backtop


Print 72 comment(s) - last by noirsoft.. on Mar 29 at 11:41 PM

Microsoft says that first month sales of Vista doubled those of XP

Microsoft is touting early sales figures for Windows Vista as testament to the operating system's new features and security enhancements. According to Microsoft, the sale of Windows Vista licenses more than doubled those of Windows XP during its first month of availability.

Windows XP managed to rack up 17 million licenses within its first two months of availability while Windows Vista hit 20 million within the first month. The numbers include licenses acquired by PC OEMs, retail copies sold in stores and upgrades ordered through the Windows Vista Express Upgrade Program.

"We are encouraged to see such a positive consumer response to Windows Vista right out of the gate," said Windows Business Group VP Bill Veghte. "While it’s very early in the product lifecycle, we are setting a foundation for Windows Vista to become the fastest-adopted version of Windows ever. Working with our partners, we are helping our customers leverage new tools and programs to accelerate the transition and provide a great user experience."

According to Michael Silver of Gartner Research, however, the fact that Windows Vista sales have doubled Windows XP sales shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. According to Silver, 52 million PCs were sold in 2002 – the first full year of Windows XP availability. Over 92 million PCs are expected to be sold in 2007.

Last month Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was less optimistic about initial Vista sales citing increased piracy around the world. Ballmer noted that analysts were "overly aggressive" with their Vista sales forecasts.

Shortly after Ballmer's comments, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was more upbeat and stated that Vista had been "incredibly well received." Gates continued, "People who sell PCs have seen a very nice lift in their sales. People have come in and wanted to buy Vista."



Comments     Threshold


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

Vista's not revolutionary, but it's definitely nice
By Bonrock on 3/27/2007 12:59:09 PM , Rating: 4
I've been running Vista on three computers in my household since the day it was released, with few problems. Overall, I'm quite pleased with the upgrade. It's not revolutionary, but then again, Windows XP wasn't bad enough to require a revolutionary upgrade. Instead, Vista has a few big improvements (like better security, Aero Glass, and the inclusion of Windows Media Center) and a whole ton of small improvements that collectively result in a better user experience.

And you know what? That's fine with me. To all the people out there bagging on Vista (and I know there are a lot of them): Please give it a fair chance before you knock it.




By Mudvillager on 3/27/2007 1:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
+ a lot more stable and full dual-core utilization.

I haven't got a single crash / instability issue since I installed Ultimate x64 about two months ago.


By Nekrik on 3/27/2007 2:08:28 PM , Rating: 3
Same here, not a single crash since the final release. At work I've had all five flavors running for a while on a variety of machines, unfortunately all machines from the same vendor, but still a pretty wide range of proc, memory, and configurations.


By athlonotaku on 3/27/2007 2:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem I've had with Vista is my sound drivers for my X-Fi card.

Which can be argued that its not Vista's problem and more Creative's problem.

Other than that I find the new features really beneficial for the PC's typical end user.


By TomZ on 3/27/2007 2:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
full dual-core utilization.

Compared to what? Are you saying the "utilization" is any different than XP?


By BMFPitt on 3/27/2007 4:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
"Implementation" might have been a better term. I'm pretty sure that XP can't tell the difference between physical and virtual processors, but Vista can (but I'm not sure of that.)


By hergieburbur on 3/27/2007 5:38:21 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, it can. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use a Dual-Core CPU on XP Home (1CPU), or Quad-Core CPU on XP pro (1-2 CPU), since that would be a violation of the license agreement.

Vista however, does do a better job of managing the way resources are distributed to the various cores, and I think thats what he meant.


By Psychless on 3/27/2007 9:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
While I can not give an experience of Vista I can give one of xp. I've had XP for five years now and I have experienced but one crash. That was because my power supply was not providing enough power to my video card and totally unrelated to the software. Unless Microsoft made Vista less stable than XP could only be better.


By semo on 3/28/2007 1:29:20 AM , Rating: 2
i can't remember the last time i had a crash in xp but that's and i'm sure i won't have problems in vista. that's only because i've been using firefox and openoffice lately and you don't expect that to bsod your pc.

so saying "vista is stable" without specifying what your using it for is as informative as pr speak.


By Etern205 on 3/28/2007 7:59:41 AM , Rating: 1
Windows XP is stable after Service Pack2 came out.
How long did users have to wait for SP2?
About 3 years or so.

Windows Vista is stable right from the start
even the RC version are stable enough
to be the finalized product.

STUPID MORON!
You deserve a Windows Vista Starter Edition shoved up your
ignorant a$$!


By semo on 3/28/2007 9:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
spend a few minutes rereading my post and you'll see i did not badmouth vista in any way. how could, i'm not using it so i don't know.

of course it's going to be stable for some in the beginning but what about professionals and cad/cam users with pro graphics cards.

how about maya 5 or multisim 8? i use those apps sometimes. has anyone tried running day of the tentacle or grim fandango on vista? most say vista is "stable", some say the opposite and almost never give any other details. those sort of comments don't tell me or anyone anything useful or new.

finally, i haven't had any big problems before sp2 that i can remember of. only that one virus that kept restarting windows, often before you got the chance to download the fix.


By Westmassguy on 3/27/2007 5:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
I have vista on all three machines in my house, and the only problems I've had are driver related.
I like the eye candy, and since most of it runs in hardware now, I see no performance hit.
My only complaint is driver support (or lack there of) from vendors like Nvidia, Lexmark, Logitech to name a few.


By Westmassguy on 3/27/2007 5:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
Those same machines also ran XP with the same hardware.


By ScythedBlade on 3/27/2007 7:38:52 PM , Rating: 3
Troll!

.... resource hog? Open up a program. It doesn't cause a huge memory dent as if you opened up in XP ... Superfetch basically preloads programs ... its not a resource hog ... its just a better utilization of wasted memory. Besides, whats the use of not using RAM you have?

It sure isn't faster to have 1 GB of unused ram .... just makes it easier to open new programs to take up that 1 GB of unused ram ... but heck, why not load them in the ram, and open the program, which will not do anything to the ram that's already used since its alrady using it.


By leexgx on 3/29/2007 10:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
Troll your self

vista is resource uses and is about 5-10% slower then XP is quite true it requires 2-3 times the ram of XP (XP will run quite happy on 512mb or 256mb games 1gb-1.5gb ram but norm 2x1gb ram used)

vista needs 1gb ram to run smoth should be used norm or 2-3gb for gameing or you mite run into Disk pageing with some games that use more then 1gb of ram

i not found an way to Force Vista not to use the page file untill its needed yet as i can do that on XP

i going to Dual XP as for everything els work/gameing DX9

Vista as DX10 gameing only as gameing performace suffers or not stable on Vista but alot of that is due to nvidia at this time but i guess we cant sue nvidia as there last line in there agreement says we can provide you crap drivers and it ant are problem

i got an little bord of to many things not working right or Not been optimised at the time and other things like search still trying to work out how to use it (god know how norm users going to work out how to do an full search)

i probly Only use vista for DX10 games i probly should of not even payed for vista just load on up and stop the clock (ATI need to bring there New Video card out)

Superfetch is an good idea works well i agree on that

i been useing it for an month or so now and i find it good and annoying at the same time (i could make an list but i could rave on about its good points and bad points)


By user111 on 3/27/2007 7:59:28 PM , Rating: 2
I think UAC is a wonderful thing to have happen to Vista. It's true that it's annoying at first, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be..

ISV/programmers in general need to start thinking about writing safer applications. If you writing a program to say calculate square root of pi, there's no reason this program needs to run with elevated privileges. I would say at least 50% of all apps are under this category. If everyone were to follow MS recommended practices for this sort of situation, I'm sure a lot of those annoying UAC prompts will go away and your apps will be much much safer..


By Nekrik on 3/27/2007 8:31:41 PM , Rating: 3
and a lot of the same recommended practices were in place for XP but no one listened. The admin account was chosen as the default since a newly installed machine usually need to be configured. The idea was that the user would then switch to a limited user account after it was configured but they didn't do so. On the third party developer side very few apps ran correctly under user accounts when the 'Run as Admin' functionality was used, this is fault of the third party company not testing/developing correctly.


By bikinistud on 3/27/2007 10:08:24 PM , Rating: 4
I will admit that Vista is also very nice to look at/use on a daily basis but some things about it still baffle me. UAC is annoying, not because it is trying to help (which I no-doubt think it is) but that it tries to protect you from opening microsoft's own code. If you want to open device manager you are asked basically "Are you sure you want to open this?" and I can understand why, people don't normally need to be here. But don't ask me again! I wish it was smart enough to know that your big enough to read the prompt once and that you don't need to read it again.

My two cents, and I'm not dogging Vista as a whole, but this is something that needs to be addressed.


By noirsoft on 3/29/2007 11:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's not there to prevent YOU from opening Device Manager per se, it's there to warn you if a third-party piece of code tried to open it programmatically. Since Device Manager has the ability to change some low-level system settings (like which drivers are loaded) it makes sense that UAC is activated.

Now, there definitely is an argument that UAC should not be activated on a _read_ attempt from some types of system data, only on _write_ attempts, but I'm not enough of a systems-level guy to know how feasable that would be to implement.


By eman 7613 on 3/27/2007 11:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
personally i don't like it. They installed it on our school laptops (512mbs of ram) and now they load applications and such slowly, and the whole using a flash drive as ram thing doesn't seem to be making an appreciable difference.
Taking out the mediacenter(don't use it) areo(i liked my custom xp look and now its gone :( ), its same old xp just slower and less cooperative. Doom3 used to play on them just fine if you didnt turn on AA, and now it dies on it, and AP Computer science teacher is under flack b/c he cant get java and stuff to run right on vista so classes are confusing. Just a bunch of trouble realy.


This says it all
By therealnickdanger on 3/27/2007 12:55:11 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
the fact that Windows Vista sales have doubled Windows XP sales shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. According to Silver, 52 million PCs were sold in 2002 – the first full year of Windows XP availability. Over 92 million PCs are expected to be sold in 2007 .

Double the number of PC sold and only offer Vista on them... DUH, what else do they expect? I don't doubt that Vista is more successful, though, even if you adjust the numbers to make them relative. The marketing push for Vista is far beyond what XP ever was.

To its credit, Vista is quite excellent, I haven't encountered any issues with it and it is faster in some things than XP, so whateva...




RE: This says it all
By SunAngel on 3/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: This says it all
By therealnickdanger on 3/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: This says it all
By Oregonian2 on 3/27/2007 2:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
Lack of potential ability or actual ability? Without the game software, a mega-compute-power gaming system has no ability at all. How does the software selection compare (I have neither, more interested in a Wii I think)?


RE: This says it all
By Lakku on 3/27/2007 5:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
The software selection doesn't compare. But, the 360 has been out for quite awhile compared to the PS3 and Wii. The titles that are out for both systems tend to look/play better on the 360 however. A lot of this has to do with the tools available for devs on the 360 vs PS3, and the fact people have had more time to use the 360. An example is Armored Core 4. It is out on PS3 and 360, however, the PS3 version only uses 720p output. The 360 on the other hand can output at 480, 720p, 1080i and 1080p, natively. Yeah, it is one of the first 360 games to use 1080p. Kinda funny if you ask me, since Sony touts all this 1080p crap, and a popular game is only available in 1080p on the 360.


RE: This says it all
By hergieburbur on 3/27/2007 5:55:35 PM , Rating: 3
Very few games for PS3 are 1080p yet.

If you want a good comparison of their relative powers, compare a PS3 game from next year at this time (once devs have had some time to learn the system), to an XBox 360 game of today. That way you are looking at the same relative time on the market.

Remember, launch XBox360 games didn't look as good as those that are out today.


RE: This says it all
By SiN on 3/28/2007 5:21:50 AM , Rating: 2
Completely off topic, i think you misread, or read something (don't know how) into the post. Comparison of Windows XP to Windows Vista not PS3 to X360.


RE: This says it all
By Shark Tek on 3/27/2007 2:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
Another thing to consider is that PCs are more accessible and cheaper than those of 2002.

That MS statement isn't fair.


RE: This says it all
By MonkeyPaw on 3/27/2007 3:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
You can also figure that between 2002 and now, the knowledge of the "average" user has increased somewhat. A newly released OS is on the radar of the average users today as opposed to 2002. Thanks to the constant barrage of security attacks on XP over the last 4-5 years, people have a very good idea of what an OS is and what it does. People purchase more things online now, and they have more personal information on thier PC's today. This is why MS is marketing Vista as more secure, as it is probably the best way to sell it to people concerned with identity theft and losing thier media.

Also, the measures used in the article might be a bit misleading if you don't read carefully. XP sold 17 million over 2 months , while Vista sold 20 million in 1 month. Using these numbers, Vista sales are up 58% over XP's 1 month average (8.5 million), while PC sales are only expected to go up 43% over 2002's sales. That would suggest that Vista is selling better, perhaps 10-15% better than XP if the "trend" continues. Since we're dealing with just 1 month of sales data for Vista, I don't put much stock in the numbers I came up with, but they are at least trying to use the information we have as best as possible.


RE: This says it all
By retrospooty on 3/27/2007 11:55:49 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, I read retail sales are really poor for Vista. Not surprising considering the price is way too high.

Other than the price, Vista is pretty damn nice though.


Bought it because of the freebies.
By Mitch101 on 3/27/2007 12:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
Bought mine because of the free stuff that came with it. Still havent installed it because Im running a eval copy and its still not stable enough with my applications and games to install the OEM version. Plus I want to do a quick hardware refresh on a few items before install. I have to do it soon thought to get my money back for the freebies.




RE: Bought it because of the freebies.
By walk2k on 3/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Bought it because of the freebies.
By jlanders646 on 3/27/2007 1:40:45 PM , Rating: 5
As noted on daily tech earlier in the year, there is a way to do a clean install from an upgrade disc. Read back into the archives.


RE: Bought it because of the freebies.
By walk2k on 3/27/2007 2:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah.... you have to install it twice.
quote:
Once setup has been completed and you have been brought to the desktop for the first time, run the install program from within Windows Vista.
When asked whether to perform an Upgrade or Custom (advanced) install, choose Custom (advanced) to perform a clean install of Vista. Yes, this means that you will have to install Vista for a second time.

I would hardly call that a "clean" install.


RE: Bought it because of the freebies.
By TomZ on 3/27/2007 3:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
You're confusing "clean install" with "easy install." This particular method of clean install is just not an easy install.


RE: Bought it because of the freebies.
By walk2k on 3/27/2007 3:06:50 PM , Rating: 2
"Clean" meaning, no previously-installed OS on the drive.

A freshly-formatted "clean" drive (or partition).

Though I suppose it makes the most sense to install the upgrade over XP the first time, then ghost the drive.

But that hassle (and mailing in for the 64bit) are just not things I should have to deal with after plunking down $159.

Oh also, all the M$ fanbots can rate me down all they want, it doesn't matter one whit to me, it just makes you look stupid.


RE: Bought it because of the freebies.
By noirsoft on 3/27/2007 7:50:44 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, the one who looks stupid is you, with your pointless "M$ fanbots" insults, and your ignorance as to the realities of Vista.

I bought Ultimate upgrade, and it came with both 32-bit and 64-bit editions, no mail-away necessary. And. while you cannot install it on a freshly formatted hard drive, there is little need to. Windows, Program Files and user settings are all in new directories, so there is no trace of the old installation except a few easily deletable directories full of your old flies. which is (for most people) a lot easier than backing up and restoring.

Once you delete the old windows and program directories, it's exactly the same as a new instllation. This is quite different from previous upgrades which left tons of cruft in the registry and windows directories from previous versions.


RE: Bought it because of the freebies.
By walk2k on 3/28/2007 12:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, the fanbots look stupid when someone says something completely true and factual that just doesn't lavish heaps of praise on M$ and they rate it down for no other reason than they are just mindless fanbots. I guess the truth hurts?

As if I came in here and said "OLLLO VISTA SUXX I USE MAC BECUZ STEEV JOBS SI AWSUM!!!!!!!!"

No, I said I LIKE VISTA and I WANT TO BUY VISTA but I just can't justify dropping $159 for a gimped version - Home Premium Upgrade, featuring Havetoinstallit Twice(tm) and No64bitversionincluded(r), and I definitely can't justify shelling out for a non-upgrade version when I SHOULD BE ABLE to use the upgrade version, but can't because of the bullshit installer.


By noirsoft on 3/28/2007 3:17:12 PM , Rating: 1
Sombody needs a cookie and some warm milk...

So, what you are saying is that the inexpensive version doesn't have what you want, and the version that has what you want is too expensive? Sounds a bit like "The food tastes terrible and the portions are too small"

And you don't have to install it twice. Read my message. Installing it once is the functinal equivalent of a clean install, as you don't have any of the old windows installation, except as space to delete on your HD.

Oh, and here's a link to the direct download version of Home Premium 64-bit upgrade, since clearly you don't care about finding it, you just care about complaining about it.

http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/details.aspx?vie...

Lastly, if you really care about money and if you have more than one PC, the ultimate upgrade with its 2 copies of Home Premium for $50 each is definitely worth it.


Forced vs by choice
By emboss on 3/27/2007 1:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect most of those sales are from OEM sales (Dell, HP, etc), where you don't have a choice if you want Vista or not. A much more interesting number would be the number of retail boxes sold as a proportion of the total. This should decrease the impact of seasonal variation and show how many people actually WANT Vista/XP, not just how many ended up with it.




RE: Forced vs by choice
By Souka on 3/27/2007 1:05:37 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sure they included all the "free" copies they give out too.....

I too would like to see actual retail box copies sold, upgrades sold, etc.


RE: Forced vs by choice
By Puddleglum1 on 3/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: Forced vs by choice
By NaughtyGeek on 3/27/2007 1:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
Not really, very few Dell systems still offer XP as a choice. While there are some models offering XP, most systems and all low end systems offer Vista only.


RE: Forced vs by choice
By emboss on 3/27/2007 1:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, interesting ... I remember reading an article about MS strongarming the OEMs into dropping XP by March by making it a requirement of continuing marketing subsidies. I assumed that the OEMs had done as MS had demanded.

However, as you noted, Dell still offers both, as does Lenovo (I just checked). HP doesn't offer XP any more, nor do Acer or Toshiba (though this was done by inspecting a number of models so I could have missed one where XP was offered).

Either MS backed off, or Dell and Lenovo have decided that there's a big enough market that the extra sales make up the lost $$$ from MS.


RE: Forced vs by choice
By rushfan2006 on 3/27/2007 4:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When buying from retailers like Newegg, you are stuck without a choice.


Since when? Today?.....not only have I been buying parts from NewEgg for a few years now but I just got done last week doing a few grand worth of business with them.

Its a PC parts store, you pick what you want -- and they still sell XP Pro as well.

So you are completely uninformed and your statement has no truth to it whatsoever.


Unimpressive numbers and PR misinformation
By hergieburbur on 3/27/2007 5:35:53 PM , Rating: 3
The press release is so full of holes and misinformation, its not even funny.

For an in-depth analysis, see here: http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/stack...

But basically:
1) The PC market has about doubled since XP debuted, so this should be expected as a minimum, assuming it were true.

2) The XP numbers reflect actual units sold, the Vista numbers reflect the number of copies shipped to resellers, but not necessarily sold. Every copy and pre-loaded PC sitting at your local xxxx store is included in this count.

3) They are including all the XP sales with the redeemed upgrade certificate in this count, which means that instead of one month, its actually FOUR. So they are basically saying that Vista sold HALF as well as XP.

4) The numbers don't add up. Most analysts agree that only about 3 million PCs have been sold in the US so far THIS YEAR(3 months). The US is the largest PC market, and global figures likely wont make up the other 17 million. Considering about 80% of MS's OS sales are OEM, are we supposed to assume that millions people ran out and bought retail copies to make up the difference, even though all the evidence says otherwise?

All-in-all, this looks like a PR attempt to pull the wool over our eyes to the fact that Vista sales have been UNIMPRESSIVE when compared to XP. I think we will get a much clearer picture of how Vista is really doing in the coming months, once the pre-release upgrades are done and no longer being counted.




RE: Unimpressive numbers and PR misinformation
By eman 7613 on 3/27/2007 11:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
While that is incredibly biased it brings up a number of good points, the most of which is that compared to XP launched, Vista should have at least doubled based on the number of computers bought. Thus, excluding the increase of computers sold in the 6 year gap, the two are on equal grounds. In other words, any fidgeting M$ did to make vista sales more impressive means it is have a worse response in the market then XP did.


By hergieburbur on 3/28/2007 12:36:22 AM , Rating: 2
That particular article is a bit biased, but it is also not alone. I have seen several other across the web (some by more reputable sources such as AP) raising the same questions.

The simple fact is that the sales figures don't reflect one month (MS even says that). Further, sales to OEM channels DO NOT reflect market acceptance.

Finally, anyone who thinks the press release isn't skewed and biased in MS' favor is incredibly naive.


I use vista no issues
By Nik00117 on 3/27/2007 4:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
I use vista somtimes, although I still perfer XP.

From my meories vista is just as bugging, and difficult to deal with when XP came out.

Many poeple tend to forget SP2 fixed a lot of issues along with patches that MS releases. I enjoy vista, I enjoy the 3-d flip, the showing speed of your HD, the gadgets, I enjoy the new layout.

I don't enjoy the buggyness (Its noticeable) I don't enjoy the system req.

However I then remind myself this is a NEW OS, implying NEW OS. Meaning the bugs aren't tweaked out of it.

Vista is a fine OS, and I don't mind it one bit. Poeple that diss it are just MS haters.

I'm betting that most MS haters, are bashing MS using MS products, regradless if its priated or not if you don't like the software don't use it, and stop it with your nagging.

O and don't even say I don't know what the linux exp is, I had a partition with ubuntu on it. I still perfer windows.




RE: I use vista no issues
By goku on 3/28/2007 12:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
I use XP with SP1 only as SP2 didn't fix any issues but created new ones, killing backward compatiblity with some of my applications.


I'm all about the GAMES!!!
By nerdye on 3/27/2007 9:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
I think people bash vista too much as its not that bad, yet I feel its unfortunate that consumers, like my friend who just purchased a sick laptop with a core 2 duo in it from gateway, cannot find proper drivers on gateways site in order to install windows xp properly, vista for life yo, haha!

But that ain't my point, just a business side note of the operating system industry.

My point is, I have a super burley gaming desktop right now, a well OC'd core 2 with all the fixings to match, yet I WILL NOT run vista on it as I cannot accept 30% to even 10% less frame rate compared to the same hardware running xp. Frame rate is what I spent more than an inexpensive car on my system for, Vista, you will be my friend one day, I do not hate you, but you will have to wait to kick it in my house. Now excuse me as bf2142 beckons me.




RE: I'm all about the GAMES!!!
By noirsoft on 3/29/2007 11:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
Since your system is 100% tuned to do one thing only, it makes sense for you to not change anything until the new OS can match current performance (I expect it will, as driver writers get more familiar with the changes)

I remember when 2000/XP were new and gamers were saying how they wouldn't switch from 98 because games were slower. Same thing.

However, it is wrong to say that you "CANNOT" take the performance hit. You have CHOSEN that the performance bottom-line is more important to you than the new features in Vista.

Heck, one of my PCs is fine-tuned for pro music apps (Cubase, specifically) and I can't upgrade to Vista on that because drivers don't exist for some of the hardware I have. It's not a knock on Vista, just a general statement that small niche markets tend to be slower to upgrade than mainstream PCs. Doesn't stop me from running Vista on my other desktop and laptop and preferring Vista overall.


RE: Brisk Sales
By restrada on 3/28/2007 1:20:50 AM , Rating: 2
Vista will do just fine. Vista has a very good future and will provide a nice retirement cushion for outgoing Bill Gates next year.

It will be interesting to see how Microsoft starts the marketing machine on upcoming Vienna, which is slated for 2009. By then, the XP faithful will then be starting to migrate to Vista.




RE: Brisk Sales
By johnreptues on 3/28/2007 6:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
I'll be the first one...

Why is Engadget posting so much about the Apple TV? I swear they're getting paid by Apple. Apple is SO over-hyped. Blah, blah, blah... :P
Anyway, thanks for the coverage.
It seems that Apple TV does not perform well on some SD TVs which should be fixed, because not everyone has bought a HD TV at home.

Best apple tv converter
http://www.apple-tv-converter.net


Numbers
By SmokeRngs on 3/27/2007 2:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that most of the copies sold were OEM by system integrators such as Dell and HP doesn't really matter. Most of the copies of XP were sold the same way.

That there will probably be around twice as many PC sales this year versus the number for XP does matter. In other words, Vista is basically equaling XP sales.

Do these numbers include systems bought with XP back in 2006 that received an upgrade to Vista since it wasn't out to be bought/installed yet for the average person? If those numbers are included here, I'm not sure they should be. Technically, they could probably be counted since the OS didn't actually go out until the public release of Vista. However, the actual sale would have not happened during the period they are counting.

The article also mentions these numbers include upgrades on the Windows Vista Express Upgrade Program. Although I doubt the numbers of upgrades using that method are large, I don't see how they could be counted if someone was just upgrading from one version of Vista to another. You're not actually purchasing a new OS, just a upgrade to the same OS.

Overall, I doubt the Vista launch is doing any better than the XP launch. In a way this looks bad for Vista as I don't remember there being as much PR for XP as there currently is for Vista. My memory could easily be faulty after five years, though.




LOL
By yacoub on 3/27/2007 3:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
"Windows XP managed to rack up 17 million licenses within its first two months of availability while Windows Vista hit 20 million within the first month."

What a dumb comparison that makes considering how many years ago XP came out and how many more people have desktop/laptop computers today. =P




By encryptkeeper on 3/27/2007 4:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
The article is a bit gray about this, but when it said "XP managed to rack up 17 million licenses within its first two months of availability while Windows Vista hit 20 million within the first month" I was a bit skeptical. If they are talking about licenses that were activated in that time frame then of course Vista would win, because plenty of people bought XP with the upgrade coupon. Can we get clarification on this?




Numbers
By Trisped on 3/27/2007 5:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
Issue with the numbers. Since the numbers cover OEM perchases, even if those computers haven't been sold yet, and the XP numbers cover the first 2 months while the Vista numbers cover the first month, you aren't saying much. I bet almost all the copies were "sold" before the first month even started so the OEMs could have them on the computers and ready to go as soon as it launched.

After 2 months I bet Vista will see about 23-25 million copies sold, which would have been higher if they had shipped in December.




I'm not ready for Vista
By WiLDcAt on 3/27/2007 7:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
Vista sound good, but i don't think i'm ready for it. I mean there is still alot of stuff thats not compatiable. Like my anti-virus(Norton Internet Security 2006)i alreay found out its not compatiable, the 2007 version is, but i still got 6 months left on my subscription. and you have to have a pretty nice set up. at least a gig of ram, a nice graphics card. And download abunch of new drivers. How long does it take to install vista anyway?




what about per capita Vista sales
By iinoz on 3/27/2007 11:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
comparing raw numbers of Vista versus XP sales is meaningless, you have to compared the installed base of PCs. I am sure that even if you restricted it to sales per PC less than 3 years old compared to the same time after XP came out, Vista would be a loser.




You guys gotta be kidding me
By medavid16 on 3/28/2007 12:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
My Vista crashed so much, I had to revert back to Windows XP Pro SP2b, and now it's smooth as silk again.

Yes I know what I'm doing. I think the problem stemmed from lack of driver support for new hardware. I'm running 8800gtx, 680i. And the system requirements for comfortable use is alot higher, almost unreasonable.




Windows Vista
By msva124 on 3/28/2007 3:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
Will I switch to Windows Vista? Ask me again in two years. For now I'm just ignoring it. I used to hate it but now I really don't care. If you like it then use it, if you don't, stick with XP SP2. Live and let live.




By crystal clear on 3/28/2007 6:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
"The numbers include licenses acquired by PC OEMs, retail copies sold in stores and upgrades ordered through the Windows Vista Express Upgrade"

*Could M$ give percentage breakdown of licences sold for the above 3 catogories.

*Could they give a regional breakdown namely-

USA & Canada,EUROPE,ASIA,OTHERS.

* % Home users & % Business

They should support their claims with relevant data,to put some authencity in their claims.

This press release appears more like AN ADVERTISEMENT !!!

Normally we analyse sales/performance on Quaterly basis-
namely 1 Q 07 & so on.

Then why this press release???




sales are sales
By mafart on 3/28/2007 6:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone appears to be rationalizing and weighting Vista sales based on the number of PCs that are sold (or likely to be sold) this year.
The fact is 20 million units in 1 month are higher sales than 17 million in two months. (Especially when you factor in the generally higher prices of the Vista versions). This is good news for Bill Gates, MS employees, and shareholders (and no, I am none of those three). Surely, there is nothing wrong in anouncing this news in a press release. And the whole idea of a press release is to put out the information you want. Gripe when this information is coming out in the form of an editorial, article, or other supposedly unbiased source but getting upset with press releases seems a bit pointless.




Vista Still Isnt Worth It.
By Villains on 3/29/2007 1:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
Just curious how many of you Vista owners have the new DX10 hardware to go with it, how many of you play games?

Lot of people that have Vista say they like it cause its "pretty" and its allegedly more secure. Most of the people who use Vista dont even know why they use it, other than it came with their PC.

I still dont like Vista, wont use it for a few years at least.

Microsoft did alot of bad things with this OS. First, DRM, gee thanks for this one, brilliant.

Also, making Vista so just about EVERY 3rd party companys programs do not work with Vista. They expect everybody to build a new program to suit Vista, not the other way around as it should be.

Microsoft is slowly tryin to monopolize things by cutting out 3rd party support so they can be the ones supplying all the software. Hell, Microsoft didnt even test to see if any programs other than MS stuff worked with it.

Throw in the comments made by company spokespeople saying 3rd party programs are "craplets" and that shows how they feel.

Vista might be good in a year or 2........once everythings patched up and 3rd parties have succumbed to makin new apps, the price has dropped, theres plenty of new hardware at good prices, all games are DX10 compliant, mods are available, etc.

Until then, why buy it?




Meh. Vista.
By Leper Messiah on 3/29/2007 8:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, it looks all fine and dandy, but the only reason why its selling so well is becase you can't buy a computer with XP anymore in retail.

Not to mention some of the catastrophic driver issues (install an epson printer and your optical drive disapears).




Doesn't make sense...
By vze4z7nx on 3/27/2007 3:36:08 PM , Rating: 1
Why are you comparing them both under unequal conditions?

You are looking at XP's first two months, but the first month of Vista. Compare them equally please.

It's like comparing two slow Pentium 2s to one fast Intel Core 2 Duo. It just doesn't make sense.




By Sasuke on 3/27/2007 6:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
your using windows right now arnt you? come on admit it....


By Etern205 on 3/28/2007 7:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
Shut up fag!


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki