September 11, 2007 12:25 PM PDT

Running the numbers on Vista

Sales of boxed copies of Windows Vista continue to significantly trail those of Windows XP during its early days, according to a soon-to-be-released report.

Standalone unit sales of Vista at U.S. retail stores were down 59.7 percent compared with Windows XP, during each product's first six months on store shelves, according to NPD Group. In terms of revenue, sales are also down, but the drop has been less steep, at 41.5 percent. The findings largely mirror the sales pattern NPD saw for Vista during its first week on the market in January.

"It's just not doing well," NPD analyst Chris Swenson said of Vista's performance at retail stores, though he added that most people get their operating system on new PCs, with only a minority of customers purchasing boxed copies. The report, titled "Windows Vista Still Underperforming in U.S. Retail," will be sent to clients Friday.

Microsoft also agreed that an analysis of boxed copy sales is not representative of Vista's momentum, noting the trend of people getting a new operating system with a new PC has further accelerated with Vista.

"While we can't comment on the findings of a report we haven't seen, we continue to be on track in all segments we follow," the company said in a statement to CNET "As of this summer, more than 60 million licenses have been sold."

Microsoft noted in a regulatory filing that more than 80 percent of its Windows revenue comes from computer makers that install the operating system on new machines, with boxed copies accounting for only a fraction of total sales. And the PC market is far larger than it was five years ago. According to research firm Gartner, roughly 239 million PCs were sold worldwide last year, compared with 128 million in 2001.

In many ways, sales of Vista are tied closely to the rate of PC sales. One of the big variables is how quickly businesses move to adopt Vista. Most businesses are not moving to the operating system in significant numbers yet, though Microsoft has begun to tout a few large deployments from corporations including Infosys, Citigroup, Charter Communications and Continental Airlines.

Ahead of Vista's release, the software maker said that it expected businesses to adopt the new operating system at twice the rate of XP during its first year on the market.

However, many businesses have said they are waiting until Microsoft releases the first update to Vista before considering deployments of the operating system. Microsoft is starting beta testing of its first service pack for Windows Vista, though that update won't be released in final form until next year.

News on the retail front is brighter for Office, which was released to stores the same day as Vista.

Retail sales of Office products from January through June were roughly double those of Office 2003 during its first six months on the market and up 59.6 percent from Office sales for the first six months of last year. (Sales of Office 2003 at retail continued to grow over the life of the product.)

While much of the sales were for the new Office 2007, Swenson said just over 20 percent of all boxed copies of Office were Office for Mac. Swenson credited the large number of people switching to Macs as part of the reason for the spike in Mac Office sales.

"If I buy a new PC I can reuse old Windows software," Swenson said. But, if someone is switching from a PC to a Mac and wants Office, he said, "you have to buy new software."

NPD's data comes from its monthly sales reports of software sold at major retailers including Best Buy, CompUSA, Target and Apple's retail stores. It also includes e-commerce sites such as, and

As for why Vista sales are down, Swenson said it is probably because of a number of factors. More stringent hardware requirements mean that more buyers who want Vista decide to get a new PC, particularly as computer prices have come down so steeply compared with XP's early days. Also, he said, Microsoft has done less advertising than it did with XP.

"The problem is that there are a lot of complex new features in Vista, and you need to educate consumers about them," Swenson said. "Much like Apple educating the masses about the possibilities of the iPhone, or focusing on a single feature or benefit of the Mac OS in the Mac vs. PC commercials, Microsoft should be educating the masses about the various new features in a heavy rotation of Vista in TV, radio and print ads. But the volume of ads has paled in comparison to the ads run for XP."

Just because boxed Vista sales are down doesn't mean they won't pick up, he added. He noted that XP sales peaked a few years after its 2001 launch.

"My hypothesis as to why is that there were a lot of people that bought PCs running 2000 or ME before the XP launch, and thus when they decided to upgrade they opted for the XP upgrade awhile after their initial purchase," Swenson said. "There is a possibility that we might see a similar trend with Vista."

But given the fact that only relatively new PCs can be upgraded to Vista, and with standalone sales not showing signs of improving, Swenson said, "it's looking less and less likely that this will happen."

See more CNET content tagged:
NPD Group Inc., Microsoft Office, retailer, Microsoft Windows Vista, Microsoft Office 2003


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
XP sales peaked
"XP sales peaked a few years after its 2001 launch." Sure it did, because users couldn't wait any longer for Longhorn.

IMO, a lot of people using Windows 2000 were waiting for Longhorn but it was so late their computers wore out before it arrived. So they bought XP.

Then when Vista arrived it was, for businesses, a big disappointment. So they've stayed with XP, and/or switched to Macs (and to a lesser extent, Linux).
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Reply Link Flag
save it for later
Huh? The story is about low retail sales, no worthwhile business would buy its OS from retail. It doesn't make sense even for small outfits with like five computers.

The business license for Vista Upgrade is $92:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

Retail $150:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

I'm sure businesses have switched en masse to Linux or Mac OS. Why not Amiga while they're at it?
Posted by sanenazok (3449 comments )
Link Flag
Face it... not many people like Vista
It's so funny to hear these analysts and managers try to spin and
explain away the obvious. The reason that Vista isn't selling well
is simply that people do not like it.

The reason that XP was so successful is that it made important
tasks easier for many people. With XP, for the first time, people
could easily connect to wireless networks, transfer photos from
their digital cameras, and burn CDs. XP offered many
improvements over Windows 2000 in these areas and was much,
much more stable than Windows 98/Me. Also, for many people,
XP was their first OS that they learned how to use.

Ask a group of average-skilled users what Vista features are
important to them and all you'll hear is the sound of crickets.
Even worse, Vista makes common tasks harder for many people
because Microsoft has changed the interfaces and now people
have to re-learn how to do the things that they already know
how to do under XP. Vista also introduces software
incompatibilities (lots of software simply doesn't work) and has
problems with a lot of existing hardware (old drivers do not
work and there are no updates).

Why would the average person want to deal with all the
headaches that Vista creates? It's a train wreck.
Posted by iBuzz (330 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I was given Vista 64bit and 32bit Ultimate (legal) version for free when I used to work there. To this day they still are somewhere in a box collecting dust, that's how much I like Vista.

It still crashes, freezes, and it's the same crap all over again with more popups than ever.

XP is not that great, but it's much better than Vista will every be, I still use it once in a while to play games. I now on average turn my XP computer one a month or less, but I used to use it everyday. How times have changed, OS X and Linux, and maybe Open Solaris one day, we'll see how that goes.

Viva Linux! and OS X.

10.5 just around the corner.
Posted by RompStar_420 (772 comments )
Link Flag
Right, that is why
there are more Vista users then OSX and Linux user combined. And within a year of its release.
Remember OSX when it hit the market? Couldn't even play a DVD. It was years before even Apple made it the default.

Some 'failure'. Every other company out there wishes for such a 'bad' release.

Try again folks. Vista, even as it 'tanks', is far more popular and successful then the lame, backwards technology you praise. My sympathy can't make up for your ignorance, but you have it
Posted by catch23 (436 comments )
Link Flag
I told you! Vista is slow! :-(
Windows Vista is not good anymore. I still use Windows XP for a long time! That XP have no problems for a long time! No slow computer down! No annoy! No problems! No crash many times! 100% protected by virus, spyware, worms, etc. We hate Windows Vista because have hardware problems. Windows XP games not approve on Vista! What a wrong with that? We give up with Vista. Windows XP can hacking Vista itself to make Windows XP look like Vista! I did that! It free. Look very pretty and wonderful than Vista OS! Fastest operating than Vista do! I will use Windows XP many, many times in the future! Now to 2099! What you think? Windows XP never die! Still alive for a looooooooooooooooooooooong time! :-)
Posted by guest86 (264 comments )
Link Flag
I agree with you to a point. Vista does make many tasks more difficult as the process has changed, but one of the things I think it does better is managing wireless networks. My Vista basic laptop remembers every network it's ever connected to and will connect to it if it's in range. That's something my XP boxes won't do with the vendor supplied utilities. On the whole however, I dislike Vista and don't see any real value over XP.
Posted by Stormspace (1028 comments )
Link Flag
Totally Agree
The ONLY thing that Vista Business Premium has (I am one of about 100 testers in our University) has that is in improvement over any of the prior versions of Windows is a very fast IP stack.
Other than that is is just eye candy requiring too much hardware to function properly and UAC is a freakin' nightmare.
I also don't like the idea that it can be placed into a reduced function mode by Microsoft's SPP.
If it weren't for that single item I might consider it but that in itself makes it a no-go for me.
It is a bloated piece of eye-candy...PERIOD.
I am personnaly going to hold out with XP Pro as long as it is supported which by then Linux will have gotten to the point of XP in respect to user friendliness. Ubuntu and Novell SUSE 10.2 are almost there now.
Bottom line: Unless Microsoft rids its OS's of the ability to be remotely disabled I will not be going to Windows after XP is non-supported. I will either go to a Mac or Linux.
Posted by fred dunn (793 comments )
Link Flag
An interesting point missed?
Ok, I'll buy the line that box products reflect only upgrading consumers, and most people getting Vista are getting on a new PC.

(Most corporate upgrades would be on volume licence programs - neither boxed nor OEM. This is not mentioned in this article)

But, 60 million copies in 6 months. How many PCs were sold in those 6 months? Last year, total sales were 239 million, so lets guess at 120 million.

Was Vista really only shipped on 50% of PC sold. What's on the other 50%? XP?

A good article, CNET, would have answered this kind of question.
Posted by NickH (127 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Exactly -- 2 more points...
The article fails to take into account 2 major factors:

1) PC prices have come down considerably since XP was released. This makes users more likely to purchase a new PC, probably with Vista, than purchase a retail/upgrade copy of Vista.

2) After a few years of relative product stagnation, Intel has finally come out with a multi-core processor family that is compelling for new PC purchases. If people were still running P4s and the mainstream chips were 4GHz by now, a lot of people would buy new or upgrade copies of Vista for their 2-3GHz machines that are 2-4 years old. Multi-core chips give buyers one more reason to buy a whole new PC, again likely with Vista pre-installed.

Retail copies may be profitable for MS, but they don't clearly indicate the Vista adoption rate.

-Mister Winky
Posted by Mister Winky (301 comments )
Link Flag
Well, yes
That is a good point. A better one is the 60 million was sold to people who assemble computers. What fraction of that 60 Million shipped, and, of that, how many people kept Vista on their computers?

MS did push Vista pretty hard at the start, didn't they?
Posted by Phillep_H (497 comments )
Link Flag
Asta la Vista, Vista
I know some people who are actually switching to MACs and some that bought a brand new PC but after a few days switched to XP because Vista was just not user friendly. They couldn't find things where they used to be or just shutting down the computer took an extra step (it even took longer to shut the pc down). Vista does not do anything extraordinary that XP can't do. I can't wait for Leopard to arrive, and then... Asta la Vista, Vista.
Posted by ubnyan (54 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Vista is an objective business risk
They really need to remove that feature where a piece of hardware I own may be turned off if its content-protection features have been found to be weak. This is a business machine, not an entertainment machine; I can't risk wasting time or missing a trade or a business opportunity just because an LCD or graphics card that work well are remotely turned off on the unlikely chance that I would a) watch an HD DVD on that machine, and that b) I would copy it. It is not an OS's unilateral and unadvertised decision to cripple my business that will make me want it.
Posted by Rants&Raves (199 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You've just demonstrated a very large misconception that people seem to have with the protection system in Vista. The protection system does not just turn on, it only comes into effect when the media being played is a protected item, ie you are trying to watch a protected movie on the system.
If it is a business system your hardware will not just shutdown on you unless you are dealing with protected media and not just because your monitor or graphics card is not meeting the requirements for something you are not doing.
On my network I can see this as a benefit as here there should be no reason to be playing a movie on a business system.
Posted by ImRaptor (23 comments )
Link Flag
DRM misunderstanding
That's not how it works. The orwellianly named "content protection path" can turn off content on a HD-DVD if the writer set it up to do so and your hardware won't match, but it won't suddenly turn off normal software, hardware, or video outside of that.

Even at its worst, it doesn't disable the monitor or graphics card, just not send that specific marked content on it.

It's a pain, but unless hit that option a) (watch an HD DVD on that machine), it's not going to bug you much.
Posted by gattsuru (5 comments )
Link Flag
I must say something nice about Office 2007.
It is a bit easer to use than VI (Linux text editor) . however It does use quite a bit more memory.

As for Vista, some people choose to use it. Some people choose to smoke crack or jump off of a bridge. Its called freedom of choice.
Posted by ralfthedog (1589 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Then they need proactive PR !
I'm an avid reader of the computer press; if you are right, then they need to deal with the accusations that have been widely levied against the product and not just let them hang unchallenged.

That being said, I still wouldn't trust a Microsoft-designed subsystem to function properly 100% of the time, or to be designed in such a way that it can't be triggered by nefarious or ill-supported software. That kind of disabling logic shouldn't be there to start with.
Posted by Rants&Raves (199 comments )
Reply Link Flag
(was in response to ImRaptor; some UI rework is in order here.)
Posted by Rants&Raves (199 comments )
Link Flag
Apparently you need to start taking what you read from the Computer press with a grain of salt.
Microsoft literally states on their site that the protection is activated when the content is played. They have said this from the beginning of Visa, but like many things it was scewed and misinformed to the point of hilarity.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

Now with that, I don't agree with DRM or their output protection system, but they aren't the ones pushing it either.
Posted by ImRaptor (23 comments )
Link Flag
I like Office 2007
I like the interface changes Microsoft has made to Office. They take a little getting used to, but once you do, it's a lot easier to use than the old Office. As for Vista, I have had no problems with it (aside from the fact that file sharing doesn't work with an XP computer), and I got it with a new computer. For a new computer, Vista is a nice new operating system.
Posted by Spartan_458 (254 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Go ahead and like it
I don't like the productivity hit that learning a new program requires when the old program does the job well enough.

That learning curve is part of Vista's undocumented cost, and can cost thousands per user.
Posted by Phillep_H (497 comments )
Link Flag
Heh - wait'll the Vista installs start going black
...couple the recent WGA server failure with, oh, this...

<a class="jive-link-external" href=";articleId=9035478" target="_newWindow">;articleId=9035478</a>

...and it'll be double the fun for Vista's future sales &gt;:)

Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Reply Link Flag
A hoax
You were duped by a hoax.
Posted by Seaspray0 (9714 comments )
Link Flag
Why buy a boxed copy?
Why buy a boxed copy when you can get Vista and a new PC for less than 400$?

The market has changed.

The OEM copy you get through HP or Dell is a great deal.
Posted by NotParker (19 comments )
Reply Link Flag
PRICE and Other Factors.
I was putout to pay over $150.00 for the XP Professional Upgrade!! Now greedy Microsoft wants well over $200.00 for Vista Ultimate upgrade. Toss in the lack of Vista hardware drivers, who wants to loose a favorite piece of hardware for the lack of a driver and the justification of really needed, useful functions, features, found no where else, and this is why Vista isn't selling. Microsoft DROP YOUR PRICES ON VISTA AND YOU MIGHT GET VOLUME SALES.
Posted by bunkey91405 (18 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Increased security and windows that you can flip through good not for $400
I don't think that there much of a difference between xp and vista. From what i have read it sounds like a secure version of xp with a few bells and whistles but it doesn't justify the 200 to 400 cost. remember when win 95 was 100 dollars?

Well i guess i will get it when i up grade my PC which won't be for awhile and if i do i might dual boot a mac.
Posted by davemesaaz (37 comments )
Reply Link Flag
400 USD?
200 bucks doesn't just get you the bells and whistles -- that's the full install version, for folks that don't already have a copy or Windows and aren't able to get an OEM license. An OEM license for new computer builds can get Home Premium for sub-120 USD, and upgrade licenses for Home Premium are sub-150 USD.

If you're just looking for basic security and Windows Flip, you can upgrade from XP for 70 bucks.

Moreover, it's not just bells and whistles. Home Premium includes, for example, Windows Movie Maker software pack capable of creating and manipulating high definition video files, something that'll cost you a pretty penny from the few other software vendors capable of achieving it. iLife 08, the Mac bundle with a counterpart to Movie Maker, costs 70+ bucks, and standalone software tends to be even pricier.
Elegant voice control software is included in all versions. Strong search capabilities. Better large memory use capabilites (/3g flag). DirectX10 support. More power management controls. *Much* more reliable TCP/IP stack. Inherent IPv6 support for when Cisco decides to push us over the bridge.

It's not just bells and whistles, even with just the Home packs. It's not all it should have been, but that's almost always the case.
Posted by gattsuru (5 comments )
Link Flag
Vista Is Useless
I can't believe I forked over 105 bucks for this. Does it take anyone else 5 minutes to extract a 30kb zip file???? Networking is annoying, sidebar is useless, movie maker sucks, media player is a resource hog, the only cool things are the search option and aeriel or aerol or whatever.

NOT WORTH IT--stay with XP it's way better.

Vista is a bug ridden piece of junk that lacks any innovation or imagination. I don't understand why microsoft wasted their time or my money.
Posted by smvans7 (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What an airhead
The multimedia functions alone were worth the upgrade price. The security built in to Vista is excellent too. But I would expect an airhead ADD person like yourself not to understand this complex new OS.
Posted by WJeansonne (480 comments )
Link Flag
I agree
I'm not going back because it's a PIA to but I just don't feel like there's much improvement here. I'm not sure I'd say Vista is awful as some say it is, but it just doesn't seem like a substantive improvement over XP. Some things -- like that it kept nagging me until I installed all the language packs (I have Vista Ultimate) -- are downright annoying. But hey, I suppose if I ever learn Korean I can type in it. I should also note that startup and shutdown times are terrible. Also, for some reason, there's this period before that Vista glow thing comes up where my computer looks DOA: that can sometimes last over a minute.
Posted by michaelo1966 (159 comments )
Link Flag
Don't use built in Zip functionality
It's horribly written. Try 7-zip perhaps. On top of that, networking is currently throttled when you play anything through Media Player by a horrific piece of coding. Mark Russinovich wrote a nice but incomplete investigation into the problem. Sidebar is just more "me too" by Microsoft, which would be okay if they had improved on the concept. Google's version has some nice stuff but even that is not compelling enough to keep running most of the time, while MS's didn't even impress a preteen.

I'm sorry you paid so much for it; I got it with a new computer and I feel overcharged.
Posted by zCos (10 comments )
Link Flag
Substituting XP Pro for Vista - good idea!
I'm having Vista removed from my new laptop and replacing it with XP Pro.
Posted by jeolson8824 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
BEWARE: Drivers may not be available...
A lot of chatter has been going on in the forums particularly about the lack of XP drivers for new systems loaded with Vista.
I would do the same thing, in fact I encourage you to "upgrade" from Vista to XP Pro but before you start your install go through the device manager list and make sure you can get drivers for XP for all of them. Some vendors like HP are not providing drivers for XP since they do not offer XP as an OS option as Dell does on their consumer systems.

Just a heads up.
Posted by fred dunn (793 comments )
Link Flag
I tried to upgrade Vista to XP pro but it wouldn't let me!
So I bought a copy of XP Pro Upgrade (for systems with Windows already installed) to see if I could upgrade a new Toshiba Laptop from Vista to XP Pro but XP Pro complained I didn't have an upgradable version of Windows. I called Toshiba and asked if they could upgrade me to XP, they refused. They say they won't even provide drivers for the various bits on the laptop for XP. So I bought an OEM version of XP and used that, it installed and the laptop is now easily 50% faster than it was before. Some of the Toshiba gizmos don't work (like the fancy buttons on the keyboard) so I'm mulling that issue. And of course OEM drivers for the video card, wireless, and audio chip.

Since hard drives are so cheap I thought I would get an extra hard drive and try installing Ubuntu on it. It is about 15% faster than XP Pro and more of the gadgets on the laptop work than they do with the OEM version of XP. I bet if I used VMWare Workstation I could run XP pro on this thing under Linux faster than I can run Vista on it.

So I'm currently waiting for an RMA number for Toshiba for the laptop because Vista is unusable for me and they won't support it under XP/Pro. Too bad because it was a nice laptop.

I'm thinking I'll just stop buying computers, run Linux on the older ones. They at least won't orphan support at some random future date.

Posted by cmcmanis (17 comments )
Link Flag
Virtually Insignificant Software To All
Yes indeed, VISTA is completely insignificant. I cannot really believe that Microsoft actually believes that this operating system is truly an "advance in technology". Having been a Microsoft employee for 12 years and working though some really significant releases, it is appalling to me as a shareholder that have wasted so much time, money and effort on this really lousy software.

In order for Vista to actually be of any use at all, it is necessary to disable nearly all of the features that they tout as being improvements! Sorry but I just don't buy it. I have used beta software for many many years that didn't have nearly as many issues as the the released version of Vista does. I have personally been running it for over one year on a few of my systems; monitoring its progress. Sad to say that it has been more of a regression than progression since features were cut and the released stuff still does not work properly.

For my daily work I use XP and will continue to for some time. I will not allow any of my users at work to switch to Vista because of the numerous issues. The fact that Microsoft is forcing the OEM's to sell Vista on new systems will not have much of an effect as the corporate world installs XP images over top of the OEM shipped version anyway. I just feel sorry for the poor home users that are really getting used...
Posted by ghboater (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Vista Gives Users the Dry Heaves
It's in Consumer Reports this month.
Posted by Sumatra-Bosch (526 comments )
Link Flag
what specfically isn't working for you
there are more than a few posts like this that claim incompatibility but fail to be specific.

Surprise! The drivers and app support have improved since release. Amazing isn't it?

I like it, my wife likes it, it's stable runs great in either 32 or 64 bit installations. Yes the UAC is annoying when you're first setting the system up, but once done it only pops up when it needs to.

Is there any reason to upgrade if your xp system is running well? No, not really, but if you're buying a new system make sure the decision to to go Xp instead of Vista is based on facts rather than FUD.
Posted by webdev511 (254 comments )
Link Flag
NPD analyst Chris Swenson is clueless..
quote: ""If I buy a new PC I can reuse old Windows software,"
Swenson said. But, if someone is switching from a PC to a Mac
and wants Office, he said, "you have to buy new software.""

Would someone please bring Swenson up to date about Apple
switching to Intel and how it's now possible to run Windows (and
Office) on a Mac.
Posted by imacpwr (456 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Actually, you're the clueless one
The vast majority of people switching from Windows based PCs to
Apple Macintosh computers are not switching so they can run XP or
Vista in Boot Camp. While many may use Boot Camp or Parallels to
run Windows from time to time, most switchers are using the Mac
OS on their shiny new Intel-based Macs. As such, it makes sense
that a higher percentage of Mac buyers are buying Office than
Windows PC buyers since they can't use old software. If you think
otherwise, you're the clueless one.
Posted by Mikesmith07 (1 comment )
Link Flag
One licensing caveat...
If you purchased Windows and Office with a new PC (as most individuals do), you most likely have OEM licenses for both products. You're not legally allowed to transfer or use those licenses on another PC or on a VM on the Mac as they run with the original PC. That's why the licenses are so heavily discounted up front.

If you purchased retail copies or have a site/enterprise license, that's different, of course.

-Mister Winky
Posted by Mister Winky (301 comments )
Link Flag
Not my intention
Chris Swenson here. It wasn't my intention to suggest that
Windows software can't be run on the new Intel-based Macs. In
fact, in the report on Windows Vista that Ina mentioned in his
article, I have included data pertaining to the rapid sales growth
of Parallels Desktop in the U.S. retail channel, and try to estimate
how many units of Vista Ultimate and Vista Business have been
purchased by Mac users who wish to run Windows software on
their Intel-based machines. In fact, Ina mentioned this point -
that NPD believes an increasing number of Mac users are buying
Vista - in his follow up post on Office, found here: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://" target="_newWindow">http://</a>
Posted by cswenson1 (1 comment )
Link Flag
Long Range Vista Sales
Sales projections for Vista should be viewed as a long term infrastructure investment vs "must have" retail purchase opportunity. Factors that influence these sales numbers are as mentioned in the article are the increased hardware requirements. But what must also be considered is general level of stability of the current XP platform (refer to current reluctance of corporate IT to accept VISTA). The wholesale investment in XP when it first arrived was due largely to the shortcomings of WIN98. Security was an issue but primarily was 98?s inability to manage its resource stack (rebooting every 4 hrs if you used office97)
The ?infrastructure? label that I use when referring to Windows is the equivalent of our use of ?gas? in the auto industry (diesel being the MAC). These are the platforms of our technocracy and as they mature and become more stable there will be reluctance or less of a need to develop and change that part of the structure. The OS development cycle will become longer (as we are now seeing) and more changes will be seen in the applications environment (word, number and voice processing).
Posted by RWarrilow (4 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Microsoft should have released SP1 already
They screwed up in not realizing that the first service pack of a new OS is less of a technical need, than a marketing need. Companies KNOW to wait for a service pack because they can see major additional costs if a new version isn't quite baked yet. Come on Microsoft, we learned this way back in Windows NT 4.0. Businesses wait until SP1 before buying. If that's the bulk of your sales, then connect the dots.

And I'm a Vista user both at home and at work. My company let me upgrade (as a programmer) but is waiting for SP1.
Posted by WildSignals (13 comments )
Reply Link Flag
No, Vista SP1 is a technical need!
Sorry, I disagree. SP1 is not a marketing need, it is a technical requirement! From my experience, Vista is so unstable it should be considered unusable.

Are you telling me you have never seen the dialog saying some software has stopped responding and will be closed? I haven't found a piece of software that doesn't do it yet, including explorer.exe!
Posted by sreynard (54 comments )
Link Flag
Vista was simply released too soon.
Sure Microsoft has some pressure to get Vista out the door after so many delays, but, once you are that late you might as well just accept the fact that you are so late that it is no longer a factor and at the very least do the job right.

I as a media/content professional cannot upgrade to Vista because it does not yet support my needs well enough. Yes, it is killing me because my computer is wearing becasue it is about 5 years old. Some of the upgrades to my lastest applications have stated Vista problems.

The shoddy and shabby release of Vista ruined the party for many of us.

I am usually pro MS bust this time Microsoft disappointed me very much. If you people at Microsoft can't do the OS job right move over and let Apple show you how it needs to be done. Geesh!
Posted by onlyauser (220 comments )
Reply Link Flag
How is this an MS problem?
"Some of the upgrades to my lastest applications have stated Vista problems"

Sounds like your anger is misguided. MS can't force software vendors to upgrade their applications faster any more than Apple could force software vendors to release Intel compatible binaries.

Did you find anything wrong with Vista itself or are you just peeved that your application vendors haven't made their applications compatible?

-Mister Winky
Posted by Mister Winky (301 comments )
Link Flag
RE: Vista was simply released too soon.
[i]let Apple show you how it needs to be done. Geesh![/i]...

Yeah, let Apple show how things need to be done. Like how they messed up with the iTunes ringtone issue? Is that the kind of prowess Apple wants to show? That's a schoolboy error. Two patches in 48 hours for just a friggin' ringtone maker? You have got to be kidding me.

The only reason why there are few (I'm not sure, if it is really few) known bugs to Apple products is because they have a small market share. Once they enter the big arena, and more people actually use their products, bugs will be uncovered. Another example is the iPhone, shortly after released, a vulnerability was uncovered.
Posted by jhoeforth (90 comments )
Link Flag
Its all about the Service Packs
Vista will be fine. But intelligent users are going to wait til SP1 for vista is out before taking the risk, this especially goes for the Corporate Environment. The biggest problem asside from from bugs, is vista runs slower on the same PC when compared to XP. If you don't have 4GB of ram, and duel core, you won't be able to take advantage of vista. Users aren't going to upgrade just to be slower. Microsoft will make money next year when server 2008 comes out. I have talked to many in the hosting industry, and they are very excited about it, as am I.
Posted by whitesites (49 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE: Its all about the Service Packs
[i]"If you don't have 4GB of ram, and duel core, you won't be able to take advantage of vista."[/i]

This is an exaggeration. I have 1GB of RAM and I am enjoying Vista to the fullest. I have Dreamscene, Media Player (music), and Visual Studio 2005 opened at the same time and it's still working great. I even play with the Flip 3D when I'm bored.
Posted by jhoeforth (90 comments )
Link Flag
Stats used
Hi. I've used some stats from this article at It's <a href="">here</a>. Thank You.
Posted by EugeniaJ (11 comments )
Reply Link Flag
New PC's
True, new PC's are shipping with Vista...but personally, I have bought two new machines, and replaced the OS with XP Pro the same day I got them.

The support for XP drivers has been ridiculous on these new machines, especially for my Sony Vaio laptop, though I did finally get it working after two days of searching and hacking at it. It's almost as if Microsoft is abandoning XP and trying to force us to move to Vista, which many company's simply cant do since the software that runs our businesses simply doesnt work on Vista.
Posted by Polymorpher (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Sony's hardware MS's fault
So you're saying that the Sony Viao you bought you had a hard time getting to work under XP because of drivers?
Sounds to me more like Sony giving up on XP more than MS. Particularily considering that MS is still ofering support for XP which includes driver changes updates and patches. However, it is not MS responsibility to make sure that every piece of new laptop hardware works with XP, that would be upto the ones making the hardware. ie Sony
Posted by ImRaptor (23 comments )
Link Flag
New PC's
"Microsoft is abandoning XP"

Umm.. I don't know where you got that but FYI, there's a Service Pack 3 coming for Windows XP. Some people are just so reckless when their opinions, sigh...
Posted by jhoeforth (90 comments )
Link Flag
Can it run Compiz Fusion?
...hmm, yeah--

They're losing market share at wholesale rates. Perhaps if they offered those same rates to individuals, it would help?

I switched, and I've taken like 10 people with me and counting. Money is not an object when it never gets involved in the first place.
Posted by ethana2 (348 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I've gradually moved all the PCs in the office to Ubuntu; and all
the staff that get to 'pick' their laptop, although they have to
wait for their 'turn' in the budget, have selected Mac laptops. I'm
somewhat surprised, but only somewhat. In the mid-level
laptop market, prices are pretty much the same for a Mac or PC
laptop. Vista is touted as being more secure, but it's not
escaped at least 50% of the potential market that it's only more
secure because it is constantly being exploited and has to come
out with faster security fixes weekly. We fully expect that
somewhere the Mac may be as susceptible, so we preach non-
complacency; but the fact is, for now, they are much easier to
manage from a security aspect. So the statistics of Vista being
so secure is really just an indication that they have a bigger and
more active 'brute squad' whereas the smaller players, Linux
and Mac OS, don't need that big and resource hungry a squad
of brutes to protect them. At least for now.
Posted by macalterego (6 comments )
Link Flag
MS Vista
Six weeks with Vista Ultimate is like 6 months in Philadelphia. I have a dream.........I've got Bill Gates in a headlock!
Posted by fskess (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
I see that.
I have idea to upgrade my gaming computer hardware more fastest than my regular hardware in the future. I will test Vista and XP which will win the Microsoft war! If XP will win the war against Vista, I will throw Vista away and keep Windows XP for best operating system in the world! :-)
Posted by guest86 (264 comments )
Reply Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.