Windows Vista: A testament to monopoly power
Microsoft has now taken the wraps off its successor to Windows Vista with Windows 7. Despite Vista's utter failure, however, it says something of Microsoft's market position that several years of media, consumers, and enterprise customers rubbishing Vista has done nothing to touch Microsoft's balance sheet.
Think about that. How many companies do you know that could get away with releasing a complete dud...with little apparent negative effect?
Sure, Procter & Gamble could release a new deodorant and have it fail without bringing the company down with it, but Vista, or Windows, is the heart of Microsoft. To have one's central cash cow completely fail and not pay the price? Now that is power.
It's also distressing. Windows users, which account for the vast majority of computer users, have seen little innovation on the desktop over the past few years, unless one calls Vista's UAC nagware functionality ("Did you really intend to download/click/run that?") "innovative." Or how about Microsoft's "innovative" efforts to allegedly bribe and cajole Africa into abandoning Linux for Windows, as reported in the Wall Street Journal?
Mac users are more fortunate, but it's unfortunate that so many should be held ransom to the lack of creativity in Redmond.
On the other hand, Microsoft's failed leadership on the desktop has emboldened companies like Google and open-source projects like Firefox to expand the definition of desktop to include the Web. Microsoft is playing catch-up and seems quite proud of its progress, but it is still a lightweight in a heavyweight bout.
Therefore, let's take a moment to thank Microsoft for the Web. Not because it has done so much, but precisely because Vista and other Microsoft technology have delivered so little. Without Microsoft's failure to grok the Web, we might still be stuck looking out of Windows.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
We're coming up for Halloween not April Fool, mate.
But, just in case you are being serious, has it occurred to you that there hasn't been any negative affect because Vista isn't actually a dud?
Just a thought. Do try to keep an open mind, eh?
I've got two desktops and a laptop at home, all shipped with Vista, none of them are running it now. MS will still claim those as sales of Vista to a happy customer.
At work all our PCs arrive with Vista OEM keys and installation media, then we re-image them with our corporate XP build. I bet MS and Acer all say, "yay, another 400 Vista workstations sold".
Seeing a Vista machine at work is rare indeed. Surprising as the OS has been out for over a year now.
1) When MS advised that Vista had sold about 140 million copies in June XP was still offered as an install by the major OEMs so if you wanted it you could have it without some convoluted process.
2) Randall Kennedy - who I'm sure you'll agree is no friend of MS - recently surveyed primarily corporate machines and noted that two-thirds of new machines purchased retained Vista. This is actually pretty good compared to XPs adoption when you consider the downgrade rights HP were offering to 2000.
3) Vista's market share increase rate suggests a pretty linear replacement rate with XP, the assumption from thsi is, of course, that the vast majority - in excess of 95% - privately owned machines shipped with Vista remain with Vista on them.
Your anecdotal evidence is all very well but it's no substitute for facts. You may also want to acquaint yourself with XP's corporate penetration rate during year's one and two of it release for a comparison.
*Pop*
That was the sound of your bubble bursting.
2) Nice massaging of the figures there.
In a survey conducted within a specific group of customers (of ex.performance.network) with software that cannot detect non-Windows operating systems (or necessarily wiped and imaged installs) over a third of systems detectable as past the cut-off point showed up as downgraded.
I especially like this bit:
"In other words, more than a third of customers chose to dump Vista from their new PCs -- typically in favor of XP, but sometimes also one of the Server variants.
"Now, we all know that enthusiasts and even some enterprise shops do their own "clean" installations as part of any new PC purchase. And the nature of a Windows-only monitoring service, like Windows Sentinel, means that we cannot factor Linux users or even the Hackintosh crowd into our numbers. However, 35 percent is still a huge percentage, and way out of proportion for even the dramatically unpopular Windows Vista."
I guess that's why you didn't provide a link: http://weblog.infoworld.com/sentinel/archives/2008/08/bursting_the_vi.html Not exactly backing up your argument.
3) Unreliable figures, irrelevant.
You have _got_ to stop posting garbage.
I'm sorry maybe I just didn't make it simple enough for you.
"1) The models offered by many manufacturers with Vista were different from their XP offerings, getting exactly the same computer without a downgrade was not necessarily possible. If you payed any attention to what was actually offered you'd know this."
So give me examples then. Go on.
"2) Nice massaging of the figures there.
In a survey conducted within a specific group of customers (of ex.performance.network) with software that cannot detect non-Windows operating systems (or necessarily wiped and imaged installs) over a third of systems detectable as past the cut-off point showed up as downgraded."
Which means that two-thirds didn't. When Randall said "over a third" what he means is 35% which, of course, leaves 65% who didn't or, in other words, near as damn it two thirds.
It really isn't that difficult a concept you know.
"3) Unreliable figures, irrelevant."
So give me better ones that suggest Vista isn't replacing XP in the private space.
"You have _got_ to stop posting garbage."
Irony.
I have computers from ancient times that actualy used aa batteries for the sis op still can convert its output to aski so it can convert to current computers. but talk about incription as out dated as the equipenent is few can work with it now days.
as far as data goes you cant beat the old Q&A by Semantec its a great basis to run inventory and cashruegister data it can migrate to the current stuff for convienience and is easy to reprogram forms in for data basees.
the main thing is you could hold years of books on a cd truely compact without sip work. Dos..
right an Open mind not a open wallet for frills gimmme a buggy whip n helhy horse.. not a gas guzzler furgal mans computing.
Fortunately as it's just the usual rehashed and ignorant rhetoric no-one's actually missing anything.
Not Vistas fault, stupid users fault.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL! You must work for M$, since that's their default answer for everything that goes wrong. It's never M$'s fault, it's always the stupid users going to malicious websites and screwing up their systems.
I partially agree, if the user wasn't so stupid as to be running winblows to begin with, they wouldn't be having problems.
User is stupid for running windows? What they should get a mac instead?
In my experience, 90% of all problems with windows (yes, any windows) are user created. I-D10-T or PEBCAC errors are called that way for a reason.
Sweet. You hate people for bashing Vista since they're just rehashing the same old arguments, many of which aren't even true anymore yet you do the exact same thing. What, exactly, can you do on Windows Vista for business that you can not do on a Mac? Maybe ActiveX controls for failed systems like Sharepoint but ActiveX is one of the major reasons Windows is such a prime target for malware.
Email, calendering, scheduling, spreadsheets, documents, presentations, web applications and many, many other business-related uses of a computer can be done very comfortably on a Mac. And in many cases it's a much better experience because the software developers for the Mac OS are amazing. I'll take OmniGraffle over Visio any day for my diagram needs. Keynote is superior to Powerpoint in almost every way imaginable. Coda is a superb web development and coding environment to work in. Business, business, business.
I am not a fanboy for Microsoft, but just trying to point out the reason why Vista didn't hurt Microsoft's bottom line is that it is "good enough" for people not doing high end computing----why pay $3000 for a Mac when I can pay $800 for a PC? This argument is similiar to one in the auto industry....why pay for the sports car, when I only need a sedan?
How is that?
First, Windows is an operating system. Macintosh is a computer system. They *aren't* direct competitors.
Second, like it or not, for a whole host of reasons (not the least of which as being in the right place at the right time) Windows became the de facto standard of the personal computer era. There is incredible economic value in having a standard platform, which has served to inhibit competition and perpetuate Microsoft's monopoly.
So the real question is, has Microsoft been a good steward of it's monopoly? Up until Vista, I would have said yes. They've had a few missteps, but mostly the Windows platform has been improving with each generation in response to customer demand.
Then Microsoft releases Vista. Vista is the absolute opposite of what most power users want (i.e. smaller, faster, less 'creeping death syndrome', better transparency/tools for dealing with adware/malware/etc.) Instead, it's bloated, slow, obfuscated, with an incredibly intrusive security scheme which annoys power users to no end and does nothing to protect unsophisticated users (who just end up clicking "yes" to the malware/trojan executable). Users don't want it. They don't buy it. So Microsoft forces them to, by taking XP off the market. That's abuse.
"When I tried Vista, I found it unresponsive and slow so I switched back to XP, but GUESS WHAT?"
Bingo. One issue among many.
"My PC barely met the recommended requirements for running Vista [..] Now if I was someone who knew nothing about computers like most of the world, I would probably be ranting 'VISTA IS A SLOW PIECE OF CRAP!!!!!!!"
Do you even hear what you are saying? Vista IS a slow piece of crap. The fact that you have to get a MORE POWERFUL COMPUTER in order for it to run as well as XP does on a SLOWER MACHINE does not making it a user issue, it's a Vista issue.
Modern Linux distros have far more useful features than Vista and can run pretty smooth on a system with a lower end single core processor and 512 MB of RAM.
That is the difference in competence.
Really? Why don't you give us a rundown of those "far more useful features". You know the ones that your average buyer is really going to give a toss about?
Then there's the number of organisations and businesses that have site licenses for XP and wipe->install every computer they deploy with their precustomised images. Still 'Vista' sales according to MS. I believe they probably count a few thousand Vista boxes at Birmingham City University (that's England, not Alabama) but there's not a single desktop box running anything other than XP.
Now, at what point does it stop being 'massaging the figures' and become outright lying?
Well we can start with hitlist's figures and work from there.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpcustom=Windows+Vista
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Oh right. You don't have any.
LOL!
What are you gaining for the performance loss?
If you only set your sights on Windows, and you only compare Windows releases, you are probably reasonably satisfied with Vista.
I reloaded Vista last night from scratch. From the time I loaded the DVD and applied all the OS upgrades via cable modem, the entire process took over 2 and 1/2 hours! That's ridiculous! And I didn't even reload application software.
One of my favorite posts on Vista is still: http://blogmaverick.com/2007/09/16/once-you-go-mac/
Tolerating stuff like this just reeks of mediocrity to me.
Two and a half hours? Seriously.
Your vague mocking is laughable, especially as your previous posts show you have no technical competence.
Only if your incompetent. I'm not mocking, I'm stating a fact - if it takes more than an hour to install Vista and all your apps then you're useless.
Sorry.
If you had any experience with actually installing Vista on a consumer computer you'd know that the SP1 installation can take anything up to an hour just to get through the reboot with some people breaking the install because they thought it had hung and reset the computer. Couple that with a relatively slow connection to download the updates and 2.5 hours is not extreme.
Of course, if you actually had any experience with home installations you'd know that.
I think you've made it quite clear from your comments here that you don't know what you're talking about but you're not going to let that stop you mouthing off.
Either way you've had your fifteen minutes, kid.
Toodles.
If I never had used Vista, I would have believed everything you said since your a major guy at "News.com".
Here's some bad news for you: I've been using Vista heavily since December last year and whatever you claim here - that Vista is an "utter failure", a "complete dud" is total NONSENSE simply because, apart from people like me, the Vista adoption figures themselves prove you are either ignorant, in self denial or hate Microsoft simply because it's a big successful company that is not open source (more open than Apple anyway).
You brag a lot about a Mac which has a much smaller desktop presence compared to Microsoft's desktop domination. Over that, a Mac machine costs twice the price for a Vista machine. So who are you kidding?
You claim Microsoft has "failed leadership" in the desktop market.
Here's some news for you: MICROSOFT IS STILL THE DESKTOP LEADER the last time I checked.
So you keep wondering why. The answer is yourself - your self denial and your personal animosity against a big large successful company called Microsoft which is not as open source as you wish it to be.
An equal comparison between a PC and Mac will show that they are very close, with Mac sometimes beating out a comparable PC. The keyword is comparable, something you can't seem to do.
MS has the market share due to predatory monopoly tactics.
One thing you aren't understanding: Windows growth rate is at or below zero. Apple is seeing double digit growth rates. Guess what is going to happen in 5 years?
Yeah, Apple will top out at about 15% US and 6% Global.
>>An equal comparison between a PC and Mac will show that they are very close, with Mac sometimes beating out a comparable PC.
Yeah, the only place where costs are comparable is taking high end Notebooks that are $1500+ and comparing them with Macbooks. Please, Mac fanboys always bring this up disregarding the fact that you won't get anything close within the $1000 level which is what most laymen users look for.
So enough of that propaganda. The facts speak for themselves. Who're you trying to fool here huh?
Meanwhile I run linux...little, cheap, no market share, fast, solid, reliable. But where's the fun in that?
Anyone else notice how much like Gnome "Windows Server 2008" is?
Certainly not having to use ndiswrapper to run Netgear cards or turning Compiz off because it doesn't play well with Radeon cards.
Now nVidia...
Ugh.
-
by JamesRatcliff
October 30, 2008 2:06 PM PDT
- question for Mac users:
-
Reply to this comment
-
(54 Comments)How much money have you parted with in the last few years for your copy of Mac OS X?
Same question to Windows users?
Now who makes more from their OS per customer?