Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Says Vista Selling Really Well
An anonymous reader writes "Steve Ballmer is in no way disappointed with Windows Vista. It is selling 'incredibly well,' he told a press conference in Herzeliya, Israel today. 'Vista sells on almost 100 per cent of all the new consumer PCs around the world,' the Microsoft CEO proclaimed. He added that the operating system was also selling on '45 percent of all of new business PCs.' Which is enlightening, since business users are about the only buyers of new PCs that get a choice." Anyone know anybody who bought Vista except as bundled with hardware?
And in other news, President Bush says the War in Iraq is going "really, really well".
Note that he didn't say that he's proud of it because it's good software, but because it "has had a good unit volume market reaction." In other words, he's not proud of his programmers, he's proud of his marketers.
Absolutely not! This isn't an either or choice. Your customers want both! That's why, many of your customers are moving to patforms that offer both. 45% businesses choose Vista? What about the other 55% of businesses?. What did they choose - hmmmmm?
of all the customers I provide technical support for, nearly 90% of them have all stated how much they hated vista
so... 90% of them have stated whether or not they hate vista? You do realize that your phrasing would include satisfied people in those 90%. But I'll assume that you meant that 90% hated it. You are providing technical support for those people! Of course they aren't happy with something. They screwed something up on their computer, and they are blaming Vista for it.
I don't know anyone who actually bought Vista unbundled, but I know plenty of people who got it pre-installed and kept using it.
They experience Vista's problems and huge system requirements, but they keep using it anyway. Maybe it's because they don't want to admit to themselves that they indirectly bought garbage. But I think it's because they want the newest, shiniest product, regardless of whether it's better.
Fact: most people are MORONS.
Saying Vista sells with new PCs is like saying people want junk mail because they choose to have a letter box.
I bought volume licenses of Vista. Of course I promptly installed XP on all the boxes the licenses were for.
Same goes for Server 2008. I bought a Server 2008 open license edition and promptly installed server 2003. I needed it for an accounting app, but I wasn't going to install 2008...I don't trust it. Besides, servers should NEVER require activation or validation! EVER! That's a deal-breaker IMO.
(Don't worry, that server 2003 instance is only a VM running on a linux box.)
So what have we learned? That just because their FUCKED UP licensing model REQUIRES you to buy the new license in order to use the older, more functional versions doesn't mean that the product is a success. That ambulatory heap of festering dogshit that calls itself "Steve Ballmer" really has nothing to crow about.
You're using her as bait, Master!
HP and Dell are both willing to sell you a business PC with a Vista Business edition COA label on the side thats preloaded with XP Pro. Since the Vista Business and Premium edition EULA allows this "downgrade", its a pretty good deal all around. Business customers can get XP out of the box, but have the option to re-image the PC with Vista down the road if they feel the need. I'd guess that Microsoft still chalks up the sale as a Vista machine, so they can continue to spin the PR story of Vista's success.
Never thought I would see the day when PC Magazine was help up to be a reliable source of information on /.
My reasons for hating Vista?
- User control sucks, and it sucks to code for. Yeah, it can be disabled, but you can't count on that in your apps - and it's a bitch on older software.
- Many apps and games are broken. Obvious point. - It takes damn-near twice the processing power and memory that XP does, no matter how you look at it.
- They're artificially forcing it down people's throats by trying to restricting software to be Vista-only when it'd run fine (possibly better) on XP.
- Mostly all the menus and configurations were changed. I say changed and not improved, because they haven't improved (from my point of view).
- Many misc UI changes. See previous point.
Short summary, there is no good reason for me to be wanting Vista, aside from the fact that MS and other companies (most likely for extra money from MS) are trying to force it down my throat. (Besides, the effective forcing [and quit the "you have a choice" crap - that shit doesn't apply in the real world] sounds like monopoly abuse to me. -- And for the record, I don't even hate Microsoft. They *can* make excellent software, and I use Windows XP Professional exclusively.)
I guarantee they're interested. They just can't compete.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I've been using computers in business for 20 years now, and I was what is commonly defined a "power user"
Why am I using the past here? because, for the first time since I started 20 years back, I see absolutely no use changing to a new machine. I use Excel. I use Access.there are some other apps that work well on XP. my machine is 3 years old, in the prime of an optimized and no nonsense life. I do not play big computer games at work. THAT's the real problem with Vista. Users have to change/upgrade machine to use Vista. what for?
I think that business users might go to Linux, but what they'd really want would be to stay as they are for years to come.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
Personally, I think working in Marketing should be a capital offense.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
You realize Apple are the ones most to blame for the resurgence of the PC=windows shit right?
Hi I'm a mac. and I'm a PC
7 reasons a geek should buy OSX, off the top of my head:
- 64-bit OS in all flavors, also works with 32-bits programs/drivers and older machines without 64-bit cpu.
- Backup to DVD-R or CD-R since
- Cheaper than Vista, VPN integrated for networks.
- Time Machine. Much better than restore points.
- Full consistent UI and spotlight. Press Command-Space, type in then name of the file or some meta-data you can set or the content of it, and you get it.
- Full bash support from the ground up. Free developer tool-chain, with some tools (e.g. Dashcode or Quartz Composer) easy to use to the non-coder people.
- Expose, Dashboard, Spaces, iWeb, iPhoto, etc etc. YMMV on the usefulness of those.
- Support for Zeroconf (Bonjour), which is still not there on Vista.
I've been buying Macs for some times now, and haven't thrown a computer yet. All upgraded to Leopard and still fully functional in its full G4 glory.Of Code And Men
Well, I think you're asking a good question. I don't even have a problem with UAC; I think it's a good idea actually.
The biggest problem with Vista is that Microsoft was not up front about what you really needed to run it; many "Vista Ready" machines -- weren't. On top of that, Vista went out without drivers for a lot of things, which is a lot of the point of using Windows over something better -- better hardware support.
I think Vista is largely a mixed bag; it was released beta quality, which (in part) probably contributes to its heroic resource demands on hardware. Even the early MacOS 10 releases were pretty inefficient. But with respect to beta software being released as production ready, I'd the same thing about Ubuntu Hardy. It's not really release quality IMHO. However, its easier to take a few lumps on an upgrade if it is (a) free and (b) optional.
And that, I think, is a big part of the reason for Vista hatred. People have decided they don't like riding the upgrade merry-go-round. They got to the point they felt like they could live with XP; they'd probably pay good money for an improved XP. What they got was something which was not as radical as intended (no WinFS), but sufficiently radical to be noticeably rocky and resource intensive. Some of the changes in Vista are unqualified improvements, some of the changes are defensible with implementation faults (UAC and Windows File Protection), and some are there to support Microsoft's agenda alone (DRM).
We may be in an era where customers don't want to be dragged kicking and screaming into a vendor's vision for the future. They'd rather see consistent, incremental improvements. Even the minor changes Microsoft makes in situations like this are starting to piss people off, like renaming control panel applets.
People may not be happy about having to pay for MacOS upgrades, but they're getting incremental improvements on a known quantity. Likewise, I think Ubuntu Hardy is a bit rocky, but the changes are intended to be much the same: incremental improvements on a known quantity. And it's asymptotically approaching that point.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I believe part of the hatred comes from the fact that Microsoft don't seem to listen to their customers. Instead they, time and time again, try to convince everyone that Vista is the right way to go, even though only few people seem to agree. It's the Microsoft way - or the highway. The same thing can be said about most of Microsofts techs. What's the point of building an operating system which is a grand system hog as Vista is and at the same time don't deliver any significant changes compared to XP? Luckily Microsoft is slowly loosing their grasp on the market, and people are beginning to see that there are in fact alternatives that might actually be better than what they are used to. Here in Europe i almost daily see local headlines like "Hey, open source is actually pretty cool!". And those headlines go all the way to the people who never cared about it before. We're talking government officials. It's a relief to me that Microsoft is getting some competition. In the end it will be extremely healthy for the entire industry, and it's already starting to show when Microsoft is actually talking about being more open. Hell almost froze over and pigs were flying the other day when i read about ODF and Office 2007. Anyways, to me, Vista is a complete failure. The second coming of Windows Me if you like.
Anyway here is the conversation I have been having Quite a lot lately:"Can I ask you a question?"..Sure,that's what I'm here for,shoot."I heard that you won't be able to get anything other than Vista come (insert wrong date,usually Xmas),is that true?"....Actually it is the last day in June,after that it is Vista only."OMG! My (insert cousin brother sister etc) got that thing and it REALLY sucked! Isn't there anyway YOU could get one after that?"....If you buy a retail or OEM copy of XP Home or Pro then I will be able to build you a new computer anytime you want and install XP on it."So it won't have to be an old computer? I can get a new one with Xp if I buy one of those discs?"....As long as you have me or another system builder put your system together you will be able to have a new system with XP. But you won't be able to just go buy a Dell or HP unless you are willing to get Vista."EEEW! No way do I want that! So,how much do you need to order me one of those discs? And I'll be looking for a new machine come(insert date,usually Xmas) can you take the disc then and make me an XP machine?"
Hell,I have been having that EXACT conversation over and over and over. I even have a little graphic artist who has been running WinME(EEW) all these years and he just handed me the cash to order him an OEM to go with the machine he just had me build because he was afraid he would get stuck with Vista. So Ballmer might as well accept the fact that even if Vista SP2 is the second coming, the word is already out there that Vista sucks and trying to change folks minds once they are made up is usually just a waste of breath.
Of course he isn't helping things by killing XP at a time when there are plenty of single core systems with only 512Mb of RAM being sold. By forcing them to run Vista Basic he is reinforcing the perception that Vista is a POS. I have yet to see Vista run as well on a single core as XP. And Vista should NEVER be run on less than 2Gb of RAM,ever! It is just TOO damn painful and thrashes like mad. He could probably IMHO turn it around if he kept XP home for the low end and XP pro for the corporates that have apps that won't play nice and push Vista as the new "elite" OS from MSFT. If he did that as well as get rid of so many different versions(I say Home Premium,Business and Ultimate for retail along with Enterprise for volume licenses) then he might be able to fix the Vista=suck in folks minds. But he isn't going to win by forcing Vista on crappy low end Dells and killing XP,which folks are more comfortable with. But that is my 02c,YMMV
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
My sister was looking at a few Vista computers and asked my advice. I bought her a Mac.
Of course Ballmer is going to say Vista is selling well. What TF else is he going to say? He has to lie to his shareholders to keep the stock up, or else they'll run out of funding and won't be able to crush their competition.
If Microsoft had to survive on the merits of their products, they'd have been gone a long, long time ago.
blog
... I do however like Vista, and find that most people who make fun of it, or hate on it, have actually never used it. I've used it, and while I don't hate it, it is far more complex to use, far slower out of the box and far more expensive than XP. Turning off all the crap that slows it down, like shadow copy, indexing and aero, leaves you with a piece of crap that makes you realise you wasted your money.So speak for yourself. Many people hate it, and almost no companies are upgrading.