Microsoft: Vista sells nearly 40 million licenses in first 100 days
By Thomas Ricker 
posted May 16th 2007 5:04AM
posted May 16th 2007 5:04AM
posted May 16th 2007 5:04AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"Part of the reason the OS requires better hardware is to drive PC sales. "
Not true at all. The OS uses better hardware because better hardware is now the standard and CHEAPER. Why would they build the OS based primarily old technology? If it is going to last it needs to be based on current technology as well as prepared for the future.
"Dell is doing it customers a dis-service by selling them PCs with outdated OSes... Maybe Dell should get all their hardware working with Vista so it isn't a problem."
Where did you get this information from? Every Dell I've seen with Vista pre-installed works JUST FINE. Do you have any facts to back up your post or are you just spewing random thoughts?
"Companies like HP make a lot of the PC components themselves and can make drivers for them in house... Dell usually buys components from other companies and has to rely on them for the drivers... that is how Dell was traditionally cheaper than other companies... they were always throwing the least expensive components they could find into the machines..."
What are you talking about? Are you serious? Are you telling me HP makes their own processors, hard drives, video cards, DVD/CD burners, etc etc? HP is no different from Dell in regard to what quality parts they use. Dell uses Western Digital/Seagate hard drives, NEC/Sony/LG cd/dvd burners, intel/amd processors, and many other name brands. All video cards are pretty much the same standard parts.
Quit spreading lies and get your facts straight before posting.
i think you are partly retarded. I highly doubt microsoft would pay some guy to to talk about how good they are on a comment post. microsoft makes billions they dont care if you dont like their os, becasue everyone else does, thats why its bigger hat mac os. and mac started to climb becasue of the ipod and the solid itunes/ilife, but they made some bad hardware choices and guess what, they have the exact same driver issue, a little scaled down becasue they dont have a lot of consumers compared to microsoft.
when you have a company as big as microsoft will millions, hundreds of millions of users, and have thousands of vendors, then yeah there will be problems.
this is only common sense, you guys are all stupid of coarse there will be driver problems bu t like jason said, get your software/hardware from a good name that supports what they make not some cheap china ripp off that you saved 10 bucks on.
stop being a bunch of meatheads and invest in your computer, dont buy vista if you have 128 mb ram you idiots. and get a graphics card. everyone knows vista is pretty graphics intense, which is why you need a good graphics card. hence the word graphics in the name.... dumb rejects.
"Where do I apple for that?"
Open iMouth. Insert iFoot.
I don't hide the fact that I think Apple's products & software are superior to MS offerings.
Because they are!
I think MS believes that too, after all who imitates who?
So iKiss my iAss!
everyone just got owned by jason. good job jay
"Dell is doing it customers a dis-service by selling them PCs with outdated OSes"
it's not that dell cannot sell pcs with vista, because it does, it's that some people don't want it, and requested to be able to buy pcs with XP.
Let alone people who want to buy notebook with linux that must buy windows licenses and never use it.
well they are not going to do much updated for xp now, but i can understand why people still want xp, but i think they are trying to force people into vista because people are just too lazy to learn the small differences in the two os. just get vista, its the same as xp but easier and nicer looking. they dont make os's that downgrade your experience. i think microsoft is a little smarter then that. they dont always make the best choices but they certainly have never made the worse. and i dont think they will, becasue they have to much on the line with the growing (well decaying for mac now) support for other os like linspire (linux). mac did really good but only becasue their cool commercials and fad for the ipod style.
mac will never be as big as ms. people want to be unique so they buy a mac. they want to be artistic and macs are for artistic people. but did you ever notice how every single mac looks exactly the same as the every other mac. have fun trying to find to pcs that look exactly alike from different companies. dell doesnt.they have hundreds of different style to choose from, not 2 like mac. i know you can get skins for your mac and stuff but what percent of mac users get new skins. maybe about 5%. so thats 95% of mac users with the exact same mac as eveyrone else. as opposed to the 3% of the pcs that look alike.
vista rocks, macs suck, linux has no support and is all over the place with hundreds of different versions. xp rocks too but its going to be out of the picture soon, the same windows 95 was when xp and stuff came out.
David, my uniformed friend, you are an idiot!
Now go stuff your head with McDonalds, since everyone else does - must be the best thing to eat
What a tool you are!
Bert: I am satisfied with Vista also! :)
It seems like your assumption doesn't really work like that... There's a lot of satisfied customers. As for my level of computer knowledge, I am a 5th year Computer Engineering student and I have worked at companies like Xerox and Thomson so I think I have a fairly decent idea how a good operating system should work.
Oh and to all the haters who talk about the "high" specs needed for Vista, I have to say that I installed Vista on a 3yr old laptop with 512MB of RAM and a Centrino and it runs fine. I even have Aero !
Apple can't ever be as big as MS because of how they decided to structure their business model. MS is huge because they will give their product, Windows, to anyone and everyone that will take it. Apple chooses to keep as much control as they can over the end product and chooses to not allow other manufacturers to use their OS. So now you have 1 computer manufacturer in the entire industry that manufactures its own hardware and uses its own software. The rest of the hardware industry uses/loads Windows because what other basic unknowledgable user friendly OS exists choices do they have? Linux is still too complex for basic computer users. So now you have most of the computer hardware producers selling machines with Windows on it and then you have Apple making its doing its own thing. This is why MS is huge and Apple is not.
You are comparing the diversity of Macs to PCs... but Macs are made by one producer, Apple, and PCs are made by a countless number of producers. Its like comparing the number of flavors of Stride gum to the number of flavors that is offered by the rest of the chewing/bubble gum industry.
Whether you use a mac, run linux or use windows you cant seriously tell me everything about that satisfies you? Every Os has its shit bits, Windows, Linux, OSX, all of them have parts that need improving. Just because Microsoft make it, doesn't mean that you have to point out the crappy bits and not look at the improvments made!
Vista is a great step up from XP, and if Microsoft keep on the same track as they have done with Vista, the next OS should be excellent.
about .00001% of sales from China....
I've been fairly satisfied so far with Vista itself. I'm still more comfortable with XP though and I'm NOT satisfied with the support being offered. Microsoft has been totally inflating these numbers by basically dropping support for anything else. The only reason XP was considered was that the hardware for the laptop didn't have drivers to make it compatible with XP.
in response to chris georges post,
I think that he is saying that HP gets other people to manufacture their products but it is under the hp name. I am using an hp multimedia keyboard. if i upgrade to vista and I want to use the media center controls on my keyboard, then I can just go to the website and get the drivers. As opposed to going to dells website and getting the drivers for the computer i have. I reformatted a compaq presario 061 last night and all i had to do for the drivers was burn them to a cd off their website. have fun doing that will a dell.
i have seen this with a lot of dell pcs, and dont get me wrong, dells are nice, decent support, nice looking pcs and good prices:
On a few cases i have been talking to people who recently bought a dell and i would ask questions about it to see if i should get one. all of them said that it came like they asked but there is a hardware difference then what they ordered. maybe a different gpu or sound card. sometimes even a different mobo. then they called them up and said its a better product and they cant exchange it but if they do they will have to pay the difference and pay for shipping. STUPID.
this just proves the fact that dell buys in bulk when either a company is a) discontinuing a product and have tons in stock b) they buy a huge massive amount of the same product that will shortly go out of date, or c) they just get a good price on something
look at their site, anything that is new will be a bigger price. they are still selling pc4200 533mhz ddr ram when way better ram is available. they probably bought 100 000 sticks of it and just through it in every system.
back to the drivers. those reasons above are why dell is messed up with drivers. i have never used a vista dell but i have a dell xp. and it is very glitchy with the drivers, and it came preinstalled.
well i think most of the licences have been brought by the companies who need to support there products on Vista for the user .. i dont think users are really buying it that much.. look for some more time u will see the real picture
Of course they've sold so many licenses. OEMs are practically shoving it down customer's throats.
I had to order a few systems from Dell for work the other day. The company I work for does not want to switch to Vista yet, so I had to order them with XP. On average it cost $50-80 more to have a system come with XP Home (instead of Vista), and an additional $90 to make that an XP Pro license. Brutal.
Bert,
What OS do you use? OSX? Has apple sold 40 million copies of OSX total? I only know of one person that uses an apple and he is kind of a douche.
Or is it Linux? Which one of the 40 million flavors do you use? I bet it is the one that is a pain in the ass to use, has zero support, and looks like a bad version of windows 98. Get over it. Average people have never heard of Linux and damn sure aren't going to go through the learning
Your Stupid. Stop talking.
why is no one mentioning DRM, vista's new and very foundation. who the F*** cares about better looking interface. you're being stripped of previous freedoms and are completely buying into the diversion.
let's not forget the facts:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Jesus Matthew, aim for a modicum of credibility and ditch Gutmann's pathetic FUD spooge.
See "What Content Will Be Crippled When Output in Vista? - Chris Lanier's Blog"
Bottom Line, Works the same as XP with the potential for HD content, try that on your Mac or Linux box.
I hate Vista. I feel it's one of the WORST "operating systems" ever made. The GUI sucks. Bring back old school Windows Explorer. Why are my files moving slower on the network when I upgraded it to be all 1Gpbs? Had to replace my heatsink/fans on all my graphics cards. Needed to add more memory to give me the same feel of speed that I got from XP. It's one of the most frustrating things on my computers right now.
Granted there are things that work better than XP, but that still doesn't make me not hate it.
I bought a MacBook Pro. It's fine and all, can't tinker, the OS is better, but there are things about it that aren't great. I've only been using it for a month. There are a lot of fun things for it, Quicksilver.
That's one of the frustrating things for me!
the people that are satisfied with vista are the same kind of idiots who are super-satisfied with mac cause it facilitates their stupidity. Sure, vista will run fine if I have 2 gigs of ram, a 2ghz processor, and a 256mb video card, but why would I want to invest in all that when XP gives me comparable FUNCTIONALITY? or even better yet, I could install beryl and get even more eye candy on a system with much older hardware.
Pretty sure these numbers are stuffed with "certificates" which are NOT likely to be redeemed by casual users who have XP on their recently purchased PCs.
I used Vista for 10 days before I got so fed up I couldn't stay it anymore and put my boxed version of XP Pro SP2 on my Compaq P4 Dual Core with 1GB ram and 250 MB SATA drive and all of a sudden my PC got way faster and I was able to immediately see significant productivity gains as a result of the switch.
Vista is a big steamy pile of poo! IMHO.
Funny how MS seems to not want to talk about how many of those "sales" were with bundled PCs and laptops. No shit Sherlock! Doesn't mean that consumers dig the new OS especially when we've seen the backlash from the biggest player in the market. Dell.
"i think you are partly retarded. I highly doubt microsoft would pay some guy to to talk about how good they are on a comment post."
Are you kidding? You can't possibly be this naive.
This is one of the cheapest forms of PR, and I've got news for you: ALL companies do it. At my last company, I was actually in charge of our online "street team" and that's what they did - they'd get $1 per post for saying good things about our products. We'd also ask them to post non-related stuff under the same user names too, so it wasn't so obvious - we didn't want more than 30% of their posts to be about our stuff, and we paid them for the non-related posts too.
This is obviously a pretty good deal for the street teamers, especially if somebody's out on blogs and discussion boards anyway. The more prolific people can make $500 in a week, most just doing it in their spare time, or even while they're actually at their regular jobs. No, they never worked on site - so there was never a way to track them back to us by IP.
Whenever you see gushing comments about a product that's otherwise been so reviled and gotten such bad press up to that point, it's almost *guaranteed* that you're reading a paid street team post. And bigger companies obviously have bigger street teams with more experienced people managing them, so they're everywhere.
But I guess if you want to keep on believing everybody on the net is who they say they are and all big corporations are completely honest and up front in their marketing and PR, that's up to you...
Naw, it is firmly implanted in your mom's hand.
It's fun to watch the haters when facts get in the way of their beloved hatred.
First off, 40 MILLION licenses. Not 40. Not 4,000. SINCE THE START OF FEBRUARY. That's 3.5 MONTHS. Yes there was Vista Business, but it wasn't available for the most part to the general public and wasn't preinstalled on many systems, so most of those licenses are new machines, retail and corporate licenses.
Let's get one thing straight from the top: that's what we in the real world call 'a success'. Accept this and move on. You may want Vista to be an utter flop and for most people to run screaming to MacOS X or Linux - BUT THEY AREN'T. Cope.
Is Microsoft on the verge of dying or failure now that Vista is such a total flop? Well, since the latter assumption is wrong, guess what - the former assertion is also wrong. In fact, Microsoft is doing better than ever. Sorry again - but you'll just have to cope with this one too.
Is it all new sales? Nope. Can't be. They haven't sold that many new machines in just 3.5 months - and Vista didn't ship with new machines starting Feb 1. I'm sure a lot of people took advantage of the upgrade program - but so what - that meant they bought an XP machine and then went to the effort of obtaining the upgrade - and not all of them got it for free.
Corporate sales? Please - have you ever worked in corporate IT? Corporations will stay away from Vista like the plague for at least six months while they test it and make sure it'll play nice in their IT infrastructures. They probably account for a tiny fraction of these licenses.
The fact is, a LOT of people have actually gone out and bought it of their own volition. And, like it or not, a lot of people are actually liking Vista. Certainly not all - not everyone likes everything - nor should they.
I used to be a Mac developer and owned nothing BUT Macs... but when MacOS X came out, I found it wasn't as enjoyable an experience as Windows, and I switched. I still work on both, but I'm mostly a PC user now. I know other people who went the other way and they're happier as Mac users - or Linux users - and that's great too.
But there's something very sad about people who believe that their choice is the only RIGHT choice and then have to go out and browbeat and insult people who don't share that choice or who assume that anyone who doesn't share their view must be a corporate shill (notice they never call down a Mac user for being a corporate shill). There's something even sadder about spending all your time in blogs looking for anything even faintly pro-Microsoft so you can dump all over everyone thinking you're smart or cool.
'Cause you're not - you're just another sad hater.
oooh, another one of those " deal with it ! " comment.
It IS complete monopoly. Linux? Mac? Their influences
are too small to be called as other choices.
I'm not one of those, idealistic, Mac fanboyish, open-source
freak. I do give a credit where its due. MS does have
some good things going on. Extreamly agreesive and
well managed business strategy.
But what they have got going on is definition of monopoly.
It is what it is.
Oh, I AM running Linux but have to go back to Windows
sometimes because I have to use certain app. that runs
only on Windows machine. One of common thing you
notice when monopoly takes a place.
(yea, yea, I know virtualization,
but it ain't as smooth as running it on its oroginal machine.)
Finally someone with a brain.
Please tell me you have a little bit more of an historical understanding of the monopoly that was and still is Windows. because based on the trash you just posted, I have no doubt you are purely a Microsoft-croney or super-l33t, I-have-to-have-my-games, Windows fanboi.
Microsoft is in no way on top because they make things that work. Microsoft is on top because they hard-structured a monopolistic idiom in EVERY contract they made with OEMs to provide them access to DOS and then Windows licenses. Hardware manufacturers, of the time, sucked up that trash with a gold-plated straw because it meant they didn't have to expense an in-house OS to run their wares.
Microsoft does NOT produce a desktop or laptop computer on their own. Microsoft remains in the superior position in the market because OEMs, while now being largely out from under Microsoft's tying contracts, are too busy competing in a price/feature war with one another to actually have the wherewthall to oust Windows from their boxes en masse.
And, unfortunately, Microsoft has one other leg up to keep themselves, at least temporarily, in the dominant position... most businesses and, hence, a good deal of their employees using Windows-powered computers, have this funky notion that only Windows can run Word/Excel/Powerpoint. That perception is changing.
As far as choices, you're right... where you're wrong is in how perceptible they may be. In most cases, to an average consumer, those choices are not apparent, nor readily revealed. Why? Because it isn't as highly profitable as just sticking with Windows, no matter how much of a turd it becomes. Remember, Microsoft does have billions and they DO throw cash at salespeople to push their product to the OEM... and the OEM hurls cash at the local computer sales geek to steer consumers to their particular brand.
To say Microsoft isn't a monopoly just because there is choice in the marketplace now is COMPLETELY ridiculous. Simply because the federal government stripped them of some of their monopoly-generating, and -maintaining, tools does not mean they are no longer a monopoly... now they are just one of convenience.
Everyone has been playing by Microsoft's rules for so long, whether they are forced to now is of no consequence. People's jobs are tied directly to whether or not their company buys into the Windows FUD.
And, for the record, Vista is a shiite copy of what OS X was 3 years ago. It lacks innovation and character. It has MAJOR issues, whether a few of you don't suffer from them or not. It is more deeply laden with Microsoft hooking, tying and control-mechanisms then every other Windows versions combined. And, it is almost entirely founded on the idea of hoisting Microsoft's proprietary standards on everyone who uses it, so that there is greater reason to keep buying Windows products down the road.
Ciao!
I love Vista.
The Aero interface is just what I've been wanting for 5 years.
I couldn't tell u how many times I required bling to get my work done in XP. And sure, I'll pay for the extra ram and processing power to show me bling.
I love the new features:
1) User Account Contol, which kindly asks me for my credentials constantly.
2) Internet Explorer 7 is a revolution not found anywhere else but in Vista. Plus it's farrrr safer than the constantly spyware-infested Opera, Firefox and Safari.
3) software compatibility is second-to-none. Vista's ready to rock!!!!11111 Everything works!!!!1111
4) The Protected Video Path so far has protected me from myself well. I like how Microsoft don't care what the MPAA and RIAA do and just put in these user-requested features. I also love High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) and the Image Constraint Token (ICT). I need more protection and constrants. I wished for these many times in the years using XP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista#Digital_Rights_Management To think that I was so unprotected 'til recently is a horrid thought.
I have had fewer issues with Protected Content on Vista than I have had with XP Media Center. I have not been prevented from watching On-Demand content or HBO with Vista like MCE 2005 because of the broadcast flag. I have not had the DRM lock outs within Media Player 11 like I had with version 10 where I had to go in and hack my own system to play songs that I own.
I don't want to bash Vista too hard because it is a good OS. It is just a PITA to deal with because all enabling of DRM slowed down the system. Aero uses way too many resources for too few benefits. And the overall "system protection" is PITA because is stall the computer every time I want to copy a file from one drive to another. Or when I want to delete a file or download something that has been sent to me via my FTP site.
Vista is not bad, but it is not good. But look on the other side. Ubuntu 7.04 (Fiesty Fawn) is just as bloated as Vista when comparing it to ver 6.06 (Dapper Drake).
"Of course the figures do not include new PCs where hard drives were reformatted and WinXP installed (i.e. many of the corporate ones), which should count as a minus Vista."
So does Apple subtracts 1 from the total iPod sales because I don't use it and instead use a Shuffle. I think not. They got paid for the license. How else should they count it? I guess everyone wants it calculated their way so it doesn't look good for Microsoft.
Grow up haters. 40 million is 40 million no matter how you count. You can still hate they OS, that's fine. It's just a sales figure.
Ok... that one made me actually laugh right out.
Good shot!
Oh, two other thoughts.
While it's obvious that some of the ideas in Vista were lifted from MacOS X, don't kid yourself that Apple didn't do the same thing - lifting some ideas from Microsoft and from other companies. (Can you say 'Konfabulator'? I knew you could...)
As for the monopoly thing: last time I went into a major retail chain like Best Buy, I recall seeing Macs sitting right there next to the PCs. Dell is making Linux based systems - but they've been available for a while at place like WalMart. And you can walk into any chopshop (ma&pa white box seller) and order a system with any OS you want or no OS at all. You've got choices - if you don't take them, that's hardly Microsoft's fault, is it?
Like it or not, Microsoft is on top because their stuff works well enough to keep most people satisfied at a price point most people find acceptable. That's the definition of a successful product. You may not like how they do it - but to be honest, you're in the minority. Most people just do not care.
We have more important things to do with our lives than worry about which computer hardware/software company is on top - like actually using their products to do something useful.
Vista is a wonderful OS.
CONGRATULATIONS MICROSOFT!
wow, there sure seems to be a lot of people desperate to believe that users really hate vista, that MS must be cheating in some way to sell that many, that the numbers only reflect an increase in PC sales, etc.
I'm sorry your poor little world can't tolerate the idea that MS would produce something that quite a few people like, and that is selling well, but sadly for you both are true. Rather than bitch and moan about it how about you let go of your little obsessive hatred. You will likely be happier for it when you stop caring what MS is up to and just be happy with whatever chosen platfrom you are using. MS's success doesn't detract from your choice, nor does your preference detract from the experience of others using MS products. Apple has been doing better than they have in years, so you don't have to worry about them going away, and the linux desktop environment has finally reached a fairly usable state so for those users they have reason to be happy to. Seriously, why not focus on the state of your current platform rather than trying to (unjustifiably) rain on the parade of those who prefer a different platform?
Plenty of people really like Vista, just like plenty of people really like the Zune. Whether you do or not doesn't really matter because both facts are good for you. It means the competition that you support is going to bust their ass to hands down outdo MS in order to compete. The success of both Vista and Zune are actually good for you, so quit your trolling.
So, um - apart from dismissing the idea that competition existing suggests Microsoft do not have a monopoly as "COMPLETELY ridiculous", and unqualified waffle such as "hard-structured monopolistic idiom" how DO YOU justify that they DO have a monopoly?
Simply because competition exists does not negate the existence of a monopoly. Monopoly by it's practical definition is a market condition which exists when one large competitor in the marketplace gains dominant standing and control by exercising unfair and restrictive practices to the detriment of all other competitors.
That is what Microsoft did and still does in some regards to almost every competitor in the markets they have entered. In terms of their original market gaining move, this was done by tying contracts that essentially locked all hardware vendors into paying Microsoft for every machine they sold whether or not they shipped DOS or Windows on it. By default, if you are going to have to pay anyway, you use what you're already having to pay for.
Further, Microsoft also worked to monetarily drive other competitors from the OS market, either through acquisition or unfair price competition. These practices remained largely in place until Microsoft started to come under intense state and federal scrutiny, largely in part due to two major triggers... Netscape and Real. There was also some incendiary sentiment left over from the infringement cases that had been only recently settled out of court with Apple and a lingering bad taste over several, at the time, Intel-OS based competitors biting the dust for having no means to enter the market successfully (manufacturers were simply not able to install them on new product).
Now, as I said previously, a goodly portion of these practices were squelched at the conclusion of the federal monopoly cases, but they fell short in doling out punishment. There was no break-up or truly stiff penalty assessed toward Microsoft and, in point of fact, it can be argued that the governments ultimate judgement allowed Microsoft to push capital and product into weak markets that they actually ended up benefiting from more then they paid into.
What that has left is a de facto monopoly. It is getting weaker by the year, but it still does exist in a practical sense. Having been forced to use Microsoft products for so long, because the majority of PC-manufacturers only sold new equipment with Microsoft's OS installed, most corporations are intrinsically tied into keeping them in their shops. For most of them, just on a cost basis, they see it as being non-sensical to consider replacing, en masse, the system they have been forced to use for the last 10 + years.
Ancillary markets have also grown up thriving on the the Microsoft monopoly that further push the perpetuation of that very same beast. None more explosive then the computer gamin industry. They have been pushed and pushed to make themselves more and more reliant on Microsoft's proprietary software "standards" (i.e., DirectX, etc.). There is also the added perception that because SO many people use Microsoft's OS, that making product for anything else will simply be unprofitable.
To a degree, a good deal of the ancillary markets are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for themselves. But, it is one that also allows Windows-users, to look at any competing product and say, "I won't be able to play game X if I use that OS and my new PDA says it only syncs with Windows, so why the hell would I want to try something new?"
Mind you, this won't always be the case and there is a definite shift in market attitude as there are increasingly more offerings available in the mainstream market (Linux on HPs and Dells, OS X running on Intel hardware, etc.). And, even some major players in the ancillary markets are starting to feel the benefit of making their products not just Micorsoft exclusives. But, for the moment at least, the monopoly still stands.
Does that answer your question?
I finally figured out what I wanted to ask!!
Is this the number of licenses that MS has sold to companies to sell on, or is this the number of copies that have been activated by users.
I assume that this refers to copies shipped to manufacturerrs, since there is no mention of Activationa anywhere.
Funny thing is that 6-9 months from now majority of you will be viewing this blog on a vista OS machine . Forgetting that at a point in time you were the ones flaming the same OS, just as you did when XP first came out.
Face it guys, you either live with it or move on to something else. Nobody is sticking a gun to your heads telling you to buy and use Vista, It's your choice.
Peace!
http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vistakri
Oops, should be:
http://badvista.fsf.org/what-s-wrong-with-microsoft-windows-vista
I've been using Vista for a couple months now, and the only evidence I've seen of DRM is that which comes from external sources, such as DVDs or music from iTunes. That Vista supports software which uses DRM doesn't make it evil, it makes it compatible with DVDs and iTunes and the like. As far as I can see the hoo-ha about DRM being "engrained" into Vista is nonsense.
As for the license agreement being exactly that, this is hardly unique to Windows. The majority of software is "licensed not sold". In fact, the same goes for virtually all media - if you buy a CD or DVD you may "own" the physical media, but you only posses the content under a limited license which allows you to use it yourself but not broadcast or sell it.
That site is utter nonsense. I especially like the idea that "There is a battle underway between those who value freedom" and "Microsoft who wish to profit by taking that freedom away". Making software and selling it for money isn't "trying to take your freedom away", it's just basic capitalism. People want software and are willing to pay money for it, Microsoft makes software and sells it for money. Simple as that.
Did anyone else look at that picture and think...
"No, you da man!"
A much more coherent post than last time, but I disagree- by definition a monopoly DOES require an absence of competition. The Oxford English Dictionary defines monopoly as:
"The exclusive possession or control of the trade in a commodity, product, or service; the condition of having no competitor in one's trade or business."
Thus the existence of competition quite clearly does preclude the existence of a monopoly. Furthermore, this does NOT necessarily imply "unfair and restrictive practices"- monopoly describes the state of the market, not how it came to be that way.
You may disagree with Microsoft's business practices, but to call it a monopoly is simply incorrect.
What they do have is a very strong business position, as a result of becoming essentially "the standard" for operating systems. As you say, this is rather self-fulfilling, as being a popular OS means people write software for your OS, which in turn keeps the OS popular. As PCs became increasingly commoditised compatibility became an issue and it was inevitable that this would happen. It is because of this virtual requirement for standardisation that Microsoft hold such a strong business position. If they hadn't done it, someone else would, and we'd be in exactly the same position only discussing a company with a different name. Their business practices, "unfair" or otherwise, may or may not have contributed to them in particular becoming the prevailing standard, however, the end result is the same regardless of who does and how - there will always be a prevailing standard putting the dominant party in a self-fulfilling strong market position.
treetrunk,
First, I respect you disagreeing, at least from the perspective that you did. As you may note, however, I said "practical" meaning of the word. I never intended to meet the definition assigned by Webster's or the Oxford English.
Why? Because, as it is classically defined, there are very few instances of an actual monopoly that match up with what are various anti-trust laws were established to combat.
Second, the "very strong" business position you mention as Microsoft's foundation for their success was obtained through practices that were, and have been found to be, anti-competitive and against the anti-trust laws that we have in this country.
Regardless of Apple, there were other competitiors for the Intel-based PC market in terms of OSes (Dr. DOS, PC-DOS, OS/2, just to name a few). Within the segment of the market that was purchasing Intel-based systems, Microsoft was exclusionary, anti-competitive, and in COMPLETE control over what hardware manufacturers put on their machines for software.
These other competitors are the ones that were driven out business and given no fair means to compete. And, using classic legal methodology, BUT FOR Microsoft's actions, there would currently be a much more diverse OS landscape with more substantive choice for the consumer, or at the very least, MUCH better product coming out of Redmond.
You know, they would have had to compete on quality, after all! :)
Ciao!
I don't like Vista. Using it on a brand new computer, I noticed it did work pretty fast, however there are legacy features from Windows XP which no longer existed. That is why I had to "downgrade" to Windows XP. I do not understand the point of removing features from an operating system upgrade. A step backwards. There is a pretty long list of features removed from Windows Vista on Wikipedia.
I also dread how they changed the explorer shell. I loved XP's tasks that would show up on the left side of the window. In vista, everything is hidden in context menus, which is a pain and takes up my time. They dumbed Vista down too much, it's almost as bad as using a Mac.
The features I liked in Windows Vista; Search, nice interface, etc...however, the Search capabilities can be added by installing Windows Desktop Search, which is the same engine and includes the same capabilities as the search in Vista. You can also get the nice skin with Stardock WindowBlinds.
Vista may be satisifactory for some of you out there, but it is not to me. I was very excited about Vista, and am very disappointed with the results.
Networking vista with my xp computers was an absolute headache. Having to install updates to the xp machines so they can be located by Vista. I never did manage to figure out how to get xp to recognize the vista laptop on the network. I don't have enough time in my life to figure out work arounds for Vista's annoying little quirks.
To each their own.
For your reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_removed_in_Windows_Vista
Ok, I upgraded to Vista Home Premium. It's not that I don't like it... it is alot cooler (and the interface does copy the Mac OS (and no, I'm not a Mac user!)... and while Vista does have alot of cool new features, it's still classic Microsoft and f*cks over the consumer on several levels. What I'm pissed about is how incompatible Windows Mail is with Outlook Express archives. Despite following the export instructions from Microsoft support, I am unable (even with support help) to imported my old OE6 folders/emails into either MS Mail or Outlook 2007.
And can someone explain why MS Mail (or Outlook 2007) won't support Hotmail? Even if you PAY for the upgraded service it won't work in either of Microsoft's mail programs!!!
So in order to salvage my mail archives I may very well be forced to roll-back to XP.
Anyone requiring performance for REAL programs (ie audio/visual production) will tell you XP performs. Vista on the other hand does do everything XP does but t's so graphical that it sucks up the system resources (ie ram, cpu etc...)
Dont buy into microsofts get rich quick scheme.
And yes, I own a copy of vista and my computer doubled the recommended system requirements. XP is back on and I can actually work again...
NO OPERATING SYSTEM SHOULD SUCK YOUR SYSTEMS RAM AND CPU LIKE THAT!!! CMON GUYS GET REAL!!!