backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 169 comment(s) - last by FakeDetector.. on Feb 25 at 3:39 PM


"We [will] really ferret through how far we can dial it up, and what that means for customer experience and customer satisfaction." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Microsoft plans to step up antipiracy measures to bolster Vista sales

Microsoft didn't seem to have any problems with forecasted sales projections for Windows Vista when analysts were abuzz at the end of 2006. In late November, IDC projected that over 90 million copies of Windows Vista would ship in 2007 -- far outpacing the 67 million copies of Windows XP shipped during its first year on the market.

Now after slow initial sales of Windows Vista, Microsoft is saying that the analysts were "overly aggressive" with their sales projections. According to PC Advisor, Vista sales are off 60% compared to the 2001 launch of Windows XP. Revenue is also down by 23% so far with Vista's launch.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer repeatedly suggested that piracy is the reason why Vista is coming up short in sales. As a result, Ballmer feels that Microsoft must step up its antipiracy efforts to protect Vista sales worldwide. The move to stave off increases in pirate activity will no doubt affect the everyday users of Microsoft's operating systems. "We [will] really ferret through how far we can dial it up, and what that means for customer experience and customer satisfaction," said Ballmer.

"Piracy reduction can be a source of Windows revenue growth, and I think we'll make some piracy improvements this year," Ballmer continued. "We will have strong growth in the Windows business in emerging markets: China, India, Brazil, Russia and many others. Those markets are very high in piracy."

Microsoft is no stranger to piracy and Bill Gates recently had a front row seat when boastful Romanian President Traian Basescu proclaimed that "[Piracy] set off the development of the IT industry in Romania... It helped Romanians improve their creative capacity in the IT industry, which has become famous around the world."

A senior attorney for Microsoft also estimates that over 33% of all Microsoft software available worldwide is pirated.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Price
By Mithan on 2/20/2007 10:34:53 AM , Rating: 5
Maybe they should try competing a bit more on price if they want to increase sales....




RE: Price
By DEredita on 2/20/2007 10:48:04 AM , Rating: 5
IF you order from online hardware/software vendors, such as newegg, the pricing is on par with that of XP. But, like I said - most users probably don't want to shell out the money, time, and effort to upgrade their current machines for Vista. It's too new, unproven, and to be honest - XP runs great and doesn't need nearly as much hardware as Vista does.


RE: Price
By StevoLincolnite on 2/20/2007 11:18:50 AM , Rating: 3
The hardware requirements aren't so bad, I'm running full Aero with a Pentium M 1.6ghz, 1gb of ram, And a Radeon 9700 Pro 64Mb graphics card, and the good thing? Still playing oblivion on medium quality @ 800x600
Vista seems to have allot more swapping to the disk than what windows XP does, But it doesn't seem to affect your productivity at all, Not like you would if you had XP running on 64Mb/128Mb of ram. I did a test I took out a 512Mb Sodimm stick out of my laptop, The load time into vista took significantly longer, But Using Office 2007 and Vista in general didn't change, it was still responsive and performed great, I think that may be partly to the 3D accelerated GUI where you get no stuttering like you would in XP under extreme disk swapping. So far, I have had no driver problems,
Even games like StarCraft which is a Direct X 5 Direct Draw Isometric game still humm's along like nothings been changed, all in all my experience has been great. And even if you do go out and buy vista you can still download the service packs when they eventually get released.

Its been known since the dawn of windows, that in every new release the system requirements increased as new technology's were brought in, If we all wanted an Operating system with low system requirements etc. We would still be in the days of Windows 95 or DOS.


RE: Price
By fic2 on 2/20/2007 11:32:55 AM , Rating: 1
I know two people that have tried upgrading a machine to Vista. One attempted to dual boot with XP. It blew away the XP partition. The other has been attempting to upgrade his media center. I think he has been working on it a week or so without success. Both of these are experienced computer users - first is a windows admin, second is a software developer.

If I want an OS with low system requirements I look towards Linux.


RE: Price
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 1:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think your friends are either inexperienced or imaginary. I've personally loaded Vista on a number of machines and experienced no real problems whatsoever. I've even been able to load up some pretty old apps, and more surprisingly, old device drivers (Win2K) and had everything work.

In addition, if your friends are having problems with Vista, why don't they call Microsoft for support? After all, that is the reason why we pay for software. I had to call Microsoft support for one of the machines when I started to load Vista, and they were very helpful. (Turned out to be a bad DVD that I burned.)

Finally, why don't you load Linux on your friends' machines. Then you'll get to personally experience their "joy" of using Linux. Suggestion: you may want to change your phone number, since you'll become their support contact.


RE: Price
By Ardan on 2/20/2007 2:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
I agree because I haven't had issues with old apps or drivers, either. I never have had a problem with installing Vista on computers since it was released either. One of them has Vista and Linux on different partitions of a huge hard drive with XP on another hard drive and we had no problems getting all that up and running. I don't think any of them, my computer included, have had any problems with Vista when it is running either. I'm still able to play BF2142 and others at the 1680x1050 my Samsung 215TW uses, too, without any noticeable drop in frame rate. I have an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ @ 2.81Ghz, 2x1GB Mushkin Redline XP4000 DDR500 ram and a 512mb ATI Radeon X1950 XTX though, so I would hope it isn't slower :P.


RE: Price
By msva124 on 2/20/2007 3:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Would it help if his friends were Microsoft employees?


RE: Price
By wille22 on 2/20/2007 8:21:48 PM , Rating: 1
(This is not meant to start a flame war)

Tomz, I just read todays posts and i just happened to notice (And maybe I'm just late) But you really do seem to know a lot of information to rebuke anything said negatively about vista. YOU wouldn't happen to work for M or a subsidiary would you?


RE: Price
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 10:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for asking, but nope, no business relationship with Microsoft. I've been using Vista daily for a few months now, that's all.

I do own an engineering company that does develop software (as well as electronics), and some of the work we do is on Microsoft platforms. But we also do embedded systems programming and Java as well.


RE: Price
By MrSmurf on 2/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Price
By KenGoding on 2/21/2007 9:22:22 AM , Rating: 2
I own a company (small computer store in a small town) and I find time to read this site and other sites. I don't post much because I don't care to, but it seems kinda out of line to make such a bold statement as that.


RE: Price
By TomZ on 2/21/2007 9:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
Call bullshit if you want - it doesn't change the facts. :o)


RE: Price
By kmmatney on 2/20/2007 9:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
I tried installing Vista to dual boot on a spare hard drive. For some reason, it decided to corrupt my Windows XP hard drive. I had to do a repair install on windows XP, on call up Microsoft to get things activated again. A big pain. I now have to shut down and manually swap hard drive cables to keep things running in both OSes.


RE: Price
By Rockjock51 on 2/20/2007 3:09:51 PM , Rating: 3
Throughout the course of Vista's betas and now since release I've dual boot installed it with XP 5 times now, without a problem and I'm no admin or developer. Sounds like you either stretched the truth or that's just a lie. I guess they could just be really bad at their jobs too.


RE: Price
By kmmatney on 2/20/2007 10:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
I would consider myself experienced, but Vista hosed up my Windows XP drive when I tried installing it on an empty second hard drive. It could be because my windows XP drive was SATA, while the Vista hard drive was IDE. But I had to do a complete Windows Xp repair install, complete with phoning up Micrsosoft to re-activate.


RE: Price
By kelmon on 2/21/2007 6:59:22 AM , Rating: 3
Alternatively, since we know that part of the problem (or benefit, depending on who you ask) with the Windows platform is that the hardware in any given computer can vary with that of another, perhaps Vista just plays nicely on certain configurations and bad on others. Since this is a possibility I do find your comment to be pretty patronising - just because you had luck doesn't mean that others who didn't are either incompetent or liars.

I have no basis to know whether people complaining of installation problems are making it up or not but I certainly won't tell them that they are "stretching the truth" just because everything worked out OK for me.


RE: Price
By timmiser on 2/20/2007 1:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
IF you order from online hardware/software vendors, such as newegg, the pricing is on par with that of XP


I don't agree. Windows 95 through XP was $100 for the 'mainstream' retail upgrade edition. The home premium retail upgrade at Newegg is $154 so this represents a significant price increase for a new version of windows that doesn't really represent a major upgrade like XP was.

If you are referring to the OEM version, even that price has gone up ($90 for XP OEM and $120 for Vista OEM).

If you are comparing Vista basic with XP Home; by taking out the major user interface from the Vista product I don't think you can make a fair comparison of those two products.


RE: Price
By Obujuwami on 2/20/2007 10:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree but I thought I would let you in on some info that may change your mind. I own my own it company and we are looking at upgrading our customers to vista and if that you are stating is true then Newegg is making approximately $7+ per unit of vista.

Now, I know that my distributor sells directly to Newegg and they maybe get a $5-10 discount per copy for ordering a 1000 copies. So, with the discount, that means thier profit is about $12-17 per unit...thats a pretty decent price for a OEM copy as I buy Vista Home Premium for $113. Newegg is sellnig Vista for less than a 10% mark up!


RE: Price
By mindless1 on 2/21/2007 5:24:25 AM , Rating: 2
I suspect you are underestimating the discount Newegg might receive on (post-1000) volume purchases.


RE: Price
By FastEddie on 2/20/2007 2:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! It seems he doesn't have a clue though. Vista requires some pretty hefty hardware upgrades for some, to be able to enjoy every nuance of this new os. Another consideration is that many will wait for the release of the first service pack before migrating to Vista.

Me? I waited for XP's SP-1 before I moved up from W2K, but this time I may wait longer as I find XP serves my needs quite well.


RE: Price
By StevoLincolnite on 2/20/2007 10:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
An 800Mhz Processor and 512Mb of ram isn't really classed as hefty, I'm currently building a system with similar specs as the minimum system requirements to see how the operating system runs, I'll even drop in a Radeon 9550 or FX 5200 for Aero goodness.
My main machine is anything spectacular, The Pentium M Is clock for clock similar to the Athlon 64, And thats only running at 1.6ghz, Then theres 1gb of ram, A slow 4200rpm HDD, and a 64MB Radeon 9700pro.

I honestly dont see how you could have an opinion of Vista, Have you even tried it? All I have heard is negative things, And those negatives are -Mainly- from users who have never used the operating system, The System requirements do seem exhorbant on paper, But If I can hardly noticed a performance drop in a game like oblivion on a 64Mb Radeon, I'm sure you would be able to do the same.

You see Vista's Memory management is much more powerful than XP's, Currently Vista is using 385Mb of ram, If I open up "my computer" it automatically consumes an added 15Mb of ram , What does this prove? Basically much improved performance, no stuttering, and opening windows etc. seem more "Instant" in vista things seem to run smoother, And I also must admit even my internet seems to run better thanks to the newly designed TCP/IP stack, Connecting to networks is easier, All I did was connect my laptop into my home network, Vista did the rest and I was away.

Theres no point using the "Wait for service pack 1 or 2 excuse" You can use the operating system before those service packs are actually released, And you will notice the security has been significantly beefed up since XP, And once a service pack is released, its just a matter of downloading it.

The only thing I have ever found with my Install of vista, is how pointless Flip 3D is, For instance you go into flip 3D mode, you scroll through the different windows, You would think by clicking on a window would bring that one to the front once you exit flip 3D, but its just for show I guess.


RE: Price
By mindless1 on 2/21/2007 5:22:06 AM , Rating: 2
No, to get the similar set of features most (here, enthusiasts) enjoy you'd be talking about a higher cost to compare to XP Pro, and more memory to offset that usurped by the OS. So even in MS' home court Vista is more expensive to use, but where piracy will end up having the more significant impact, overseas, Vista pricing is obscene.


RE: Price
By splint on 2/20/2007 12:00:46 PM , Rating: 3
This guy is a jackass. Thanks to my school’s deal with MS I can get any flavor of Vista, legitimately, for free. (except Ultimate) The same goes to all my colleagues. I don’t have Vista even though I have the hardware spec to run it on both of my computers. Interestingly, neither does anyone else other then a few adventurers, and I’ve seen NOBODY willing to convert to it as their primary operating system. Keep in mint that for these people, computer scientists and engineers, the OS is free.

It’s so old hat for a CEO to be waving his hand yelling piracy when his product flops, but from my narrow perspective piracy has absolutely no impact on adoption rate. I mean, damn -- they are giving it away for free here and still nobody wants it.


RE: Price
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/20/2007 1:30:01 PM , Rating: 3
I'm a system/domain admin. I converted my home and work PC's to Vista completely. Theres this nifty little thing called "Virtual PC 2007" basically a new version of VMWare, a lot better than it was before too. Solves most issues with "Compatability" that I see all the whiners in here with.

Note to your 2 friends though, if they cant figure out how to properly install XP and Vista side by side (Easy as pie, no different than it was before..... unless your an idiot) or upgrade a media center. They are not computer experts. They may hold a job, but I have developers and a few sys admins here that I would love to fire for sheer stupidity. So, their position doesn't account for anything.


RE: Price
By splint on 2/20/2007 7:07:02 PM , Rating: 3
It just so happens that I am also a system admin as a part time job at one of the departments. I build several systems a day for professors who do real work, and nobody wants Vista, especially the 64bit variant. On new orders I get the occasional request for a dual boot but that’s about it. It is clear to me that, outside of alpha-geek circles such as the people surrounding your profession, no real powers user has really considered the switch.

Btw, thanks for that Virtual PC lesson.


RE: Price
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/21/2007 8:43:12 AM , Rating: 2
No problem. And, on that note about Virtual PC, Microsoft just announced its free for release from their website.

Noteable features includes allowing you to make the virtual OS windows Vista of the 32 or 64 bit variant.

I'm running Virtual PC 2007 inside of a Vista 64, with two virtual machines, one on XP, another on 2K. No reason you can't do it the other way though, my co-worker has Vista 64 running inside of the virtual console on his XP SP2 box.

So, for the naysayers, you can always run it virtual until you feel comfortable upgrading.


RE: Price
By slatr on 2/20/2007 12:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
I was all set to buy Vista. Then I find out that my Open GL apps are going to run slower on Vista than XP.


RE: Price
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/20/2007 1:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
Only if you have an nVidia graphics card, the ATI drivers for OpenGL work great. Side note though, neither company's drivers seems to want to drive an OpenGL game with 2 monitors enabled, but thats a minor inconvenience since OpenGL games run in fullscreen mode all the time anyways.

FYI- OpenGL is entirely supported by the Graphics Drivers, if OpenGL sucks, blame them.


RE: Price
By mgambrell on 2/20/2007 2:10:09 PM , Rating: 1
Go back to school. The earth is spherical and opengl can run windowed.


RE: Price
By Scabies on 2/20/2007 2:31:12 PM , Rating: 5
lies!
Wikipedia, go!
quote:
The Earth's shape is very close to an oblate spheroid, although the precise shape (the geoid) varies from this by up to 100 metres (327 ft).


RE: Price
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/21/2007 8:46:05 AM , Rating: 2
Most games on the Q3 and Q4 engines do not like to run in OpenGL. Possible yes, but they typically don't prefer it.


RE: Price
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/21/2007 8:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
Bah, in OpenGL, IN Windowed Mode. I need more coffee this morning :)


RE: Price
By nangryo on 2/20/2007 9:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, he mention of OpenGL Application, not game, so far I can't find a Vista Driver for my FireGL series. Would you care to show me one?


RE: Price
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 10:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
Why complain to us about that, and why blame Vista? Call ATI and ask them that question.


RE: Price
By raven3x7 on 2/22/2007 4:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
Because if you have not realised it yet the reason why there are very few Vista drivers is the new, difficult to implement driver model and its DRM "features".


RE: Price
By PWNettle on 2/20/2007 1:48:58 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not about to steal a copy of Vista, but I'm surely not going to pay for it either. It's a vastly overpriced and unnecessary upgrade. Not to mention backwards compatability is iffy, driver support is iffy, and 64bit is beyond iffy.

My WinXP-Pro does everything I need an OS to do.

There is no compelling reason to switch to Vista, especially with how ridiculously it's priced.

Still, piracy/theft are never justifiable, and having MS get involved and possibly come up with more idiotic measures to minimize piracy is only going to hurt/inconvenience those of us that actually pay for software.


RE: Price
By Chernobyl68 on 2/20/2007 2:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
having just built a computer 5 or so months ago, I can't justify any type of OS upgrade right now. maybe in a year or so.


RE: Price
By Sarrow on 2/20/2007 4:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
One thing I havent seen mentioned is the units installed down from expected? I have no numbers, but I suspect pirate sales are off also. Pirate may explain some revenues being off, but it doesnt explain installed units down.


RE: Price
By walk2k on 2/20/2007 5:20:33 PM , Rating: 1
"Compete"? This is Microsoft you're talking about. They don't do "compete".


RE: Price
By nah on 2/21/2007 8:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
AND allay fears about drivers and underperformance--for people like me who use XP SP2--the system runs exactly like I want it--if it ain't broke --don't fix it


Ballmer...Get real!!!
By rultin on 2/20/2007 10:34:48 AM , Rating: 5
A couple things come to mind when I think about upgrading to Vista.

1) SP1 already scheduled for this summer. Why would I purchase your software now if you are already planning a SP to fix problems? I'll be happy to wait until at LEAST SP1 rolls...maybe not even then.

2) Lack of support for Direct Sound. All my games that I play now that utilize Direct Sound for 3D/surround sound will only play in Stereo? Well so much for spending all that loot on my Denon receiver and the multitude of speakers to go along with it. If you can't make the games I play work properly with Vista and Dx10...why would I upgrade?

3) Windows XP SP2 is finally approaching stable. With the advent of SP3 I'm thinking we may have a somewhat problem free environment from which I can STILL play all my games. Including Dx10 games albeit with Dx9 quality graphics...which honestly are still amazing me plenty.

I just don't think MS is on track with Vista quite yet. There still seem to be too many problems. They are having similar driver problems from my understanding that we still have with XP64...Is all my hardware going to work without any problems...Will it pickup my raid arrays that I have set for WinXP. Even XP on a reinstall won't pick up my second raid array. Too many questions...too many unknowns...until these things are answered, I'll happily use WinXP.




RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By DEredita on 2/20/2007 10:41:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well said. I'm sitting back on this. I'm happy with Windows XP, which currently is running fairly rock solid. I don't plan on building a new pc yet. Planning for a 2008 build with some very serious hardware: either (2) quad core processors on the AMD FX architecture or quad core Intel (2 if possible) - along with 4GB of ram. Also long as there is a SP1 or SP2 at the time when I build Vista, and it is finally stable and supporting everything - then I will feel fine to make the jump. Until then, I am very happy with my current Win XP PC and my Macbook.


RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By othercents on 2/20/2007 10:58:06 AM , Rating: 3
XP is the way to go for now especially since Vista is expected to get a SP1 over the summer. Why buy a beta product when you can wait for the real thing? Plus the only two things going for Vista is the interface and DX10. I don't care about the interface that much and I actually rip the XP interface down to the Windows 2000 version because I like it better. Until there are good DX10 cards out why sacrifice your current DX9 games just to DX10 capability on a DX9 video card.

Piracy has only given Vista to those people who wouldn't normally have upgraded and I suspect that most of those people were using a pirated version of XP and will probably go back to that pirated version instead of using Vista.

Other


RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By michal1980 on 2/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By Messudieh on 2/20/2007 12:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations! You installed RC2! Did you actually do anything with it?

I ran RC2 on triple boot with XP SP2 and and Suse 10.1. I have since uninstalled RC2, because it was significantly slower to run any games, and office 2003 fits my uses without any problems. I have no legitimate reason to even consider upgrading to vista right now. Possible driver problems with my Audigy? Slower frame rates? Possibly finding other unforeseen incompatibilities?

Oh, wait, what was I thinking?!

*runs out and gets vista ultimate*

- referring to RC2
Yeah, the install is a breeze, the interface was very pretty, but there's not much else to it right now. An hour quicker install isn't worth all the other problems...


RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 1:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - RC2 sucked, performance and stability-wise. But the RTM version is a different story - it's much better. Despite what you might think based on Microsoft's naming of "RC2," I think that Microsoft made a lot of changes between RC2 and RTM.


RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/20/2007 1:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
No real problems with the Retail OS for Vista. Except that some programs need to be given exceptions because they violate security.... oh and you better just forget about Java Apps on Vista and IE7. They violate so much security the OS beats it into submission.... not a bad thing considering how insecure Java generally is. (It's the lazy programmers that made Java suck)


RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 2:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree with you about running Java apps on Vista - it is not the case that Vista won't run Java apps.

I have a number of Java apps, and they all run just fine. You may, of course, have to run a Vista-compatible version of the JRE (e.g., JRE 6), but in my experience, that isn't even always required. For example, I run an older version of MATLAB that uses JRE 1.4 and it runs fine under Vista.

But of course I agree that apps that make bad assumptions about their environment, e.g., ability to write files to c:\, will run into issues on Vista.


RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By kmmatney on 2/20/2007 10:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
In RC2, I have to run windows explorer as an administrator to get many sites to work. Are later versions any better in this regard?

As a prgrammer, I have to say that making applications Vista compatible has been a bit of a pain...


RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 10:24:26 PM , Rating: 2
I've never run IE as administrator on Vista RTM. But maybe it depends on the web site and/or the version of the JRE that you are running. Are you using web sites that use Java or just Javascript?


RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By michal1980 on 2/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By FITCamaro on 2/20/2007 3:19:16 PM , Rating: 1
SP2 is finally approaching stable? I've had XP since a month before release and Windows itself has yet to crash or blue screen my system. Every crash or blue screen I've had has been from buggy drivers, mostly from my graphics card (my past Nvidia cards not my current ATI). Had one from Nero too since the version I had wasn't compatible with SP2. I love all you people that say XP is finally stable. Even at first release it could stay up for months without a restart provided updates didn't cause a reboot.


RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By msva124 on 2/20/2007 3:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
Same here. I do a lot of programming, debugging, and other weird sh*t with my system. It's really quite stable.


RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 3:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, most "Windows" stability issues in the past have been due to buggy drivers, buggy apps, and bad hardware. Microsoft has long since recognized this, which is why you see them having invested in building out an infrastructure to gather field failure information, make that information available to the software publishers, and to be able to push out updates.

In addition, Microsoft has even built hardware testing diagnostics into some of their apps. For example, Office 2007 has built-in memory and disk testing that you can run, because Microsoft figured out that a lot of Office app crashes were due to these kinds of hardware problems.


RE: Ballmer...Get real!!!
By walk2k on 2/20/2007 5:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
Surround-sound worked fine for me in RC1.

Not with the MS stock drivers though, I had to download the AC'97 drivers (64 bit) from my motherboard manuf. (Asus).

But after that, they worked fine (Quake4, Steam games, etc..)


What did they blame WinME on?
By cubby1223 on 2/20/2007 12:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
Just curious. Way back when, what did they give as the reason for WinME's sales failure?

As for Vista, I can't believe how much Microsoft thinks we all are idiots.

Vista is a major step backwards for computer usability. Maybe it's necessary for the future of OS's, I don't know, but at the moment it's a disaster to expect the masses to easily move to the new OS. Except that they're forcing it on us through OEM manufacturers.

WinME was a step backwards too. But at least back then there was Win2000 as an alternative, or even fall back to Win98 at no extra cost. What's the alternative here? You have Vista... or Vista... (linux is not a serious alternative yet) Falling back to XP on a new purchase requires most people to through out the extra ~$100 for the copy of XP.




RE: What did they blame WinME on?
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 1:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vista is a major step backwards for computer usability.

Care to elaborate on what you mean by that? Also, what is your direct experience with Vista - have you even used it?


RE: What did they blame WinME on?
By cubby1223 on 2/20/2007 5:34:15 PM , Rating: 5
I'll elaborate. Vista is a major step backwards. I've got XP & Vista installed.

Nearly every single thing I do requires confirmation from a pop-up window. For the average user that already ignores pop-up windows and clicks on whatever answer makes the window close fastest, this will be a major problem. And yes, there are many people who do that.

Drivers are not even close to ready. I'm using several beta drivers for my hardware. There is virtually no software available for printers yet. Pretty much just have the basic print capabilities right now. Nearly all previous versions of Windows allow drivers from yet another previous version. XP works with most Win2000 drivers. Win98 works with most Win95 drivers. Blame it on whomever you want, it's a problem users face when upgrading to Vista.

Cleartype text is the worst aspect of Vista for me. XP's font smoothing is great, but Vista does not allow for that same feature. Vista's cleartype and regular smoothing is different, it puts a rainbow of colors around the text that is very hard for me to look at. It's a set-back.

Getting into program compatibility - Vista has dropped support for many more programs compared to XP. Makes it very tough for some businesses to upgrade.

And then you get into the entire reorganization of the user interface. I'm still fumbling around the control panel. I cannot stand the new start menu. Vista makes it more effort to actually shut down the computer, preferring to go into hibernate. In Win98, on the keyboard I just hit start > u > s. In XP, it's start > u > u. Not no more. I can't use the keyboard to navigate to the shutdown command anymore. I know this is small, but it all adds up to a harder user experience.

And I still have not found the command prompt yet.

It all just begs the question why I have to learn everything all over again. That's the biggest issue. Right here.

For what benefit? Transparent borders around the windows? I can do with that. Believe me.


RE: What did they blame WinME on?
By hopsandmalt on 2/20/2007 1:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to know that myself.

A major stepback?

What are you smoking?


RE: What did they blame WinME on?
By Dustin25 on 2/20/2007 4:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
Trusted computing is a major step back. Vista is a trusted computing whore so Vista = a major step back.


RE: What did they blame WinME on?
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 4:36:45 PM , Rating: 1
It's only a step back if your goal is to use content in a way that is inconsistent with the terms by which you purchased it. Otherwise, it's a non-issue.

I don't like DRM, and therefore I don't purchase DRM-locked content, e.g., iTunes. So any restrictions that Vista might or might not enforce are not a problem, IMO. If, on the other hand, you do purchase DRM-locked content, and features of Vista help prohibit use outside of the purchase terms, you blame that on Vista? I don't follow your logic.


RE: What did they blame WinME on?
By Dustin25 on 2/20/2007 7:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
Lol trusted computing won't only effect your drm locked content, it will kill many open source apps. It does a lot more than that as well, and none of it is in the best interest of computing freedom. Vista, Intel, Apple, AMD, the mpaa and riaa and various others would like nothing more than to blacklist half the crap on many people's computers and take a lot of control away from you. I like to have the full capabilities my hardware provides, not what my OS chooses to allow. So Vista is a huge step back IMO because you actually lose capability. But that's just my opinion. I don't like the idea of my OS tagging my ripped music and videos so that they will only play once on another computer, or not at all. I also wear a tinfoil hat to keep MLB outa my brain.


RE: What did they blame WinME on?
By ToeCutter on 2/20/2007 10:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If, on the other hand, you do purchase DRM-locked content, and features of Vista help prohibit use outside of the purchase terms, you blame that on Vista? I don't follow your logic.


Logic?

Dude, check your logic for second:

I purchase DRMed content,(Keyword: purchase), and I purchase (still with me?) Vista with features that "prohibit use outside the purchase terms"?

So, it's perfectly reasonable to for the consumer to incur both the cost of using (not owning) content, and the cost of the technology to protect the content sheerly for the benefit of the content providers?

What value does DRM have for the consumer?

How is it logical to assume that it somehow does?


RE: What did they blame WinME on?
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 10:31:40 PM , Rating: 1
Well, for example, the content provider may not be willing to release the content without DRM. So the benefit of having DRM support in the OS is that it allows the content provider to make a business case for releasing the content. For example, iTunes would not be where it is today without DRM because they would not have been able to convince music companies to sign on with an entirely open file format.

BTW, how much of the purchase price of Vista would you attribute to its DRM capabilities? Do you think you "paid" extra for that? You can download iTunes and WMP for free.


RE: What did they blame WinME on?
By cubby1223 on 2/20/2007 5:55:14 PM , Rating: 2
When you only quote a half-sentance of what I said, of course you're not going to understand anything.

For the average person, moving from Win95 to Win98 to WinME was very easy. Moving from Win2000 to WinXP was very easy. Even moving from Win98/ME to WinXP was easy, the user interface did not change all that much.

The move from WinXP to Vista is a major change in the way everything is handled, displayed, and organized in the user interface. This is the steepest learning curve moving from XP to Vista since moving from Win3.1 to Win95.

And for what purpose is this learning curve? The underlying differences between Win3.1 and Win95 are vast, and the benefits far outweighed the learning.

Someone please tell me what the benefit will be for people to relearn how to use their computer with Vista. What functional improvement does Vista have that XP doesn't? And the Aero interface does not count as a functional improvement, it's just flair.


RE: What did they blame WinME on?
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 7:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
All I know is this:

1. People who were used to Windows 3.1/3.11 complained about Windows 95
2. People who were used to Windows 95 complained about Windows 98
3. People who were used to Windows 9x, NT, and Win2K complained about WinXP
4. People who are used to WinXP are complaining about Vista

See the pattern here?

Show of hands...who here would like to be stuck at Win95? How about Win2K? Most everyone here agrees that WinXP is pretty good, but that's just because it's what we're used to it. Vista is something different, things are in different places, etc. It's a little better - not revolutionary - but evolutionary.

I can tell you that my parents, who are not especially computer savvy, are using Vista. I have not had one "family support call" since I upgraded their machine. Also, my wife, who is "not a computer person" also is using Vista. I think she maybe asked me 1 or 2 questions ever - the rest she has figured out on her own.

In this and your other post you mention learning curve, finding things, etc. Vista has a killer feature for you in this area: search. You say you can't find the command prompt? Click Start or press the Windows key and type CMD - oh, there it is! How about MS Word? Start+Word - there it is. Open Control Panel - want to look at fonts - just type "fonts" in the search. Forget about navigating through all the programs, settings, etc. - Vista does it for you.


By Brassbullet on 2/20/2007 9:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of people I know still prefer Win 2K to XP. If my usage was different, I would too.


RE: What did they blame WinME on?
By PrinceGaz on 2/21/2007 6:52:05 AM , Rating: 2
I would be perfectly happy to use Win2K instead of XP today; the only real difference I noticed (after setting the XP theme to Classic, and enabling Compatibility modes in 2000) was that XP boots faster. That's it.

I use XP instead of 2000 because on the odd occassion I need to reboot, XP saves a few seconds.


OMGWTFLOL
By DEredita on 2/20/2007 10:23:12 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ballmer: Piracy to Blame For Slow Vista Sales


I don't want Vista - even if it is free. Maybe there are others out there like me who feel the same way. I am completely not compelled to have it. No interest what-so-ever. I like the performance I have with XP, why load up something that will run slower.

.




RE: OMGWTFLOL
By Brassbullet on 2/20/2007 10:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, my XP experience is better now than it has ever been. Even if Vista was free, until I need it, XP stays.


RE: OMGWTFLOL
By thenarcissist73 on 2/20/2007 11:51:10 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed,

I have two free copies of Windows Vista from MSDNAA and I have no intention of installing either of them. Why would I want to change my XP Desktop to Vista when I primarily use it for gaming and evey benchmark shows that Vista performs worse for gaming. And there's no way i'm switching from Gentoo Linux to Vista on my laptop...


RE: OMGWTFLOL
By ToeCutter on 2/20/2007 1:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
BAM!

Right on, but I have to ask:

Who does want Vista?

I installed it. Installed a few games, played with Aero, used it for about 3 days and went back to my WinXP install.

It looks nice but really doesn't DO anything for me.

The gaming community would be the first to adopt if Vista offered anything over WinXP, and it simply doesn't.

Blaming piracy for slow sales is nothing more than creative marketing: You really can't prove piracy is slowing sales, so MS will just go with that.

No one should be surprised by Ballmer's comments. Vista is more about raising revenue for MS than anything else.

He's just a little pissed that we're not taking the bait.

Now, if Apple released Mac OS X for PCs, I'd be all over it. Mac OS X is pretty AND functional.


RE: OMGWTFLOL
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 2:28:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Vista is more about raising revenue for MS than anything else.

Well, they are a business, after all! You make it (revenue/profit) sound like a bad thing. LOL.
quote:
Now, if Apple released Mac OS X for PCs, I'd be all over it. Mac OS X is pretty AND functional.

Please, name one feature that OS X has over Vista... I'm curious.


RE: OMGWTFLOL
By ToeCutter on 2/20/2007 9:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, they are a business, after all! You make it (revenue/profit) sound like a bad thing. LOL.


Hmm, I could give a rat's ass about MS's revenue. I'm far more concerned with the value of Vista running on my PC. I see none, not even a little.

And I never implied that making a buck is a bad thing. However, charging a few hundred bucks for what amounts to a service pack with a facelift is just dumb business. And the market is clearly reflecting consumers perception that Vista offers little value for the price that MS is asking.

Interesting tidbit: Apple banked almost the exact same profit as MS in Q4 of 2006. How so? By offering products that people really want.

Consider the irony!

Ballmer blames piracy for low Vista sales, and Jobs blames DRM of holding Apple back!

quote:
Please, name one feature that OS X has over Vista... I'm curious.


The handy little Apple Remote that came with my MacBook.

I keep pointing it at my PC while furiously pressing buttons, but nothing happens?


RE: OMGWTFLOL
By Snuffalufagus on 2/21/2007 4:41:33 AM , Rating: 3
Then don't buy it, don't install it, don't use it, get your little niche market Mac and have fun.

Can't one use an XBox controller to control Vista to do everything and more than that little Mac remote can do? I don't have a 360 so I haven't been able to try, but I have seen it demoed.


RE: OMGWTFLOL
By SexyK on 2/20/2007 5:04:38 PM , Rating: 3
lol, you say you installed Vista and played a few games, and that if gaming were better on Vista there would be a reason to upgrade but as it is there's no reason, yet you also say that if you could install OSX you'd be all over it, despite the fact that there are almost no modern games that will even run on OSX at all! Interesting logic there.


RE: OMGWTFLOL
By ToeCutter on 2/20/2007 9:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
lol, you say you installed Vista and played a few games, and that if gaming were better on Vista there would be a reason to upgrade but as it is there's no reason, yet you also say that if you could install OSX you'd be all over it, despite the fact that there are almost no modern games that will even run on OSX at all! Interesting logic there.


Doom3.
Quake4.
Half Life 2.
World of Warcraft.
Call of Duty 2.

Oh, and my favorite, Mahjong.

You've obviously never used a Mac, but couldn't wait to take a swing w/o first understanding exactly what the hell you're talking about.

I'll break it down a bit to overcome you're lack of reading comprehension: I never said "I would buy Vista if gaming were better on it".

I said: The gaming community would be the first to adopt Vista if it offered anything over WinXP. Gamers tend to spend more on software, hardware, etc than the general public. PC Gamers are early adopters.

Gamers, not soccer moms, buy $300 network cards to shave 10ms off their ping times.

I was simply suggesting that if Vista offered anything for gamers, they'd be spending money on it. They aren't because it offers nothing that can't be had using XP.

Lastly, I already have a Mac. I would buy Mac OS X for my PC if I could, but I never suggested I'd dump Windows entirely.

All straightened out now, chuckles?


RE: OMGWTFLOL
By zeroslugfm on 2/21/2007 2:29:03 AM , Rating: 2
well put Toecutter; though other than the future of DX10 on Vista, there really isn't anything short of a few killer apps and some clever marketing that could sway a good portion of gamers. Maybe Duke Nukem will save Vista ;)

I moved to OSX mainly for Expose' and other little minor everyday conveniences.

Now if Vista had a clone of Expose' I'd upgrade in a heartbeat. This whole Flip-3D thing, ya that just won't do.


*blink*
By Saist on 2/20/2007 12:32:32 PM , Rating: 5
... now, I'm just speaking for myself here, but I don't I know of anybody personally that downgraded to Vista. Most of the people I know who where thinking about it watched me work with the Vista Release Candidates. Then they saw me reboot the system into Mepis Linux with a KDE desktop. Upon seeing what a real Operating System could do, I have personally converted dozens of home systems to Mepis Linux. A couple of them have gone on from there to experiment with the Gnome Desktop, and lighter weights like IceWM.

Now, I said this well over a year ago, Microsoft faces the problem of having to sell people on the idea that Vista is an upgrade, and that consumers need Vista. Microsoft hasn't done that. There isn't anything that Vista does that XP cannot do, and there are a lot of things that Linux and MacOS do that Vista lags behind on. AeroGlass is pleasant yes, but when you have Beryl on AIGLX running, AeroGlass suddenly becomes the poor shadow. It isn't just months behind, it's years behind.

The problem, as I see it, is that the OEM industry, the Dells, the Gateways, the HPs, they put too much emphasis on Microsoft products. Many analysts were talking about how Vista had to sell in order for the computer industry to be profitable. Many accountants were hoping that Vista's release would mark a new surge in home computing product sales. Why? What set Vista apart?

What set Windows 95 Apart was the fact it was better than the competition. As a home user, would you really want to run CDE on your computer?

What set Windows 98 apart is that it fixed many of the problems that Windows 95 had. Windows 98 SE fixed many of the known issues.

What set Windows 2000/Xp apart was it was the first NT system that was useful to home users. The stability problems had largely been addressed, and Blue Screens were for the most part, rare.

Now comes along Vista, but it really doesn't have anything to offer over Windows 2000/Xp. Almost all of the major features that did set Vista apart to begin with are gone.

Now, my thought is this: What would have happened if the OEM's had supported a Linux Distro instead of waiting on Microsoft. Many of them could have been shipping a 3D enabled desktop with Compiz not just one or two months, but probably close to a year ago.

Would that not have made a big impact? Actually giving the customers something new? instead of something remixed a day late and a dollar short?

Getting back to the topic, I doubt Piracy has little to do with Vista not selling. I think it has everything to do with users being content, and with many users realizing they don't have to shell out for a Microsoft Tax anymore.




RE: *blink*
By Scabies on 2/20/2007 12:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno. Your argument makes sense, assuming the majority of consumers weren't raised on AOL.
...wait

The learning curve of going from XP to Vista is one thing. XP - Linux? Might as well ship systems with ebola.


RE: *blink*
By intangible on 2/20/2007 1:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think you underestimate people's adaptability and overestimate the learning curve required for Linux.

For a normal desktop user who uses email, the web, and office apps, Linux is very easy and straight-forward to use. The menus act the same way as they're used to, the interface is the tried and true one common across most OSes (excluding Vista). If you want to get right down to it, using OpenOffice will be much easier for these people compared with Office 2007 even.

The only people who actually have a difficult time using Linux are the "Power-User" types; they often think they are very well-versed in using computers, when in fact they are only well-versed in using Windows. If you can get that type of person to approach it from the angle of "Linux is not Windows, it doesn't try to be", they will grow to appreciate the many capabilities that it has over Windows.


RE: *blink*
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 1:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
A brief reply to your lengthy post (sorry, I'm short on time).

First, you cannot reasonably base any evaluation of Vista on the performance of betas and RCs. The RTM is a whole different animal.

Second, I agree, Microsoft has to work to sell Vista. The benefits to end users are not obvious, and it will take more work to sell. The end user will just notice that it is "nicer." That is fine for people buying new computers that have Vista pre-loaded already, but it is probably not enough to convince Joe EndUser to plunk down several hundred bucks for an upgrade.

Third, I disagree that, for sophisticated users, that Vista has no differences relative to XP. I think you may want to review the Microsoft marketing blurbs on what Vista has over XP. Vista is more than a nice facade on XP.


RE: *blink*
By PrinceGaz on 2/21/2007 6:55:12 AM , Rating: 2
The end user is not supposed to just notice that [Vista] is nicer, the end user is supposed to think "Wow!" ;)


RE: *blink*
By ToeCutter on 2/21/2007 12:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, I'm convinced you're an MS mole, because you're simply not making sense.

These forums are filled with "sophisticated users". And after reading the majority of these posts, the general consensus seems to be that Vista offers no tangible benefits over XP.

When "Joe Enduser" is itching to spend a few hundred bucks on a PC upgrade, I speculate that Vista is pretty far down the list. Better video cards, more memory, larger HDDs all offer FAR more value than Vista.

To suggest that "we" have it wrong and should further investigate MS marketing material for more info on Vista is ludicrous!



RE: *blink*
By TomZ on 2/22/2007 4:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These forums are filled with "sophisticated users". And after reading the majority of these posts, the general consensus seems to be that Vista offers no tangible benefits over XP.

Yes, I agree; amongst those that are ignorant about Vista, e.g., those that think it is just XP with a facelift, the consensus is that it is not a worthwhile upgrade. But to those "in the know" about Vista - those who "get it," Vista is a good upgrade.

If you read a lot of the comments here (rather than just those you agree with), you'll see also a lot of people knowledgable about Vista who have purchased it and like it.

Anyway, keep your XP if you want. Nobody's trying to talk you into or out of anything. My only point is that Vista > XP.


Why buy something I don't need?
By Rike on 2/20/2007 10:22:24 AM , Rating: 5
I would submit that Vista sales are slow because there is no compelling reason to upgrade right now. Did MS think that everyone would upgrade just because they built a new OS?




RE: Why buy something I don't need?
By ZeeStorm on 2/20/2007 11:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
According to some stats, most companies/government agencies DO purchase just about every product and every upgrade that MS comes out with. It's actually quite pathetic.

If MS released a product that featured pictures of landscapes that moved and flashed along the screen, almost every company/government agency sleeping with MS, would pay for it if MS said it made their computers work better and easier to us, even if it does slow things down.


RE: Why buy something I don't need?
By ET on 2/20/2007 12:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
On the contrary, businesses are typically very slow in switching software versions, as that can disrupt workflow in a serious way, and is an unnecessary expenditure. You can still see Windows 2000 or even DOS in some businesses (especially those using proprietary software).


RE: Why buy something I don't need?
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 1:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you're both right. Businesses typically do run each version that Microsoft releases; however, they are also typically 1-2 releases "behind" due to their aversion to the latest release in trying to reduce support costs.

In my experience, however, this sometimes backfires since quite often the older versions have inherently higher support costs. For example, a business that delayed upgrading from Win98 to Win2K probably shot themselves in the foot, since Win2K was inherently much more stable than Win98.

In addition, these companies also give up the higher productivity with the newer releases for the period of time they delay the upgrade. This is probably not a huge issue for some software - an OS upgrade probably only gives a small productivity improvement - but it might be more significant for other apps like Office. Specifically, newer versions of Office are much easier to use, more powerful, and they help you get the job done faster than older versions.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to predict that nearly all businesses running Windows on their desktops will be on Vista 3 years from now. By then, Microsoft will have their next OS release out, and those on the 'n-1' schedule will be comfortable upgrading.


By somerset on 2/20/2007 1:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
They buy it, just not right away. Businesses are far from early adoptors, but they do switch, almost all of them. Within 2 years of XP's release, I am sure 99% of business PC's were using it.

As for Vista, there is no compelling reaason to upgrade, so it might have a slower adoption rate, but it will happen.


Well what did they expect?
By Wesleyrpg on 2/20/2007 10:16:16 AM , Rating: 1
let's see,

It still has serious issues with some hardware (NIC's, Videocard drivers) and some companys aren't even going to bother releasing drivers for most of its older webcams.

It feels rather slow to use compared to XP, in fact pretty much every benchmark runs slower on Vista. The hard drive never stops getting accessed!

Why would anyone want to leave XP when after 5 years it's almost pretty decent, for something that feels like its still in a beta phase,

microsoft.....please give it a year or two to catch on, people are in no hurry to leave XP quite yet.




RE: Well what did they expect?
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 10:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
Vista only runs slower on machines that don't have much RAM. On computers with the recommended quantity of RAM, Vista is about the same speed as XP. There are tons of articles and benchmarks out there showing that.

Finally, I would add that Vista is at least as stable, if not more stable, than XP. We just migrated a number of users from XP to Vista and the new OS is performing just fine. Vista has never crashed on any of our machines, ever - not even once. There are for sure some app compatibility issues, especially for older programs, but these are pretty easy to fix by changing the compatibility properties, i.e., tell the OS to run the app in XP compatibility mode or as administrator if necessary. We haven't found this to be an impediment for the 50 or so apps that we regularly use.


RE: Well what did they expect?
By fic2 on 2/20/2007 11:56:06 AM , Rating: 1
It sounds like for your company Vista is just as good as XP. Begs the question then - why bother switching? I wouldn't bother switching unless there was a compelling reason. Sounds like an MS lemming company - Ooh, MS said we should switch so we did.


RE: Well what did they expect?
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 1:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
We switched to Vista because we sell software, and we want to be sure it works properly on Vista, because our customers will be starting to use Vista in the next year or two. We're also starting to develop for .NET 3.0, and the best place to do that development is on Vista.

Microsoft just provided the opportunity; I made the decision.

Anyway, Vista is better than XP, by design, and through its features. Anyone who doesn't realize this needs to get their head out of the sand and look at what Vista really is. I'm not going to tell you it is the most amazing thing I've ever seen, but it is for sure better than XP.


RE: Well what did they expect?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/20/2007 1:44:42 PM , Rating: 2