Slashdot Mirror
Is Windows Vista in Trouble?
Ken Erfourth writes "The Inquirer.net is running a story about what they consider two powerful indications that Vista is failing in the marketplace. One, Dell has reintroduced PCs running Windows XP on its website due to customer demand. Two, Microsoft is conducting a worldwide firesale on a bundle of Microsoft Office 2007/WindowsXP Starter Edition. According to Inquirer.net, at least, these are signs of serious problems selling Vista. Are we seeing the stumbling of the Microsoft Juggernaught with the slow adoption of Windows Vista?"
I don't like Microsoft, and I gleefully read all about Vista's "innovations" and the Zune's "features" and laugh. But this article is just a little too opinionated to make worthwhile.
XP doesn't fully support the latest Vista technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policeware
Odd.... I've been gaming on win2k since oh... 2001. Only recently have companies started locking us out, even though with a registry mod they work fine.
There's this thing called a monopoly that prevents this trouble from occurring.
Windows users will buy new machines, and get Vista "real soon now." The number of users that switch will be nominal. No harm done to Microsoft.
As much as the media may want it to be, there is no competition in a market with a Monopoly.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
They weren't slipping their release date.
They were just waiting for hardware performance to catch up.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
By now, the PC market is saturated and MS already has 90+ percent of it. Nearly everybody who needs or wants a PC already has one. This means that there will be little growth and the market is really based on replacement of older models with newer ones. MS already has a huge market share, so they can't grow by taking share away from the competition.
This does not mean MS or Vista are washed-up. It just means it is a mature market. MS and Vista are actually sitting pretty. They will continue to see 90+ percent of new computers running their stuff for the foreseeable future. But they simply won't have double-digit growth year over year, just a steady torrent of replacements.
Is Vista in trouble? Why wouldn't it be? Even if Microsoft gave the thing away for free, it totally ignores the fact that there's an enormous cost to upgrading. Microsoft doesn't need a fire sale, it needs to be paying people to install this thing.
Let's run down the usual suspects of people who upgrade and see how they feel:
I could go on, but you get the point. Is Vista in trouble? You bet. Add to all of the above the competition that it faces from various Linux distributions that are easier than ever to install and use, products like Mac OS, clever new projects such as ReactOS, and even its own predecessor! and it becomes clear that Microsoft should be praying that people pirate it, because that's the only way it's going to make any kind of splash when all is said and done.
Don't get me wrong, it won't die completely, any more than Windows ME is dead. But in the annals of operating systems, my money is that it will be merely a blip on the screen. If Microsoft is smart, it should be working on adding features to its operating system, making it faster and more powerful and easier to use. It should be fighting with us against DRM, not against us by crippling their software with it.
Personally, I think that Microsoft is not very smart, but who knows, I guess we'll see. At any rate, after giving it a week to try to convince me that it's not as bad as everyone says it is, I was very disappointed in it and won't be running it anytime in the forseeable future.
What do you mean, slow starter.
They've already sold 244 copies in China!
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
because it's better than XP.
I have 2 machines, a vista one and an XP one (plus an XP laptop). The Vista PC is newer, so i can't do an apples and apples comparison, but still, my impression is that Vista feels nicer, slicker, more responsive and faster than XP.
Like most versions of windows, it's hard to really put my finger on a single 'killer app' that makes Vista better, but as a user, the overalle xperience just feels more polished.
I *had* to get a vista machine, to do compatility tests for my games, but I certainly don't regret doing so. I'd be suprised if many end users who get an O/S with a new PC, who aren't uber geeks will go out of their way to ask for the earlier operating system, especially as any new machine will run vista fine.
I know lots of people have a beef with various aspects of Vista, but they don't bother me. I don't watch downloaded movies on my PC, I use it for gaming and surfing and developing, so the DRM that may be in it doesn't bother me personally.
Apart from anything, Vista is more likely to be safer, as XP will now be ignroed in terms of patching exploits.
Vista will win in the long term. it might be longer than the short-termists who write magazine articles are used to, but in 3-4 years from now, it will seem funny to have written off vista.
Microsoft aren't as strong as they used to be, Google has seen to that, and I doubt they would attempt to do an even more bloated expensive O/S after vista, but I also doubt there will be any long term problems in its takeup.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Well because it has better secur...errr, I mean, the driver support is muc...well, ok, you may have me there.
Not only did they slip on the release date, but they dropped many features that would have made the OS actually new. What we have now is on OS that costs a lot of money for a bunch of features that are truly cosmetic in nature. There is absolutely nothing to get excited about with Vista.
I could see delaying release for 3 years becuase they wnated to perfect some brand new must-have feature, but the product that was delivered was simply anti-climatic to say the least.
I got nothin'
Dell would release PCs running XP without all the other crap it might be worth buying one. Maybe...
You do realize that all that nagware crap subsidizes the cost of the hardware, don't you? All that crap is exactly why Dells are worth buying. One wipe, which I'd be doing anyways, and it's all gone.
Actually XP didn't introduce gaming APIs - Windows 2000 can run all the games XP can, except for those which specifically check for Windows version. XP's innovations over Windows 2K were proper Hyperthreading support and Cleartype.
Actually, New Coke was put on the market as a distraction so they could switch the Coke Classic recipe from sugar to corn syrup. Go to a mexican grocery and get some Coke (they're not allowed to use corn syrup in Mexico). It's different.
The future isn't here until I can type "car keys" into Google and have it say "You left them in your pants last night."
I thought New Coke was to get more people to buy Pepsi.
Microsoft actually weaned me off when they started requiring "activation." So even XP isn't attractive to me — it has the same basic problem as Vista does. I run XP from time to time to verify web pages and test software, but it's in a network-free sandbox when I do. I run win98 the same way - no network - and no activation inside a sandbox (Parallels.) I don't use either one as my main OS, and I certainly have no intention of ever purchasing Vista, just to buy into the same set of risks all over again.
What happens when an XP system needs re-installation and I can't get an activation for any reason? As far as I'm concerned, if I buy it, I expect to install it, perhaps put a registration code in that will work each and every time without ever having to contact the manufacturer, and that's it. I'll grant you that it seems unlikely today that Microsoft won't be there in a few years, but will they activate an XP installation? That's a policy decision, and there's just no telling what that policy will be. I'm not hitching my cart to their policy decisions.
Whatever Vista offers, it isn't enough. I have plenty of functionality between linux and OSX, and I can run both concurrently, as is convenient. If either one ever fails, I'll just grab my install CDs and I'll be up and running in a reasonable amount of time. The rule of thumb here is (a) software on CD or DVD, and (b) registration codes, if any, sealed in the jewel case in a readable fashion.
I remember trying to re-install a screen saver (some very pretty aquarium simulation) and finding out that it wouldn't install, claiming I was trying to install it on multiple machines (I wasn't.) I wrote the company several emails about it (they were still around) and they never replied, nor would the screen saver ever work again. I was annoyed, as you might expect. But if this had been the OS instead of just a $30 screen saver, I'd have been pissed at about the nuclear level. This is exactly the risk everyone faces with XP and Vista.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
While you are certainly right about how coke from Mexico has sugar, I think you may be wrong about the corn syrup thing.
I've always read that it has more to do with the fact that (cane) sugar is substantially cheaper than corn syrup/beat sugar. As such, most places outside of the US use cane sugar. The reason the US uses corn syrup is because we have high tariffs on imported cane sugar - enough so that corn syrup/beat sugar is more economically viable in the states.
I am willing to be corrected, however.
The Crap isn't on the windows CD dell gives you... the only change between retail and dell ms cd is drivers and a dell logo for support link
So you would wipe it with the cd dell gives you...
No, don't try to convert them to Linux (unless they ask you to) but go help them when their computers fail. When you hear a friend or a relative suggest that they're going to buy a new PC because their old one is getting slow, go and help them out. Tell them it probably just needs a reinstall, maybe a bit more memory, a bigger hard disk... But *STOP* them buying new computers just for the sake of it.
And when you've helped them out, help them to install Firefox and Thunderbird, install OpenOffice for them and set it up.
People need to be educated properly about what it is to own a PC and what they need to do on a regular basis to keep it running relatively fast. We need to take control of our PCs - not buy every Microsoft upgrade, remove the Norton and McAfee Nagware crap that comes installed on every new PC.
That's the *PROPER* way to make Vista fail...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
When Windows XP was released, I distinctly remember the same 'theres nothing compelling to upgrade to XP for' pieces doing the rounds on Slashdot and other tech op-ed sites - people were predicting Microsofts failure, that XP wouldnt sell at all because it demanded huge hardware requirements, that XP had a Fisher Price interface that would scare buyers away and it would only really sell through forced OEM installations.
Yes, you heard that. It's what people who had Windows 2000 said, and a heck of a lot of them stayed with Win2k. There really wasn't any compelling reason to move to XP.
But there were a LOT of people running Windows 98/ME. For them, Windows XP was a huge, meaningful upgrade. They all went with WinXP, either as an upgrade, or as part of a new hardware purchase.
With Windows Vista, there doesn't seem to be any substantial group for whom a compelling reason to upgrade exists.
None the less, maybe you're right; in five years we'll all be running Vista SE, Service Pack 3, Trademark, All rights reserved. It'll be the only platform to access Windows Live, so it's gotta sell!
High fructose corn syrup (and the ethanol boondoggle, for that matter) wouldn't exist without the corn subsidies encouraging farmers to grow corn syrup. The stiff restrictions on sugar imports have something to do with it too.
But Coca-Cola had already switched most of its bottlers to high fructose corn syrup before the formula changed. So...the conspiracy theory about sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup really doesn't make sense.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Agreed. And when we read articles here about MS stopping the OEM distribution of XP by the end of the year to force OEM Vista adoption, how does that *not* qualify as restraint of trade?
Well, there is no way in hell it qualifies as anything illegal on the part of microsoft. No one should ever be compelled to continue to sell a product they no longer wish to.
It does maybe finally raise the cause/issue of abandonware to the forefront.
Copyright is designed to protect authors from competition so that they have the exclusive right to profit from their creation. The idea is that it benefits society to give authors the ability to exclusively profit from their creations for a "reasonable" period of time, as an incentive to create interesting new works.
I'm all for preserving the rights of authors to profit from their work, should they choose to exercise that right. But if an author decides they are no longer interested in selling that work, I don't see any reason to prevent the work falling into the public domain. After all, if the author has 'abandoned' the work, why should the public be denied access to it?
The average author can't and doesn't abuse this. If they release a book, it sells well, and they decide to release another book, great. Presumably people will find the new book interesting and buy it. And In general, except where there are annoying legal/contract conflicts, as long as there is adequate demand for a copy protected book the market will ensure it gets reprinted and sold. Rarely do authors write a book, and then refuse to reprint it regardless of demand, so historically its not really a problem.
But Microsoft and software developers in general abuse that 'feature' of copyright. They release a program, and then down the road after it has been successful they release another one, while simultaneously dropping the first one. Now, normally, this works out ok, as people generally want the new version anyway... but sometimes they don't. They still want the old version. And the software companies refuse to sell it to create artificial demand for the new version.
What rationale is there for allowing this. If microsoft doesn't want to sell/support XP, that's fine. But then copyright should pass into the public domain. If Microsoft doesn't want to exercise their right to profit from the software, that's fine, but that's no reason to keep it out of the public's hands.
We as society GIVE Microsoft the exclusive right to profit from Windows XP to incent them to write Windows XP.
We didn't give them that right just to be denied access to XP when they felt it would be even more profitable to herd us into buying Vista when what we want is XP.
We GAVE them the right to profit from Windows. If they're response is to stop selling it despite high demand. Our response SHOULD BE to put Windows (and other abandoned titles) into the public domain. Of course, Microsoft, and any company for that matter faced with the prospect of having their IP seized and put into the public domain when they could still wring a profit out of it would of course respond by continuing to sell it until they could no longer wring any profit from it. And that is as it should be.
You're missing the point. What if "Susan" says "no, you can't have a code?" You're shit outta luck, that's what!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Bah, it's still not the real Coca-Cola until they put the cocaine back!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Actually, I'm finding that XP works better than fine, it works great. It gives me a sense that there is some value to a mature operating system that's had bugs worked out and service packs and enough time for the rest of us to figure out how to make it do what we want.
Vista on the other hand, is nothing but trouble. No significant improvement in performance (at least not for my media production apps) and the nightmare of DRM. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze.
As I've said before, if Microsoft had released a bunch of incremental improvements to XP pro, and an updated UI, called it "XP 2007" or something, they'd have had a hit on their hands. But by fouling it up with a bunch of nonsense, then trying to put a gun to our heads with "DX10", they've made me mad enough to say "enough". There may be a day when I decide to use that license for Vista Home Premium that came with my latest computer, but it won't be until I can find instructions for disabling all the DRM and until all the various audio and video hardware and software have drivers or are patched to work with Vista. And not just work, but work better than they did under XP. Until then, I'll stay with XP Pro SP2.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Yes, that sounds good, doesn't it. It's difficult to think ahead years at a time. However, I've already been down the road. I've got win98 machines, no longer networked, that are doing various things. They work fine, no particular need to fuss with them. Microsoft stopped supporting them - meaning no security updates, no nothing - fairly recently. In 1998 that didn't seem like much of a threat. Today, it means they can't safely be on the Internet. There's no recourse other than upgrading them, but if they fail, reinstall requires no interaction with Microsoft.
Having gone from brand new win98 install to "no longer supported", I tend to think in terms of "what happens?" when the latest and greatest thing of today is discarded, as win98 was. It'll happen; you can count on it. As I said in the original post, since activation is required for a reinstall, and activation, even today, is based on Microsoft policy, you are tying yourself to the whim of whoever sets that policy a few years down the road.
Do you think in five years, when Vista's been out all that time, that they'll re-activate copies of XP? They might, but where is the certainty? And then when Vista is 10 years old and HooHaOS is the latest and greatest, will they reactivate Vista? You seem to think so, while I observe that the fact is I'd have to guess. In the end, I'm not willing to tie the continued functioning of my computers to a guess about Microsoft's future policies. To be frank, I don't trust them.
OSX will work for me as long as the computer does and I keep track of the install disks. Linux will work for me as long as the computer does and I have disks. Hell, I've still got a couple of machines running AmigaOS, and Commodore is long since nipples-north. XP and Vista will work as long as Microsoft lets it, and as long as they are around to let it. After that, one crash, and you're dead in the water -- you must migrate to something else, regardless of what compatibility problems and other inconveniences (like spending money) that may cause you. See the conceptual difference?
Activation is literally Digital Rights Management, where the concept is, you don't have ANY right to reinstall your software. That right belongs to Microsoft and is entirely subject to Microsoft policy, as well as their existence. My reaction to that is unprintable.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Canadian Coke is also corn syrup. The pop in central america isn't though, and its fucking fantastic!
Interesting tidbit: high-fructose corn syrup suppresses Leptin secretion, so you don't feel full even after consuming 1000 calories from it. Compare how full you feel after drinking 3 beers, vs. 3 cokes. This crap is probably responsible for a lot of the obesity on this continent.
Jeremy