing still, when he first got it moving forward OR when it is approaching a concrete pillar at 120 km an hour in a snowstorm?
That is the entire idea between anti-slip courses, prepare ahead of time in a safe enviroment when the driver can take it slow and there is no real pressure so that when the time comes, he has some chance of knowing what to do. Sure, car dealers LOVE to hide the fact that their cars can slip, but a prudent driver nonetheless learns about it.
Same with OS'es that LOVE to pretend running a computer is oh so easy. Everything is automatically taken care off, you don't need to learn anything how it works. Until a virus destroys all their work, a failing drive that has been warning for months collapses with all their family photos on it, or they have to give up in dispair because they are trying to get a game to work and nobody seems willing to explain to them what IP means.
Most people have at decent enough intelligence to master any number of concepts, barring those suffering from a mental handicap, users can learn the basic concepts about computers and should do so, just as they learn the basic concepts of any number of things to help operate them efficiently.
Creating an OS that pretends you don't need to know anything about computers to use them, don't need to think is the same as producing a car that pretends it can never loose traction. Of course, that is not good marketing. But everytime you read a story about some car being wrapped around a tree when there was no reason (no alcohol, no excessive speeding) that is what caused it. A driver who thought his car would magically stick to the road when it didn't.
Same with every "my soundcard don't work in X", "I can't connect to Y" complaint. Do you realize how silly it is to just go out, pick up the first soundcard you find, plug it in and expect it to work? That would be like just buying a random piece of electrical equipment and expecting you can just plug it in, from the net (get it? Different voltages exist around the world and it is thanks to regulation and basic education that people 'know' this and can expect stores to carry the right equipment.)
Do you need to know what voltage your radio uses to listen to it? No, not directly, but those who do know are better of from not frying their equipment on holiday or buying dodgy gear.
Ubuntu is a nice version of GNU/Linux, it doesn't use GNU/Linux it IS GNU/Linux. The notion that you need less knowledge to use it then other versions is dangerous, it may work fine for a pre-installed system being used in a way someone else predicted and catered
Re:Mininotes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Keeping XP on the old machines
And there is the problem. Most business can't legally reuse licenses. OEM licenses can't be reused. Microsoft is trying to make it so the only way you can get a license so you can install XP, is to buy Vista.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
USE!=INSTALL. No doubt your "noob" would run into all sorts of problems trying to install Windows too.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't *matter* whether more computers are running vista
Yes it *does* matter. As long as Vista does not penetrate the market, software stays XP compatible. People and software developers are not using Vista only features.
This means that every day Microsoft does not obtain vendor and customer lock in with Vista. Is another day XP is the target that the Wine Project is trying to hit. Linux with Wine is becoming more and more XP compatible. This is NOT good for Vista. Nor Microsoft in the long run.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to be clear on that point, in a lot of places across the globe the EULA is meaningless. In most places all conditions of contract must be available at the point of sale, prior to purchase, ie for software clearly printed on the outside of the box, clicky button post purchase means nothing.
The really silly thing about all of this as far as M$ should be concerned whether Vista or Xp is being sold should make no difference. Of course as far as ballmer is concerned, as vista is his disaster, he is trying desperately to protect himself from his self evident failure.
Now of course as far as the M$ shareholders are concerned, Vista is a multi billion dollar waste of money, with even more money being thrown away on pointless advertising, it is making M$ look arrogant in it's attempts to force customers to buy it in preference to XP, nobody believes any of the Vista sales figures any more because every knows by know that most of them are in reality XP downgrades and for Vista to be counted as successful the only sales figure that counts is upgrades, so Vista either makes or loses money based upon upgrades only, as OEMs sales would have occurred for XP at a similar rate with out the additional investment.
Re:And this is why you get the RTFM response (Score:1, Insightful)
"advanced concepts like IP address"
I really mean no disrespect, and it may be that you were being sarcastic, but if you think an IP address is an advanced concept then you have another thing coming. It's no more difficult than understanding a telephone number, it really isn't.