Slashdot Mirror
MS Says Vista Selling At Twice XP's Pace
Several readers made us aware that Microsoft said today that it sold more than 20 million Windows Vista licenses in the first month after the OS's general debut on January 30. This compares to 17 million licenses of XP sold in the first two months after its release. (Just a coincidence the announcement came out a day after this community's speculation, surely.) Most of the coverage of this story, picked up from Reuters, looks like it follows an MS press release. The Associated Press dug deeper, noting that since XP's release the overall PC market has grown by almost a factor of 2, so it would be a surprise if Vista didn't do twice as well: "...51 million PCs were sold to consumers worldwide in 2002; this year... 96 million consumers will buy a computer." Also, Microsoft's 20 million figure includes the backlog of upgrade coupons bundled with XP computers sold since last October.
But given that the personal computer market has nearly doubled since XP launched, Vista sales "probably should be more," said Michael Silver, vice president of research at Gartner, a technology research group.
In summary: computer sales up; consumers forced to adopt Vista. Microsoft chuckles gleefully.
I'm surprised this was modded "interesting", given that the answer is in the freaking article summary.
The big sell is to MS shareholders. Somehow MS must convince the shareholders that the $5bn spent on Vista is going to be a worthwhile investment.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The 2007 Toyota Camry is outselling the 2001 Toyota Camry. Film at 11.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Wait a minute. Did you just say Me was "good enough"?! Are you nuts?
XP was a pretty big improvement over what was available prior to it. Most home users were running 98 or Me. The jump from 98/Me to XP was much greater than XP to Vista in my mind.
What Microsofts Marketing Machine states and what users do are two different things.
Not really. The announcement Microsoft sent out regards to sales, not the amount of users compared to XP to a given date.
While I'm sure a lot of people remove Vista, a lot of people did when they first got hold of XP too.
Full Tilt
One remimaged to XP (SP2) because office user said Vista (Pro) was slower than crap.
Interesting. I installed Vista Business on box with a 1.5Ghz P4 and 768M RAM. The MB is about six years old. It runs just fine. If your user says Vista is slow on a $1200 new Dell, something must be wrong with the hardware, or maybe the user just decided he or she didn't like it for some reason.
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
My Dad's new 'Vista-Ready' machine came with XP, and we're KEEPING it on XP precisely because this this thing is a graphical dream on it. It's got an nVidia card, sweet processors, ability to support two 22" widescreen monitors... all for under $1000, because it's 'merely' an XP machine, albeit a Vista-capable one.
If this is their idea of 'Vista-Capable', why would I want to go to an operating system where these awesome specs are merely ADEQUATE?
I bought a Toshiba laptop late November, which came with XP on it, with a free upgrade to Vista (with $25 for shipping).
The disk was immediately resized, and Kubuntu 6.10 Edgy Eft was installed on it. Windows XP was never even booted, but kept there "just in case it is needed".
For the free upgrade, I did all the paperwork for it, paid the shipping fee, and have not received it yet. I don't intend to boot it either, but I ordered it "just in case".
So, I am counted as an XP user and a Vista user, while I am neither.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Dontcha think thats because its now being shipped on 90% of windows boxes now instead of XP ? And that you cant really buy XP off the shelf anymore ? Gee got to love the spin doctors. Comeon everybody lets jump on the bandwagon and all go buy vista !!!
"When they invent bitch slaps that can go through a monitor you better f'ing duck" --deft (253558)
Things were slightly different when XP came out, the average board had 2-3 pci slots and an extra agp even if it had onboard audio, video and net. In short the newer PC are cheaper for a reason ...the boards they come with are garbage. What really irqs me is the fact that even the more expensive boards do not even have 24-96 recording capable AC97 audio chips like a Mac! Even the cheapest Mac mini is 24-96 capable out of the box. The real reason that high definition audio recording is useless on a stock pc is that Microsoft with the urging of the recording industry is making the home PC into vacuum cleaner based Video player with shitty low end audio specs. Looking at all the specs for 99% of all the new Asus boards not one of them comes with a high end RealTek AC97 or Analogue Devices/Via chipset. Even the most expensive boards have onboard cheapo crap.
For one slightly important thing, it can (or will soon be able to after the industry catches up) run mainstream software that is available to the average user. Can Linux do that? No. Keep in mind that not everybody does all that bullshit that you listed. Most people like to play games and other mainstream shit on their computer. They have no fukin clue what a pdf is, or a what irc is. FLAC...Ogg...Vorbis...uhhh.... what? Build software? Are you fucking kidding me? How many folks can or care to do that? Multiple file systems? Who the hell needs that? 99% of the people will never encounter anything but FAT or NTFS anyway. You are just jealous that Bill Gates has the ability to generate tremendous amounts of wealth and you're a bed wetting liberal who wants to see him brought down to your level. Microsoft is NOT going anywhere until the day that Dell, Gateway, HP and the rest decide to stop forcing it upon the consumer.
"In other words, it basically sounds like you're using a distribution that has poor hardware detection and package management."
... driver worked.
Yes... of course I am, I said I was using Linux didn't I.
"are you sure you never had to install drivers for that onboard NIC in Windows? "
Yes... insert CD, press 'YES'
The simple fact is, that the average person doesn't want Linux, because Linux is not for average people.
If (like Big Brother TV Reality), Linux was made for the average person, then Linux would be Windows.
Like it or lump it, the stuff that makes Linux great is also the stuff that makes it (like Firefly the TV show) open only to a small market.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
In other words, they would not be in the market for OSX or Linux.
Vista has not really increased MS revenues. MS must convince the shareholders that the $5bn spent on Vista is going to be a worthwhile investment
Microsoft, debt-free, and with quarterly revenues of $14 billion dollars can afford to take the long view - and the short-term hit from the free upgrade coupons still around for Vista.
"What's important to us from an investment standpoint is that Microsoft has entrenched one of its most important businesses for an additional few years, and that virtually every new computer sold on the planet going forward will have Vista pre-installed on it." Finding Value In Microsoft
It certainly is exaggerated and is being used for stock speculation. They are telling the world they are selling twice as good to get that stock up. It'll go up and then fall back down as the real numbers rear their heads. I've done my part and continue to do so in telling customers about the spying and the other DRM/CRM implemented into Vista and how Microsoft is now hostile towards its customers. I describe it as an example with Walmart entering your home to search your belongings to ensure that you have not stolen anything from their store. Most people understand that their computer is an extension of their homes and that they certainly would not let the government enter without warrant and when I then tell them that they would certainly not allow a private entity to enter they agree wholeheartedly.
Sheesh, what does it take to understand that Microsoft is doing the equivalent of searching your home when they enter your computer and search. No, they don't have the right to enter my computer or home to search for any reason. If they feel I have stolen from them let them hit the courts and sue/arrest me. They'll find I am above board. But the sentiment stays. Hit the courts and do it legally. Even the police can't keep entering your home over and over to search. If they do it is harassment. The problem is that people don't know that or don't initially understand it as a search and seizure procedure.
Let me repeat. They have no right to enter my home/computer/business to do anything unless I give them permission even if it is to protect their IP. If they think I am stealing they can hit the courts up and to through due process to convict. I say this even though I am 100% legit on all copies of Windows. You would not let Walmart enter your home or business to search for goods that might be stolen and hence you would not let, should not let, Microsoft do the same.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Yes but Vista wasn't available under non-enterprise license until February or so. While the majority of future licenses will be from large businesses early adopters are going to be home users.
Citing irrelevant statistics isn't going to put Microsoft in the poor house or make them go away. Frankly I'm more worried with the direction mainstream linux is going in than what Microsoft is doing. I can hardly jump over all the useless clutter and pointless eye candy in a modern mainstream distribution (OpenSuse 10.2 has 2 different package managers). On the contrary I find Vista to be streamlined and speedy. Turn off Aero Glass if you don't like it, I prefer it to "wobbly windows" or whatever else beryl is offering these days (and don't get me started on the muck of making my laptop hibernate on linux).
I would say that almost all of those sales are to people who would have bought XP if it was available to them. To create the illusion of demand for Vista Microsoft's had to use their pricing agreements with manufacturers to cut off XP as nearly as completely as possible. If I was buying a new computer running Windows today, a hard requirement for it would be that it include XP rather than Vista, and I'm not confident that I could find one.
By comparison, we were able to buy laptops running 2000 Pro rather than XP for years after XP came out, and XP was still selling better, percentage-wise, than 2000. That's because XP had a reason for existing... it was the retail release of NT5 and replaced the appalling Windows 9x-based Windows Me. People were going out in large numbers and buying XP for computers they already had... not simply getting it as "whatever came with my new computer".
So, no, Microsoft isn't "making a financial killing". They're selling almost the same number of copies of Windows as they would have if Vista had never shipped.
By reading this, you agree that you are my bitch. Bend over.
It's a binding agreement. Do it.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.