Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Why Vista is the Beginning of the End of Windows (Was: Vista is in trouble)

On Jan 9, 11:13 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> ____/ Paul Hovnanian P.E. on Thursday 10 January 2008 01:58 : \____
>
> > They must be burning the Vista install DVDs on Vista machines.

Ironically, DVD mass production is generally farmed out - to a "press"
that uses UNIX for mastering and production.  Microsoft might have
found a jobber who could do it using Windows, but it would be unusual.

> That would be like compiling GCC with GCC.

Which can be done, and is done.  GCC also supports cross-compile, and
is often used to help migrate Linux to new hardware platforms and
processor chips.  It's one of the reasons that Linux runs on so many
different chipsets.

> By the way, about the figures, it's intresting to note that among those 100
> million copies, half of these might be just boxes that contain a DVD and sit
> inside large warehouses collecting dust.

Actually, it could be worse than that.  Remember that OEMs only need a
sticker that goes on the bottom of the laptop or the back of the
desktop.  Corporate customers get a CD with a list of license keys to
be issued by the license manager, and VML customers just get a count
of licenses, which can be used for Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Vista,
but gets counted as Vista.

> Several shops have complained about
> Microsoft because Vista does not sell, so they are overstocked (examples below
> in [1,2]).

This has been a big problem for retailers.  CompUSA closed their
doors.  Best Buy has let the computer displays go vacant, leaving
"holes" where Vista machines were once displayed.  In many stores, for
many models, customers can only purchase the display machines.

> Among those copies that are sold as opposed to sit on the shelf,
> not many are actually used. People switch to Linux or run away to XP almost
> every time [5].

Many people who order PCs via the Web purchase them with Windows XP.
Microsoft has explained that if the OEMS upgrade a Vista Home Premium
to Vista Business, they can ship Windows XP (with the XP EULA),
instead of Vista, on the machine.  This allows Microsoft to claim TWO
licenses, since the upgrade counts as a second license in Microsoft's
books.

> Less than 1% of the businesses out there have adopted Vista
> after one year in the wild [3].

Yet many companies have continued to purchase new computers with
Windows XP.  Again, Microsoft permits the OEMs to ship Windows XP to
these customers if they pay for the upgrade to Vista Business
Edition.  If you figure that the Vista license costs about $40, and XP
upgrade costs Dell $20 (what they charge for the upgrade to either
Vista or XP), that means that Microsoft gets two Vista licenses for 1
PC that is shipped with Windows XP.

> Too minor an update to be worth the 'upgrade'?

When Microsoft first announced Longhorn, it was supposed to have a
bunch of new features, like a more efficient and reliable file system,
64 bit support, better memory management, faster context switching,
and faster drive access, as well as faster graphics.  It was also
supposed to be "hacker proof", with a built-in firewall and antivirus
software.

Vista, as released comes in default 32 bit mode, gobbles huge amounts
of memory, uses the same NTFS file system as they have used since NT
3.1 15 years ago.  The graphics improvement was only for 3D graphics,
and only then if you used DirectX Video calls.

The problem is that 3D graphics is used only on Game machines, and
most Game writers use OpenGL so that they can use the same software on
PS2, PS3, Nintendo, X-Box, Linux, Windows XP, and older versions of
Windows.  Writing an application to DirectX-10 means that it will only
work on Vista.

> 6 years in development ought to say that something is amiss. Microsoft
> even /admitted/ this in private (off the record, but it apparently
> leaked) [4].

Microsoft had a big problem with Vista.  They were chasing TWO moving
targets (Mac and Linux), and both were improving faster than Microsoft
could keep up.  And the other two were ALREADY more secure, more
stable, more efficient, and gave better performance than Windows XP,
and Microsoft couldn't buy, license, or steal the code that made all
that possible.  Microsoft was also unwilling to give up ActiveX, which
it still used to monitor piracy, and still considered a strategic
product.

> [1] Currys group blames Vista for poor sales
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | DSG, the group behind Currys and PC World, has warned that poor sales of
> | Vista could slash its profits by around £20 million.

We are already seeing similar concerns being raised by many other
retailers.  In additon, Back-To-School sales were lower than expected,
as were Christmas sales.

> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/131507/currys-group-blames-vista-for-poor...

> [2] DSG continues retailer woes
> http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/newsalerts/article/748756/dsg-contin...

Duplicate article, different wording.

> [3] Will Windows Vista Succeed In 2008? Don't Count On It

> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Vista has certainly been slow out of the gate. Sure, Microsoft is putting the
> | operating system on newly shipped systems, but Vista sales didn't benefit
> | from the upgrade surge that previous OSes got upon release. A year after it
> | began shipping, less than one percent of corporate desktops are running
> | Vista.

Normally, when Microsoft releases a new operating system, there is a
price increase associated with newer hardware.  This price increase
usually holds for about 1 year, and prices gradually drop.

With Vista, hardware has 4 times the memory, 4 times the storage, and
4-6 times the processor speed of XP machines, yet prices have dropped
to BELOW the prices charged for XP at the end of it's run.

> http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/01/will_window...

> [4] Microsoft admits Vista screwed - report
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Vista SP1 is code named "Fiji", presumably after a pretty looking
> | island which is paralysed by coups.
Sounds like a bit of Bias there.

> | In a statement regarding the service pack Microsoft admits that
> | Vista has "high impact" problems.

Sounds like vole-speak for "This turkey is looking like Windows ME and
Windows NT 3.51 and we gotta think of something fast.

Microsoft could pull their butts out of the fire, but they aren't
willing to take the required actions.  These include:

1. Make AeroGlass work with OpenGL and desktop Virtualization.
2. Make a "Light" version that can be used as a virtual desktop
client.
3. Remove new license terms for Vista.
4. Let Vista licensees, including those with Home Basic use Vista with
Linux.
   a.  Let Linux call Vista libraries if the PC is licensed for Vista.
   b.  Let Linux use Vista as a virtual client if the PC is licensed
for Vista.
   c.  Let Linux users remote access Vista desktop, laptop, and
Windows 200x servers.
   d.  Permit Vista users to make configuration changes (disk size,
ram size,
        network and graphics) without tripping piracy detection and
disabling the PC.
5. Promise not to disable PCs without first contacting the user.
   Check CPU, Hard drive serial number, and Ethernet MAC address, and
require that ALL be different before declaring it piracy.

> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37125

> [5] Windows Vista: Sold but not deployed
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Microsoft says it remains happy with enterprise sales of Vista -- however,
> | the software behemoth acknowledges that many businesses which have bought
> | Vista licences are yet to deploy the software.

If Microsoft is giving support subscribers free copies of Vista, it
gives Microsoft bragging rights, but this doesn't mean that the
corporate customers are willing to install the upgrades.  Many
companies are expressly preventing the proliferation of Vista.

This alone is not uncommon.  Most corporations will wait until the
first "official" update before even considering updates.  That can be
a "dot one" release, such as Windows 3.1 or Java 1.5.1 or a service
pack, such as Service Pack 1.

Windows 95 wasn't quickly accepted, but Windows 95B was widely
accepted.  Windows NT 4.0 wasn't widely accepted until Service Pack
3.  Windows 98 didn't do as well as Windows 98 SE.  Windows XP wasn't
accepted until Service Pack 1, and Service Pack 2 was actually
rejected by many companies because there were so many
incompatibilities with 3rd party software.

> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Windows-Vista-Sold-but-not-...

When you start to look at that 100 million units, and you look at the
decay in acceptance, and you start to look at the double-counting and
XPs that Microsoft claims as Vista units, it makes you wonder what the
real numbers might be.  Could it be that only 20-30 million units have
actually been deployed as actual Vista machines?

Rex Ballard
http://www.open4success.org

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index