Over 180 Million Licenses Of Vista Sold.

[sjaak327]

In light of all the Vista whinging and discussions (also on this forum). Something to note:

Microsoft’s Annual Revenue Reaches $60 Billion

Fastest annual revenue growth since 1999 fuels 32% increase in earnings per share.

REDMOND, Wash. — July 17, 2008 — Microsoft Corp. today announced revenue of $15.84 billion for the fiscal fourth quarter ended June 30, 2008, an 18% increase over the same period of the prior year. Operating income and diluted earnings per share for the quarter were $5.68 billion and $0.46, representing growth of 42% and 48%, respectively, over the same period of the prior year.

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, Microsoft announced revenue of $60.42 billion, an 18% increase over the prior year. Operating income and diluted earnings per share for the year were $22.49 billion and $1.87, representing yearly growth of 21% and 32%, respectively.

The growth rates for operating income and diluted earnings per share were impacted by a $1.1 billion charge in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2007 related to the expansion of the company’s Xbox 360 warranty coverage.

“Delivering $60 billion in annual revenue is an outstanding accomplishment and a testament to the powerful combination of great technology solutions and strong execution by our partners and global sales and marketing teams,” said Kevin Turner, chief operating officer at Microsoft. “The outlook for fiscal year 2009 is positive given the breadth of our impressive technology portfolio and the expanding collection of online services we are bringing to market.”

This fiscal year marked the launch of Microsoft’s flagship server products: Windows Server 2008, SQL Server 2008 and Visual Studio 2008. Revenue growth was primarily driven by continued customer demand for all products, including Windows Vista, which has sold over 180 million licenses since launch, the 2007 Microsoft Office system, server software, and Xbox 360 consoles and games.

“We had a strong finish in the fourth quarter, which capped off an impressive year for the company. We grew revenue 18% for the year with earnings per share significantly outpacing that,” said Chris Liddell, chief financial officer at Microsoft. “Looking forward, despite difficult economic conditions, we will build upon the momentum exiting fiscal year 2008 and expect to deliver another year of double-digit revenue and earnings growth in fiscal year 2009.”

Continued http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2...Q4earnings.mspx

180 million, not a bad number I would say, also considering that only two months back it was announced that the number was 140 million.

The corporations don't buy it, consumers don't want it, who buys it then. I'll let everyone chime in to explain and put this number into perspective.

However it is safe to say, judging by these numbers, that Vista isn't the new Windows Millenium in terms of commercial success, and it's safe to say, that it isn't in terms of stability, security and features.

[JSixpack]

The corporations don't buy it, consumers don't want it, who buys it then. I'll let everyone chime in to explain and put this number into perspective.

New computers for consumers are forced to come with Vista, so what do you expect? New computer sales have been doing surprisingly well in the recent economy. But upgrade versions and corporate sales have been very lukewarm, which is telling enough, despite a gigantic marketing effort. And M'soft includes sales of PCs that were downgraded to XP from Vista as Vista sales, even if they were never used as Vista machines.

However it is safe to say, judging by these numbers, that Vista isn't the new Windows Millenium in terms of commercial success, and it's safe to say, that it isn't in terms of stability, security and features.

Well, duh! But, you see, we aren't judging by these numbers. Unfortunately it is Me in terms of people who have a stable XP SP2-3 already, since there's no compelling reason to upgrade (hence poor upgrade sales), just as there wasn't from 98 to Me. You simply keep missing this point, since you don't really have a rational argument. The eyecandy, the sidebar, the thisnthat you tout can be bettered on XP w/ a few free programs.

As CNET says, "The bottom line: Windows Vista is essentially warmed-over Windows XP. If you're currently happy with Windows XP SP2, we see no compelling reason to upgrade. On the other hand, if you need a new computer right now, Windows Vista is stable enough for everyday use." http://reviews.cnet.com/windows/windows-vi...7-32013603.html

I've noticed that you never offer to pay for anyone's time and expense to move to Vista. You didn't even pay for your own! Now, if you want pay me for the labor of installation and configuration (including tweaks to get it up to near-XP speeds), the Vista-compatble hardware (see the M'soft compatibility list), the Vista-compatible applications, and for Vista itself, then I'll be glad to start running Vista. Deal?

But since this is a religous issue with you, I'll bow out now so that you may worship in peace. In time there will be no choice for any serious Windows user except to move to Vista or 7, and you may take even greater comfort in the sales figures then.

[slackula]

P.T. Barnum proved correct once again.

[Guest Reimar]

The corporations don't buy it, consumers don't want it, who buys it then. I'll let everyone chime in to explain and put this number into perspective.

New computers for consumers are forced to come with Vista, so what do you expect? New computer sales have been doing surprisingly well in the recent economy. But upgrade versions and corporate sales have been very lukewarm, which is telling enough, despite a gigantic marketing effort. And M'soft includes sales of PCs that were downgraded to XP from Vista as Vista sales, even if they were never used as Vista machines.

Microsoft didn't sell PC's! If someone buys a new PC, he have the choice with or without the OS preinstalled and oif comes preinstalled on an OEM PC, there isn't any "MUST" to use that OS! And if a OEM and/or PC Manufacturer uses Non Vista Machines to sell equippet with Vista, who is to blame?!

However it is safe to say, judging by these numbers, that Vista isn't the new Windows Millenium in terms of commercial success, and it's safe to say, that it isn't in terms of stability, security and features.

Well, duh! But, you see, we aren't judging by these numbers. Unfortunately it is Me in terms of people who have a stable XP SP2-3 already, since there's no compelling reason to upgrade (hence poor upgrade sales), just as there wasn't from 98 to Me. You simply keep missing this point, since you don't really have a rational argument. The eyecandy, the sidebar, the thisnthat you tout can be bettered on XP w/ a few free programs.

As CNET says, "The bottom line: Windows Vista is essentially warmed-over Windows XP. If you're currently happy with Windows XP SP2, we see no compelling reason to upgrade. On the other hand, if you need a new computer right now, Windows Vista is stable enough for everyday use." http://reviews.cnet.com/windows/windows-vi...7-32013603.html

I've noticed that you never offer to pay for anyone's time and expense to move to Vista. You didn't even pay for your own! Now, if you want pay me for the labor of installation and configuration (including tweaks to get it up to near-XP speeds), the Vista-compatble hardware (see the M'soft compatibility list), the Vista-compatible applications, and for Vista itself, then I'll be glad to start running Vista. Deal?

But since this is a religous issue with you, I'll bow out now so that you may worship in peace. In time there will be no choice for any serious Windows user except to move to Vista or 7, and you may take even greater comfort in the sales figures then.

And here we come to an very interesting point in your answer (outlined in red): You want to get paid for to use Vista, but don't like to spend money for to move on!

And about the speed of Vista compare to XP: Compared Vista on Machines designed (I mean real designed) for to use with Vista, the speed is significant faster than in XP, even on the same Machine and that out of the box running SP1, without any Tweaks!

But using the Eyecandy in XP, will downgrade the XP Machine because XP isn't designed to use such Eyecandy.

Anyway it's the choice of any individual User which OS he like to use.

I like to use Vista instead of XP and that has nothing to do with an "religous issue" just with Security and Stability and the use of my hardware in full and not just partly.

Cheers.

[JSixpack]

Microsoft didn't sell PC's!

Sigh. Revelation of the day.

If someone buys a new PC, he have the choice with or without the OS preinstalled and oif comes preinstalled on an OEM PC, there isn't any "MUST" to use that OS!

A disingenous argument, dear Reimar. Let's live in the real world, shall we? Earlier, OEMs couldn't sell computers w/ no OS. M'soft had a defacto monopoly. Everybody got that and they got Windows apps and now they're essentially tied to those apps.

Now they need Windows but M'soft is only going to offer them Vista, so that's what they are getting. Hence the sales figures.

Few if any average consumers are going to choose a No OS configuration from, say, Dell. They can't use their old OEM editions of XP. They can't handle Linux, so there's not really a choice.

Suppose they do opt for no OS. Watch this at Dell:

E1505 Dual Core

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7200

15.4 inch WXGA+ LCD

2GB DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHZ, 2 DIMM

100GB 7200rpm SATA Hard Drive

8X DVD+/-RW

Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950

9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery

Intel PRO/Wireless 3945a/g

Dell Wireless 355 Bluetooth Internal

Windows Vista™ Home Premium

$1582

Latitude D820N Duo

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7200

15.4 inch WXGA+ LCD

2GB DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHZ, 2 DIMM

100GB 7200rpm SATA Hard Drive

8X DVD+/-RW

Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 950

9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery

Intel PRO/Wireless 3945a/g

Dell Wireless 350 Bluetooth Internal

$1788

The difference in price is $206. This implies that Windows costs -206 dollars. Who isn't going to take the Vista? Then it's too much bother to take it off and besides the old OEM restore disk won't work and they can't buy a new copy of XP (which, with recent desperate Vista price drops, is nearly the same price as Vista).

See the M'soft marketing power?

But most OEMs don't want to offer another OS or no OS. What's the incentive? Vista needs better hardware anyway.

"It has been well documented that the reception for Microsoft's Windows Vista has not been all that warm. Yet, visiting the web site of many PC manufacturers or visiting a retail outlet selling computers will show that most new hardware is being offered with Vista as the primary if not only option. http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2...8/01/30/1437237

And no more XP choice, esp. if you've got an old OEM version.

XP Reprieve: Microsoft Gives OEMs Five More Months

Elizabeth Montalbano, IDG News Service

Microsoft is extending the time it will allow original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and retail outlets to sell PCs with Windows XP as customers continue to balk on upgrading to Windows Vista.

Microsoft had planned to stop selling XP through OEMs and retailers on Jan. 31, 2008, while custom system builders have until Jan. 31, 2009, to pre-install XP on machines. But because sales of Vista PCs have not been as strong as expected, OEMs and retailers have asked Microsoft to extend XP's availability. OEMs and retailers will now have until June 30, 2008, to sell PCs with Windows XP preinstalled on machines, Microsoft said.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/137826/xp_r...ore_months.html

And here we come to an very interesting point in your answer (outlined in red): You want to get paid for to use Vista, but don't like to spend money for to move on!

No, I didn't say anything like that if you read carefully. But you, as our resident expert, blithely and automatically tell posters just to "upgrade to Vista" as you did here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Window-Xp-Pr...p3-t192339.html

when they are perfectly happy with their XP and there's no particular reason to spend the resources to do so. After all, it's their time and money, not yours, so that's easy for you to do. So I think you'd not be so quick, and ultimately irresponsible, if you were the one spending those resources for them. When you advise a completely unnecessary upgrade, I think you should offer to pay for it as well.

And about the speed of Vista compare to XP: Compared Vista on Machines designed (I mean real designed) for to use with Vista, the speed is significant faster than in XP, even on the same Machine and that out of the box running SP1, without any Tweaks!

Alas, no. Sorry! I'll trust the CRN test center over the Reimar test center:

Testing Shows XP Still Outperforms Vista

By Samara Lynn, ChannelWeb

1:44 PM EDT Fri. Apr. 04, 2008

In head-to-head tests between Windows XP Service Pack 3 Beta (Release Candidate 2) against Windows Vista Service Pack 1, it's clear that XP still holds a measurable performance advantage over Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT)'s next-generation desktop operating system.

Our CRN Test Center conducted a faceoff-type of performance evaluation. . . [go read all the stats yourself] Vista still requires more physical memory than XP to run optimally. The bottom line: XP still rules, performance wise, over Vista. Vista is certainly outfitted for enhanced security, but with new features in XP SP3 like Network Access protection, XP SP3 does not seem like a slouch in the security department either.

Microsoft is pushing Vista, hard, over XP. But it's increasingly clear that it will have to address the performance drop that takes place in the migration from XP to Vista. The scenario is reminiscent of XPs phasing out the then popular Windows 2000 desktop. Microsoft managed to shore up XP and make it the reliable product it is today.

http://www.crn.com/software/207001890

But using the Eyecandy in XP, will downgrade the XP Machine because XP isn't designed to use such Eyecandy.

Now, Reimer, there is no XP machine because XP doesn't manufacture machines!

But XP was designed to use eye candy--themes--and those can be enhanced. Moreover, if you study over the Stardock site, you'll discover that Windowblinds uses even less resources than XP themes. Hard to believe, I know; but there it is. Windowblinds has been tweaked for years, and it doesn't cause much of a slowdown. BTW, Aero, as noted in the study above, also slows down Vista!

Finally, you can use an alternate shell such as bblean to replace explorer, use less resources than even classic no-theme XP, and get transparency, alternate desktops, "widgets," and all kind of stuff Aero doesn't have.

the use of my hardware in full and not just partly.

And you're willing to pay handsomely for that unspecified but fairly unimportant "full use" out of the box . . . .

[sjaak327]

"New computers for consumers are forced to come with Vista, so what do you expect? New computer sales have been doing surprisingly well in the recent economy. But upgrade versions and corporate sales have been very lukewarm, which is telling enough, despite a gigantic marketing effort. And M'soft includes sales of PCs that were downgraded to XP from Vista as Vista sales, even if they were never used as Vista machines."

You are making this up as you go along. It is now july 18, sales for XP stopped june 30, before that time, computer manufacturers have been selling XP with a new computer if the customer wanted to have XP, not a downgrade option. Only since june 30 the "forcing to vista" is a reality. Incidentially Dell is selling this downgrade option at a price, 40 euro if one want to downgrade from Vista to XP

"since there's no compelling reason to upgrade (hence poor upgrade sales), just as there wasn't from 98 to Me. You simply keep missing this point, since you don't really have a rational argument. The eyecandy, the sidebar, the thisnthat you tout can be bettered on XP w/ a few free programs."

It's not only eyecandy, that's the point. If you claim that the upgrade from 98 to ME is the same in functionality, then it's you who is missing the point, or simply a lack of knowledge, Vista has more features then XP. And the upgrade IS a major upgrade, it is telling that you still keep insisting it isn't . Yes some of that functionality can be added to XP as well, that's not the point, we are again talking about out of the box. Also the eyecandy, as used to make the UI changes to Vista look insignificant cannot be realiably added to XP, it's at best buggy software, and it doesn't compeletly offer what vista offers. Simple question, are you able to use the new SSTP VPN with XP for instance, answer: nope, Microsoft has stopped development for XP.

"I've noticed that you never offer to pay for anyone's time and expense to move to Vista. You didn't even pay for your own! Now, if you want pay me for the labor of installation and configuration (including tweaks to get it up to near-XP speeds), the Vista-compatble hardware (see the M'soft compatibility list), the Vista-compatible applications, and for Vista itself, then I'll be glad to start running Vista. Deal ?"

Nah, I couldn't care less what OS you run, so I'm not going to pay for anything that you run. Installing Vista is by the way much easier and quicker then XP, you seem to forget that in order to bring XP up to speed with modern day software, you will need much more time to install XP then Vista. Think of all the add-ons you will have to install to bring it close to Vista's featureset, that alone will take half a day. Also I never said that people should upgrade to Vista, I always advice to do that once you buy a new computer, no need to tweak anything in terms of speed, no problems with incompatible hardware. My advice to people that buy a new computer is therefore, get it with Vista. More features, much better looking and it's not only eyecandy, the breadcrumb bar for instance is very handy, I miss it every day, when I'm forced to work with XP.

"But since this is a religous issue with you, I'll bow out now so that you may worship in peace. In time there will be no choice for any serious Windows user except to move to Vista or 7, and you may take even greater comfort in the sales figures then. "

I don't own Microsoft stock, so I don't take comfort in the sales figures, I'm just a bit surprised that Vista obviously doesn't perform as bad as people seem to think or claim. Also it's far from a religius issue, it's more about the bullshit that some people continue to spread about Vista more then anything else.

Edited July 18, 2008 by sjaak327

[sjaak327]

"Now they need Windows but M'soft is only going to offer them Vista, so that's what they are getting. Hence the sales figures."

Dear jsixpack, you are right ! This situation is indeed happening for the last 18 days, unfortunately before that time, Microsoft was happily selling them XP, therefore your argument is invalid. But I knew someone would actually try to explain the sales figures based upon this argument

[JSixpack]

It is now july 18, sales for XP stopped june 30, before that time, computer manufacturers have been selling XP with a new computer if the customer wanted to have XP, not a downgrade option.

Nope, when Vista came out OEMs immediately started selling Vista as the primary option, pushed by Microsoft and higher profits on the greater hardware requirements. Dell, for example, was so fast on the trigger that it only reluctantly offered an XP "option" after last April 2007 in response to massive complaints. Consumers not knowing any better, thinking they were getting something really better, and seeing that the cost for XP wasn't that much less, and in many cases having little choice (not all were as responsive as Dell to the flood of complaints)--of course they went for the Vista primary option. Same old strategy. Many then found that their computers weren't in fact Vista-compatible then and . . . whoops! Lawsuit!

It's not only eyecandy, that's the point. If you claim that the upgrade from 98 to ME is the same in functionality, then it's you who is missing the point, or simply a lack of knowledge,

You've--sigh!--given your list in another thread and each point has already been refuted. Anyway, nobody said it was ONLY eyecandy. It's, you know, Windows Photo Gallery . . . .

Even Me had some additional features besides a new bootup screen. System restore, for example. It still wasn't worth the upgrade, however.

Vista has more features then XP. And the upgrade IS a major upgrade, it is telling that you still keep insisting it isn't .

As above, CNET (and many another expert) says it isn't and actually CNET happens to be pretty much right about that. You haven't given us anything major and really needed, you see. Let's have the cost/benefit analysis from you and Reimar.

XP, on the other hand, gave us things that WERE needed, like stability, greatly improved multi-tasking, and NTFS. Still, I had to get a new soundcard and modem.

the UI changes to Vista look insignificant cannot be realiably added to XP, it's at best buggy software, and it doesn't compeletly offer what vista offers.

In fact, Vista eyecandy was based on Stardock technology, and Windowblinds offers not less, but MORE, than what Vista offers. It's totally reliable now, replaces the XP Theme service. Go take a look, pal. Alternative shells can also offer lots more than the Vista shell--while using less resources; and they aren't in the least buggy. I run bblean every day and love it. It never, ever crashes.

Simple question, are you able to use the new SSTP VPN with vista for instance, answer: nope, Microsoft has stopped development for XP.

Simpler question: do I need to? No. Are there free alternatives now? Yes.

Nah, I couldn't care less what OS you run, so I'm not going to pay for anything that you run.

That's pretty disappointing, you know. I was really, really looking forward to DVD Maker too.

Installing Vista is by the way much easier and quicker then XP, you seem to forget that in order to bring XP up to speed with modern day software, you will need much more time to install XP then Vista.

It's not easier when your hardware/software ain't on the Vista compatibility list!

And even then, about the same. I've got lots of apps that either system would need, and I like the replacements for the Vista basic new features better than I do the new features. Besides, I can run sysprep before I create an image and then just restore the whole mess on most any hardware without first digging in the Vista compatibility list for every chip and peripheral.

it's more about the bullshit that some people continue to spread about Vista more then anything else.

But you haven't given us any examples of the bullshit yet. Now, what I say is about the same as quite a few respected sources say as well. Seems you mainly parrot what Microsoft tells you.

Here you sucked me into another reply. Hope I can stay out this time . . .

Edited July 18, 2008 by JSixpack

[dotcom]

sjakk. Too bad you can't discuss the topic calmly.

btw. MSFT stock HAMMERED last night after earnings.

Some Nome Nah.

They have a stupid oafish CEO who is a syncophant of Gates.

Hope they sell heaps of X-BOX to make up the shortfall. LOL.

[sjaak327]

"Nope, when Vista came out OEMs immediately started selling Vista as the primary option, pushed by Microsoft and higher profits on the greater hardware requirements. Dell, for example, was so fast on the trigger that it only reluctantly offered an XP "option" after last April 2007 in response to massive complaints"

Nope, I am purchasing Dell computers for my company, and Dell all along until the 30th of june has been selling XP to us, there is not a single PC that I bought with Vista. And we bought hundreds of them. All with valid XP keys, cd's and oem stickers on the computers, it's save to say these are not included in that 180 million figure.

On Dell's website, they were happily selling XP as well, at no additonal price. So no need for anyone to not buy XP. Your argurment is flawed.

"You've--sigh!--given your list in another thread and each point has already been refuted. Anyway, nobody said it was ONLY eyecandy. It's, you know, Windows Photo Gallery . . . . "

I wasn't talking about photo gallery .... It's simple really, you as a customer get XP, or Vista, and out of the box, vista comes with more features, it's that simple. No need to download anything.

"Even Me had some additional features besides a new bootup screen. System restore, for example. It still wasn't worth the upgrade, however."

As opposed to Vista, that doesn't offer any, what about previous versions ? Ah of course not needed or worth the upgrade.

"As above, CNET (and many another expert) says it isn't and actually CNET happens to be pretty much right about that. You haven't given us anything major and really needed, you see. Let's have the cost/benefit analysis from you and Reimar."

Why ? Again I never said someone should upgrade from XP to Vista, just buy it with a new pc, and judging from your Dell example you save 200 bucks as opposed to order a pc without OS (even though, I actually bought a new pc with dell a few weeks back, without OS, and I did not have to pay 200 bucks more. I did get dos in a box from them).

"XP, on the other hand, gave us things that WERE needed, like stability, greatly improved multi-tasking, and NTFS"

Not if you used NT, or Windows 2000, it was already in those versions of Windows.

"It's not easier when your hardware/software ain't on the Vista compatibility list!"

That's not the point, again I never said someone should upgrade their current systems, I merely said that when you buy a NEW computer....

"But you haven't given us any examples of the bullshit yet. Now, what I say is about the same as quite a few respected sources say as well. Seems you mainly parrot what Microsoft tells you. "

Microsoft doesn't tell me anything. You are the one that seems to be basing things upon whatever CNET publishes, as if they are the holy grail or something. You are the one that is making an argument about people that are forced to buy vista, if you want one example of bullshit, you got one right here

[slackula]

Nope, I am purchasing Dell computers for my company, and Dell all along until the 30th of june has been selling XP to us, there is not a single PC that I bought with Vista. And we bought hundreds of them. All with valid XP keys, cd's and oem stickers on the computers, it's save to say these are not included in that 180 million figure.

If Vista is so much better than XP with all these great new features and improvements as you keep claiming then why have you been buying "hundreds" of computers with XP?

[singa-traz]

Vista has more features then XP. And the upgrade IS a major upgrade, it is telling that you still keep insisting it isn't .

As above, CNET (and many another expert) says it isn't and actually CNET happens to be pretty much right about that. You haven't given us anything major and really needed, you see. Let's have the cost/benefit analysis from you and Reimar.

XP, on the other hand, gave us things that WERE needed, like stability, greatly improved multi-tasking, and NTFS. Still, I had to get a new soundcard and modem.

Who cares about cost/benefit, isn't Vista cool enough just to justify it? ... if only my outlook search could work ...

Edited July 18, 2008 by singa-traz

[sjaak327]

Nope, I am purchasing Dell computers for my company, and Dell all along until the 30th of june has been selling XP to us, there is not a single PC that I bought with Vista. And we bought hundreds of them. All with valid XP keys, cd's and oem stickers on the computers, it's save to say these are not included in that 180 million figure.

If Vista is so much better than XP with all these great new features and improvements as you keep claiming then why have you been buying "hundreds" of computers with XP?

That's simple, because I work for a multinational, that had the internal policy not to switch to Visa as some internal applications and web apps were not compatible with it. I did before write that big corporations have completly other requirements and concerns then home users.

It is pretty simple, if I were a consumer and I had to buy a new pc, what would I buy, Windows XP, which out of the box looks like 2001 (and is from 2001) or Vista that looks much better, and has out of the box more recent software and features then XP. I don't want to download all kinds of programs free or otherwise, I don't use sysprep images, I just want a computer that is fast, secure and works. Then I would go for Vista not XP.

[sjaak327]

Regarding SSTP Client for XP:

Simpler question: do I need to? No. Are there free alternatives now? Yes.

I actually use STTP VPN, and I also still use some XP machines, I'm guessing in alternative you are referring to other means of doing this, because I would love to have a SSTP client that runs under XP and will connect to a Server 2008. Thanks in advance.

[Gary A]

I also love to hate Microsoft. What am I using? Windows XP Pro is working great and I see no reason to change to Vista. You can always use Linux where there are 10,000 different flavors and you then have to learn to be a programmer no matter which one you use. I have gotten used to plug and play and unfortunately Linux has a LOT of catching up to do.

[slackula]

I also love to hate Microsoft. What am I using? Windows XP Pro is working great and I see no reason to change to Vista. You can always use Linux where there are 10,000 different flavors and you then have to learn to be a programmer no matter which one you use. I have gotten used to plug and play and unfortunately Linux has a LOT of catching up to do.

Well, that was relevant to the topic.

/NOT!

[A_Traveller]

OK, I know there are those of the Vista persuasion who dislike my posting, but guess what, here we go again. However, as opposed to running through the PR, I'll live dangerously and try to actually answer the OP's question, that is what do the numbers mean. To do this one does need to review the SEC filings themselves, which are more revealing than the carefully crafted PR handout. Please note that is not a criticism, simply a statement of fact, after all MS increased elements of their PR budget by some 25% last quarter, and are due to spend an additional 300 million USD on a Vista Awareness Programme after the product has been in the marketplace for 17 months.

By the numbers:- 180 million licences for Vista have been sold since inception. However, 80% of these have been shipped through the OEM channel, {this data has not been revealed from some time now} with the balance, apparently split between retail and enterprise. Earnings per share came in at the low end of expectations which in part led to the less than enthusiastic market response.

Now Microsoft is a corporation of effectively 5 centres, with two, on-line and entertainment losing about 1 billion between them for the year {-132% & -85% YoY [Year on Year] respectively}. Vista falls into the Client business centre and this segment saw PC delivery growth of @ 12 to 14 % YoY {these are estimates provided by MS} with OEM license growth was at 22 %, which MS attributed partly to better PC channel management {deep in the SEC filings are figures relating to support and ancillary activities which are shown to be less YoY} and improved anti-piracy efforts. This should be noted, MS themselves are careful in the SEC filings to highlight OEM growth as being not simply sale delivery per se, but a number of associative factors. Overall Client recorded a 16% positive change, placing it surprisingly close to the PC shipment figures. Before proceeding to analysis of what that means, the other two segments Severs & Business recorded growth of 32 & 12% YoY} As may be seen Servers is the star performer, and by the by, oddly no mention of Office 2007, which might suggest that product is also not hitting its targets.

So Clients segment shows growth consistent with new PC deliveries, with 80 % of that business being delivered by OEM channel, whilst retail accounts for @ 10%. Concentrating on Vista, since that is the subject, the Retail channel reduced the price of Vista in Feb with an eye to seeing upgrades grow, which on the basis of the numbers does not seem to have been achieved, further suggesting that this channel is also not on target. Now if OEM shipments are evaluated it starts to look very clear that the vast majority of Vista licences are either new shipped installs, or are 'MS licenses', that is to say qualifiers for the PC to be shipped {or be pre-built with a client supplied image} legalising the platform.

Looking forward the market is concerned that if the growth of PC deliveries reduced, and there are growing concerns that PC deliveries will slow give current financial concerns {after all if the platform works and there's no pressing need to change ,another year of usage, especially after write down becomes attractive}. Under such a situation it would be reasonable to expect Vista licenses to reduce in synch. The level of upgrade is far smaller than MS expected, and that which stock analysts were expecting, which also coloured sentiment about the stock after the results were issued.

The other annoyance for MS is that there is no discernible service pack bounce, which was also anticipated, and in other system life cycles has nearly always been a critical uptake point. Thus far, SP1 has not proven to be the source of such a change in uptake.

The other issue which is affecting the market position is there are more respected sources {I've discussed this before} which are indicating that professional IT directors and managers are becoming increasingly disenchanted with commissioning Vista in the 'Enterprise Space'. Indeed in some reviews there has been a growth of the percentage who are actively seeking to delay Vista in this vital commercial area, with about half saying the determination of XP not being factor in decision making at this stage. Indeed the associated projections suggest a take up in the Enterprise space of some 28% by 2010, up from < 10% end 2008.

In closing, I'd would point out I'm long MS and have been for a very long time, so my interests are served by MS getting it's act together. I've noted, contrary to some perceptions herein, that Vista itself is not in and of itself a bad system per se, it is however, suffering from negative perceptions, based on both initial experiences and the reaction of MS itself {recall the lack of discussion about any SP programme at the outset} even in the professional commercial arena, and until it can show that it can deliver to that audience then it will remain under the shadow of XP.

The SSTP {Secure Socket Tunnelling Protocol} issue is, unfortunately, a very clear indication of the attrition mode that MS seems enter with Vista, there's no reason why this could not have been made a part of SP3 for XP, but commercially {as in restricting driver options [no XP, means no XP certification for 'new' drivers]} leading to individuals having to decide if the new peripheral now only available with a Vista Certified driver is worth the switch. Am I alone in seeing a parallel with the original Vista only IE7 stance?

Regards

[sjaak327]

I first would like to point out that I don't dislike your postings.

Haven read your post, the following was a bit of a surprise for me:

"However, 80% of these have been shipped through the OEM channel, {this data has not been revealed from some time now} with the balance, apparently split between retail and enterprise."

Not so much that 80% comes through the OEM channel, that was to be expected, but that it is evenly split between retail and enterprise. I would have tought retail to be higher then enterpise.

"The other annoyance for MS is that there is no discernible service pack bounce, which was also anticipated, and in other system life cycles has nearly always been a critical uptake point. Thus far, SP1 has not proven to be the source of such a change in uptake."

This doesn't really surprise me, SP1 did not add much in features (Exfat being the exception). I also have to admit that I personally haven't really fealt or noticed the performance gain that this SP was suppose to bring. Other performance fixes were already been publish in separte updates anyway.

"that Vista itself is not in and of itself a bad system per se, it is however, suffering from negative perceptions, based on both initial experiences and the reaction of MS itself {recall the lack of discussion about any SP programme at the outset} even in the professional commercial arena, and until it can show that it can deliver to that audience then it will remain under the shadow of XP."

I agree with this statement. Pure and simple.

"The SSTP {Secure Socket Tunnelling Protocol} issue is, unfortunately, a very clear indication of the attrition mode that MS seems enter with Vista, there's no reason why this could not have been made a part of SP3 for XP, but commercially {as in restricting driver options [no XP, means no XP certification for 'new' drivers]} leading to individuals having to decide if the new peripheral now only available with a Vista Certified driver is worth the switch. Am I alone in seeing a parallel with the original Vista only IE7 stance?"

And again I agree with you. I too don't see any reason why SSTP would not have been part of SP3, and I think it's a shame it isn't. (Like I said before, I still use XP, and I happen to like SSTP).

[Beardog]

my Xp pro works flawless sp2 installed only. No hardware issues . Why bother switching to a os system that has endless flaws to be worked out (similar to windows ME OS-flaws to be ironed out) My brothers son has a Mac pro notebook 2 years old top of the line & it smokes the vista down to the nub in every aspect of eye candy , function ability & ease of use & have been doing it well for years. No super issues with drivers. if I was into cool I would buy a Mac. Since I am not into cool looks I will keep my XP till Microsoft comes out with a true winner without problems. besides you can use your XP op system till your dead & it will still work -but you have no customer support from Microsoft. No big deal! Who wants to talk to Canada for an hour to walk you through a problem when you can do it yourself or have the local shop in Thailand Reformat for 200 baht or better yet run a backup copy of your system Norton Ghost or whoever & slip the disc in & bring your system back from the grave(unless it is an actual hardware-not software issue) I don't see any advantage to Vista when Mac is been doing the peripherals without all the driver issues for years & it runs quicker & a hel_l of a lot less memory to run the OS.

Besides with the resistance to Vista of the public now I do not foresee that much of a problem with drivers for older XP operating systems with newer hardware, as most companies know they would be foolish to gear their goods towards only Vista.

So Like Gary was saying "if it works why fix it " nothing wrong with XP SP2.

Maybe if Microsoft comes up with a got to have OP system like an Iphone 3g I will buy in. But even that I would wait till it is a proven ride before I Buy.

[henryalleman]

I also love to hate Microsoft. What am I using? Windows XP Pro is working great and I see no reason to change to Vista. You can always use Linux where there are 10,000 different flavors and you then have to learn to be a programmer no matter which one you use. I have gotten used to plug and play and unfortunately Linux has a LOT of catching up to do.

I have a new notebook Toshiba 3 gig 17 inch screen and I'm very happy with Vista, its much faster than XP and never have a blue screen, also its much more simply to use. I doubted a long time to buy a lang time between XP and Vista on my new laptop, due to the negative comments about Vista. I noit even regret one second have Vista installed, all my old hardware like printers work perfect, I installed the new driver and since than it have even more features than before. The only problem with Vista is that when you have some old illegal downloaded software that don't work under Vista.

[H2oDunc]

I was runing XP Pro and had nothing but trouble. Upgraded to Vista Ultimatel ast year and am as happy as Larry. No freezes or blue screen of death and I love the aditional features. Some people will always hate MS. I think a lot of it is just sour grapes. As far as Im concerned my laptop runs better and it makes my life a litle easier and has a far better look and feel to it. Wheres the problem ???? I know guys who are still using the same arguments as most of the MS bashers to still run windows 95 so go figure. For them 95 does exactly what they need so why upgrade. I think OS are a bit like the latest new phones etc. Some people will always go for the newest, quickest, coolest etc so let them. If you are happy with XP then great stick with it just let the rest of us enjoy our choice. As the old adage goes " dont knock it till you have tried it "