Gates: Vista sales are "amazing"

[Newby]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003707793_webwinhec15.html

LOS ANGELES — Bill Gates said Microsoft was "amazed" at the response to Windows Vista, the company's flagship product, which has sold nearly 40 million copies since its release Jan. 30.

..

In March, Microsoft said it had sold 20 million copies of Vista in its first month on the market. The company emphasized then that this was double the initial sales pace of XP, which was released Oct. 25, 2001, so today's announcement is not particularly surprising.

[deadly7]

Naturally this article neglects to state how many people actually bought the Vista OS by itself (and kept using it) versus how many people bought a new computer that came pre-installed with Vista. 40 million computers being bought in a few months isn't unheard of, and almost all computers are now built to Vista standards.

[iago]

Naturally this article neglects to state how many people actually bought the Vista OS by itself (and kept using it) versus how many people bought a new computer that came pre-installed with Vista. 40 million computers being bought in a few months isn't unheard of, and almost all computers are now built to Vista standards.

And it's that reason that the OS game is so unfair: Microsoft can't possibly lose!

[nslay]

Naturally this article neglects to state how many people actually bought the Vista OS by itself (and kept using it) versus how many people bought a new computer that came pre-installed with Vista. 40 million computers being bought in a few months isn't unheard of, and almost all computers are now built to Vista standards.

And it's that reason that the OS game is so unfair: Microsoft can't possibly lose!

And what would computer vendors preload?  Linux?  Thats a terrible idea ... Maybe if Apple releases OS X for x86 in general will vendors start preloading OS X.
Maybe they could make Linux optional, so for example, someone like iago could buy a machine with Slackware or whatever installed, but then that really wouldn't damage Microsoft since most people aren't going to use Linux anyhow.
To be honest, new computers seem to be wrappers for advertisements...I'd rather just a system thats wiped clean (no OS) than one with anything preloaded on it.

[iago]

I most definitely wouldn't buy a computer with Linux pre-installed. Not even my favorite distro. I want to do it myself.

However, my problem is that I've bought 3 laptops in my life, and with each of those I bought a copy of Windows. The copy was deleted and the stickers peeled off, but Microsoft still got my money for doing nothing. And that's totally unfair.

So I agree, empty computers would be good. Sell empty computers, and Best Buy offers to install Windows for you.

[trust]

I most definitely wouldn't buy a computer with Linux pre-installed. Not even my favorite distro. I want to do it myself.

However, my problem is that I've bought 3 laptops in my life, and with each of those I bought a copy of Windows. The copy was deleted and the stickers peeled off, but Microsoft still got my money for doing nothing. And that's totally unfair.

So I agree, empty computers would be good. Sell empty computers, and Best Buy offers to install Windows for you.

That's pretty dumb, nobody wants to wait the extra hour or so to install the OS. Nor do they want to pay an additional bill, the consumer mind like seeing they're getting everything for a lump sum even if it's no cheaper than if they bought everything separately. Furthermore why even waste resources on paying someone to install Windows on almost every single new computer Best Buy sells. Best Buy undoubtedly is one of the largest computer retailers so that's a lot of installing to do. And then when you think about the actual percentage of it's consumers who would actually want Linux over Windows, it's a wasteful maneuver.

[iago]

Let's take a different angle.

Imagine if every fridge you bought came with enough Pepsi in it to last you until you buy your next fridge. Not for free, of course, but the price of the Pepsi comes with the fridge, and everybody has to buy it unless you build your own fridge.

How many people would drink Coke, in that case? Is that fair to Coke?

[Warrior]

(Atleast here) there are way to request the OS to not come preinstalled on the hardware.

Vista sold more in one week than all the other OSes userbases combined. They made approx 14.4 billion dollars since Vista launched.

It's a major success passing even XPs sale numbers. It will become as widely used as XP, I don't get what all the people are saying about Vista being a flop.
There is definitely a demand for Vista, and the features it brings (DX10, Security, Aero, etc.)

[Newby]

Naturally this article neglects to state how many people actually bought the Vista OS by itself (and kept using it) versus how many people bought a new computer that came pre-installed with Vista. 40 million computers being bought in a few months isn't unheard of, and almost all computers are now built to Vista standards.

And it's that reason that the OS game is so unfair: Microsoft can't possibly lose!

QQ.

[Chavo]

Good thing noone in this thread has a biased view skewing their reaction!

[iago]

Good thing noone in this thread has a biased view skewing their reaction!

Do you disagree with my assessment? If people were forced to buy a few years' worth of Pepsi with every fridge, do you really think anybody could possibly compete? And the ability to prevent competition = monopoly.

[Warrior]

Good thing noone in this thread has a biased view skewing their reaction!

Do you disagree with my assessment? If people were forced to buy a few years' worth of Pepsi with every fridge, do you really think anybody could possibly compete? And the ability to prevent competition = monopoly.

This is true, but I don't see it being true much longer. Companies (like Dell) are starting to either ship PCs without OSes preinstalled or offer PCs with Linux preinstalled. It will be a lot different in a few years, people will be more aware of the choices around them.

[iago]

This is true, but I don't see it being true much longer. Companies (like Dell) are starting to either ship PCs without OSes preinstalled or offer PCs with Linux preinstalled. It will be a lot different in a few years, people will be more aware of the choices around them.

I'm not sure how well that will work, though. If most Linux users are like me, they won't buy them with pre-installed OSes. Although if I had a choice between Windows and Linux, I'd buy the Linux box (out of support) and format it.

I don't know what the best solution is, but I know I don't like the current way (it smells bad). I think that all computers should come empty, and people should have to learn what a "OS" is. Installing Windows could be a valuable experience to many, and really isn't that difficult. And when that happens, people might understand what a OS really is. Most people I talk to don't even know what Windows means, just that they have to have it.

[Warrior]

This is true, but I don't see it being true much longer. Companies (like Dell) are starting to either ship PCs without OSes preinstalled or offer PCs with Linux preinstalled. It will be a lot different in a few years, people will be more aware of the choices around them.

I'm not sure how well that will work, though. If most Linux users are like me, they won't buy them with pre-installed OSes. Although if I had a choice between Windows and Linux, I'd buy the Linux box (out of support) and format it.

It'd be the best solution for the average "Joe Sixpack" who can't do custom compiles, or run a setup themselves. Somethat that just works is enough for most people.

[iago]

It'd be the best solution for the average "Joe Sixpack" who can't do custom compiles, or run a setup themselves. Somethat that just works is enough for most people.

It's called "tough love" -- make 'em learn!

[Newby]

It'd be the best solution for the average "Joe Sixpack" who can't do custom compiles, or run a setup themselves. Somethat that just works is enough for most people.

It's called "tough love" -- make 'em learn!

And that's why nobody will ever migrate to Linux in such a large number that Microsoft shits its pants.

[Warrior]

It'd be the best solution for the average "Joe Sixpack" who can't do custom compiles, or run a setup themselves. Somethat that just works is enough for most people.

It's called "tough love" -- make 'em learn!

They'd have to learn sooner or later, but it's best to not scare them away with too much at once. Present them with an easy UI to do common things (Packages/Updates/Browsing/IM/Multimedia) and then they will naturally quest to find more knowledge once they see the Beryl screenshots or want to automate things on their kernel.

[MyndFyre]

It'd be the best solution for the average "Joe Sixpack" who can't do custom compiles, or run a setup themselves. Somethat that just works is enough for most people.

It's called "tough love" -- make 'em learn!

They'd have to learn sooner or later, but it's best to not scare them away with too much at once. Present them with an easy UI to do common things (Packages/Updates/Browsing/IM/Multimedia) and then they will naturally quest to find more knowledge once they see the Beryl screenshots or want to automate things on their kernel.

My mom has been using her computer for as long as I have.  I can truly say she's never "naturally quested to find more knowledge."

[Warrior]

It'd be the best solution for the average "Joe Sixpack" who can't do custom compiles, or run a setup themselves. Somethat that just works is enough for most people.

It's called "tough love" -- make 'em learn!

They'd have to learn sooner or later, but it's best to not scare them away with too much at once. Present them with an easy UI to do common things (Packages/Updates/Browsing/IM/Multimedia) and then they will naturally quest to find more knowledge once they see the Beryl screenshots or want to automate things on their kernel.

My mom has been using her computer for as long as I have.  I can truly say she's never "naturally quested to find more knowledge."

Then she probably has no need for it. This is only if you have the want/need to learn more about the OS and what it offers.

If you provide an OS that's simple and easy to use on the outside but built on a complex and extendable framework of system servers and components then people who were apprehensive about switching to Linux due to complexity will be happy. Then, they will slowly over time if they so see the need begin to find ways to tinker with their system.

There needs to be a more presentable center of Linux help (something like the Windows Help in Vista) to offer common questions and act as a portal to solutions for the more complex ones.

[iago]

And that's why nobody will ever migrate to Linux in such a large number that Microsoft shits its pants.

That's what you think, but in the last few months they've made a lot of indications that they are.

[Chavo]

Good thing noone in this thread has a biased view skewing their reaction!

Do you disagree with my assessment? If people were forced to buy a few years' worth of Pepsi with every fridge, do you really think anybody could possibly compete? And the ability to prevent competition = monopoly.

I do disagree with your assessment.  The example is bad because anyone can pick up a can of Pepsi or Coca-Cola and be able to drink it.  Finding an extremely profitable and admittedly monopolistic marketing ploy doesn't make the market unfair or a completely bad thing.

Don't delve too much into that argument, I'm just giving an example of why I don't agree 100% with anyone in this tread and value my sanity far too much to try to battle 4 different OS zealots in one thread :O

[Warrior]

I agree with iago, if Pepsi is packaged with every Fridge people would be forced to drink it. Sure they can go out and buy Coke, but it's less convenient.

It's a perfectly sound analogy.

[iago]

I do disagree with your assessment.  The example is bad because anyone can pick up a can of Pepsi or Coca-Cola and be able to drink it.  Finding an extremely profitable and admittedly monopolistic marketing ploy doesn't make the market unfair or a completely bad thing.

It sounds like your own bias is taking over, rather than common sense. You seem to be making the assumption that not everybody can use an OS that isn't Windows, which is totally false.

The unfortunate truth is that, if somebody made an OS that's superior to Windows and Linux and Mac in every possible way (faster, more configurable, more compatible, looks better, cheaper, etc.), Windows would still do better. Why? Because people are going to stick with what's on the computer that they buy.

[MyndFyre]

The unfortunate truth is that, if somebody made an OS that's superior to Windows and Linux and Mac in every possible way (faster, more configurable, more compatible, looks better, cheaper, etc.), Windows would still do better. Why? Because people are going to stick with what's on the computer that they buy.

If Microsoft made Windows completely free but made everything so different that only a handful of people (relative to now) could provide help for the platform, we'd see a more heterogeneous market.  It's not the preinstallation of Windows that makes it work.  It's the fact that people can get help conveniently that makes Windows popular.

I've tried Linux.  Many, many times.  And I always feel like it's boxing with my computer.

[iago]

I disagree. Perhaps that's true for a small number of people, like perhaps people who know what "Linux" means, but the vast majority of people I know don't even know what "Windows" means. They buy a computer that has something called "Windows", which is apparently necessary, but beyond that it's a mystery. If there was an OS that's better in every way, they wouldn't use it unless somebody else installed it for them.

[MyndFyre]

Come now.  Let's be realistic.

My mom is an above-average computer user because she does a lot of desktop publishing and internet-based work for her job (she's a real estate agent).  Next time she needs a new computer, I tell her I can build one cheaper that will be better.  I put Ubuntu or Fedora Core on it (these have been the easiest distros to use for me).  Let's say all of the hardware works on the first try (this has NEVER been my experience, but I'm a hobbyist, I always have obscure hardware).

I leave my mom.  She tries to do work.  She can't because something's gone wrong.  She calls me.  I don't know what to tell her.  She calls any other computer people she knows.  Chances are, they don't know what to tell her.  She could go to Best Buy and they wouldn't know what to tell her, and then they would tell her to buy and install Windows.

She could go to online forums, assuming she even knows how to phrase the questions she needs to ask or Google, but I'd say that she has about a 90% chance of finding people who are entirely unhelpful who want her to "help herself."  She doesn't care about the FOSS movement, or how "technically superior" the Linux kernel is, or any of that.  She just cares about doing what she needs to do for her job.  Linux simply is not appropriate for it.  To some extent, Mac is better, but it's still tough.  Why?  Because Apple has closed Mac OS X deployment to only Apple hardware, and there are significantly fewer people with real Mac experience to be able to assist.

"Free" software ends up costing my mom more in time, money, and aggravation because she is *forced* to learn the idioms.  She just wants to learn enough to get by.

Until either everyone in the world has the time and wants to learn more than enough to get by, -OR- "free" software begins to get widespread, intuitive support (I guarantee you my mom would never click the "man pages" link on the menu, because she'd think it was an electronic version of Playgirl or something), then Windows is going to have an easy monopoly.

[iago]

You seem to be under the impression that I'm promoting Linux here. I'm not. I'm complaining about Microsoft's monopolistic state. Read what I said again:

The unfortunate truth is that, if somebody made an OS that's superior to Windows and Linux and Mac in every possible way (faster, more configurable, more compatible, looks better, cheaper, etc.), Windows would still do better. Why? Because people are going to stick with what's on the computer that they buy.

Perhaps I should have added "easier, better supported". But I did say "in every possible way".

Linux isn't going to be a big competitor for average computer users. That's fine, I don't care. However, there is no possible way to create, market, and sell a better OS unless you are able to get computer stores to pre-install it, and that's not going to happen. It's almost completely impossible for a competitor to enter the OS market due to Microsoft's position. And that's a very bad thing, even if you like Microsoft software. People who use Windows are just lucky that Linux/Unix/Mac exist just enough to prevent MS from doing whatever they want to. 

[Chavo]

It sounds like your own bias is taking over, rather than common sense. You seem to be making the assumption that not everybody can use an OS that isn't Windows, which is totally false.

'can' and 'can easily and have the desire to do so instead of spending x dollars' are far from the same thing and a perfectly valid assumption that in no way applies only to the OS world

[Blaze]

What if I don't want to put Coke or Pepsi in my fridge, would Pizza be another OS in your ananology?

[chuck]

The reason most people don't use Linux/BSD is because they are used to Windows. They grew up using it, and find they are more familier with it. Me, I grew up using Mac's, thus, I prefere them.

If everyone in this generation grew up using Linux, they'd prefere it over Windows. But, because of the way Windows is being sold with just about every computer you buy today, that won't happen. And the reason Windows is being sold with every computer today is because this generation preferes it.

The only way this will stop is if MS somehow screws up badly, Apple successfully pushs its way into the corporate and home markets, or Linux and BSD get their act together.

[LordVader]

Actually if you follow debian/ubuntu at all, their nearly as userfriendly and easy to use as windows is for any average user that has NEVER been on a computer before today.

Now that's not the same as what most of us here would be classified as, yes I would myself format and reinstall any OS so I had it setup how I prefer it to be..

But in all honesty I could install a debian or ubuntu desktop without any extra tweaks just basic installation on my mother's computer put launchers for Firefox, ThunderBird, and OpenOffice on her desktop and she'd be happy and fine not really realizing she's on OMFG LINUX@! I dunno what to do now!.
They find hardware extremely well now and autoupdate and do so pretty well without much user interaction now the same as windows for normal usage etc.
As far as navigating to software and things, debian and especially ubuntu is extremly user friendly now out of box..

Keep in mind im saying "user" not power user or uber geek here.
Just trying to show that there isn't much reason anymore that windows has to be the only option for "average joe user" who at some point will run into some problem and be stuck because it's linux, that's just not the case anymore.

Hell even PC-BSD is getting closer and closer to being userfriendly in this manner also..
As well as a few other *bsd's, but their still a little bit behind on the user friendly front but not to far.

As far as microsoft goes I will never give them another dime for an OS or anything if I can help it.
The only thing I would consider is something new on the media front in regards to movies/music as long as I can get around drm, other wise they'll never see another penny from me.