Vista sales slump

[ravisunny2]

Beyond the battle for Yahoo, Microsoft has had to deal with a tepid welcome from customers for Vista. Though the company has declared the new operating system is superior to its XP predecessor, IT managers have been slow to adopt Vista. Consumers have also reacted sourly to Microsoft's plans to stop selling XP soon.

Sales in Microsoft's operating system unit fell nearly 24% from a year ago.

"Most of Vista's sales have come when consumers buy new computers off of Dell's Web site," said Becker. "The big thing for Microsoft is the corporate buys, but that isn't expected to pick up until the back half of 2009."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/24/technology/microsoft_earnings/index.htm?postversion=2008042509

 

[Tedster]

crappy product=crappy sales

 

[captaincranky]

Like "IMHO", Only Way Stupider......> IM$HO

>>>>>>Though the company has declared the new operating system is superior to its XP predecessor <<<<<<<<<<<

C'mon Ravi, WTF else could they say!

I'm still thinking I should spring for a 3 pack of XP before the cutoff date.

M$ has had plenty of experience foisting off lousy operating systems off on an unsuspecting public. Remember Windows ME, the "mistake edition"?

 

[ravisunny2]

I'm still thinking I should spring for a 3 pack of XP before the cutoff date.

Sounds like a good idea, Cap.

Probably most their Vista sales were ‘forced’ as bundled with a new pc. Since XP wasn’t being offered, many were forced to go along with Vista.

That is not to say that there were no enthusiasts for the new o/s.

Here there are three options for bundled o/s : freedos, linux, and vista.

A large number of people are going in for linux, to stop vista from being forced down their throats.

 

[Tedster]

I bought a copy of Vista a few years ago at a going out of business sale. I have yet to install it on any of my computers for three reasons.

1. My XP OS still does everything I need it to do.
2. The hardware requirements of Vista exceed all of my computers and there are too many hardware incompatibilities with my peripherals.
3. I see nothing in vista that is compelling enough for me to "upgrade."

I use a Vista emulator with my XP to get a few visual whoopees but that's about the size of it.

 

[fullmetalvegan]

You're all weird, I love Vista, it's definitely superior to XP. It took XP up to SP2 to become stable on my system, and even then it was still an unimpressive OS. Vista is 100% stable on my machine, have had only two minor driver errors with older XP hardware that were simply resolved by downloading the Vista version off the net.

@Tedster: You must have a computer from about six years ago if it doesn't meet the requirements. I've installed Vista on AUD$500 systems and have it run perfectly, so I'm not sure what issues you seem to be worried about/are having. Ehh, I think peripheral compatibility is the least of problems for Vista, and to counter that statement. I have a D-Link Wireless PCI Adapter designed for Windows XP it says. I installed it on Vista and downloaded the driver off the net, installed simple and was away.

Later I put a stronger Netgear PCI Adapter in my Vista PC and moved the XP version D-link to a Windows XP computer. WELL, I have had so many problems with that it's not funny. It took hours to get XP to even recognize the device to begin with, and now that it finally does, Windows can see it, but no third party software can. It's a friggen nightmare, yeah XP rocks.

XP version hardware that fails on XP and runs smoothly on Vista, and you call Vista unstable? =S I still haven't solved that problem.

I saw plenty of reasons to update:

1. An OS that natively offers support for multi-core processors and more than 2GB of RAM.
2. DirectX 10 for added graphical functionality.
3. Improved security. (Not that I ever care for security, but it's a plus.)
4. Improved stability. (I've had zero crashes vs many blue screens of death on XP)
5. Aesthetically pleasing and neat layout.
6. Increased functionality: the control panel is so much neater and convenient. Especially remove programs, on XP, I had it happen so many times where I don't know what the hell happened, but a program would be uninstalled but XP would refuse to remove it from the listing. Vista has no trouble, and if something gets left, it deletes it anyway; XP never did.
7. Might I add stability again? Many times on XP my explorer.exe would crash for no apparent reason, where I lose my taskbar and have to reboot. Vista how ever, when I had my explorer crash ONCE in 8 months; found the problem and restarted explorer. Did not lose my taskbar and continued to run my pc like nothing happened.
8. Game Browser, so handy. =P
9. It's the new version, updated code/etc. It's like refusing to get patches for games or software you use, or sticking to a GeForce 3 and refusing a 8/9.

I say well done Microsoft, Vista is a great OS, I never looked back at XP, can't even remember those days anymore. Can't wait for the next OS. =]

 

[captaincranky]

Dear Fullmetalvegan......

I have a 3 year old Emachine T-5026 which generally gives very little problems.

My results are apparently atypical. It won't meet Vista specs because Emachines elected to cripple the Intel 915GAG board by omitting the PCI-E socket. Rude.
Nonetheless, it's a fun machine, especially for surfing to Techspot, and the lively art of debate.

I generally like to say when making a recommendation; "your results may vary".
So, while your Vista experience may be satisfactory and even beyond, your results may have varied.

M$ is still an agressive monopoly, so there's little to nothing to compare Vista to anyway. Better OS, worse OS, who cares, the vendor sucks.

M$ wants to pin a medal on you, right after you buy it from them.

"You're all wierd"! How do you think I should proceed about rebutting that? Nevermind, I'm sure you don't think I should since you 're certain you're absolutely right.
But, if I were of a mind to, (which of course I'm not), I'd tell you you're an opinionated a******, which of course I won't. LOL:wave:

 

[SNGX1275]

I've argued all I care to for Vista in the countless other threads we have where everyone takes a crap on vista and gets laid from xp so I don't care to go into it much anymore.

But there are plenty of reasons to go with Vista, and about the only valid reason for not is if your computer can't handle it because you've got old or weak hardware.

And of course for old times sake I can throw out my you can make Windows 2000 Professional do anything you are doing in XP, and likely faster too. So all you XP lovers need to reflect a bit on why you aren't using 2000 SP4 when you are coming up for all these reasons you hate or won't switch to Vista.

 

[Tedster]

most of my computers are older... however I was looking to upgrade to Vista 64, which doesn't support my printer or scanner. Even with a new system, I do not want to buy a new printer, scanner, or router.

But XP works for me. And I have the transformation pack which does everything I need my system to do.

 

[captaincranky]

I have a question.....

And of course for old times sake I can throw out my you can make Windows 2000 Professional do anything you are doing in XP, and likely faster too. So all you XP lovers need to reflect a bit on why you aren't using 2000 SP4 when you are coming up for all these reasons you hate or won't switch to Vista.

Oh,that's easy, I don't own a copy of 2000 pro SP4, and I suspect it's out of production.

Will Firefox run on MS-DOS?

 

[fullmetalvegan]

"You're all wierd"! How do you think I should proceed about rebutting that? Nevermind, I'm sure you don't think I should since you 're certain you're absolutely right.
But, if I were of a mind to, (which of course I'm not), I'd tell you you're an opinionated a******, which of course I won't. LOL:wave:

lol - touche. I'm just sick of seeing Vista slammed so much, mostly by people that have no idea about the situation and just jumped on the bandwagon. Not implying you don't have a clue, just sick of all the other crowd, and you just happened to be the most recent person to comment negatively on Vista. =P

Any relatively new computer will run Vista fine, and complaining about having to update is like complaining because your old P4 motherboard won't support multi-core processors. It's just the way technology works, unfortunately.

For people whom have older/weaker computers and run XP fine; that's fine to stay with it. But I find it completely unnecessary when said people slam Vista over this detail, technology has to move forward at some point, and Vista is merely taking advantage of all the things new hardware can do instead of sticking to the past of weaker systems.

The thing is, people really just love to hate Microsoft. Most of these complaints have nothing to do with Vista at all really, it's just fun to slam MS. When the TV signals were changed, and everyone here was forced to switch to HDTV by buying a set top box or a new tv - no one was up in arms at all about it. There was no mass slamming campaign or anything.

Now to me that is the same situation as to the Vista launch, it's a progression of technology that requires some new hardware - how ever in this case, because it was Microsoft who did it, it's fun to slam the new product. If MS was behind the HDTV release, then everyone would have been bagging that as well.

 

[ravisunny2]

All said and done, Vista sales are down by nearly 24%.

 

[captaincranky]

Any relatively new computer will run Vista fine, and complaining about having to update is like complaining because your old P4 motherboard won't support multi-core processors. It's just the way technology works, unfortunately.

For people whom have older/weaker computers and run XP fine; that's fine to stay with it. But I find it completely unnecessary when said people slam Vista over this detail, technology has to move forward at some point, and Vista is merely taking advantage of all the things new hardware can do instead of sticking to the past of weaker systems..

Fair enough

The thing is, people really just love to hate Microsoft. Most of these complaints have nothing to do with Vista at all really, it's just fun to slam MS. When the TV signals were changed, and everyone here was forced to switch to HDTV by buying a set top box or a new tv - no one was up in arms at all about it. There was no mass slamming campaign or anything. ..

OK, this comparison is totally invalid. I'm a luddite who get's his TV over the air and there's no comparison between analog and digital TV. NONE! The air waves are so polluted with interference which destroys the analog signal to the point of unwatchability.The digital signal is (almost) flawless, and I can now watch the longwave channels (3 CBS and 6 ABC around my way) on which I haven't had a usable signal on for 30 years. If kick in my 5.1 channel sound system, "Dancing with the Stars", is actually quite entertaining, not the bunch of useless video noise is was 5 minutes before it hooked up the converter box. It's a 1000% better

Now to me that is the same situation as to the Vista launch, it's a progression of technology that requires some new hardware - how ever in this case, because it was Microsoft who did it, it's fun to slam the new product. If MS was behind the HDTV release, then everyone would have been bagging that as well.

The improvement (if it exists at all) with Vista, if taken as a percentage is exactly the opposite. After all, it's not simply a little box (that the US government is paying for most of), that you need to upgrade to Vista, in many cases it's a whole new machine for several hundred dollars.

M$ needs slamming, if only to keep them anywhere near a teensy, tiny bit honest. In the spirit of co-operation, please have a look at this news story: https://www.techspot.com/news/29822-microsoft-to-cease-authorizing-msn-music-keys.html It does give quite a bit of insight into M$'s business model. Vista, without debating the pros or cons of the feature set is , at it's core, a big, fat, steaming t*** of freshly laid DRM!

Please accept my humble apologies for the immense enjoyment I'm having at pointing that out.

And like Ravi says, sales are down.

 

[Tedster]

never slammed M$, but they, like other companies have put out inferior products from time to time. That's the nature of business. Personally I really don't see anything that's "wowee" in Vista that would make me want to change over from XP. And with all the compatibility issues that's an added and unnecessary expense for me as well as many other people/businesses.

 

[fullmetalvegan]

OK, this comparison is totally invalid. I'm a luddite who get's his TV over the air and there's no comparison between analog and digital TV. NONE! The air waves are so polluted with interference which destroys the analog signal to the point of unwatchability.The digital signal is (almost) flawless, and I can now watch the longwave channels (3 CBS and 6 ABC around my way) on which I haven't had a usable signal on for 30 years. If kick in my 5.1 channel sound system, "Dancing with the Stars", is actually quite entertaining, not the bunch of useless video noise is was 5 minutes before it hooked up the converter box. It's a 1000% better

I'm not going to bother debating Vista anymore cause you're clearly bias, and to each their own point of view. End of the story is, Vista runs perfect for me (and systems I build) and I find it superior to XP in many ways so I am happy with my upgrade. Anyone that was going to build a new computer should install Vista on it, anyone that thinks they have to upgrade - don't have to, and no one said they had to anyway, so stick with XP.

And that TV comparison s quite relevant, actually. My TV signal on the old transmission HAS been stable for 30+ years, and when I switched from the old to the new HD transmission - I noticed absolutely nothing different in quality; nor did anyone in my family. I/we don't see what the big difference is sposed to be, it's as stable and clear as my old transmission was.

So to me that is a very comparable situation. Switching from an old transmission to which I was perfectly happy with, fine quality etc, to being forced to use a NEW one that is apparently superior yet I cannot see any difference

​

, and having to fork out dollars in order to use it.

Go crap on Vista all you like, fact is, there are plenty of satisfied users, me and my customers included. Everyone I know isn't an imbecile and understand hardware, etc, and all have been very happy with Vista. I also have some new customers/friends lately very eager and happy to use Vista and are wanting to buy a new system for AUD$500 (which is not even expensive) in order to replace their older hardware, XP systems.

=]

 

[HaMsTeYr]

Well, thats really dependent if you say you don't see a difference between analog signals in comparison to Digital signals. Personally, on the tele side, i'm all for digital signals. Analog signals are extremely susceptible to noise inteference, and unless you're living near the actual broadcasting area or relatively near it, you're likely not going to achieve a good and clear signal which digital signals offer no matter where you are.

Onto the main topic, When i first started to bother about OSes i was on 98 SE. Frankly said i was really afraid of the move to XP at the time but now i'm using XP all the time. I think people are just afraid of transition sometime and moving to something new, realising that what they're used to might be different now...

BTW, i'm still on XP SP2 and am a bit reluctant to move to Vista, but i think my reasons are valid. What used to be was that Vista got some really bad publicity from people complaining about their beta or pre-release builds. That wasn't really a fair call for the OS itself but i still feel that unless you're running a fairly powerful machine, vista won't run exactly like how XP will, that being because Vista uses alot of memory and memory allocation wasn't very efficient on Vista.

I'm not really sure how much of that has changed in Vista SP1, but apparently the system runs pretty well now. Despite that, i think microsoft is clearly aware of the bad publicity vista has at the moment and thats why Windows 7 is set to be released soon, if anything it should just be a rebadged Vista with better tweaks so on so forth. Much like how Windows XP was very similar to Windows 2000.

If you're running XP, then i don't think you have any reason to shift over as not much is offered in Vista now, unless you're looking at the high end segment of Dx10 gaming and even then, not even Dx10 games are refined yet and its simply illogical to run them at 20 fps as opposed to a meaty 60 (generalisation) just for a few more extra bling bling effects atm.

If you do get a new pc with Vista however, and lets hope it is SP1, i do suggest you take time out to actually learn the OS as if its not really going to kill you and the way you do things, its hardly going to be a nuisance learning the OS and the ways around it.

That said, i'm just lazy to get myself a copy of Vista, and i probably won't unless i get a new laptop prebundled with a legit copy of vista. Just my views on the subject :3

 

[captaincranky]

And that TV comparison s quite relevant, actually. My TV signal on the old transmission HAS been stable for 30+ years, and when I switched from the old to the new HD transmission - I noticed absolutely nothing different in quality; nor did anyone in my family. I/we don't see what the big difference is sposed to be, it's as stable and clear as my old transmission was. =]

Here I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and I suspect neither do you.. You're in Austrailia, I'm in the US, the EMI levels here are such that the lower VHF TV band (analog) is unwatchable with an indoor antenna, period. The digital transmission is flawless. I'm not talking about high def vs NTSC <(US standard 640 X 480, 29.97 FPS). I'm talking about analog vs digital broadcast.

Go crap on Vista all you like, fact is, there are plenty of satisfied users, me and my customers included. Everyone I know isn't an imbecile and understand hardware, etc, and all have been very happy with Vista. I also have some new customers/friends lately very eager and happy to use Vista and are wanting to buy a new system for AUD$500 (which is not even expensive) in order to replace their older hardware, XP systems.=]

Well that explains it. There's money in it for you.
I don't suppose you followed my link to the M$-music news item, did you?

 

[fullmetalvegan]

Actually it appears you don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about analog vs digital broadcast, where analog was perfect here. So how about we just drop the comparison cause you fail to understand my point and/or English?

I like how you continue to counter the fact that Analog transmissions ran perfect where I lived in Australia, just to point out that yours was crap and a good move. Much like me ignoring the fact against Vista that your PC was too s**t to run Vista, just because mine can, and assume this applies to everyone.

So let's not bother with this schoolyard biff anymore, one of us is clearly not listening to the other.

Conversation over.

 

[SNGX1275]

I still have quite a bit of problems with Digital TV. In analog you never had problems with high motion, in digital its all compressed to hell and you get massive blocking, some channels/networks are better at this than others but blocking is going to happen because they can't broadcast the full uncompressed signal. OTA I can pick up 2 stations pretty good in analog, the problem is Rolla is right at the edge of 3 tv markets, St Louis, Jefferson City/Columbia, and Springfield, so the signal strength here is pretty low, 1 county south, west, or east drops you out of at least 1 of those city's coverage area. I imagine if I tried to pick up a digital OTA the signal would cut in and out so often it would be completely unwatchable, at least with analog you only get some static in the picture.

As for the Vista sales slumping, by itself it means nothing. As the article says most of the sales came from sales of new computers. So you have new computer sales and early adopters accounting for the 'high' sales last year. Now the sales have dropped, but I would bet new computer sales have dropped too. The early adopters already have Vista, so they don't need a second copy. The economy isn't doing as well as it was a year ago and gasoline and food prices are up a lot from a year ago, this forces many people to limit spending in their lives. People that were thinking maybe of buying a new computer or OS realize that they can probably get by with what they are currently using for a while longer. So I think a drop in Vista sales is to be expected. Was there also a drop in XP sales? Probably.

 

[ravisunny2]

As the article says most of the sales came from sales of new computers

.

This is a pretty loaded statement.

Mar. 21, 2008

For the first time in ages, the sale of new PCs with Windows as a percentage of the PC market is declining sharply. The new winner is the Mac, but, while no one does a good job of tracking the still-new, pre-installed Linux desktop market, it's also clear that Linux is finally making impressive inroads into Windows' once unchallenged market share.

In comparison to the overall market, U.S. PC retail shipments only grew 9 percent in units shipped and a mere 5 percent in revenue in the last year. Macs, in the meantime, saw a 60 percent growth in unit sales with an even more impressive 67 percent gain in revenue growth over the same period.

I see two strong trends here. On the high end, people are buying Macs instead of Windows PC. On the low end, Linux is eating Windows alive.

This is happening because Vista, SP1 and all, has proven to be a commercial flop. Even Microsoft seems to be backing off Vista and looking ahead to its next operating system, Windows 7.

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8541837412.html

 

[SNGX1275]

This is a pretty loaded statement.

WTF? From the original article:

"Most of Vista's sales have come when consumers buy new computers off of Dell's Web site," said Becker. "The big thing for Microsoft is the corporate buys, but that isn't expected to pick up until the back half of 2009."

So mine wasn't a loaded statement at all, it came directly from the original article you linked. Now you pull in 3 quotes from a completely different article to back up your point? Nobody was even arguing Mac/Linux here, the entire thread was a bunch of Vista bashers happy that Vista sales are down.

 

[captaincranky]

Oh, I Come from a Land down Under, Where Women ???? and Men Thunder!

The title line is from "Men at Work", An Aussie band that had a big hit with the song it's from, here in the colonies. Somehow it seemed appropriate.

I still have quite a bit of problems with Digital TV. In analog you never had problems with high motion, in digital its all compressed to hell and you get massive blocking, some channels/networks are better at this than others but blocking is going to happen because they can't broadcast the full uncompressed signal. OTA I can pick up 2 stations pretty good in analog, the problem is Rolla is right at the edge of 3 tv markets, St Louis, Jefferson City/Columbia, and Springfield, so the signal strength here is pretty low, 1 county south, west, or east drops you out of at least 1 of those city's coverage area. I imagine if I tried to pick up a digital OTA the signal would cut in and out so often it would be completely unwatchable, at least with analog you only get some static in the picture. .

Obviously, the digital vs analog issue is more market related than I expected. I live in Philly, pretty much dead center of a large market area. I suppose I'm too lazy to hoist a huge outdoor antenna to the roof, with a rotator and all that nonsense. But, I figure when you're not more than 5 or 6 miles from a major network, full power transmitter, you should be able to receive it in pristine quality, but no so here. The RFI signature is lavish, abundant, and omnipresent. An FM trap must be used (for Ch6, and it far from cures the TVI), and an external amp just brings up banding in the higher UHF channels.

I understand what you're saying about the blocking, but it is at least partially related to signal strength, and (in my high signal area), tuning the antenna directionally, helps quite a bit. The blocking is funny, kinda makes the signal look like bad living room porn, with a cheapie camcorder.

Anyway, in this particular marketing area the digital signal is the 1000% improvement I'm claiming.

Before I was able to receive my coupons for the converter boxes, I purchased a DVD recorder (Toshiba
D-R 550) so that I could receive digital TV. Two weeks later, I received my coupons and bought 2 converter boxes. Much to my surprise, the cheapie converter boxes, have a much, much better tuner than the Toshiba. The GUI is better, the signal is hotter, and they lock in on the channel in less than half the time. This is a (sort of) "scientific" comparison as these results are from the same antenna, with the same distribution amplifier, at the same time. Way off topic, but interesting enough to warrant it, I hope.

If the Austrailian airways are clear enough for analog TV, consider yourself (fullmetalvegan) fortunate. This is the point where I would normally make some off key remark like, "you could only get away with analog TV in such a backward country as Austrailia". But that might be taken way more seriously than it was meant, so I won't

Was there also a drop in XP sales? Probably.

Well, not in my household. I needed an OS, I bought a copy of XP, it works dandy.
Of course, I realize that I'm not the center of the satistical universe. I don't want that to be true, but I've come (barely) to accept it.

I understand hard drive and processor sales are up (. )or (?) (Since I'm not really sure). It might help to compare one to the other (Vista sales).

....[ ]........the entire thread was a bunch of Vista bashers happy that Vista sales are down.

Please, we prefer to be thought of as "Microsoft Malcontents". Or perhaps "Microsoft Pundits" to give homage to the political establishment. LOL

PS: It's actually "Where women glow and men plunder?" . My bad, sorry!

PPS; I'm putting an extra LOL, here > LOL < . In case of irritation, copy and paste it as necessary.

 

[ravisunny2]

So mine wasn't a loaded statement at all, it came directly from the original article you linked. Now you pull in 3 quotes from a completely different article to back up your point? Nobody was even arguing Mac/Linux here, the entire thread was a bunch of Vista bashers happy that Vista sales are down

.

1. I never implied that you were the author of the 'loaded statement'

2. The quotes support the fact that the statement is 'loaded'

3. I am not a Vista basher. XP had its problems too. I'll wait till Vista matures.
I have no doubt that after maturing, Vista will be great.

I just feel that Vista was 'forced on', and the slump in sales is indicative of that.

Sure, the economy is in bad shape right now, and has contributed too.

I hope there is a recovery soon (though I doubt that a dole out will help much)

Sorry, if I hurt you feelings, SNGX

 

[ravisunny2]

First dole outs.

Now bail outs.

I hope they work (lousy English). Unfortunately there is a global economy now.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/10/06/stock.markets/index.html

 

[Tedster]

I've felt all along that Vista really doesn't have anything extra special that XP can't do already. In fact, I even own a copy of Vista ultimate that I bought 2 years ago. (still sealed!). I haven't had a need to upgrade. The hardware requirements of Vista now, are not too bad (2 years later), but still, the OS is cumbersome compared to XP.