Microsoft has characterized itself as happy with Windows Vista adoption so far and Bill Gates said last week at WinHEC that Microsoft had shipped 40 million copies. However, research firm In-Stat, which has tracked sales since Vista's release and is forecasting PC sales through 2011, has concluded that Vista has not resulted in a significant bump in PC sales. In-Stat's conclusions are not surprising, especially given the way in which consumers typically migrate to a new operating system. Most people will stick with whatever came with their computer, only upgrading to a new OS with the purchase of a new PC.
In the months running up to Vista's January release, some consumers put off PC purchases in order to get a shiny new Vista installation instead of Windows XP and a coupon for a free Vista upgrade. However, that has proven to be a short-term phenomenon, according to In-Stat. "System sales that had been muted waiting for systems pre-loaded with Vista rather than XP are expected to work through sales channels in the next two quarters. However, these sales represent an offset from last year rather than actual new demand creation," said In-Stat analyst Ian Lao.
News source: Ars Technica
In the months running up to Vista's January release, some consumers put off PC purchases in order to get a shiny new Vista installation instead of Windows XP and a coupon for a free Vista upgrade. However, that has proven to be a short-term phenomenon, according to In-Stat. "System sales that had been muted waiting for systems pre-loaded with Vista rather than XP are expected to work through sales channels in the next two quarters. However, these sales represent an offset from last year rather than actual new demand creation," said In-Stat analyst Ian Lao.
News source: Ars Technica
Having to have more resources just to run Vista is something that like my company as well as others have to figure is "TCO" (Total Cost of Ownership) associated to the upgrading of their existing infrastructure, and not to mention making sure that older applications that we use still work. This takes time and more money.
Home users are not faced with the problems on the scale that enterprise users are.
Heck the company I work for is just getting the licenses and the discs from Microsoft just getting prepared to be deployed sometime in July. But from speaking with my superiors they said that a majority of the machines will be replaced with Vista installed with a custom image on new machines.
Personally I love
Last edited by OoNeooO on 24 May 2007 - 04:11
Vista has created a sales boom.
Vista has had no significant effect on sales.
I guess one can look at the facts in many different ways.
Vista has created a sales boom.
Vista has had no significant effect on sales.
I guess one can look at the facts in many different ways.
Or you can break up the 40 million in "sales" into:
Upgrade coupons
OEM preloads still sitting on the shelf
2-5 million retail copies sold
Unknown number of pirated versions
Ok, I made up the retail number, because MS doesn't want to release any revealing figures, but I'm willing to bet that the "40 million" is not how many copies of Vista are running on desktops right now. If it was, you'd be seeing a lot more Vista traffic on the web, including here on Neowin. You'd be seeing a lot more Vista development. But none of that has happened yet.
When did MS say Vista was increasing PC sales? Once again a MS basher is making up bs, I'm not surprised.
And I'm not a "Microsoft basher". I am a MS spokesperson and beta tester. I ONLY use MS products, period. For example, I think the new Office 2007 is the best thing MS has done in a decade. The ribbon interface rules.
Regardless, I certainly AM a "Vista is overpriced, oversegmented, and underfeatured" proponent and I believe MS is using its monopoly disingenuously with Vista.
Labeling me black or white only makes you look ignorant.
And I'm not a "Microsoft basher". I am a MS spokesperson and beta tester. I ONLY use MS products, period. For example, I think the new Office 2007 is the best thing MS has done in a decade. The ribbon interface rules.
Regardless, I certainly AM a "Vista is overpriced, oversegmented, and underfeatured" proponent and I believe MS is using its monopoly disingenuously with Vista.
Labeling me black or white only makes you look ignorant.
Link/citation for the 'ms said this 3 weeks ago' otherwise you are probably talking about the 40 million sales statement which was true, and entirely different.
So, MS is selling a lot Vista because of their MONOPOLY, not because there is a huge demand for Vista over XP.
So, MS is selling a lot Vista because of their MONOPOLY, not because there is a huge demand for Vista over XP.
1. You didn't provide proof or a link that Vista is backlogged PC sales. And why would PC sales be backlogged unless users waited for Vista because they wanted it? This makes no sense.
2. MS has a monopoly because users want their software, and therefore PC makers pre-load it instead of software users don't want. If PC makers thought users would even tolerate it, they could save money by putting a free OS on their systems instead of paying for windows and charging users more for such systems. Obviously, if something that's free isn't wanted, it isn't good for the job, and that's the bottom line.
3. For an 'objective industry observer' (Who are you anyway? Probably some kid.), you don't seem objective, observant, or in touch with the industry.
So, MS is selling a lot Vista because of their MONOPOLY, not because there is a huge demand for Vista over XP.
1. You didn't provide proof or a link that Vista is backlogged PC sales. And why would PC sales be backlogged unless users waited for Vista because they wanted it? This makes no sense.
2. MS has a monopoly because users want their software, and therefore PC makers pre-load it instead of software users don't want. If PC makers thought users would even tolerate it, they could save money by putting a free OS on their systems instead of paying for windows and charging users more for such systems. Obviously, if something that's free isn't wanted, it isn't good for the job, and that's the bottom line.
3. For an 'objective industry observer' (Who are you anyway? Probably some kid.), you don't seem objective, observant, or in touch with the industry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Link http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/05/24/lit....effect.on.pcs/
The launch of Windows Vista hasn't created a significant increase in PC sales, according to a new report by In-Stat. The new Microsoft OS is said to have primarily shifted customers' purchases rather than accelerating them, as the reported sales spike was chiefly the result of a backlog of delayed purchases while experienced users waited to receive a preinstalled copy. Few customers actively sought out a Vista PC outside of their normal upgrade patterns. This was attributed in part to the lackluster appeal of the software itself, which hasn't been seen by many as a significant improvement over Windows XP.
"As a motivating factor to go buy a PC, Vista is not enough," said In-Stat analyst Ian Lao. "[But] it's not the scenario like [the rivalry between] Coke and Coke Classic. There isn't a big revolt going on."
The report calls into question Microsoft's claims of success for its sales figures, which reached 40 million in the first 100 days after Vista's appearance. The adoption rate is significantly higher than for the 2001 debut of XP but may be roughly in line with the growth of the PC business itself, suggesting that users are being forced to upgrade through new systems rather than as a conscious choice.
HMMM? Forced to upgrade because of new PC sales?
Similar statements from NPD Techworld also downplayed the significance of Vista. Analyst Stephen Baker from the group argues that the Microsoft interpretation requires a leap of faith to accept that software is more important than hardware. "It would require you to believe that on the consumer side, people actually buy their PC based on what operating system is inside," he says. "And I really don't believe that is the case,"
The situation may improve towards the end of the year, when PC builders will have had more time to design Vista-specific systems such as the SideShow-equipped ASUS W5fe and HP's all-in-one TouchSmart desktop.
Just like anything else, you can either believe it, or not.
So, MS is selling a lot Vista because of their MONOPOLY, not because there is a huge demand for Vista over XP.
1. You didn't provide proof or a link that Vista is backlogged PC sales. And why would PC sales be backlogged unless users waited for Vista because they wanted it? This makes no sense.
2. MS has a monopoly because users want their software, and therefore PC makers pre-load it instead of software users don't want. If PC makers thought users would even tolerate it, they could save money by putting a free OS on their systems instead of paying for windows and charging users more for such systems. Obviously, if something that's free isn't wanted, it isn't good for the job, and that's the bottom line.
3. For an 'objective industry observer' (Who are you anyway? Probably some kid.), you don't seem objective, observant, or in touch with the industry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Link http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/05/24/lit....effect.on.pcs/
The launch of Windows Vista hasn't created a significant increase in PC sales, according to a new report by In-Stat. The new Microsoft OS is said to have primarily shifted customers' purchases rather than accelerating them, as the reported sales spike was chiefly the result of a backlog of delayed purchases while experienced users waited to receive a preinstalled copy. Few customers actively sought out a Vista PC outside of their normal upgrade patterns. This was attributed in part to the lackluster appeal of the software itself, which hasn't been seen by many as a significant improvement over Windows XP.
"As a motivating factor to go buy a PC, Vista is not enough," said In-Stat analyst Ian Lao. "[But] it's not the scenario like [the rivalry between] Coke and Coke Classic. There isn't a big revolt going on."
The report calls into question Microsoft's claims of success for its sales figures, which reached 40 million in the first 100 days after Vista's appearance. The adoption rate is significantly higher than for the 2001 debut of XP but may be roughly in line with the growth of the PC business itself, suggesting that users are being forced to upgrade through new systems rather than as a conscious choice.
HMMM? Forced to upgrade because of new PC sales?
Similar statements from NPD Techworld also downplayed the significance of Vista. Analyst Stephen Baker from the group argues that the Microsoft interpretation requires a leap of faith to accept that software is more important than hardware. "It would require you to believe that on the consumer side, people actually buy their PC based on what operating system is inside," he says. "And I really don't believe that is the case,"
The situation may improve towards the end of the year, when PC builders will have had more time to design Vista-specific systems such as the SideShow-equipped ASUS W5fe and HP's all-in-one TouchSmart desktop.
Just like anything else, you can either believe it, or not.
Not sure what that has to do with anything, I asked for proof of the claim that Vista sales were due to backlogged PC sales, not PC sales in general. The backlogged part is missing from your reply, and I don't expect to see it in any other reply either, considering I read windows related news on many sites everyday and haven't seen it anywhere.
Proving something I didn't ask is, well, I dunno, a red herring crossed with a strawman?
OK, fine. Nobody has any proof what-so-ever of any backlogged PC sales. You don't have any physical proof either, links, etc. So what your telling me is, since Microsoft says that it shipped/sold whatever, 40 million copies of Vista, I want to see the proof of data sales? Do you have any? And Microsoft "saying" that they sold this many, shipped or whatever, this is not proof enough for me either then.
I guess market analysts just make up all this stuff. So I guess it is all hype. Who knows.
Last edited by D-M on 24 May 2007 - 23:16
Then maybe that would tell Microsoft the price of their operating system might be a wee bit too high?
Then maybe that would tell Microsoft the price of their operating system might be a wee bit too high?
It's in-line with other OS prices for that market, and considerably cheaper than OS X with its yearly $129 upgrades.
And if MS charged less, MS bashers like you would be tripping over themselves to scream 'dumping' on the forums as well as tell us how MS sucks for not making as much money. Give it a break, already, sheesh.
good job proving him wrong
It's not the point of proving anyone wrong. I shouldn't have to explain any further.
Get off Vista's back, researchers!
I'd also like to know what problems your talking about... I've seen VERY few problems with Vista - and I work in a large electronics store (we've sold hundreds of Vista notebooks).
I wouldn't suggest turning UAC off though, use the "Run as administrator" option instead.
eh???? buy super secure Vista..... then turn off its security features??????? mmmm nice plan.
I am a big MS fan and personally don't like Linux or Mac software, however Vista is an abomination that only the people who don't know any better or like sparkly packages would buy. 99% of IT professionals DON'T have it installed on their work PC.
MS have concentrated on the wrong areas with Vista e.g DRM and WGA, then theres security, it's OK having a secure machine but it becomes a bit of a lemon when its that secure that you can't perform day to day tasks and to do so you have to disable all said security.
Vista is a case of being a victim of MS's success, the designers/project managers start beleiving their own internal hype and not listening to customers and experts in the real World.
Vista has become just like Symantec products, bloated, full of unwanted services that aren't really needed and very very slow.
Symantec = Instant 20% drop in PC performance when installed.
Vista =Instant 20% drop in PC performance when installed.
Seems like a partnership made in heaven... can you imagine Vista with symantec installed?
eh???? buy super secure Vista..... then turn off its security features??????? mmmm nice plan.
I am a big MS fan and personally don't like Linux or Mac software, however Vista is an abomination that only the people who don't know any better or like sparkly packages would buy. 99% of IT professionals DON'T have it installed on their work PC.
MS have concentrated on the wrong areas with Vista e.g DRM and WGA, then theres security, it's OK having a secure machine but it becomes a bit of a lemon when its that secure that you can't perform day to day tasks and to do so you have to disable all said security.
Vista is a case of being a victim of MS's success, the designers/project managers start beleiving their own internal hype and not listening to customers and experts in the real World.
Vista has become just like Symantec products, bloated, full of unwanted services that aren't really needed and very very slow.
Symantec = Instant 20% drop in PC performance when installed.
Vista =Instant 20% drop in PC performance when installed.
Seems like a partnership made in heaven... can you imagine Vista with symantec installed?
I've been saying that since the day Longdong (I mean Longhorn) was announced. XP started out like that too though, with all it's default dumb a** eye candy that you turn off instantly and then the PITA security center alerts and wga checks, etc......................
From what I've seen of Vista though, I'm sticking with XP even if I get a newer machine. I'll wipe Vista off with a Linux distro then install XP. That's one thing having a copy of some Linux distro is good for.
I've seen many people put their foot in their mouth after they've installed Vista. Before, they were bashing Vista, then after taking the dive and giving it a shot, they realized that it's not as bad as people like you seem to make it.
I've also noticed a disturbing trend: people bashing Vista's eye candy interface, THEN installing *nix only to put Beryl... Am I the only one to find something wrong with that? lol
...
So, yeah, on high-end machines, I don't doubt Vista performs well. But your statement cannot be applied across all systems.
And who are you to judge, and based on what? Can't you people leave placebo effects out of here? User A thinks it's fast, while user B thinks it's slow. Give it a rest.
I believe that there are quite a few who do. Not to mention that Symantec products are a very popular bundle with OEMs.
Agreed. But that's what every new operating system has to face to a certain degree. This has not been the case with me though. I didn't like Vista to begin with, and using it for some time only made things worse. I am thankful that I don't have to put up with it.
What you are missing here is that Beryl/Compiz is not only about the eye-candy. Some of it's features are indeed useless (example: wobbly windows, rain effect, snow effect), but most can be very useful (example: Mac-like expose, desktop on a cube, zoom-anywhere, window grouping) and of course things that give a visual clue (alt-tab/super-tab switcher, window previews etc). Also note that, unlike Aero, Beryl/Compiz are totally customizable (especially Beryl). You can select to disable all the useless plugins.
Last edited by Chad on 24 May 2007 - 13:17
Agreed, its the same type of person who would actually buy Vista in the first place.
PT Barnham captured the situation quite nicely when he said "There's a sucker born every minute"
LOL now wouldn't that be the perfect sales slogan for Vista?
Vista - There's a sucker born every minute
Vista - There's a sucker born every minute
No.
Now, can someone actually justify why they should have to trade in their old pc that continues to do all those things without problems?
The only way to fix Windows is to do a ground-up rewrite. Unfortunately, economics, the backward-compatibility issue re business/office software, and leadership issues at Redmond prevent such a thing from happening. At least for now. Hopefully Vienna will be a pleasant surprise in this regard.
Apple did it with the transition from OS 9 to OS X. MD needs to do it on a much larger scale and initiiate a "transition program" with its consumers, especially businesses, to help migrate software over to a new codebase.
Sorry had to do it
I've said that for years. Backward compatability is nice, but seriously, who runs OS2 1.x programs or still has legacy Windows 1.x apps?
I think if they want to keep backwards compatability then they should go the Apple route. Virtualize it just like Apple did. MS can't say that it would take too long or that they'd lose money for it taking too long. Look at Vista. 5+ years and 5+ billion for developement and Vista is what they have to show for it.
me personally... this is the first time i did not really care much about microsofts new OS.... cause xp already has all the MAJOR stuff people need from a pc... stability/stuff just works.... and also, people say vista is more secure... even if it is i doubt it's that much more secure than xp is... cause after SP2 on XP it got noticeably better security wise.
Last edited by ThaCrip on 24 May 2007 - 11:59
It is amazing that they are still trying to polish a turd.
I've kept in touch with friends and previous co-workers in Redmond and the mood there is not good about the launch. The adoption and saturation rates of Vista are far below what upper management had budgeted. One lady I talked to in marketing information told me that her bosses were, "crapping in their pants". The major problem seems to be that the business market (aka MS cash-cow) has almost no interest in upgrading.
IMHO, the only good thing that can come out of this shakeup is that MS does a great job of pulling itself out of the gutter. Maybe this is the inspiration the kids there need. Just need to re-load Ballmer with some fresh chair ammo.
It is amazing that they are still trying to polish a turd.
I've kept in touch with friends and previous co-workers in Redmond and the mood there is not good about the launch. The adoption and saturation rates of Vista are far below what upper management had budgeted. One lady I talked to in marketing information told me that her bosses were, "crapping in their pants". The major problem seems to be that the business market (aka MS cash-cow) has almost no interest in upgrading.
IMHO, the only good thing that can come out of this shakeup is that MS does a great job of pulling itself out of the gutter. Maybe this is the inspiration the kids there need. Just need to re-load Ballmer with some fresh chair ammo.
Riiight. And what was MS aiming for, because 40 million sales in 4 months is better than any other OS ever, if Vista is doing so poorly?
According to the insiders I talked to, strong corporation adoption/saturation and new retail sales. Not 40 million OEM/upgrade licenses where they barely break even. There are a lot of nervous people in Redmond right now. Mentioning the words "Bob" or "Me" on the campus are taboo at the moment.
You really have no understanding how Windows sales work do You? Out of 40 million You are saying ~95% are OEM sold new computers. If adoption rate of Vista was close to adoption rate of Windows XP, Vista would have been sold close to 100 million copies based on current number of potential customers(e.g. computer users) compared to potential customers in 2001, when XP was released. At this point only a handful of XP users are choosing or have chosen to upgrade to Vista from XP because of cost and of unproven Vista features value.
What really hurts MS at this point is there is no interest in upgrade with big business and in IT industry. This might change after SP1 for Vista has been released but only time will tell. Of course MS worst problem is that XP is good enough for everything and people realise that.
Because, honestly, there have been some damn worthless upgrades in the past that people have paid for. Petty Mac OS upgrades way back when, or any DOS upgrade ever, or ME, or I don't even know what else.
It seems to me that Vista really is a whole lot different from XP. Using it just feels completely different, and I like that.
But I guess I'm talking about the consumer market, really. Businesses just don't want to pay for such a thing when it really isn't going to make a difference for them and will only cost a fortune.
Which is the other complete failure on the part of Microsoft; the cost is outrageous.
I've been wondering: How much did XP Home and Pro cost when they were launched?
Talk about feeling. When I installed the newer Vista Transformation Pack from Windows_X, I honestly could "feel" the difference on my XP machine. It changed my user interface around a bit, changed some icons, added a few pretty features, and I felt like a owned a true Vista Machine. The cost for my operating system upgrade was a free download of the transformation pack for WinXP.
Which is the other complete failure on the part of Microsoft; the cost is outrageous.
Better be careful, J_R_G might accuse you of MS bashing.
The plethora of new network and mobility features, the totally revamped shell, good indexing....XP by any other theme is still XP. Vista is vastly different than XP with a transformation pack, I've used both.
Indeed...talk about a fanboy!!!
You really have no understanding how Windows sales work do You? Out of 40 million You are saying ~95% are OEM sold new computers. If adoption rate of Vista was close to adoption rate of Windows XP, Vista would have been sold close to 100 million copies based on current number of potential customers(e.g. computer users) compared to potential customers in 2001, when XP was released. At this point only a handful of XP users are choosing or have chosen to upgrade to Vista from XP because of cost and of unproven Vista features value.
What really hurts MS at this point is there is no interest in upgrade with big business and in IT industry. This might change after SP1 for Vista has been released but only time will tell. Of course MS worst problem is that XP is good enough for everything and people realise that.
Please prove, with citations/links:
1. 95% of Vista sales are New computers.
2. Vista would have to sell 100 million copies in four months to match XP
3. That MS is hurt because businesses are not mass upgrading before SP 1 (which is the same thing they did for Win2k, and WinXP, btw)
And amazingly some clown agreed with you and added that I would call you an MS-basher, but that is exactly what
you are because I know for a fact some of the assertions you made are untrue.
Indeed...talk about a fanboy!!!
If calling MS bashers for blatant nonsense = fanboy, then I confess, I am the biggest of fanboys. Deal with it.
Talk about feeling. When I installed the newer Vista Transformation Pack from Windows_X, I honestly could "feel" the difference on my XP machine. It changed my user interface around a bit, changed some icons, added a few pretty features, and I felt like a owned a true Vista Machine. The cost for my operating system upgrade was a free download of the transformation pack for WinXP.
That's your opinion, others will benefit from 10-15 times fewer exploits than XP and OS X (measured for 1st 4 months of each), protected mode IE7, DirectX10, teredo, moving some drivers out of kernel, aslr, gadgets, and dozens of other nice things in Vista.
Which is the other complete failure on the part of Microsoft; the cost is outrageous.
Better be careful, J_R_G might accuse you of MS bashing.
I know there are packs like that out there, and I've seen a spectacular looking screenshot and some transparency tools and stuff like that.
I do really like the UI, but there is a lot of functionality there too. My only criticisms are the reduced ease of use for the network control panel and some other control related issues.
Gee, I wasn't bashing. It costs quite a bit. Almost as much as my car cost, in fact. I wanted to know: How much did XP cost when it was new?
I'm nearly singing Vista's praises. I don't think it'll be an issue.
It's true. If the UI really is all you're looking to get out of it then the pack might do it for you. Personally, I like the whole package, despite the not-so-useful Network control panel and the hideously slow load times (compared to 30 second POST-to-usable-desktop XP boots.) I like Vista.
Also, I've been warned about you.
I never directly said you were bashing. I said you might get accused from the "other", for questioning the price difference between XP & Vista.
It's true. If the UI really is all you're looking to get out of it then the pack might do it for you. Personally, I like the whole package, despite the not-so-useful Network control panel and the hideously slow load times (compared to 30 second POST-to-usable-desktop XP boots.) I like Vista.
Also, I've been warned about you.
Weird, vista boots faster than XP for me and has equal speed in everything else. And you should judge people on their own merits rather than some other person's word, who has motives of their own.