Slashdot Mirror
PC Makers Say Vista Is Not a Seller
TekkaDon writes "According to computer and component manufacturers, Vista is not the hotcake that they were hoping for. Take Acer's president, Gianfranco Lanci, who has just said that 'PC makers are really not counting on Vista to drive high demands for the industry.' Or Samsung Electronics, who now says that DRAM demand has not matched anyone's predictions based on Vista's now failed projections, something that is being echoed by the industry as a whole. This seem to agree with Ars Technica article on the 20 million Vista copies sold as a 'huge success' by Microsoft, which can be accounted for by the natural growth of PC sales over the years."
Let's see...it was released generally to the public less than 2 months ago. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that qualifies as a good enough sample time to really see a trend. It's a fad, it'll die down once that aspect is gone. It will also be the newest thing, which means everyone is going to start programming for that now (at least the bigger companies...)
Considering there's not even a driver for my Wireless Card (Linksys, common one too...) I think there's still some time we need to wait before jumping to these apocalyptical conclusions.
DRM and Defective by Design has not just ticked off the usual pro-Linus /. crowd.
This time, it scared off a lot of hardcore mainstream computer enthusiasts. When the tech geeks in your lif badmouth the product and don't want to install it unless they have to - what the hell did you expect would happen with the average Joe computer user?
Being involved in Windows development, I can tell you that there is NO WAY we are creating for Vista only. We'll be able to run on it - but there's no way I would bet the company on the success of Vista. Not when I don't have to.
.Robert
XP is still a lot more stable than Win9x ever was. Vista has clear disadvantages (over zealous DRM).
The threats from Apple and Linux weren't really there when XP was released. Microsoft has to learn to deal with the fact that they have to compete and can't release any old rubbish.
Most Vista sales are bundled, while it its possible to remove it is a 'forced' sale - if you are happy with xp, why would you want to use vista on a new machine.
People did the 95->98->windows 2000->windows xp thing so is the penny dropping out there and what they have is good enough ?
If you run games use probably have a wii/ps3/xbox - next gen dvd is still up in the air. I dont see that uber game you need vista for, and the dvd format winner is going to mean more upgrading.
Its a hard sale - while i know theres a gideon bible in the hotel room dont expect me to use it.
No, it's nothing to do with the DRM, which the average user is totally oblivious to.
It's the fact that there is currently no compelling reason to upgrade, from a "general use" perspective. Really - other than flip3d (and very few "normal users" i know even use alt-tab) and the new start menu, it's the same old shit, only with more irritating user access control. The fact that for most people's current PCs, performance will be significantly worse, and driver support just isn't there yet doesn't help.
As an aside - a major issue at the moment is the changes to DirectSound. Unless you've got an X-fi soundblaster and run creative's "Alchemy" software which translates Directsound into OpenAL, you're not going to get any EAX support in any games, and the sound support you do get is often scratchy and clicky (eg, neverwinter nights 2)
That said, I'm buying Vista - which is a drastic change in my attitude from 3 months ago. Why? Becuase Win2k is no longer supported, XP *really* is a steaming pile of shit, and Linux just isn't there yet for me to run exclusively (though i've been a user since 1996). I spend all day at work doing admin stuff - on my home pc all i want to do is run some games (and Falcon4: Allied Force, for example, will not run under Cedega), browse the net and media related stuff. From my testing this week, Vista is "good enough" for the tasks I ask of it (nwn2 had minor issues, F4:AF runs fine), and it's a currently supported product.
Also, it's inevitable that I'll have to support it at work sooner or later, so I may as well get a head start on the issues it has.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Sure, the big vendors would love to sell Vista only. They thought that about XP, too... until several major corporate customers told them where to go. Then, suddenly, places like Dell were still selling Win2K and Microsoft was extending support for older business OSes.
Given that it tooks several years for XP to overtake Win2K, and a very significant proportion of businesses have never made the switch, I'm afraid your/Microsoft's theory that everyone will just move sooner or later may or may not hold. And that's before the big scare stories about how "your computer can be disabled remotely" and so on start really freaking out the big CIOs...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If the above theory is right-- with vista people are going to hold onto their XP boxes longer-- then what's going to happen is that down the road a bit there's going to be a lot of boxes out there that are just too slow to be worth upgrading. People will buy new boxes.
So what do they do with their old ones? Linux should aim to get people to install linux on these.
There's three reasons I can see to do this:.
One is if there were some reason people needed a server in their homes. Probably not a huge market but one that linux can serve if there was a really nice user friendly server version, which there isn't right now. Server editions are tuned for the expert linux users. What could this application be. Just guessing but suppose everyone had an Xbox 360 in each room, and they needed a common place to put all the music and videos?
Two is what I did, namely put on DSL linux onto my ancient win98 computer. Man what a difference!!! it was liek having a new computer. It suddenly booted in less than 30 seconds. Apps opened instantly. The interface was clean and crisp. Even networking functioned better. It became a very servicable laptop and is still in use when my wife needs something to take notes at a meeting. So there needs to be a version of linux (and as important: the applications) that is so lightweight it makes old hardware feel sprightly again. However the major distros and major apps are all going the opposite direction. Heavy feature laden and resource hungry. DSL would be good but it's not really a comsumer distro. We need a stripped consumer friendly distro.
Third is as a game machine for the little kids. But there's no software.
I think option 1 or 2 could be a killer app for linux in the home: All these computers that will be retiring.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
When I first heard about Vista/Longhorn it seemed like it would be good. Usable userlevel accounts, video driver handling that wouldn't BSOD the whole system if they faulted. Since then, its just become the reason I format my systems and re-install from scratch to avoid the bloat ware. Its backwards compat leaves something to be desired, IE7 doesn't even show to be much better than 6, breaking things like SSL (at least at first) blackboard which is essential to some classes at many Universities is unacceptable for students. From when I was using the beta's the UI has become so overly bloated, not that it needs to be simplified like gnome to nothingness, it needed a lot of cleaning up and organization. I'm sure that there is some use for the widgets, I couldn't find any. Hell I couldn't even auth into the schools network so that I could even attempt to make use of the system, might have been fixed now.
09:F9:11:02 - 9D:74:E3:5B - D8:41:56:C5 - 63:56:88:C0
It makes my laptop run hot enough to cook hotcakes on (something XP didn't do), does that count?
You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
Let's be realistic. Who actually NEEDS Vista right now? Not many if anyone. Eventually people will need it to run something, but that day isn't here now and until it is Vista is a pain in the tookus because of DRM, compatability issues and hardware requirements.
So Microsoft's big need is the Killer App that only runs well on Vista. You got it?
You mean DirectX 10? Sure, DX10 could run on XP if MS wanted it to, but then nobody would need to buy Vista.
Just someone tell me PLEASE how I can get the UP navigation button in Windows Explorer? My job just forced us all to upgrade to Vista, and our laptops can *barely* run it plus IBM's RAD6 for development. And no up button is just the straw, you know, the freakin' straw.
:-D
Well, I'm posting this from Ubuntu Edgy at home right now at least.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Clearly Microsoft needs to go back to their old style of promoting Windows:
9 930836239
Exhibit A: Windows 1.0
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=GL4hyATkQ74
Exhibit B: Windows 386
- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=491587592
I mean it worked before....... right?
Anyone who took a minute to think about it bought their new machines back in December when computer makers were clearing out all their XP machines at fantastic discounts (in many cases). Often desktops and laptops alike were marked down $100 or $200 on a $700 machine. I told all my friends that if they wanted a new machine, December was the time to get it; probably before christmas because after Vista would start to rear its ugly head.
Unfortunately, I didn't follow my own advice and my laptop expired a week ago. I had to replace Vista Home Ultimate (or whatever) with XP Professional Student Ultra Pirated edition. Luckilly for me, the Acer 5610Z is not only a decent laptop, but it has great drivers for good ol' XP.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
I had to order it pronto to help a customer who could not access our app using COM (9-pin connector in back). Also found out upon arrival, there was no place to plug in the printer and the MIDI gear. Ok to leave out the solitaire game but it doesn't seem like business sense to leave out so much connectivity in one upgrade.
For those of us not afraid of trying something different technology-wise, I agree with what you're saying. Some people might see this as a reason to go out and try a different OS.
But Microsoft has no reason in the immediate future to look at, or care about, those numbers. Most people will be bootstrapped into Vista when their old box dies not because they really want it, but because Dell, HP, and whatever you can get at Best Buy all come with Vista pre-installed.
Sure, you can apply for the Microsoft Tax Credit from OEM vendors, or you could build your own box and throw Ubuntu on it or buy an Apple, but the simple fact is that the majority of people just plain won't.
The average consumer probably only cares about a few of the 'things' a computer can do: email, word processing, web, pr0n (and other basic multimedia) and printing. Their current machines can do all that stuff, so why buy a new one or upgrade just the OS? They'll wait until their current box craps out (or gets so loaded with viruses/spyware that they'd just as soon ditch it as fix it) and then get whatever is sold en masse by Dell, HP, Gateway and Best Buy. Hell, if Dell sold the majority of computers with BeOS installed, BeOS would be 'the next big thing'.
Corporate IT departments care about compatibility, stability, security and ease-of-support among other things. Mom and Pop end-users likely don't know enough about computers in general to even assess IF the new OS really is an advantage over the old one.
For ~95% of the desktops sold, Windows is the only easy option. Even beyond that, the big PC vendors will offer $399 desktops with free printers, monitors and even digital cameras and laptops for $599. Those are not price points that Apple seems to even care about, especially on the laptop side. All of those cheap-ass, kid's-going-back-to-school-and-I-need-a-cheap-comp uter boxes will ensure that Microsoft stays on top with Vista for at least one more OS iteration, regardless of how good or bad the OS actually is.
On the business side, I know very few places that upgrade to anything new immediately. The costs are too high, and the risks too great. In fact, many, many businesses can get by with older hardware and Win2000 or XP for a number of years to come. What does the AVERAGE employee do on a computer? Browse the web, type emails and type memos with the occasional PowerPoint presentation thrown in there. 6-year-old hardware with 2k or XP is perfectly capable of all that. Again, Vista will only permeate the business world on a large scale when it's been out for a while, is completely (as close as it ever gets) stable and, most importantly, is really the only OS available.
Microsoft doesn't really have to worry about making leaps and bounds with its new OSes. They will make money if only because of Microsoft's distribution deals with the big computer vendors.
I'm not saying Microsoft will be around forever, but they can ride the tide for a long time before they have to worry. If WinMe sold, so too will Vista.
But the article is right. In and of itself, Vista itself is not a seller.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
My old box broke and I dumped Vista the very first day. It added nothing to my experience, my productivity, or the performance of my system. In fact, in every category it was inferior to Windows XP Pro SP2. Even without the DRM support (which was a deal-breaker all by itself) and the fact that none of my most important productivity apps run on it (still), I just couldn't come up with a single reason to keep Vista on that machine.
The good news is that with a Core 2 duo, SATA hard drives with RAID support, 4 meg RAM and a X1650 video card, XP performs much better than ever, especially with the audio and video production apps I use.
If Microsoft were to put out a new version of XP with an updated interface and more solid security, they'd have a winner, but Vista is a terrible product with absolutely nothing that compels one to purchase it.
Of course, if all new computers have Vista, then Microsoft will sell a lot of copies, but I could not in good conscience recommend it as an upgrade, and if XP is still an option, that would be the way I'd go.
Hell, the University I work at just found out that Blackboard has problems on Vista, so they definitely won't be upgrading.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The difference between computers 11 years ago and today is that the average system specification is much higher today. 11 years ago (I also tried linux for the first time a year or so later) EVERYTHING was too slow. Productivity, communications, web browsing, multimedia, games, all of it was too slow.
Now, a 4 year old system will handle the bulk of that with ease. There are still several reasons to upgrade, including snappy video editing, having a quiet, economical and eco-friendly applicance, and those who desire the latest games. But this is a much smaller subset of users. And those users now have an incentive to switch with MS malware issues.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Oddly enough, I -DO- read books. Lots of them. I do watch videos, and take walks in a vain attempt to improve my health. I do have a hobby, it's programming. I also happen to like video games and amazingly enough, it's up to ME whether I buy games or not, and whether I buy the consoles or operating systems needed to run them. If I threw in the towel every time some little thing stood in my way, I'd never had any fun. Shelling out a couple hundred for an OS so that I can continue to play the newest games isn't that much different than buying every console that comes out, which I pretty much do. (No PS3 yet, as they haven't bothered to make a decent game yet. It seems I'm in for a long wait on that one.)
So, I turn that back on you: How sad to be so shallow and assume everyone fits your little profiles.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Later Nvidia detonator drivers do similar stuff in XP. The font rendering seemed much improved when i switched back to 2k from XP anyway...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
That's bullshit. In that article Phil Taylor states that the reason that DirectX 10 would not be made available to Windows XP and was exclusive to Vista was that XP was released on 2001 and the design of DirectX 10 was only solidified on late 2003. That is a very retarded statement to make.
According to the same article, Windows Vista, as we know it, was rebuilt from the ground up in 2004. That means that if DirectX 10 needed any special functionality to work then the Vista people had to rewrite Vista from the ground up with that in mind, which doesn't say much on it's own. On the other hand, XP's service pack 2 was released in 2004, which means that if XP really needed any special features to handle DirectX 10 that, since DirectX is being worked on from the time XP was first launched and the supposed target platform for which DirectX was built was scrapped, that there was absolutely no reason for Microsoft to not support DirectX on XP.
So, as it is easy to see, the only reason that DirectX is not supported in Windows XP is simply due to Microsoft's decision of not doing it. Microsoft does not want to support DirectX 10 on other OS besides Vista. Period. For crying out loud, it's a fucking API. A fucking interface to handle hardware. Who in their right mind claims that certain pieces of hardware can only work on Windows Vista and not on Windows XP?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
There is a ton of software that isn't supported on Vista and quite a bit that simply doesn't work. These are 32 bit apps that are broken, maybe the API wasn't destroyed, but there are a lot of applications that do not run on Vista or they run with after a certain amount of ritual Vista installation. Many people that have purchased Vista are disappointed because literally thousands of dollars of software that they own do not work with Vista. The funny thing is that once these apps can finally run on Vista people will then again need to upgrade if they need 64 bit apps. I don't know how much of this software needs to be rewritten or how much will be installable after service packs but right now it seems like a 32 bit upgrade cycle before people even start making the move to 64 bit apps. I might be completely wrong but drivers need to be rewritten for Vista 32 and they will again need to be rewritten for Vista 64, it seems like much of the software is the same, this is painful for the entire industry.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism