Print 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

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
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
Wikipedia, go!
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.


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
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
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.


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.

By DEredita on 2/20/2007 10:23:12 AM , Rating: 3
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.


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.

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

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...

By ToeCutter on 2/20/2007 1:38:46 PM , Rating: 2

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.

By TomZ on 2/20/2007 2:28:24 PM , Rating: 1
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.
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.

By ToeCutter on 2/20/2007 9:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
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!

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?

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.

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.

By ToeCutter on 2/20/2007 9:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
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.

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?

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.

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.

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
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
I agree with TomZ. As I regularly have to oversee our T2 helpdesk, I can give you an easy answer. Troubleshooting XP, and Troubleshooting Vista, 'nuff said.

It is so much cleaner, easier, and you have a hell of a lot more information at your disposal in Vista than you could ever hope to have in XP.

Primary reason for upgrade to Vista. -Troubleshooting and Support costs. End Of Story.

By Snuffalufagus on 2/21/2007 4:54:05 AM , Rating: 3
Nooo! Nobody was supossed to find out about those helpful little diddys they added :). I've been working with it for a while now and still find great little features here and there, sometimes it's not the most intuitive place to look that you end up finding them but there are difenately some nice tools in there. And I'm really pleased with RDP, especially from Vista to Vista box. Over time all the new crap will sink in and it'll be so much nicer than xp/2000.

It's really not that bad
By supaflydaddyc on 2/20/2007 10:23:20 AM , Rating: 2
I just bought a new laptop this past Sunday (2ghz Core2Duo, 2gb RAM, Nvidia 7400 Go) and it runs Vista like a charm. It is a "little" more than just fancy skins, however. They have definitely tweaked the interface here and there to make it, dare I say, more "Mac-like", but in a good way. Also, I have had no issues installing and running any applications on it so far.

I don't know how bad it is when upgrading an older PC (which is where all of the problems I suppose are from), but I haven't had it freeze or crash once (note I have only had it for two days now).

RE: It's really not that bad
By DEredita on 2/20/2007 10:44:25 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone thinks it is terrible. There just isn't a need for everyone to make the jump yet. Most users are waiting out until after Microsoft releases a service pack or two for it.

RE: It's really not that bad
By jconan on 2/20/2007 11:13:37 AM , Rating: 2
2nd that. Ballmer should get a survey on the real reasons why everyone isn't jumping on the Vista bandwagon.

(1)Most companies just upgraded to XP not too long ago like maybe last year.

(2) Besides they sure made it a lot tougher for the 3rd party in the device drivers area so most people won't buy Vista until they can use their purchased hardware.

(3) No compelling reason to upgrade when most people already have seen the demo and played with it on their old hardware. Not everyone can afford new hardware to use aero. Vista basic feels the same like XP with no incentive.

(4) Price wise more expensive than a OS X version upgrade?

(5) Old programs may not be Vista compatible like in the utilities arena for security?

What's the main reason to upgrade other than cosmetic ui makeover and a bunch of DRM written all over the operating system?

RE: It's really not that bad
By supaflydaddyc on 2/20/2007 12:45:29 PM , Rating: 2

I definitely agree wholeheartedly with all of the points you made. Vista is certainly not the jump that 3.1 to 95 was. Even Microsoft admits that it is more of an "intermediate" update to the OS until "Vienna" arrives with everything that Vista was supposed to have.

All in all, I definitely would not have bought Vista as a separate retail package, and the only reason why I have it now is because I just bought the new laptop.

My desktop is staying XP for the forseeable future... and probably will for as long as I have it.

To be honest, I have yet to try to install printer drivers or anything on my laptop for Vista, and use it mainly when I'm away from my apartment for word processing and anything else I need it for (hence me getting a maxed out laptop).

Also, I look at it as a potential learning experience as well. I am just about to graduate college and am looking to broaden my skill sets to as much new technology as I can. Not to say that the organization I work for will be an early-adopter of either Vista or Office 2007, but I want to be able to say "I already know the insides and outs of both, so when you do eventually upgrade, I don't need an ounce of training and can actually help my co-workers troubleshoot problems as they arise, thus saving you money and making me indispensable to your organization."

This of course assumes that the organization uses Microsoft products, but I don't think buying, say, a MacBook will help my skillsets because Mac OS X is so gosh darn easy to use and anyone can use it. Windows requires brains and brawn, even though they dumbed it down in Vista.

RE: It's really not that bad
By hopsandmalt on 2/20/2007 1:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
I have to honestly say, I really enjoy Vista. I have 7 computers in our house, 4 of which are running Windows Vista. 3 of them I did flat out new installs. The other 1 I tried to do an upgrade of our HTPC and it failed miserably. I ended up doing a clean install and it worked fine with the exception of ATI problems, which I just replaced with an Nvidia card and it works fine. (It needed to be upgraded anyway) Although I heard ATI has stable drivers now.

My computer, I use primarily for gaming as well. My computer runs a 680i mb, 2.6 core 2 duo overclocked to 3.2, 2 gig corsair dominator ram, 8800 gtx XXX video card, and it chimes in at 5.7 on the vista performance scale. I play Vanguard Online, which if you play you know is a system hog. I can play it on the top graphical setting and still have almost 50-60 fps. I play LOTRO with full graphic setting and have no problems. FS X, full settings no problems. WoW, full settings and no problems. Oblivion, full settings and no video lag what so ever. SO, I think the game performance issues are hardware and Vistas new demands dependant. You have an OS utilizing more system resources and playing games on top of those added requirements. Sure, your system is going to slow down.

There are alot of things I like about Vista and I dont see the issues that others are having. I guess it really depends on your hardware and drivers. Finding stable drivers has been an interesting feat.

I don't think so....
By drebo on 2/20/2007 10:12:21 AM , Rating: 2
I guess they just cannot admit that Vista offers just about nothing over Windows XP at a substantially higher price, with substantially higher system requirements, while breaking a large amount of software that people use every day.

My feeling is that the launch of Vista was rushed. Without WinFS and DirectX 10, Vista is really just a more confusing Server 2003 with a fancy skin.

Consumers don't want to have to buy a new computer to get a fancy skin. They would prefer something that actually works and doesn't repeatedly freeze during installation.

RE: I don't think so....
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 10:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know how you could characterize a program that is several years late as "rushed." I think the correct word might be "mismanaged." I'm not sure the whole story has come out on the Vista development. All I can tell is that Jim Allchin has retired and been replaced by a schedule-motivated manager. There is an air of correction there, if you ask me.

Regarding DX10 - not sure what you mean by that - Vista shipped with DX10. It's running on my Vista machine here. The problem is the video card vendors being slow to ship their DX10 hardware acceleration, right?

I've installed Vista on quite a few machines already, and every install has been smooth (better than XP for sure). I haven't seen any freezes during installation on any of my machines.

RE: I don't think so....
By PrinceGaz on 2/21/2007 7:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
"Rushed" and "late" are not mutually exclusive. Something can arrive late yet still have been rushed (in order to ensure it doesn't arrive even later).

Therefore I feel it is correct to say that Vista was rushed due to the major features which were dropped from it.

RE: I don't think so....
By semo on 2/20/2007 11:01:23 AM , Rating: 2
one thing i like in vista is the memory management which i always wish xp had but i'm still on xp so i don't know how good it really is.

just thing how much attention wow grabbed from vista. there are so much more distractions now than there was when xp came out. i hope people are starting to realize what windows really is - just an os. there is just so much other stuff the average person uses on their pc now that did not exist on xp's launch: youtube, myspace, wow, mobile phones loaded with junk... somebody else take over. what else wasn't there?

What in the world?
By Aikouka on 2/20/2007 12:00:22 PM , Rating: 4
Wow... so many of these comments posted on the "cons of Vista" are nothing more than pure made up delusions or people who "heard" about something with Vista but know nothing more than that. I built a machine with the strict purpose of putting Vista on it... I mean, why would I logically want to buy an OS now (XP) and then buy another one later (Vista)? So now, let's go through some of the "reasons."

1) No DirectX 10.
WRONG . DirectX 10 is included in Vista. The original problem is that no cards that supported DirectX 10 had drivers that supported DirectX 10 (i.e. the G80). With nVidia's Forceware 100.64 release, DirectX 10 (single-card only) is now supported. Even without those drivers, if you go to run and type "dxdiag" you will see "Direct X 10" listed as your Direct X version. Windows Vista also includes DirectX 9EX, which is what Aero runs on.

2) No DirectSound.
WRONG . Vista still has DirectSound capabilities with DirectX 9EX, but the problem that you're speaking of is the fact that with HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) gone, the drivers no longer have the freedom that they once had to play with the hardware. This causes Creative's EAX to no longer work when using DirectSound. This has been fairly well worked around by Creative (using OpenAL, the Audio library akin to OpenGL) via a wrapper. I currently have no issues using my surround sound on my Logitech Z5450's via optical connection.

3) Onerous Security Protocols.
Not necessarily wrong; however, you're leaving out the fact that UAC (the onerous security protocol that you're referring), also known as User Access Control, can be turned off . I turned UAC off on my Vista install, but honestly... it really only affects you when you toy with settings and possibly installing something. So in my typical day-to-day dealings with Windows, I'd rarely if ever see it. People really beefed up UAC to be more than it is :/.

4) Vista is slower.
Not necessarily wrong. Provided you have a decent computer (nothing over the top meant by this), Vista can actually run faster using SuperFetch (caching of programs that you typically use) and ReadyBoost was shown to increase load times in laptops. Note that these statements were based off figures from the Anandtech Vista performance review that they did about 2-3 weeks ago. Is Vista slower in games? Possibly, but I'd blame that more on drivers than anything. I don't really notice a difference in my games from when I used to game on XP compared to gaming on Vista.

5) Vista breaks software.
Eh? I need some examples for this one, because everything that I used in my day-to-day computing still works just fine. The only problem I had was trying to install Adobe Acrobat reader, but I easily found out a way around that (simply copy the folder out from the temp directory (run -> "%APPDAT%") and run that. Maybe you could compare the bloated antivirus applications, as I believe the originals wouldn't work, but there are newer versions for Vista.

6) Higher price!
Not necessarily true... If you want ultimate... MSRP to MSRP, you're right. But Windows XP has no comparable version to ultimate. You also cannot compare Windows Vista Home Professional MSRP-wise, because MCE 2005 isn't available through normal channels (OEM it is). You can compare Wnidows XP Professional to Windows Vista Business though.

Microsoft Windows XP Professional: $279.99 Retail

Microsoft Windows Vista Business: $284.99 Retail


7) Buggy!
Eh? Show me some bugs. Vista has never crashed on me through its own software. My nVidia drivers have however locked up my system (note that they did this in XP as well). I've had a pretty flawless time so far.

Do I think piracy is to blame? Mmm maybe a tiny bit, but not the main reason. People simply don't have a reason to upgrade. Windows 98 -> Windows XP (for mainstream consumers) was a huge upgrade and definitely warranted for most. It brought people off the aged 9x kernel and onto the much more refined NT kernel that some knew and loved in Windows 2000. As for Vista? It definitely improves the user experience in my opinion (helps streamline a lot of aspects in Windows that were kind of tacked on before... like windows update), but is this going to bring users over? No. Will Aero's purdiness bring people in? Maybe if they like purdiness. Personally, Aero is the first windows skin that I've ever left turned on as it definitely seems more refined than Luna (Fisher Price's My First Operating System there :P).

Am I forgetting anything? Let me know!

RE: What in the world?
By Scabies on 2/20/2007 1:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
further debunk-adge
#3. "cancel or allow." Think down the line a bit when you install AOL instant messenger, and AWG's Weatherbug tries to install. Cancel or allow? In XP, you totally missed it.
#1. Video Acceleration. Current mainstream cards were designed under the DirectX 9 spec, but are running on what appears to be a mid-gen DirectX (like 9.5, or since "9" is at end-of-life, 9.9) in Vista. Thats like trying to run an old tractor with Biodiesel. It works, but you're gonna have issues.

RE: What in the world?
By Aikouka on 2/20/2007 2:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
DirectX 9 was rewritten in Vista for the WDDM and it is referred to as "DirectX 9EX". It supports the new features of the WDDM, but it does not support any DX10 features. There are absolutely no issues with it when it comes to speed that I can directly attribute to it. Any lower performance in my eyes is pinpointed on the driver's efficiency (I use an 8800GTX and we all know how great the drivers are :P).

Monkey Boy Redux...
By codeThug on 2/20/2007 2:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ballmer is going to use this as an excuse to usher in subscription based Windows in the near future. As others have already posted; "There is no compelling reason to replace XP at this time". There is no tangible gain in productivity and the WOW factor does not outweigh the price.

There is also no reason why XP could not be upgraded to DX10 save for the fact that Microsoft covets the revenue stream that Vista promises them. Basically, Microsoft is FINALLY a victim of their own success thanks to XP.

This will force monkey-boy to use Windows Genuine Advantage to genuinely screw you into paying a monthly fee to keep Vista alive and well once we all finally succumb to the new OS.

This WILL happen. The monster must be fed.

Of course I don't know exactly how or when, but it will happen.

RE: Monkey Boy Redux...
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 3:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
I would support a subscription-based model for Windows, so long as it was priced "reasonably" (obviously subject to debate). I think that people would like to see their OS continually updated and improved in incremental ways throughout the year, rather than having a "big bang" reload of a new OS release every couple of years.

Your implication that the Vista license you paid for would be disabled by WGA one day is funny, or maybe I should say FUDdy. Nice try on that one.

RE: Monkey Boy Redux...
By codeThug on 2/20/2007 3:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
No disabling of OS implied. However, no updates or fixes you can count on.

As for the price, it will probably start low. After a while you will be paying enough to buy a new OS every 18-24 months.

But hey, there are plenty of "tools" that like monthly payments...

RE: Monkey Boy Redux...
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 3:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
No disabling of OS implied. However, no updates or fixes you can count on.

Microsoft has a strong track record to the contrary with XP, IMO. The amount of stuff that Microsoft gave away for free to XP users after their initial purchase is pretty impressive.

I agree with your pricing schedule, 18-24 months is probably the right interval. For example, $300/21 = $14 approx. I'll bet a lot of people would sign up for a $14/month instead of paying up-front $300, especially if that entitled them to periodic updates that added new features to the OS. The only problem with this idea is that Microsoft has already established a precedent for giving away such updates for free. So they may have a hard time selling people on that idea now.

In the end, leasing a software service monthly is just a different financing option compared to a one-time buy. It's really no different than buying vs. renting a car. You just have to compare the two options to see which one makes more sense for your situation. Both options are viable and cost-effective.

Not so quick to adapt
By THEREALJMAN73 on 2/20/2007 10:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know about the piracy issue but for not selling as many copies of Vista as anitisipated that could be due to companies like mine that need about a 8 to 12 months process of testing and certifing all of our internal application against Vista.

We will be transitioning over 10,000 system to Vista but not until that certification process is completed. I cannot imaging we are the only ones following this path.

Vista sale should ramp up slowly and steady as more people are ready to make the leap.

RE: Not so quick to adapt
By codeThug on 2/20/2007 8:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
Gosh I'm curious... Why would you upgrade 10K boxes to Vista? You're either getting a really good volume deal, or there is some compelling reason to do so. Why?

RE: Not so quick to adapt
By THEREALJMAN73 on 2/21/2007 3:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
Mostly to keep things standard. We unfortunetly are partnered with Dell and Dell is all about jumping to Vista. So our new systems are Vista certified and include a license of Vista (not XP). That's the driver.

If we decide to stay will XP we will end up spending extra money per machine to license XP.

It's cheaper to make the migration to Vista then within 4 years the entire organization will be transitioned intime to move to the next OS.

The funny part is just 2.5 years ago we still had a decent amount of NT4.0 boxes but the word in today's IT departments is "Cutting Edge".

I don't buy into all this anger people have towards MS. I realized people like to vent on the net but really Vista is a decent OS. The problem for me (on a personal level) is that it is rather pricey and until more directX 10 titles come out I see no reason to move from XP. IMO XP is the most solid functional OS on the market.

MS is using the same excuse as the MPAA and RIAA
By peter7921 on 2/20/2007 10:18:48 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe they are using that excuse when i doubt piracy is any worse than it was with when XP was released. In fact it was easier to pirate XP at launch. The reason people are not buying Vista is

one people are happy with XP
no reason yet to switch yet (no killer app)
People whether fair or not do not see what the big deel is with Vista. The common person doesn't understand what is so much better. Not enough flash with the look, to attract the average person.

By Arribajuan on 2/20/2007 11:19:01 AM , Rating: 2

There are several causes for not upgrade to vista now:
- The OS is still immature
- Needs tons of ram (Big problem for existing laptops)
- No reason besides new look (for the normal consumer)

And they should fight piracy on the business camp, nos on the regular consumer.

I know of tons of companies who have all pirate software (OS, Office, Visual Studio, etc. etc. etc.). That will yield more profits than bug customers.

Did I say bug??? :P

By ProxyOne on 2/20/2007 12:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
If anything, Microsoft should blame the November release of the RTM version, not pirates. It's not pirates' fault that the BRAND NEW OPERATING SYSTEM IS SUDDENLY AVAILABLE MONTHS BEFORE RELEASE.

umm i don't know about that...
By ncage on 2/20/2007 3:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
I can get Vista Universal for free because of my MSDN subscription and i still don't run it. I tried and i had to many application incompatibilities. There was a few small programs i use for ebay that would not work. Visual studio 2005 had some major problems with vista (now this one was a big suprise), and some minor hardware would not work. For example my QuickCam 4000 pro would not work and i don't want to have to go buy a new webcam just because. Granted once they get Visual Studio .Net 2005 stable i will probably upgrade (well maybe). The amount of ram it uses was also a big disappointment. With XP i had 2GB i would probably want to go 4GB with vista which would cost me more money.

RE: umm i don't know about that...
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 3:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
There is a Service Pack 1 Update Beta for Vista that makes VS2005 run well on Vista. I run it all day long w/o any problems. I can dig up a link for you if you can't find it.

I also think it is B.S. that Logitech isn't going to release a Vista driver for QC4000Pro. I have a couple of those here. I haven't tried yet, but probably the XP driver will work. Shame on Logitech - that is poor customer support.

2GB is more than fine for Vista, unless you are doing something especially memory-intensive.

By staypuff69 on 2/21/2007 4:41:06 AM , Rating: 2
Dood. Quit trying to placate people and fight the doomsayers.... you are right in all your posts. You could take this entire thread of posts and take it back to when XP came out and word for word it would be the same thing.

For one it's just too early for "everyone" to adopt a new os especially since MS improves with each os. eg. XP was much better than any other os they'd come up with yet early adoption was tough as people were familiar with 2k and 98... After a few years and the tweaks were worked out with XP... now everyone uses it... and the world is right with XP....

Enter Vista..... tell ya what...... someone take a screen saver of this arguement and we'll see what transpires in 2 years.... Vista will be the dominant os and all the problems will have been worked out.

Of course all the drivers are not playing nice... and of course there are some issues with hardware keeping up..... should MS not advance their os because some yo yo's think their 750mhz celeron should be compatible???? Here's a prophecy for some of you out there that think electronics should be relevant 10 years after they're bought.... in 5 years your Core2Duo will be the equivalent of a Commodore 64 in today's terms.... keep up or stick to Pong....

Vista Problems
By SmokeRngs on 2/20/2007 4:59:48 PM , Rating: 2
I've said this before and I'll say it again.

Vista does not currently have anything discernibly better for the average user other than Aero. If the average user does not see anything is better, why would they buy it.

UAC is annoying for most average users. They were not accustomed to it before and they won't like it now. It doesn't matter if it's a good or a bad thing, many do not like it. It also doesn't matter if you can disable it. Will the average user be able to disable it as soon as they login on Vista the first time?

Price. Vista Ultimate is Vista. Anything else is a stripped down version of the OS. The average user did not see any advantage to using XP Pro over Home so the price difference didn't mean anything to them. Vista Home Basic is not the baseline for the OS. Vista Ultimate is the baseline. The other versions just have things stripped out. I still think MS would have been better off sticking with the Home and Pro versions with a "Plus Pack" for the media center functions and some of the other features. This would lower the price for the base OS to a more reasonable level while not making people buy some features not likely to be used by most. Sorry, but the average user will not use the media center functions.

Right now, there are no new easily noticeable features for the average user. It does not speed up applications or general usage outside of faster program loading in some cases. It also needs a lot more RAM than previously found in most systems to achieve this.

DirectX 10 is not the end all be all at this point. Nothing uses it. I've heard over and over of the potential is has. I won't doubt that it does have a lot of potential. However, you can't really use it. There are no games or applications out right now (that I know of) that use it. Drivers for the 8800 series nVidia cards are at best shoddy right now. I see this as MS's and nVidia's fault. It's up to nVidia to write the drivers and make sure they do what they are supposed to. It's MS's duty to make sure the only DirectX 10 video card out should work well with their new OS and be able to show off the strengths of DirectX 10.

Usability. Everything has been moved around from previous MS OSes. It can be a real pain to navigate through several things to get to something that had its own place in the Control Panel or something similar. I had a friend call me up when he was working on someone's system that had Vista pre-installed. He hated the way you had to click through a couple menus to get to something simple which you had direct access to before.

Marketing. MS hasn't been able to properly market Vista since there isn't anything new in the OS that visibly helps the average user other than Aero and that's a mixed bag. If MS has a lot of features that would help the average user, they would be shouting them from the rooftops. I just haven't seen this happen.

I still laugh at the piracy blame. The vast majority of MS OS sales come from machines preloaded with it. You can't blame low sales on those machines due to piracy.

RE: Vista Problems
By TomZ on 2/20/2007 5:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'll just respond to a couple of your points.

UAC can be easily turned off if it is found to be annoying - 'nuff said. I like UAC because at least I have informed consent and I can (and sometimes do) answer "no."

As to the usability problems with the Control Panel - what you describe is that your friend can't find things they were able to in XP. That is because it changed - doesn't mean it is worse. In fact, if you use the Search feature, you'll quickly realize how much faster it is to find what you want. For example, to view the installed fonts, just type "fonts." It's a huge usability improvement, especially for a novice user.

I know that Vista is different in serveral areas and has features that have not been fully realized, but I think you would be missing the big picture if you don't recognize that change due to such improvements have value in the longer-term. I do agree that the "all change is bad" kind of person shouldn't upgrade to Vista, but nor should they ever buy a new car, move into a new house, enter into a new relationship, etc. I think that living like that is boring.

RE: Vista Problems
By hopsandmalt on 2/20/2007 5:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think there is more to this then what you lead on to...

The average user? It really matters what the average user is defined as. Maybe a college student, a mom that gets home from dropping the kids off from school, joe blow?

For the average user there are TONS of things that are better.... (These are things that are included and dont require another program)

1.) Completely integrated calendar that can be shared with other users.
2.) Network center that makes the options of file sharing, printer sharing, MEDIA sharing, all in one spot and just a click away.
3.) Movie Maker with very simple DVD authoring. Simple, but its there.
4.) Improved photo management, with simple photo correction tools. Includes tags.
5.) Sidebar. You may not like it, but to the average user I can now get my weather, news, photos, immediately once I log on. I can even put a dictionary there, an email notifier, etc. Pretty damn nice for the average user.
6.) Search utility. I can now search through files, emails, web, all for one thing.
7.) Games for Windows. To the AVERAGE user having all of your games located in one location, easy setup, easy loading.
8.) Parental Controls. This may or may not be for the average user. I use it for my kids and it was something I very much welcomed.
9.) Ease of use. Again, this depends on the definition of average user. But for me, sure it may be different than XP, (maybe because its not XP) BUT everything is setup logically for the average user. Especially someone that isnt computer literate. My wife prefers Vista over XP because its easier for her to find things. I consider her an average user.
10.) More information, easier to configure system. Vista provides much much more information regarding system resources. Again, this may not be an average user thing, but its a huge improvement. I can easily control whats starting up at boot, versus using msconfig, I can control device startup programs in one place now, I can see exactly what is making my hard drive active for long periods of time in the task manager. Hell Task Manager alone is a huge improvement.

Thats 10, off the top of my head without even being on a Vista computer at home. (At work) Direct X 10, I think this will be upon people sooner than they think. Look at Crytek. I think alot of people OVER generalize what they think is wrong with an OS, finding out many of them havent even used it or tried it thouroughly.

By mac2j on 2/20/2007 10:55:41 AM , Rating: 3
I HATE those Mac vs PC commercials ... except the new one where the Vista PC has to approve or reject every comment he makes ...

I'll NEVER buy Vista the way it is - I have no need for its stupid security "idiot-check" protocols at home or at work. I'll happily stick with XP and hope Vista being such a POS is all the motivation Apple needs to push out OS-X for PC.

By hopsandmalt on 2/20/2007 1:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
You know you can turn them off, right?


I enjoy having those checks, Why? Because I have 2 kids that have Vista on their computers. One, it makes them think about what they are doing. Two, they come and ask me now if what they are doing is okay. Im not in repairing mistakes as much as I used to.

By Chris Peredun on 2/20/2007 10:56:16 AM , Rating: 3
I've had to find the "Dance Monkeyboy Dance" video, aka "Developers Developers Developers" to explain to several colleagues why I was chuckling at the Ballmer image. Kudos.

By Brassbullet on 2/20/2007 9:47:24 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes, the dance monkeyboy video.

In addition to being one of the most embarassingly funny videos ever, it really highlights the incredibly false relationship CEOs purport to have with their employees and the public.

I like Seagate's CEO from what I've heard of him. He's honest, quick to the point, and very frank. He may not be the nicest man in the world, but I could respect working for him (tried to at one point, live a few miles from one of their main locations).

Hoopla is always much to do about nothing, and even more so when its in your favor.

XP is the reason, not piracy
By PrinceGaz on 2/20/2007 11:03:40 AM , Rating: 5
Piracy isn't the reason for poor adoption of Vista compared to XP; the reason is that XP now works a helluva lot better than 98/ME ever did, and that most people using XP don't want the hassle let alone the expense of switching to Vista when everything works fine already (and might work worse or not at all afterwards).

Windows XP offered major improvements in stability and many other areas over 98/ME which made upgrading very desirable. Driver availability wasn't a problem either as if a specific XP driver wasn't available, you could almost always use the Windows 2000 driver without any issues, and any hardware without a solid Windows 2000 driver by then was probably overdue for replacement.

In fact such was the improvement of Windows 2000 over Windows 98SE that I had already upgraded to it long before XP was launched, and therefore had no need to move to XP for a long time - in fact the only reason I eventually did switch to XP was out of curiosity rather than there being anything wrong with 2000.

Fast forward seven years to today and I find there is absolutely no reason to even consider switching from XP to Vista yet, and there is unlikely to be any good reason for quite a long time - certainly not until long after Vista SP1 is released, and probably Vista SP2 if they do a rush-job on SP1. When (if ever) the time is right I'll make the move to Vista, but until then I'll continue using XP and Ubuntu. It certainly isn't piracy that is to blame for me not having bought a copy of Vista yet.

By room200 on 2/20/2007 12:25:26 PM , Rating: 5
It's very simple:

1. XP is very stable.
2. Vista is too expensive.
3. There are waaayy toom many versions of Vista.
4. Vista is not proven as far as stability.
5. Too many security features in Vista which prohibit you from doing this and that (big brother over your shoulder).
6. It doesn't seem to be to much of an advance to make me want to switch....yet.

I think piracy has NOTHING to do with it.

Taken from FreshScoop.Com
By Mitch101 on 2/20/2007 3:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
You should buy Vista if:

1. You are buying a new PC or Laptop today then you should go with Vista and probably avoid any PC that doesnt ship with Vista pre-istalled. Simple because anyone selling a PC today without Vista Pre-Installed probably has hardware with driver/compatibility issues and down the line will most probably still have driver issues forcing you to upgrade your brand new system to be Vista compatible or meet Vista's requirements.

2. You get an amazing deal on the price of a legal copy of the product because you want to take advantage of some of the free items that come with the initial offers but plan on installing the OS on a machine you plan on building in the next couple of months or somewhere down the road. I did this with a special edition copy of Windows XP that came with a bobblehead and baseball for a mere $35.00. It was some 9 months before I built the machine using that disc. If you see a copy for $8.00 I wouldnt expect it to work very long with Windows updates. Microsoft can afford the $8.00 to rip it apart and find out how to block it from future updates. If you spread out the cost of the OS over 2 years then a legal copy of Vista is less than $10.00 a month. Well worth what Microsoft provides.

Why you should NOT buy Vista today.

1. Right now the main reason NOT to buy Vista is there is no KILLER APPLICATION that requires you to have Vista running on your machine. There is no must have application that only works on Microsoft Vista. Microsoft knows this and this is why Direct X10 will be a Vista exclusive. Because Vista need a killer application that causes you to get excited about wanting Vista. While they could release Direct X10 for Windows XP, lets get real there is no reason they couldnt, they just wont. Because Vista needs something you cant get on Windows XP. It needs a clear advantage and DX10 brings that to the table.

2. Hardware. The hardware demands are a little higher and certainly the initial release of the OS's demand for higher grade hardware is beginning to have an effect on hardware prices.

A) RAM is certainly getting cheaper for the first time in ages because demand has been higher. Waiting a little longer for prices to decline is not a bad idea.

B) The lack of Direct X10 video cards in the channel as well for Vista. Lets face it you should not be building a Vista machine around Direct X9 video cards because they are going to be short lived. This doesnt mean all DX9 video cards are now scrap its just that the hardware specifications of DX9 compared to DX10 is a pretty wide gap and it wont be long before DX10 is the minumum game requirement. With the lack of Direct X10 video hardware there is a premium to be paid for upgrading right now to vista and being ready for Direct X10. Its best to wait while there is some competition from ATI/AMD before buiding a Vista machine today.

C) There is going to be a lot of change in the hardware companies this year. DX10 video cards, New CPU's from AMD, DDR3 for Motherboards, PCI-E2, Onboard Readyboost/swapfile systems, The list goes on and Vista is a power hungry OS. If your existing machine isnt struggling today it may just struggle with Vista installed so you have to weigh the options of Installing Vista on what you have or should you wait until the hardware exceeds the ability of the Vista operating system? Right now Vista and XP performance wise are on par with each other providing you have some pretty beefy hardware to begin with and at least 2 gigs of ram. If your hardware is over a year old it might be time to build or buy a new machine to use with Vista. Dual core is pretty close to being the baseline standard and it wont be long before you require dual core or get some real improvements from having one. My thought is if its not dual core dont consider Vista and stick with XP.

3. Compatibility. While Microsoft may have some generic drivers out their for most of the hardware you have. Is everything you have capable of working with Vista 100%? There are a lot of items out there that dont work with Vista from scanners to video cards not to mention a list of software that will have a few issues with the new OS. Even companies that are not going to make drivers for Vista eve though the hardware is not that old. Games are already running into some major issues with the new rating system. While overblown to a certain degree if your the only technical computer savvy person in your family then if your family is upgrading your going to have to solve thier problems for them. You will probably find they have a lot of items just not compatible with Vista. These things will get sorted out over time however early adopters are expected to have issues. Either understand that and figure down the line it may be resolved or just dont upgrade yet. Wait until we have a few more patches and possibly as most corporate places do or wait for service pack 1. Which I think SP1 will be rushed ahead of schedule because Microsoft knows this is a typical adoption process.

4. 64-Bit. The problems are compounded when considering 64 bit versions of Windows. Drivers and support are even more scarce. Even getting a copy of Vista 64 isnt as easy as buying it from the local store. Personally 64 bit is the route I wanted to go immediately as I do VM's and 4 gig wont cut it since if Vista likes 2 Gig to start with then I would build each VM with 2 gigs for performance reasons. This leaves me with 1 VM and my OS. I would want at least 8 gigs. Even then I dont belive the drivers are mature enough for this. Lets get 64 bit moving before there is more RAM on my video card than on my motherboard.

You have to ask yourself one question. What do I need to do that I cant do with Windows XP that would require me to run Vista? The answer is NOTHING! If you need the eye candy go buy StarDock as those users understand XP with StarDock is thier answer until the KILLER APPLICATION or DIRECT X10 becomes a necessity.

Im sure at some point I will embrace Windows Vista as much as I embrace Windows 2000 and XP. Windows Ribbon is starting to grow on me but currently I see Vista as something that will just cost me money and a slight performance decrease. Especially when talking XP 32-bit and Vista 32-bit versions I just dont see the value in that change yet. I personally expect to embrace Vista when Direct X10 comes out for the PC. Now only if Microsoft would release Gears of War for the PC when it releases DX10. That would be a nice reason to go to DX10. I certainly dont see Flight Sim as getting my willy all excited to upgrade.

RE: Taken from FreshScoop.Com
By kmmatney on 2/20/2007 10:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
You have to ask yourself one question. What do I need to do that I cant do with Windows XP that would require me to run Vista?

if you want to run a sweet game of Freecell, you need Windows Vista. But seriously, Windows XP is boring after using the Aero interface.

Free 120 Days
By Bluestealth on 2/20/2007 10:14:59 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe this wasn't such a good idea :), I mean unlimited installs per DVD to give around to your friends so they know why they "don't" need Vista. You don't even need to give out your license key, and they are free to try any version. Piracy , HA!, why would you need to pirate Vista?

RE: Free 120 Days
By Bluestealth on 2/20/2007 12:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry about that, the idea that piracy is hurting Vista is laughable, I guess I went a bit overboard. *Hides head in shame

Piracy to blame?
By Proteusza on 2/20/2007 10:46:40 AM , Rating: 3
I wouldnt pirate Vista if you paid me. Not because of fear of prosecution, but because it doesn't work!

I think the software and entertainment industries actually spend too much on anti-piracy measures. Firstly, does spending the cash make up the lost revenue? Will people who cant afford the exorbitant prices suddenly say, "Well I cant pirate it now so I may as well go without food for a while and buy it." Does spending that amount of money really convince people to buy and not copy? I dont think so. It makes the piraters life difficult for a while, but then the product is pirated and released anyway. If you spend that much on anti piracy measures, wouldnt you expect a significant reduction of piracy? Yet that doesnt seem to be the case. Instead when we buy software legally we are inviting rootkits and malware that invade our piracy. And the only reason we stand for it is because purchasing software gives the feeling we are doing something right, and therefore must be rewarded with well functioning products for it. Instead we are faced with the reality that pirated software is healthier for our systems than legally purchased software because it contains no malware (or less malware).

I am not pro piracy, despite what it may sound like. But I am against the latest batch of DRM measures that do nothing but cause harm.

By mgambrell on 2/20/2007 2:05:31 PM , Rating: 3
I can assure you that piracy of vista led directly to my early usage of it and prompt decision to forbid anyone I know or love from using it and to refuse to support it.

Capitalism, anyone?
By McGuffin on 2/20/2007 2:29:59 PM , Rating: 3
If MS want people to buy their product, maybe they should try concentrating on price and/or features, like companies that have some actual competition.

Paying a high price for something with few benefits isn't something that sensible PC consumers should do anyway. Anyone remember the PhysX card? Maybe those didn't sell because people were downloading them on BitTorrent. ;)

By encryptkeeper on 2/20/2007 3:14:32 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer repeatedly suggested that piracy is the reason why Vista is coming up short in sales.

No. That is NOT the reason. Vista sales are slow because people have nothing but nightmare stories about installs, driver issues, games not being played etc. As soon as some positive press comes out (that and a service pack, although with Vista those are the same things) then maybe they'll see some increase.

He's right
By msva124 on 2/20/2007 3:24:12 PM , Rating: 3
It's piracy that allowed me to install Vista on my computer for free and see how slow it was. Had that not been the case, I might have actually bought the thing. Thanks pirates.

Note to Steve
By BladeVenom on 2/20/2007 4:36:59 PM , Rating: 3
The more you tighten your grip, Ballmer, the more Window users will slip through your fingers.

Half the people who have problems with WGA are legitimate customers not pirates.

Microsoft to Blame
By Teletran1 on 2/20/2007 9:25:25 PM , Rating: 3
There is virtually no reason to move to Vista. The hardware requirements are higher, games run worse, where are the DX10 games? (HALO2 was supposed to be vista only should of been available at launch since its an old game), its expensive for the average person who wants the better version, hardware drivers are crap (especially the 64bit version), the media has been slamming it as a DRM trojan horse, I don't trust trusted computing and my current XP64 install is probably the best version of windows I have ever used.

I wouldn't even pirate this thing. Its a waste of my time. I used the RTM for a while and was completely turned off of Vista. Can anyone name any sort of features that it adds other than visually. Didn't they spend a bunch of time trying to stop piracy. All these reports that Aero Glass wouldn't work with a pirated copy. Now they admit that it is pirated right at release. MS your a joke.

Good one
By sanjamal on 2/20/2007 10:26:20 AM , Rating: 2
Good job there Balmer. Let's point the finger at...ennie, meenie, mynie...oh look, it's piracy. Remember when you point that finger that you have 3 others pointing back at you. Let's try buggy OS, or maybe lack of developers support for the OS, or the fact that if I actually install the OS my soundcard (Audigy) becomes a useless piece of scrap, or the sheer price of the OS (I'm in Canada so it's about $600 for Ultimate). Ah, we could go on and I'm sure that many people here will, so I'll just leave it at that.

This isn't to say that piracy isn't a problem, but I think that time and effort would be better spent trying to make the product more appealing to the majority of the potential customers out there instead of trying to stop the minority that are sailing with black flags - they wouldn't dock at port Microsoft anyways.

Bottom line is that I haven't bought the OS yet and won't consider it until it is something that becomes useful/beneficial to me. And no, I don't classify releasing a 2-3 year old game that only works on Vista as making the OS more appealing. Fix the damn thing.

Sales loss due to pirating???
By frobizzle on 2/20/2007 10:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
Let's face it, Vista is a bag of crap that offers little incentive to upgrade and lots of reasons not to. Ballmer's threat to add more anti-piracy crippleware to their software is really more of a desire to take control the user's machine and leave the user little more to be able to do than hit the power button. It's not about piracy, it's about (an attempt at) control. (Like DRM)

BTW, wouldn't the picture of Ballmer from this article
be more fitting here?

By Frenchnew on 2/20/2007 11:18:39 AM , Rating: 2
Those CEO are so out of touch with reality that someone should swiftly kick them back into it.

I have no interest in Vista, maybe in 2 to 3 years once it has matured and is less buggy, but then the include bloat will still come with it.

XP is finally reaching cruising altitude.

No Thank you Microsoft, I will not buy a copy of Vista and I will not get a crack copy etheir even if you paid me.

Piracy is not the reason.
By SniperSlap on 2/20/2007 12:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
Piracy is not the #1 reason for Vista's lack of sales.

First would be price. How Microsoft can expect such a boneheadded product selection and price gouging to encourage sales is beyond me.

Second reason would be the difficulty involved in pirating Vista. To Microsoft's credit, they have managed to produce an operating system that is more hassle to pirate (and legitimately operate) than it is not to.

Third is performance. Vista consumes an ignorant amount of system resources leaving behind very little for the programs themselves. I do not buy for a second that people are running Vista without trouble and making any sort of credible demand on their computers. My impression is that the bloat involved between Windows editions is due to lazy programming and overcomplicated and poorly architected visual enhancements.

We all know Ballmer is just a junkie for clever omissions and careful wording. So let's just chalk this up as another attempt on his behalf to defend Microsoft from the truth.

Excuses, Excuses...
By cubdukat on 2/20/2007 12:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
Just can't admit that Vista is all borked, can ya, Ballmer? Don't promise what you can't deliver.

If you fell on your ass, would you blame the floor?

If they drop the price on full Vista packages, it might be a better value.

I'm no Linux fanboy, but it's galling that Microsoft insists on charging big bucks for an OS that is only slightly more advanced than the one that it replaces--not to mention 10-15% slower playing DX9 games! And there are no DX10 games yet! It may take a little (okay, a good deal) more work, but just about all of the major selling points of Vista (speed, security, eye candy) can be had for the price of a download. Even Ubuntu is capable of these things, and everyone looks down on it as Linux for Dummies. But what does that say if a Linux for Dummies is tighter out of the box than a $250+ OS?

These guys basically made way too many promises that they couldn't keep given their timetable, or just stuff they plain ouright couldn't do.

And don't even get me started on the entire EAX/hardware sound acceleration non-support problem.

I think I'll wait until after Vista's had a couple service packs behind it before I even consider switching, if even then. Right now, the only thing Vista's gonna be good for is driving people towards Linux. IMHO, that's what Vista is: What Linux would be if Microsoft got their hands on it--borked, buggy and basically another huge money pit.

Biased headline-
By giantpandaman2 on 2/20/2007 12:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm no fan of Ballmer, indeed, I think he sticks his foot in his mouth more than not. (Fat, sweaty, dancing cheerleader anyone?) However, this article is blatantly spun against him. If people RTFA it says he repeatedly emphasized that sales forecast of "Windows - Vista in particular - were 'overly optimistic.'" Not that he repeatedly emphasized piracy was the problem.

While the article does talk about piracy he focuses mainly on emergent markets. He also says it's only one component in increasing sales of Vista-he doesn't blame slow sales on it.

The amount of spin in this article-which is just a summarization of another article-is something I'd expect out of a poorly researched blog, not a news site. Call me elitist, but I expect more from Dailytech.

All I know is...
By Raidin on 2/20/2007 12:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
As soon as I opened this article, saw Ballmer's corner pic, and saw the article's subtitle, I thought for a sec that it read: " Microsoft plans to step up antiperspiration measures to bolster Vista sales "

Piracy an excuse
By raphd on 2/20/2007 1:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Piracy is an excuse, nothing more. I would buy vista if i could get some decent drivers with it. (I tried the 30days trial and half my hw i could not use.)

Why bother??
By CustomPCz on 2/20/2007 7:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
Too new, too buggy with it's driver issue's, and I refuse to pay for a tweaked beta version of an OS. I won't touch it until after it's 1st Service pack and even then I'll delay just long enough to ensure they haven't created any security breech's. For now, I'm just about ready to try my promo copy of XP pro 64bit courtesy of Microsoft.
Think I'm too cautious?? Wasn't ME supposed to be revolutionary when it was released? Right.....

By drunkenmastermind on 2/20/2007 8:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
I live in Japan and run English windows, tried to buy the upgrade, sorry only for the US. Tried to buy a license, sorry only in the US. Tried to buy off Amazon,sorry we can not ship this to you...but books and dvds OK. In Japan the English vista ultimate DVD was 62000 yen, thats about 620 USD. Fuck that! Thats why I am not buying it!

By cheetah2k on 2/20/2007 10:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
Blaming piracy as an excuse for slow Vista sales is so pathetic.

Sony has proven that if you release a piece of crap, sales are bound to be slow.

Vista is just that... its a memory hogging, hardware and driver unfriendly piece of crap! Infact, the term "crap" is a nice way of describing Vista from my experience with it... I've even almost converted to the dark side of the force - Mac OS!

The bottom line... Stick with XP Pro. There's no need for Vista right now unless you must have DX10 and a biatch slapping nagging UAC...

Piracy the cause...
By mortrek on 2/20/2007 11:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
So Ballmer is saying that piracy has increased 60% on Vista despite the increase in computer users and the increase in Vista anti-piracy measures.
I can't see how that could ever possibly add up.

By Comdrpopnfresh on 2/21/2007 12:21:21 AM , Rating: 2
Although a friend of mine has a fully registered, validated pirated version of vista installed, I hardly think their lack of sales is due to piracy- its the same crap we've been hearing from the MPAA and RIAA.
Vista is not selling because there is nothing wrong with XP- they are continuing to extend the support time period for it, it is stable, and the most efficient home version of windows given its feature-set. Vista is simply prettier, more convenient for business and bloated. The innovative features it was supposed to have were removed, and the fact that it was originally supposed to be built from scratch and was then built off of existing an existing NT core (server 2003 or something... maybe NT6- it doesn't matter) only speaks magnitudes to the fact that its more evolutionary than revolutionary- and a small evolution it is- simply a broad 64-bit OS.
Further hindering Vista's sales is a few other things:

1. Price- why fix it when it isn't broken? Those who casually use computers and know nothing besides what the pamphlets or popups with/on a computer provide will not see much functionality improvement with vista. This accounts for a large chunk of consumers.

2. Vienna. If the price isn't going to change, why get vista when Vienna will come out in 2-4 years? Perhaps Vienna will see better sales.

3. Packs. Those people mentioned in my first point don't know the difference between the versions of vista, and even worse- don't know if their computers can meet the standards for the versions they can't even differ between. Another point here is that the upgrade adding WinFS and other goodies will mostly be an upgrade worth paying for- therefore MS will make you do so- tying this in with point two- those of us who know our facts will not pay for an OS twice when the one coming relatively shortly will most likely natively include the features anyhow.

4. MS just doesn't learn- Ballmer recently said the reason Vista took so long to come out was because of the time and resources spent on SP2 for XP. Well now they're making SP1 for vista along with SP3 for XP, all while trying to make Vienna- which makes me believe the projection of Vienna's launch is up in smoke along with much of the recent MS projections as well- like the selling points for Vista which MS now acknowledges as wrong.

MS needs to have an "Internal Affairs" to clean up from the inside out instead of blaming those who want to dip their toes in the vista experience without selling an arm and the leg the toes are attached to.

These comments tire me
By enlil242 on 2/21/2007 2:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
I had to stop reading these posts ... getting tired of it... I find that there are two types of people here. One's who cannot cope with change and the others who can.

I tried vista a few times and finally embraced it. My applications run fine. I had to upgrade a few but that is OK (same as OSX, remember? anyone still running OS9 environment on their macs?)

XP compatibility mode works for others or I configure to run as Administrator without issue. Whether XP runs faster than Vista I am not sure as SuperFetch and ReadyBoost makes it seem faster than XP. (Apps open instantaneously!)

The "pop ups" someone complained about are a necessary evil. I'd imagine that you certainly wouldn't want to use Mac OSX or Linux because you would actually have to type your admin password every time too! Sheesh, it seems MS can't please anyone. You ask for security and when you get it you bitch...

And even if Apple were to EVER release OSX for the PC, I guarantee you it would not only run ass slow, but they will have more problems with drivers and apps running than MS ever had. you just wait.

I kept and still have an "image" of my XP machine. I went back to it a couple times until I understood how to get my apps and games to work. Now I am running smooth and am happy. No need to dual boot (Who dual boots? sheesh, just build a second computer for crying out loud) And in a nutshell love the new OS. If you don't who cares, use XP until "Vienna" comes out and bitch about that.

I am Enlil242, a Vista only user...

Ballmer is Bullshitting!
By Frallan on 2/21/2007 2:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
Im sitting doing a survey of IT directors in Sweden (which is a test country for technical acceptance) and I have spooken to 34 IT managers the last 4 days. 33 of them has answered No way! on the question whether they will implement MS Vista in 2007.

The reason for this is that they will probably not do anything before sp2 or beginning of 2008 when normal machine replacement dictates that you certify Vista for running corporate key apps.

Conclusion: Ballmer is Bullshitting! If the companies I have spooken for refuses to install then that explaines why the sales are down. It also explaines why analysts on the "street" who never acctually did anything more then a spreadsheet on a computer overestimated sales. They belive what the PR departments tells them LoL!

my 2 cents

This guy is nuts.
By Visual on 2/21/2007 4:14:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, totally nuts.
Hell, I downloaded and installed Vista, and for some weird reason it's activation countdown is stuck at the max period... yeah my system clock might have been a decade or century off when i installed it, don't remember. Does that make me a pirate?
And yet, I don't use Vista for now. Found plenty of kinks and quirks to turn me off...

But in a way, he is right. Vista was like the first MS OS that I actually planned to buy. Then I tried it ("pirated" if you will, though it does have a trial period), and now am gonna hold on that purchase for a while later.

Windows Vista = Craptastic
By BigMattock on 2/21/2007 4:58:08 AM , Rating: 2
I "borrowed" a copy of Vista for evaluation purposes, and decided to dual-boot with my current XP Pro install. The installation went off without a hitch. After that, it was all downhill. After booting into Vista, my system seemed more sluggish than normal despite having scored a 5.5 After searching for drivers, and finally getting them to load, the system was finally ready to be tested. I can say this... I never once saw a BSOD... the system would just lockup and have to be warm booted. This happened for about the first 4 days, until I updated the drivers for my Microsoft mouse and keyboard. Then, after finding out how slow my openGL apps ran, I ditched the POS. Why should I pay to beta-test an OS that supposedly had already been thru beta? Just wait until Blackcomb comes out. By then, Palladium will be supported by all motherboard manufacturers... LOL

Microsoft - "All your PC are belong to us."

As if we didn't know already,
By mindless1 on 2/21/2007 5:31:54 AM , Rating: 2
Ballmer is an idiot. Poor sales? Let's claim Vista is so darn great it MUST be that people are using it anyway, just not buying it. Let's use that as an excuse to make antipiracy measures more intrusive, but let's not consider that it will make an OS that is undesirable (to many), that much moreso.

Others at MS are more realistic, that projections were too high. Beyond those who are enthusiasts, I don't recall anyone who felt compelled to buy a new PC to get Vista, rather they are concerned more about the performance of their system relative to the jobs they run, which is how it SHOULD be. When the average Joe buys Vista it will be through an OEM it it will be because that's what came on the PC, instead of XP.

I continually wonder why MS keeps Ballmer around, he's like a private joke.

Vista install
By montgom on 2/21/2007 1:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
3 machines, 3 clean Vista installs done with ease.
Sorry, no problems to report.

PS Upgrades over XP are a fools game.

By lemonadesoda on 2/21/2007 5:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
1./ Too expensive. In the 21st century, software SHOULD offer more at lower cost... ie. yes it should be better than XP, and YES, it should be cheaper too.

2./ Stupid new license: "Install once... and no transfer", is not attractive to me. Notice that the "install once" license therefore means there will be NO UPGRADES for Vista to [the next] Windows OS.

I like Aero, Glass, newer, simpler, Macier, interface. But features? Not a lot: I can wait.

Funny, with most software I'm always upgrading to the next .point release. But the overhead cost, money and time, is too great at this point for my SOHO.

Vista and Ballmer
By dlm2090 on 2/23/2007 9:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
I've been playing with Vista because I have to fix what others mess up. For those who work on Computers Microsoft makes it very difficult to repair things. Did you know people always loose their their Key code, even if it is stuck to their case kids pick it off, or the cat eats it.
Hard drives fail, mother boards are replaced. Resellers don't give disks. How you suppose to fix what someone lawfully paid for. Xp caused enough problems, windows 98 was easy to install. But because of Piracy issues with Microsoft, it got harder. Vista will even make it harder.
Especiall for companies that want to upgrade. Hense my point, why would a company want to spend that much money to upgrade to Vista. There software that is specialized for them won't run on it. They have to upgrade others, and spend tech time figuring out why what they have been doing for years, won't work. The money isn't made for home computers, but those home computer people work somewhere.

Bad word of mouth is Vista's problem, Money is the next Problem, it costs, and it is very annoying, that is a personal reason. I thought microsoft did market research, obviously someone wanted to be like the New York Times, and just make up something.

If they want to sell Vista lower the price. People will get used to it. Stop making it hard on the people who have to fix the stuff. I'm not recommending Vista to anyone.

By FakeDetector on 2/25/2007 3:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
America is an Amazing Country !!

Thats the only place i know this monkey (ballmer) can be CEO os a company like MS..

Well, the company itself looks like a Monkey's Friendly place

Maybe it's time...
By CKDragon on 2/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Maybe it's time...
By PrinceGaz on 2/20/2007 10:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
Download some live CD distro versions then you can try them all out without having to install anything. Just remember that the live CD version probably won't have the optimal drivers available for your system, and will also run a lot slower than a real installation of that distro on your hard-drive. Provided you keep that in mind, live CDs are a great way to try out the different distros to find which you like best.

Some distros such as Ubuntu actually use the same CD for use as a live CD or doing a full install so there is no need to download anything extra with them if you decide to go with it.

RE: Maybe it's time...
By intangible on 2/20/2007 1:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ubuntu is definitely worth a try ( ). If you have any questions, the people over at including myself will be happy to explain things.

I just laugh at the people complaining about cost.
By michal1980 on 2/20/07, Rating: -1
By codeThug on 2/20/2007 5:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
If you are buying Vista for a new PC, I see your point and agree. It's not a huge amount for what it does, as long as bug fixes etc. come with the price ..AND.. it truly is good for 5+ years.

As far as upgrading... No way. What it does above and beyond XP is not worth the price at this time.

I think most folks just enjoy Ballmer bashing as much as I do. It's the arrogance he radiates that instills discontent with many people.

By michal1980 on 2/20/2007 8:14:44 PM , Rating: 1
i agree, it rarely makes sense to upgrade a machine.

But I did tell my sister to wait on getting a new one. now vista is shipping, and I have no problems recomending to someone that will just use basic functions.

as much as UAC annoys SOME people. for some it will be nice, you go to some bad website, if all works well UAC will pop up and say hey this is installing you want it too?

Its overall annoying when you KNOW what you are installing is safe... but I think it might be great for noobs, that need a reminder from time to time.

people here are making a big fuss like M$ is standing over them with a whip saying VISTA IS OUT UPGRADE NOW!!!!.

When most of us here know theres no reason For US to upgrade. In a year that will change, more and more programs will be built with vista in mind, and some might be vista only. in 2 years phhhfff, the hardware your on now will be accent.

Think of the direction pc's are going, 1gig of ram is quickly becoming the standard, and moving to the lower end systems. 2gb of ram is the mainstream highend. 4gb now IS the high end. What about a year from now? only the cheapest pc's will have a 1gb of ram. Vista will run just fine

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles

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