Print 43 comment(s) - last by East17.. on Aug 1 at 12:42 PM

There's going to be more Windows Vista than automobiles by 2008

Although many PC users are still satisfied with their Windows XP experience, Microsoft was proud to announce that it has shipped 60 million copies of its Windows Vista operating system.

In particular, Microsoft boasted that it had quickly surpassed the entire install base of another computer maker that’s better known these days for its music players. "By our math, we eclipsed the entire install base of Apple in the first five weeks of shipment," said Kevin Turner, Microsoft's COO.

While 60 million copies would be an impressive number for any other software maker, an operating system from Microsoft must aspire to reach completely new heights. Microsoft isn’t simply looking at millions of units – it’s looking at the billions.

"The install base of Windows computers this coming 12 months will reach one billion," said Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO. "If you stop and think about that for a second, by end of our fiscal year '08 there will be more PCs running Windows in the world than there are automobiles, which to me is kind of a mind-numbing concept."

Earlier this year, shortly after the launch of Windows Vista, Ballmer blamed piracy for the operating system’s sluggish start, while also viewing the stop of illegal activity as a chance to grow sales. "Piracy reduction can be a source of Windows revenue growth, and I think we'll make some piracy improvements this year," Ballmer said.

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

yeah right
By HardwareD00d on 7/31/2007 11:46:48 AM , Rating: -1
Should read "60 million copies shoved down peoples throats". Either people are naive and don't know that Vista is crap or they are forced to buy it because XP isn't an option any more. I just bought a laptop from Dell and asked for a downgrade to XP and they told me that the particular model I bought couldn't be shipped with XP. So I'll just have to format it and install it myself once it arrives. Vista is deh suxxor, especially for gaming.

RE: yeah right
By AlexWade on 7/31/2007 11:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between SHIPPED and SOLD. Shipped is the number of copies stores have bought and is always more than the number sold. I would like to see how many copies consumers actually bought.

RE: yeah right
By theapparition on 7/31/2007 1:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's an old argument and its getting tired. Any way you look at it, MS SOLD all those copies. Stores do not keep buying copies, inflating their stock. Most stores actually do a pretty good job on managing inventory. They need to, because there are financial penalties for carring excess inventory. So you'd be surprised, the numbers are not that much different.

Let's put this shipped vs sold debate to rest, please.

RE: yeah right
By omnicronx on 7/31/2007 12:42:47 PM , Rating: 5
Vista is not crap, it is faster, more secure, and although you need a better machine than you need for xp (ram wise), it is what most people would call progress. Indexing, and prefetching in Vista is on a whole new level, and makes most tasks quicker and searching easier.

Of course driver support is not totally there by now, but there is a reason for this. MS wanted to rid themselves of all the crappy drivers out there, where when users have problems with the crappy drivers made by device manufacturers, they blame it all on microsoft. I think its great although it will take some time to get all the kinks out. I suspect in less than a year you will be able to do almost anything you can do on XP in Vista.

Everyone said the same about upgrading to vista.
1: they said it was no better than 98
2: games dont work like they did in 98
3: OMG I LOST 16bit programs

but people soon realized it was faster, more stable, and was better for internet use, the same will eventually happen for vista and you will be saying the same thing about the next O/S in line.

RE: yeah right
By Alexstarfire on 7/31/2007 1:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
That's highly debatable. I have yet to see any kind of benchmark that shows Vista being faster. More secure, possibly. It's not like most of us go around testing how secure our systems are, so that's not much of an issue unless you go looking for trouble daily.

Also, I assume the comparison you are using is meant for XP, and not Vista. 2000/XP was more stable, but that's about it.

RE: yeah right
By JCheng on 7/31/2007 4:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
Given enough RAM, I've found that Vista is faster along one particular metric: application launch times, thanks to Superfetch. For applications you use often, the difference is not subtle. When I use a cold-booted XP machine and fire up a web browser, it seems to take forever compared with Vista.

Conversely, for most of the areas where Vista is slower, it's only 10% slower which is hard to notice without doing a back to back comparison. (This is not including a couple of truly problematic areas like OpenGL, large file copy operations from the shell, and the shell implementation of unzipping)

I think most users (non-gamers) are only really used to waiting on web pages to load and for applications to launch, so it's easy to see how Vista can be perceived as faster by most users even though there's hardly a benchmark on earth that shows Vista to be faster than XP.

Disclosure: I work for Microsoft, although not remotely connected to Windows or Vista.

RE: yeah right
By FITCamaro on 7/31/2007 4:49:27 PM , Rating: 1
It might not be faster, but the majority of reviews do show it not to be slower provided you have enough RAM. Yes it does require a good amount of memory, but other than that, its just as good or better than XP. I think the better user account implementation makes it better just from that.

The only reason it wouldn't be as good for gaming is because the driver support isn't there from the graphics card companies and the sound card companies. But thats hardly Vista's or Microsoft's fault. As another person said, Microsoft got tired of being blamed for driver issues, so they improved their driver model which made everyone have to write new drivers. Some companies have had issues doing that.

People are always quick to blame the first thing they see when something goes wrong. If your TV goes bad, who do you bitch at first? The majority answer is the store who sold it to you. Did they make the TV? No. Same with an OS. Did Microsoft write the driver? No. So don't whine to them if it doesn't work and crashed Vista. Doing so doesn't fix the driver. Nvidia or Creative is responsible for ensuring their driver works with Microsoft's OS, not the other way around. Nor is it Microsoft's job to fix the driver for them.

Now if Internet Explorer crashes, then you can whine to Microsoft.

RE: yeah right
By andrinoaa on 8/1/2007 2:52:43 AM , Rating: 2
When you consider the grief that Vista has/will cause, I am mighty pissed off that "MICROsoft" didn't bite the bullet and go full on with the new OS. I mean full 64bit and all those other bits that make Linux and Apple great.
I think we are being sold a pup. For god's sake, intel chips have been 64bit enabled for a long time now, what drugs are they on in Redmond? I am now thinking of Linux with vmware to run XP, and how much more advanced than this setup is Vista? Cricky, the hardware is disappearing in the distance and the OS has stripped its gears!!!
angry, no, just pissed off that I have to wait another generation of OS to get were I want to be. This means more money to get into vista( hardware is now cheaper than software DOH ) and then more at the end of its cycle, hell why don't I just write a cheque to MS right now and cut the red tape?

RE: yeah right
By sturedrup on 7/31/2007 5:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
Umm by any slight chance did you invest time into trialing the betas for vista? I tried beta 2 and all hope about a 5 year project (acutally they only spent 2 years because of poor planning) and what did it achieve, absolutly nothing. I lost hope that day running it and regreated every downloading it.

I heard RC1 came out so a mate of mine gave it a go, worked 10 times better than beta 2, however the same BS was there. When the refresh of RC2 was available I wasn't going to touch it with the mouse much less a 40 foot pole.

My brother needed a laptop the other month to start correspondence in his trade but unfortunately 90% of laptops sold now run vista. I gave him some advice: "vista only does the basics, don't expect it to pull a rabbit out of its arse like xp can." Sure enough to this very date programs he used to run on xp don't work, thing act stupidly and its not a pretty picture to talk about.

Vista, stable and/or secure? Please don't say things that arn't 100% true, if vista is all high and mighty about itself then why don't review sites use vista over xp to demonstrate game review, etc? Faster, stfu, the god damn UAC (user account control) makes the whole thing slow, every time you want to open/run something this guy is always first on the scene to say "doing this action may/will break your computer". I accept that coming up to install a driver, granted, but everytime you open a notepad file?

One last note about vista. The inside truth about the OS is that it still contains beta code, yes the RETAIL version contains beta and will not be lifted until SP1. So vista will not be vista until SP1, which will be here they say around Q2 2008. O and wasn't there a news article about a patch in vista fixing the SLI/crossfire issue? funny, SLI/crossfire not working right because of a driver issue, no, microsoft FORGOTE to turn on the code for multi GPU support, so whos fault is it for crap SLI/crossfire support?

All in all I currently run and have been running XP professional x64 edition for the past 2 years. First 6 months was hell with no driver support, after that this thing was fly'n. You want to see a stable, fast and secure OS, give xp x64 a go and believe me you'll have a grin on your fast as levels load 100 time faster and file transfer is that much better, and somehow you'll get 300 more points running 3Dmark06 against a mate running an excat system to yours only on x86.

RE: yeah right
By wallijonn on 7/31/2007 5:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
I suspect in less than a year you will be able to do almost anything you can do on XP in Vista.

hmmm. So, unless there is a reason to upgrade, there is no reason to upgrade? After all, why go through driver hell if you do not need to?

The reasons to upgrade are hardware and software, like using 64 bit processors with 64 bit OSs and the new 64 bit applications. And why do you need 64 bit apps? Because it's a 64 bit OS.

As a gamer I will not be upgrading. Anyone who uses the internet doesn't really need 64 bit apps. (or do they?). Email can probably work just as well in 32 bit as in 64 bit. So what 64 bit apps really blow away the older 32 bit versions?

RE: yeah right
By HardwareD00d on 8/1/2007 3:50:00 AM , Rating: 2
you must work for the M$ machine. Get a clue dude. Vista is a lemon and most businesses have no plans to upgrade.

RE: yeah right
By HardwareD00d on 8/1/07, Rating: 0
RE: yeah right
By HardwareD00d on 8/1/2007 3:03:31 AM , Rating: 2
Annandtech has gotten really lame these days anyway, so I'm off to some sites that have a clue. Their big story is a new power supply that sucks more power than a vacuum cleaner... wow! that's news! suck me.

RE: yeah right
By HardwareD00d on 8/1/2007 3:24:34 AM , Rating: 1
Microsoft makes all their money kind of like formula writers write books (Harry Potter anyone?).

1. force a new OS on everyone every 2-3 years (more $$$)
2. require all MS "Certified Developers/Engineers/etc" to re-certify their skills every 2-3 years(more $$$)
3. require upgrade of processors/video cards/ram every 2-3 years via directX updates and new OS releases. (more $$$, essentially forcing most people to buy a new PC).
4. change development platforms and server platforms so that new code and training is required. (more $$$).

That is why Linux is looking so sweet now. Stop being monopolized you sheep.

RE: yeah right
By HardwareD00d on 8/1/2007 3:35:26 AM , Rating: 1
I'm a software engineer and have been in the M$ camp for a long time. I am so sick of having to re-learn everything every two years. I don't care about Vista and all the eye-candy. I've started porting all my code to Java.

Java is enhanced by Sun frequently, but it doesn't compromise backward compatibility. The code will run on multiple patforms and is CPU independent. I'm living in bliss... no recertification, no new hardware required. sure, better hardware inproves preformance, but it isn't a requirement.

RE: yeah right
By wordsworm on 8/1/2007 10:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
I am so sick of having to re-learn everything every two years.
Learning is so hard, isn't it? So, let me ask you this question: have you not noticed an improvement in MS software over the last 12 years? I have. I'm not a programmer, and I'm not an MS fanboy either. My Win ME soured me against them a long time ago. But what's funny is all this fuss over what seems to be a dramatically improved system. I think 32 bit was better than 16 bit. I also believe this 64 bit is an improvement over 32. I don't really see it yet, except that I haven't picked up any viruses yet. I tested its firewall using shields up, and it did even better than my XP system did with ZoneAlarm.

Although I've had it crash once... I think it has to do with RAM issues... something to do with there being a 4GB cap on 32 bit software. Although this is 64 bit, it still seems to choke on it like XP. But this isn't a new problem. It's a problem that hasn't been fixed.

RE: yeah right
By Willie on 8/1/2007 3:32:18 AM , Rating: 2
If you had anything twixt your thighs that was able to be seen without a magnifying glass, I'd be very surprised.

Come back and rant when your pubes finally come in.

Till then, go back to hiding behind your mum's skirts and remember to tell her when your training pants are wet and need changing.....diaper rash can be harsh.

RE: yeah right
By HardwareD00d on 8/1/07, Rating: 0
RE: yeah right
By HardwareD00d on 8/1/2007 3:46:47 AM , Rating: 1
I'm amazed by the lack of free thinkers reading this website's user posts. Maybe Kristopher Kubicki has some input here.

RE: yeah right
By HardwareD00d on 8/1/07, Rating: 0
"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki