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."

Comments

Not a hotcake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not, it's a waffle with a side of Spam.

Re:Not a hotcake?

[RedElf]

It makes my laptop run hot enough to cook hotcakes on (something XP didn't do), does that count?

Re:Not a hotcake?

[Bin Naden]

Vista is a waffle-thin wafer and nerds are all named Creosote.

Re:Not a hotcake?

[HangingChad]

Spam, spam, eggs, spam and Vista.

Spam, eggs, Vista and spam.

Spam, spam, spam, Vista and spam.

With apologies to Monty Python and brought to you by the Department of Silly Walks.

Why would it drive demand?

[jibjibjib]

Most businesses won't buy Vista boxes until it's a bit more mature. Most consumers won't buy Vista boxes until their old box breaks. Why would you expect Vista to increase PC sales? Really, you'd expect it to decrease sales, because the price is higher than XP.

Re:Why would it drive demand?

[edwardpickman]

Actually that's the whole point. If it was an in demand upgrade the numbers would be higher. I have no plans to upgrade current machines and may pick up a copy or two of XP to avoid shifting to it as long as possible with newly built machines. OSX Leopard may show the difference. Personally I can't wait and plan to upgrade my Mac machine ASAP. A lot of Mac users will upgrade especially those with newer machines. I'm also waiting on that to do a dual boot with XP. Vista may be a next generation OS but it's hardly a hot upgrade. Given the massive development cost that has to be a serious disappointment. Mac upgrades are pretty seamless where as everyone other than Microsoft are not recommending upgrading XP they all recommend doing fresh installs. That's got to give everyone pause on upgrading XP machines. Love it or hate it Apple is doing it the right way.

Re:Why would it drive demand?

[PopeRatzo]

Most consumers won't buy Vista boxes until their old box breaks.

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.

A month and no success?

[beckerist]

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.

Re:A month and no success?

[gravesb]

True, but some previous releases of Windows did drive computer sales and had large numbers after such a short time. Windows 95, for instance. I don't think any reasonable predictions about Vista expected the same thing, but some unreasonable ones did.

Re:A month and no success?

[Skidge]

What I remember about Windows 95 is a four inch stack of 3.5" floppies that I switched in and out for a few hours during installation. Now that was a good time.

Re:A month and no success?

[mysticgoat]

I think there's still some time we need to wait before jumping to these apocalyptical conclusions.

I fail to see why Vista's possible failure should be seen as "apocalyptical". Ford survived the Edsel and the Pinto fiascos, IBM survived the PS2 insanity and OS/2. Big companies sometimes make big mistakes. If Vista proves to be a mistake, then if Microsoft has been managing its resources properly, it will be able to pick itself up and tag along after whoever emerges as the new market leader. Nothing particularly apocalyptic, or even catastrophic, about that. Merely a normal change from industry leader to trailing the pack, that every corporation that has any history has experienced from time to time.

If the reader thinks that a failure by Microsoft would somehow mean the collapse of cyberspace, then the reader should take a look at Unix and Ubuntu. Those two OSs bracket everything Microsoft has ever produced: one on the high end, the other on the low end. Both do what they do extremely well. If some kind of void begins to open where Microsoft products used to be, it will be filled quite rapidly from above and below. No worries there.

The only thing approaching disaster is the economic well being of people who have invested too heavily in Microsoft stock. But that would not be the fault of Vista failing to catch on. That would mostly be the fault of a management style characterized by chair-throwing, monkey-dancing, potty-mouthed threats of using lethal force against people Microsoft management doesn't like. Microsoft would probably be better off if it had a businessman at the helm.

If Vista proves to be a failure, it won't be apocalyptic, nor catastrophic, nor even particularly harmful. We'll all just continue to use Win XP until we're ready to hop over to Ubuntu and Wine, or IBM resurrects OS/2, or Apple decides to market to just plain folks instead of concentrating on the rich snobs.

Re:A month and no success?

[mcpkaaos]

which means everyone is going to start programming for that now (at least the bigger companies...)

Not really true, so long as sales are dismal and compatibility issues overshadow Vista's features (assuming there are new features). It's a simple matter of ROI. Questionable sales + new, unproven APIs (new Winsock, anyone?) do not make for strong appeal. I'm a programmer, and most of my career has been spent on various Windows platforms. Vista is making me finally switch to Linux full-time (can't wait to check out KDE 4!). I wouldn't say Vista is the sole reason as much as the last straw. I've already picked up Python in an attempt to ween myself off of such proprietary tools as C# and ASP.NET. Yes, I have tried Mono. No, I do not have the same high hopes for it as other developers seem to have. In any case, I rather enjoy the dynamic nature of Python programming. Plus, there is something to be said for writing a few thousand lines of code and being fairly certain that your program will run on many different platforms without modification. No .NET developer can say that, Mono or no Mono. That said, Django and a seemingly endless selection of open, 3rd party libraries really rock my world.

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.

In my opinion, that is one of the motivators behind such conclusions. If you cannot find a driver for commonly available hardware (how many millions of Linksys WiFi cards are out there?), how complete (e.g., usable) can Vista possibly be? At what price?

MS really dropped the ball, and it's plain to see. People aren't jumping to conclusions, they are simply pointing out the obvious.

Cheers,

Michael

please hold for DUH

[Anonymous Coward]

truly this article will be the most obvious article of the millenium.

if it aint broke

[night_flyer]

why fix it?
most windows machines out in circulation now would need an upgrade for vista.
Unless you are buying a new machine, why bother?

Re:if it aint broke

[flyingfsck]

You mean: If it ain't broke, why break it? Since Vista isn't going to make a working PC work better, it can only make it worse. MS is the only OS manufacturer that consistently brings out upgrades that are slower than the previous version. That is just plain stupid.

poor drivers = poor customer perception

[smartyknickers]

What I'm seeing is a fear of Vista - the same MS-bashing that happened when XP came out. But what joe-public aren't seeing is that most of the faults are just poor drivers and that vista really *is* a large step up!

I think once the dust has settled and there are more success-cases around then momentum will rapidly pick up!

(example #1 = me. I've used Linux on the desktop for the last 5 years - and it's Vista that's making me change back to Windows. Can't even be arsed to repair my aging Mac Powerbook. Yes it is still windows, but its such a giant leap forward...)

Re:poor drivers = poor customer perception

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, most of the faults of linux nowadays are just poor drivers - you hear a zillion complaints about complicated installation and driver configuration issues, reviewers seldom bother to get as far as e.g. a KDE (or GNOME) Compiz or Beryl desktop, which makes vista's "new" interface look like a trabant. There's a certain hypocrisy at work: In the windows weenie world, Microsoft doesn't get the blame when hardware manufacturers supply shoddy drivers. Yet when hardware manufacturers fail to support linux, it's always "linux sux"...

Re:poor drivers = poor customer perception

[smash]

Oh yes, I agree 100%, some of Linux's problems are driver development.

The difference is, however is that because Microsoft put out Vista, the drivers *will* get fixed, one way or another, and in pretty short order.

Will that happen with Linux? Eventually, yes maybe. The situation is definitely a hell of a lot better than it was 11 years ago when i started using Linux, but it's a long way behind.

Is it fair that virtually all the Linux drivers are written by volunteers, often without hardware specs? No, of course not - but in the real world, "but that's not fair?!" won't cut it. Results are what people are concerned about.

Linux really is *almost there* and once the hardware devs jump on board in a big way, it will get critical mass and start becoming more competitive. Unfortunately at the moment it's on the edge of that "chicken and eg" scenario where hardware (and commercial software) devs won't justify linux driver development for a small market, and the market is small because of driver/commercial software development.

Re:poor drivers = poor customer perception

[turing_m]

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.

Balmer

[rasputin465]

Well maybe if Steve Ballmer went this crazy more often more people would be interested in Vista.

...or maybe that could go the other way too.

Re:Balmer

[aaron p. matthews]

Clearly Microsoft needs to go back to their old style of promoting Windows:

Exhibit A: Windows 1.0
- http://youtube.com/watch?v=GL4hyATkQ74

Exhibit B: Windows 386
- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4915875929 930836239

I mean it worked before....... right?

How many are unused Vista upgrades?

[RyanFenton]

Not that it has been easy to order a copy of the upgrade - but I wonder how many of those 20 million copies of Vista that have been sold are actually the $12 (after shipping) upgrades one could get when they ordered a copy of XP before Vista was sold. I know I did that, because if I needed to use an application that needed Vista, I could throw it on for that case.

I certainly know I'm not going to install Vista unless I absolutely have to, for the same reason I only switched to XP with my new computer a few months ago. It'll be interesting to see when the first pieces of Vista-only hardware come out - likely new DirectX-oriented video cards.

Ryan Fenton

I don't see people rushing out to buy hw now

[gelfling]

None of the retailers have any incentives to cause anyone to run out and plunk down new cash for a new machine, just because it runs Vista. Here is it the beginning of April and the sales cycle is going to be flat until at least mid August when the kiddies go back to school. At that point, unless there are new incentives in place I think a combination of school discounts on XP/Hardware, schools becoming more software agnostic and competitive pricing from Apple will be a real threat to that segment too.

But I am always called insane here at /. when I say things like this. So don't listen to me. Just keep being fanboys.

Re:I don't see people rushing out to buy hw now

[cyphercell]

Funny I don't think you're that far off, all you have to do to get an XP box is go to the business section of any large vendor. The more people that know that, the more it will happen. Come school time I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't at least somewhat common knowledge, it was a well kept secret that you could get Windows 2000 for a long time after XP came out. I don't think the secret will be that well kept this time.

Rubber demand curve

[zoftie]

All it takes, is time. It may well be that apple with parallels and in future some deeper emulation integration with windows, will drive demand for people who abandon insecure windows environments for usable OS X. As Microsoft fails to meet its own promises, people will be forced to look elsewhere. Perhaps OS X with its demanding video applications will drive the next big rise in sales.

I am not analyst, but stagnant windows platform isn't living up to its promises, people will be forced to look elsewhere. Elsewhere as in Ubuntu desktop, OS X. Whichever. It will take time.

Re:Rubber demand curve

[photomonkey]

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.

Well, this is pretty interesting:

[zappepcs]

We can draw from several possible conclusions from such numbers:

1 - WGA is actually working, and the 20 million people who actually DO want to pay for windows have bought their copies (note, I have no stats to back up that statement)

2 - People really aren't convinced that Windows Vista is the answer to their software woes

3 - It just fscking costs too much to upgrade from an OS that seems to be working just fine right now.

4 - Too many people are trying to consolidate bills after the holiday seasons to spend more money.

5 - Businesses are waiting for SP2 (I think they should have just launched with Vista SP2)

6 - Statistics and studies only show you what they want you to see

7 - Viola! Windows Vista pretty much sucks... - this one seems quite plausible?

Re:Well, this is pretty interesting:

[the linux geek]

Actually, WGA isn't really working. There's currently a crack floating around that simulates an OEM BIOS, and always checks out A-OK on WGA checks and associated scum.

Re:Well, this is pretty interesting:

[zappepcs]

Well, that sounds like you are saying that the only people really put at a disadvantage by WGA and anti-piracy measures are honest users that weren't pirating software anyway?

Re:Well, this is pretty interesting:

[smash]

Exactly. As is and has been the case with every form of copy-protection ever devised. You pay to be disadvantaged.

Re:Well, this is pretty interesting:

[RobertM1968]

6 - Statistics and studies only show you what they want you to see

MS is counting the Vista Upgrade coupons into those numbers (the 20 million). NOT the used coupons... the total coupons "given out" (ie: 12 million PCs sold during the qualifying period, 12 million coupons... and 8 million machines with Vista or copies purchased to upgrade - figures for example purposes only).

What are the actual figures? Who knows? MS isnt telling. And to count the "coupons" would require the OEMs and retailers to produce their numbers alongside MS's - which hasnt happened either.

The "facts" in MS's claims are thus irrelevant. Oh, and who cares? Vista will be the de-facto standard on PCs soon enough. And yes, there are vendors selling XP machines (usually XP Pro for businesses), but I am expecting that will phase out as well. An expectation that Vista would drive the market is retarded... some retailers though, counted on MS' promise that it would (a promise I heard them give to CompUSA - who sold 1/10th the machines and Vista upgrades they had projected to do). Therein lies the problem... MS created ridiculous expectations, and upper management in many companies (retailers and OEMs alike) listened and believed, while us grunts in the field couldnt believe anyone would be counting on such a ridiculous expectation. If you had any clue as to the $$$$ some of the retailers expected to make on the Vista launch, you'd be wondering what their management was smoking...

Re:Well, this is pretty interesting:

[cyrtainne]

Well everyone that is forcing themselves to either use, or develop Vista would disagree about that. Wouldn't it be nice to buy a game and have your choice of 3 or 4 operating systems to play that game on instead of just one? If the operating system manufacturers had to build to a blueprint set out by the application software designers instead of the other way around. I guess in a more perfect world.

Oh it's driving demand all right

[goombah99]

For Macs and Linux.

On a more sober note. Maybe this is a testament to the quality of XP. Up until win2000 windows sucked. With win2000 the interface still sucked. XP made big strides in making the interface less sucky.

The point is that every generation of Windows (excluding Bob and ME) has not only an enormous improvement over the last, but almost at the level of an emergency repair that could not be foregone any longer. Thus it drove sales. Any idiot could see why each generation was desirable over the hell they where in.

Maybe with XP the quality finally reach a level where migrating to the next big thing was no longer an emergency. XP had sufficiently good behaviour that the operating system no longer drives sales.

So this time it's going to be the applications that drive sales. You won't upgrade your existing system till the apps start to need whatever Vista has that XP does not do well. Probably this will be some combination of 64bits/video /big memory or....drum roll...DRM. If not then you wait till your harddrive seems puny or you get so rooted that your faced with wiping the disk and reinstalling XP then a chain of service packs. At that point buying a new machine looks attractive.

So Microsoft's big need is the Killer App that only runs well on Vista. You got it?

Re:Oh it's driving demand all right

[shaitand]

'With win2000 the interface still sucked. XP made big strides in making the interface less sucky.'

Less sucky in what way? Anyone who knows how uses the classic start menu and control panel. The only thing that really leaves is the theme and anyone who is at all concerned about performance uses the windows classic theme.

Re:Oh it's driving demand all right

[benzapp]

XP made big strides in making the interface less sucky.

I wish I gave a shit enough to bother digging up old slashdot posts.

When XP came out, there must have been 100 posts a day (slashdot was actually popular then) complaining about how stupid and childish the XP interface was. It was relentless. Unlike Vista, XP really DIDN'T offer anything Windows 2000 didn't already have, except for the improved interface and related APIs. Ok, it had system restore too - but that was pretty much it.

Personally, I think the Vista interface is far better than XP, which I hated.

Re:Oh it's driving demand all right

[unother]

I think that the argument could be made that only every other version of Windows became "vital". Windows 3.1 was vital. Windows 95 was liked, but Windows 98 was vital. Windows 2000 was liked, but Windows XP was vital. Windows ME is best forgotten, obviously. As is Bob.

Re:Oh it's driving demand all right

[AaronBrethorst]

Check out this article on Ars for the word from the horse's mouth, as it were.

Re:Oh it's driving demand all right

[Monsterdog]

The Killer App for Vista? Hell, let's get some of the major apps running well on Vista first. In fact, let's get the majority of tools used by people every day to run at all on Vista. I know my writing and music tools will run on XP without too many hitches, but many of those die horribly when it comes to Vista. More than needing a killer app, Vista needs to stop being an app killer.

Re:Oh it's driving demand all right

[Aladrin]

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.

Re:Oh it's driving demand all right

[smash]

Later Nvidia detonator drivers do similar stuff in XP. The font rendering seemed much improved when i switched back to 2k from XP anyway...

Re:Oh it's driving demand all right

[drsmithy]

Anyone who knows how uses the classic start menu and control panel.

I don't. Why would I ? The "new" Start Menu is superior in basically every measurable way.

Re:Oh it's driving demand all right

[GreatBunzinni]

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?

Re:Oh it's driving demand all right

[MaxVT]

If you think that the interface is the reason why XP is so successful, you must be coming from the Mac world, as you are totally and completely wrong :)

Windows 2000, and XP after it, made a quantum leap towards relative stability and reliability of the Windows platform. Most peripherals started to work properly from the first try as driver model and manufacturers' experience improved, and BSOD's became a thing of the past -- I remember getting at least one BSOD daily in '98 days, but I don't remember my XP system hanging up or BSODing for at least a year now.

Why would I want to upgrade with all the Vista horror stories?

Re:Oh it's driving demand all right

[goombah99]

I'd say that was a fair if hilarious summary. But the reason people buy new Offices is NOT to _write_ letters. It's to _read_ letters. Every time a new office comes out, eventually I start getting letters my old copy can't read. I have to respond so I buy office++.

Re:Oh it's driving demand all right

[cyphercell]

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.

There are now alternatives

[gilesjuk]

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.

Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms

[sjwest]

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.

hmmm

[smash]

As someone who's currently got a dodgy copy of Vista running at home (30 day grace period... yeah, yeah, i'm going to buy it when i get home this week), i can see why it's not *currently* selling well for most people (this will change of course when you can no longer buy XP easily).

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.

Re:hmmm

[smash]

Well, to clarify. New apps will eventually require vista. DirectX10 is vista only. I use my PC for games. DirectX10 games will require vista.

What I'm saying is that unless you have a specific reason for upgrading, there's little incentive. My "specific reasons" are DirectX10, and because I'd like to know the issues I'm dealing with before I have to fix them in the field...

Re:hmmm

[smash]

Check the number of vulnerabilities that affected XP and compare to Win2k. Compare RAM usage to Win2k. Turn off the fisher price UI, and you have Win2k + insecurity + bloat + product activation. How is that an "upgrade" again?

That's why i think it's a steaming pile of shit - it was a definite step backwards for my purposes :)

Vista on the other hand, at least brings a few things to the table - UI that is much more capable (sure, at the moment the use of 3d is pretty lame, but the framework is there), new (albeit flawed) security model, etc.

I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch, but there is at least some benefit for me in it.

Re:Many companies are holding back

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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...

Vista has found to be lacking

[JensenDied]

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.

Re:What Linux should do

[gripen40k]

I totally agree that's what we need in a Linux, and for me it would be the server one. I have a crumby computer that could really use the PC-to-server treatment. I dunno, Ubunto maybe, but I'm still a little concerned that if something goes wrong I'll have to go on IRC or something equally unappealing just to get it fixed, as opposed to WinXP where I just 'know' how to fix it.

I guess we can all dream 'eh?

Jaded

[the eric conspiracy]

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.

This matters why?

[Toby_Tyke]

Really, the last time I can remember people rushing out in their masses to buy a windows upgrade was '95. Remember when XP came out? Sure, you get the usual early adopters rushing out to buy the thing on release day, but by and large they sell the things via pre-installs on OEM systems. The AT article points out that the growth in VIsta sales over XP sales track exactly to the growth in PC sales XP's release. That hardly means Vista is a failure, it just means that, like XP, the vast majority of users are waiting till they upgrade their PCs to buy Vista. Vista will almost certainly have a 50 percent or more share of the consumer desktop market in 2 or 3 years time, just like XP did. By the time we get the next windows iteration in 5 years (or whenever) it will have over 80 percent, just like XP does.

Joe user (whoever the hell he is), does not reinstall his OS. Christ, most users have no concept of what an OS is. They buy a PC, they use what comes on it. That's why Linux will never really take off on the home desktop until a large vendor has real success selling pre-installed Linux PCs. Hopefully, Dell are about to do just that.

no UP button in explorer?

[alucinor]

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.

Well, I'm posting this from Ubuntu Edgy at home right now at least. :-D

Re:Many companies are holding back

[tftp]

Is there going to be an active market for XP licenses? Will WGA prevent people from buying ne naked PCs and loading old XP licenses?

I'm unsure what you are talking about. There *is* a market of XP licenses already, and it always was, and probably will be for a while. I know because I build XP boxes, and the price of a license is today quite acceptable, just about the cost of a motherboard, or about 1/3 of a decent CPU, or about 15% of the total cost of the hardware. Since these licenses are 100% legitimate the WGA will not stop you.

Does anybody actually want Vista?

[falconcy]

I'm about to pick up a brand spanking new laptop in a couple of days. It comes complete with Vista, I have no choice in the matter. The first thing I am going to do is to slap a Kubuntu CD in the drive and get things set up the way I want it. I'm not holding my breath regarding getting a refund for Vista, and whilst I realize that actually bundling an Operating System with a new computer may help prevent piracy or even increase market share for Microsoft, it does not take on board the fact that not everybody wants Windows. I am aware that not all end users are IT literate and capable of deciding for themselves, although I'm surprised that the EU actually allows this monopolistic practice to continue.

Bought in December

[dj245]

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.

What sucks about the Windows UI?

[Savage-Rabbit]

Less sucky in what way? Anyone who knows how uses the classic start menu and control panel. The only thing that really leaves is the theme and anyone who is at all concerned about performance uses the windows classic theme. My gripes with the Windows 2000/XP interface...

• To say it was ugly is going to far it was more like mind numbingly dull. XP helped a little.
• I never much liked the start menu:
  1. Move the mouse pointer to the 'Start' button in the lower left corner,
  2. click,
  3. find the 'Programs' item,
  4. click,
  5. find the program you want,
  6. click.
  The quick-launch bar was a major improvement but I still like the OS.X dock better because of the magnification feature which makes it easier to hit the icon you want and the fact that the dock is simply easier and quicker to use. The new Windows start menu was, if anything worse than the old one. It had some nice features but it was badly organized. My first action on an XP system is always to set it back to 'classic' look .
• The Windows UI behaves in a way that I find infuriating, especially the way that applications steal the focus. This didn't change much with XP. It can be tweaked though.
• Endless reboots. XP was an improvement because it decreased their frequency.
• The endless OK and Apply buttons are annoying. Somehow OS.X and some Linux desktops and even Windows Mobile seem to manage without them.
• The ceaseless stupid questions about whether or not I am sure I want to do this that or the other thing are annoying. I'm not saying they are alwasy unwanted but it would be nice if Microsoft were to reduce their number.
• Having to click one's way through endless configuration app windows to perform simple reconfigurations is annoying. I can modify system preferences in OS.X with far fewer mouse clicks than I can in Windows 2000 or XP.
• When you have a large number of windows open in 2000 and XP finding a particular one is not easy. They tried to solve this in XP by grouping buttons for a particular app. It helped but it wasn't a good solution. I haven't used Vista, but judging from demonstrations of the 'Rolodex' feature they added in to trump 'Exposé' it looks like a huge improvement.

I'm sure that all these things can either be changed by setting some radio button in a not so easy to find configuration window, tweaked with a third party utility or if all fails modified by changing registry settings but I chose to switch to something that works the way I want it to out of the box and it's into the bargain more secure but that's a matter for a whole other flame-war.

Re:What sucks about the Windows UI?

[darkjedi521]

Quicklaunch has been in there since Windows 98. So, its not exactly a "new" thing in XP.

Re:What sucks about the Windows UI?

[dabraun]

The quick-launch bar was a major improvement

For those who don't know, the quick launch bar was introduced as part of IE 4.0 in 1997, it is by no means a win2k/xp/vista feature. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was disabled by default in XP (but enabled by default in win2k and vista). I believe that in XP microsoft thought the 'recent apps' addition to the start menu replaced the need for quick launch, but by Vista the realized that it did not ...

Re:What sucks about the Windows UI?

[pwizard2]

In fact, I'm pretty sure it was disabled by default in XP

It is. You have to actively enable it.

In fact, very little about XP's default config makes sense- the recycle bin is down in the lower-right hand corner, making it easily missed at first since it is not where you normally expect it to be (somewhere in the upper left hand corner. also, the "My Computer" icon is nowhere to be seen, casing me to waste my time adding it.

Dell DOES sell naked PCs

[plasticsquirrel]

Every time some issue like this comes up, someone writes about how they wish Dell sold naked PC's. They have -- for years. Dell's naked PC's are called the n-Series desktops. They're listed as "open source desktops" on the Dell website. They only contain a minimal FreeDOS installation for legal reasons, which is meant to be wiped clean by your favorite OS installer. And from what I've seen, they're the same price or less than the Windows models.

Re:Dell DOES sell naked PCs

[Hymer]

I'll guess s/he is referring to the 1st. Microsoft law: "You may not sell a PC without an OS on it."

There are however some problems in some countries where a naked PC may not be considered a "full working product" when there is no OS on it (because it can't do anything) it is then considered a "spare part" wich creates problems with the warranty (wich may be regulated by law).

Boycotting Vista

[Andypcguy]

Im not planning to run Vista on my box unless I find that I have to in order to do the things I want to with my PC. I refuse to purchase DRM riddled products that prevent me from using the media I legitimately purchased, the way that I want to. Im not interested in backroom deals that determine that if I buy song X at store A I can only play it on player 123. Sorry Microshaft and Itunes until you guys start representing me Im voting with my dollarsIm siding with the independent party.

games intact, functionality removed

[micrometer2003]

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.

Truth in Marketing

[Nom du Keyboard]

I've ordered the free Vista upgrade for the systems I bought in January, but have no intent of installing them any time soon.

Truth is, with product activation required, MS could give you a truthful figure of just how many Vista systems have been activated. But, Nooo, that would be lower number and they wouldn't be able to try and convince the weak-minded that Vista is taking over the world and you need to jump onto the bandwagon now, or be left behind forever. What a load of absolute crap.

this is not the hotcake you're looking for...

[CAIMLAS]

However, it most certainly is a hotcake: people can't get rid of it fast enough. :)

Vista is a solution looking for a problem. Or maybe a problem looking for a solution - it's difficult to say, really. The fact is that Vista is not the OS that people have been waiting for from Microsoft since the inception of Windows 2000.

People don't want more bling in their OS. They are, in almost every subset of user, wanting something which Just Works. Since 1995, we've been bombarded with bling widget after bling widget - multimedia this, multimedia that. Even the candy-ass Fischer Price default theme of Windows XP was too much for most people. Most people are just fine with the Windows interface - and, if they're not (a characteristic usually shared with the ability to do something about it) there are plenty of shell replacements to chose from.

Yet, that is principally what Vista offers: more bling. It does not deliver on any of its meritous promises. It does not improve the underlying operating system to any significant degree. They've crawled out onto a massive monolythic limb and have decided to start chopping firewood by destroying the one thing that has made Windows dominant: its highly marketed user interface. People do not want to learn new things, as a rule, when it's useless to do so. In a way, this is an example of them being an enemy of their own success: the Windows interface has been so widely accepted that it's become standard and expected, and with it installed on the vast majority of machines, why change?

Techies, on the other hand, do not have such a luxury, as it is our job to learn these new things and make them work for everyone else. If they'd only promised on half of the underlying technologies (just fix the infrastructure and security/defaults, thanks), it would've captured the Windows XP market by storm.

Similarly, techies view Vista as just as much of a change to another OS, like MacOS or Linux, without having any of the benefits. What would you get? New incompatibilities and technology without any inherrent gain by switching operating systems. This is Microsoft's own fault - not only for ignoring what people (techies and users) want in their OS, but also for building up a single, monolythic product, unable to be disassociated from any of its individual components and accessories. Where would Linux be if, for every minor kernel release, there was an associated base distro, X, and wm release? Nowhere - probably stuck somewhere around 2.0 still.

Re:this is not the hotcake you're looking for...

[smash]

Have you actually used vista much yet? On semi-decent hardware?

Yet, that is principally what Vista offers: more bling. It does not deliver on any of its meritous promises. It does not improve the underlying operating system to any significant degree.

That's a little shortsighted. Large portions have been re-written as managed code, the network stack has been re-written, the security model is different, the audio subsystem is completely new, etc. Time will tell if the re-writing will actually be of any serious improvement, but to pass the whole thing off as mere "bling" is being a little hasty.

After using vista for a couple of weeks, i can think of a number of improvements in the interface that I really miss when going back to XP - the new start menu you can easily scroll through, flip3d (yes, it's kinda lame, but I do miss it, i'm an alt+tab freak, windows+tab makes it easier to find which window you want), the new address bar, etc.

The user interface changes are not massive - they're minor tweaks which do make a difference.

No, they're not killer features, but I'm a lot more happy with the interface changes in vista compared to the changes that happened between Win2k and XP.

But I disagree with your point anyway - the interface is not what has sold windows and kept it there, it's the applications. The Windows interface has been copied plenty by Linux distros and it hasn't helped them at all.

Irrespective of all this, Vista will take off within 18 months as people start requiring more than 4 gigs of RAM. XP doesn't support more than 4gig unless you go to XP 64 bit, which is a dead end product if you ask me...

Windows OS

[browng]

The operating system is focused on when installing/uninstalling programs and peripherals which for the average user may account for a relatively small amount of time vs. checking e-mail, surfing the web and writing documents. Therefore, most of the time, people are using applications instead of the OS. In this case, the most important feature of the OS is stability. For virtually everyone I know, XP home and professional reached a reasonable level of stability.

Re:What Linux should do

[Fyzzler]

I highly recommend SME Server at http://www.smeserver.org/ as a trivially easy to use server version of Linux. You can install it in 15-20 minutes and then configure it using a nice web interface in another 15 minutes.

The web management is very nice and it will even act as an NT Primary domain controller for single sign on to a domain out of the box, with Samba shares, ftp, and email. It can act as your firewall/gateway or as just a stand alone server. It is based on CentOS 4.4 and it is great for home or small business servers with WindowsXP clients.

How about some drivers

[Sir_Sri]

Lets see why no vista adoption?

1. Both AMD/ATi and Nvidia drivers give crappy performance, and the newest hardware generation of G80's BSOD'd in XP, and slows down (granted not a huge amount, but it slows down) in vista. Yes, I have a G80.
2. Creative sound card drivers are virtually non existant. What good is my 7.1 surround sound if it doesn't work?
3. What does vista do for 'me'? (actually quite a lot but that's beside the point). People don't know why their computer is slow when it has 500 different pieces of spyware and half a dozen viruses, why on earth would they conclude a more secure operating system with help them (or one advertised as such)? Without a minimal ability to diagnose existing problems (hmm my car is on fire kind of problems, not there's a crack in an O-ring kind of problem) people don't appreciate what, if anything vista would do for them.
4. Deserved bad press. UAC is braindead. I can buy UAC as a firewall style app (first time you click on an app is yay or nays it, if it changes it yay or nays it). As it is, it's unnecessarily annoying. Yes, I really did click on control panel.
5. If I'm going to buy vista which version is right for me? What's the difference between 32 and 64 bit? Why don't my 4 Gigs of ram work? It's too damn confusing. Vista should have two versions: Home, and Corporate. Home should more or less be vista ultimate. Corporate should be well, corporate, enterprise licenses, no media center that sort of stuff. Oh and they should only come in a 64 bit flavour, or only a 32 bit flavour, not this crazy half and half.
6. People who have vista have no great reason to be happy. Lots of apps don't work. If I show vista (I have vista on two machines) to people the first thing they notice as a bad idea is the start menu-> programs is all compacted. Exact oppposite of what should have happened compared to XP. Critical interface design flaw.
7. Do I give a shit about wigits or whatever they're called? No.
8. Upgrading. Given all of the above, and the bunch of backwards compatability issues (related mostly to 16 bit installers, and popular apps like itunes), why would I want to necessarily replace my system, with whatever flaws it has, at least those I know something about. There's no sense intentionally breaking applications I already use.
9. Critical apps (ie antivirus, which people usually don't bother to update or use properly but know enough to purchase, thinking that will help, even if they don't install it), don't all come in working vista versions off the same shelf.

I think the critical points are more hardware vendors than MS's fault (and to some extent this applies to any OS), without useful drivers the hardware just doesn't work. Some of that stuff is just 'well on a new system you get vista' kinda thing. And some of it will be rectified with time, installers compatability etc... XP had some backwards compatability issues, it apparently still has some driver issues etc... and it still rules the roost, Vista will likely get there, but MS could have made this a lot easier on themselves and everyone else.

Vista Sales not quite as expected

[Oshkoshjohn]

The main reason for the flagging sales has to be the fact that Windows XP Professionbal, if completely up-to-date and secured, is pretty much the same thing as Vista minus the flashy video gimcrackery.

I was one of the first people to adapt to WIN XP when it came OEM with an Athlon 1800, and that product was not nearly completely under control until it was almost four years old! I will wait for Service Pack One to be applied to Vista before I jump this time.