Vista no panacea for PC sales

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

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Sony PSP to offer net calls

Next Story

Nintendo Forecasts 35 Million Wii Units in U.S. by 2012

63 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Is this even news? I swear this was already reported on like a week ago.

I seem to feel like that a lot of the time reading Neowin news. I've decided it's just me, but I don't know...

"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?"

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.

You're right on all fronts, but I'm really wondering why the measured value isn't there now.

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?

Helba said,
It seems to me that Vista really is a whole lot different from XP. Using it just feels completely different, and I like that.

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. :P

Helba said,
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.

Better be careful, J_R_G might accuse you of MS bashing.

D-M said,
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. :P

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.

Yogurth said,
"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?"

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.

excalpius said,
"Better be careful, J_R_G might accuse you of MS bashing."

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.

D-M said,

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. :P

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.


Better be careful, J_R_G might accuse you of MS bashing. :rolleyes:

D-M said,
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. :P

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.

Better be careful, J_R_G might accuse you of MS bashing. :rolleyes:

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.

J_R_G said,
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.

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. :P

Helba said,
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 never directly said you were bashing. I said you might get accused from the "other", for questioning the price difference between XP & Vista. :cheeky:

Helba said,

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. :P

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.

@J_R_G

1. Remember 1 billion Lenovo deal with MS earlier this month, Lenovo isn't the only one...do the math
2. Vista is on sale from november 2006, that is 7 months You somehow neglected to mention. Yes win 9x users upgraded to XP on a fast track
3. IT and business jumped before SP1 to XP, since the kernel has already been tested on Windows 2000(WIn 200 had slow start, not XP)

Yogurth said,
@J_R_G

1. Remember 1 billion Lenovo deal with MS earlier this month, Lenovo isn't the only one...do the math
2. Vista is on sale from november 2006, that is 7 months You somehow neglected to mention. Yes win 9x users upgraded to XP on a fast track
3. IT and business jumped before SP1 to XP, since the kernel has already been tested on Windows 2000(WIn 200 had slow start, not XP)


Lying sure is fun!

J_R_G, you REALLY need to do your homework if you're going to take such a strong position...

For example,

YOU said "2. Vista is on sale from november 2006, that is 7 months You somehow neglected to mention. "

That's just so wrong it boggles the mind. Vista went OEM in November. It didn't hit computers that people could BUY (hence the words "sales of vista") until Jan 31st, the official release date. In some places it came out a little later due to OEMs still trying to get things working.

Regardless, that's the FOUR months Microsoft etc is using for sales figures, but honestly, everyone knows that these so called "sales of Vista" are 99% OEM bundles that would have been XP if Vista hadn't come out.

Microsoft is just trying to put the best spin on everything for their stockholders. Everyone else knows this is just spin. Not sure why you don't.

Wow!

Microsoft has characterized itself as happy with Windows Vista adoption so far

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.

lbmouse said,
Wow!

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?

J_R_G said,
And what was MS aiming for...

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.

Any new PC's I have been buying at work still have XP Pro on them. I run Vista on my laptop and dislike it. I also ran at home but reverted back to XP. I am hoping a Service Pack will help me change my mind being I will be forced to use Vista one day.

The bottom line... to cut through all the bs articles etc ... XP is "good enough" thats why i feel vista aint that great... plus not to mention using a OS before SP1 will most likely have issues with it... plus another downside for vista is it wont run on older pc's very well since you generally need a fairly good graphics card to run it/ram usage is generally more to... i already "got" vista if you catch my drift but i aint installed it, cause i dont really see a reason to install it besides the usual "something new to play with" sorta thing.

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.

This is a good point, that people forget, you're right. XP is so good no new OS could really take mindshare from it in a major way very quickly, and I predict this effect will be even more evident when Vienna arrives.

i have seen hardly any problems with vista so it must be getting better.once vista hits sp1 then it will be a worthwhile upgrade as xp will do for now.

Microsoft created a damn good OS in Vista unfortunately their 'mass' audience of consumers did not take it on board apart from people such as ourselves who always want to have the latest and greatest tech. A significant Windows user group is formed out of people who probably have a pc which is at least 2 years old. They are not going to go buying a shiny new OS if it's only going to cause them problems with drivers not working or hardware not up to its demands. They are also not going to go out and buy a new pc just to get it as this significant user base probably only uses their older pc's as a means to write a few letters, send some emails, surf and download.
Now, can someone actually justify why they should have to trade in their old pc that continues to do all those things without problems?

I'm running vista and honestly it's driving me insane, good thing is I got it for free. I wouldn't pay a dime for it.

RAID 0 said,
Specifics on the problems? I'd start by turning UAC off.

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.

RAID 0 said,
Specifics on the problems? I'd start by turning UAC off.

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?

GoatOfMendez said,

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? :x


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.

Nevermind the fact that Vista performs as well as XP, unlike what you have stated. Who would want to install anything by symantec anyway?

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

xiphi said,
Nevermind the fact that Vista performs as well as XP, unlike what you have stated.
...
You ought to clarify that statement. It is certainly not true across the board. There are XP machines that run decently well, but would be intolerably slow with Vista. And machines that Vista would refuse to install on.

So, yeah, on high-end machines, I don't doubt Vista performs well. But your statement cannot be applied across all systems.

xiphi said,
Nevermind the fact that Vista performs as well as XP, unlike what you have stated.

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.

xiphi said,
Who would want to install anything by symantec anyway?

I believe that there are quite a few who do. Not to mention that Symantec products are a very popular bundle with OEMs.

xiphi said,
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.

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.

xiphi said,
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

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.

Most people will stick with whatever came with their computer, only upgrading to a new OS with the purchase of a new PC.

Then maybe that would tell Microsoft the price of their operating system might be a wee bit too high? And for the guys that come on here and say it's not overpriced, not everyone here has a IT job making 50,000+ a year, and could afford the current prices. So let's not go there.

D-M said,
Most people will stick with whatever came with their computer, only upgrading to a new OS with the purchase of a new PC.

Then maybe that would tell Microsoft the price of their operating system might be a wee bit too high? And for the guys that come on here and say it's not overpriced, not everyone here has a IT job making 50,000+ a year, and could afford the current prices. So let's not go there.

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.

J_R_G said,
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.


Have a bad day at work?

reidtheweed01 said,
good job proving him wrong

It's not the point of proving anyone wrong. I shouldn't have to explain any further.

People are going to buy it if they need a computer. As for the people who I know have recently bought computers, they've gone the Apple route.

excalpius said,
Well...duh! I can't believe anyone believe the MS marketing spin on this...

When did MS say Vista was increasing PC sales? Once again a MS basher is making up bs, I'm not surprised.

Um, Microsoft said this not three weeks ago, oh ill informed one.

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.

Well, either way, Microsoft are of course going to say they're happy with Vista sales. If they came out and said "We're really dissapointed with Vista sales" their share price would fall, all the newspapers would pick it up and write articles like "Why Vista is a failure" etc...

excalpius said,
Um, Microsoft said this not three weeks ago, oh ill informed one.

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.

Besides many previous statements about "how fast Vista is being adopted" etc., MS did indeed present the 40 million figure as evidence that Vista was a sales monster, making them happy etc., when all of us (objective industry observers that is) knew this was simply backlogged PC sales and that the end users didn't care if it was XP or Vista that came with it.

So, MS is selling a lot Vista because of their MONOPOLY, not because there is a huge demand for Vista over XP.

excalpius said,
Besides many previous statements about "how fast Vista is being adopted" etc., MS did indeed present the 40 million figure as evidence that Vista was a sales monster, making them happy etc., when all of us (objective industry observers that is) knew this was simply backlogged PC sales and that the end users didn't care if it was XP or Vista that came with it.

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.

J_R_G said,

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.

D-M said,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. :rolleyes:

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?

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.

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.

Typically I would guess people don't buy a PC because of an OS... They buy a PC because of a need/want to do/accomplish something.

you got it... I working sales and people in general buy a machine because their machine or kids machine died. Or it is time for an upgrade or they need to run a certain something that requires more power then their current machine. There is a small interest in upgrading for the sake of Vista. Most of those people are system builders

Vista has adversely affected sales.
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.

Yeah at least Microsoft provided a nice estimate. Then peopel go around and say "hey, that's not high, it's probably because I don't like vista, vista sucks, see this huge list of complaints" or "good adoption rate, Vista is excellent" or "meh"

markjensen said,
Vista has adversely affected sales.
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.

Okay from the article what does that say? Do people want to pay extra for Vista? Is it a big enough motivator for people to want to buy a new PC with Vista installed? Now from what I read it's talking about pre-installed systems. Why doesn't that surprise me? Maybe because Microsoft made XP just too good. Now yea security in XP is not the best. Not to mention that many people when XP came out waited from SP1 before really adopting it. I think the same thing holds true with Vista.

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 :P Vista

I think you went a bit off topic... like your whole post is off topic. What does this have to do with interpretation of the sales numbers?