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?

[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: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.

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?

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"...

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:

[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.

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

[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?

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.

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: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...

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.

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?

[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 ...

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.

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.