digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Ballmer Blames Pirates for Poor Vista Sales

arnnet.com.au — MSCEO Steve Ballmer is not happy about low sales of MSVista. Rather than blame the lack of drivers, and various other problems facing Vista, he blames the tech industry's favorite scapegoat: pirates. Teh pirates did it! Terrorism! Sorry Steve, we're not buying Vista because it's still not ready, not because we pirated it!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -582/+77Vista is more than ready. It's a great OS but I guess there are people with axes to grind who release FUD trying to show it as not being what it is.
    • Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -63/+288Just like there are marketing whore Micro$laves who absolutely refuse to allow a shred of truth about Vista's deep ingrained DRM to come to light, and refuse to consider that the general public has no need or desire to purchase a DRM cop when XP still does MORE!
    • Salgat, on 10/12/2007, -43/+550Unfortunately(or fortunately) theres almost no reason to pay hundreds of dollars for Vista, when what it offers leaves little to be desired. Whats funny is pretty much every feature "unique" to Vista exists as a 3rd party app for XP or exists as a better version on Linux. Sorry Balmer, but people won't pay for an overhyped piece of useless garbage.
    • retral, on 10/12/2007, -24/+479Did they not claim it was uncrackable?
    • DurkaMcDurk, on 10/12/2007, -32/+337sure it's "great", but when it uses 450 mb of ram just sitting there running anything other than system processes I dont think it's completely ready for everyone.
    • Software2, on 10/12/2007, -12/+360My college has access to the MS Academic Alliance, which means that for the simple process of filling out a registration form, we can get Vista for free. However, I don't know of a single person that uses Vista. Sure, a few have installed it, but they just go right back to XP. Everybody just seems to be waiting for SP1, when stuff will actually work, and programs will be compatible.

      It isn't piracy, it's just desirability.
    • _HAM_, on 10/12/2007, -17/+321Its as simple as this:

      I dont have a single reason to upgrade.

      XP SP2 is just fine. DX10 and Games? I have an PS2, GameCube, DS, Wii, and a 360.
      Right now I can run Firefox, putty, winscp, Visual Studio, iTunes, Media player, photoshop, etc.. etc..

      I'll upgrade when Vista SP2 comes out... maybe.

      I could get Vista now through my school for free... but why?
    • sparks2, on 10/12/2007, -25/+154Vista has poor sales because some people (like me) have no interest in switching whatsoever. I have XP and i'm happy with it (ok... maybe I hate it but its good for what I use it for). I've got a mac that runs XP and OS X flawlessly and I am happy with both. There isn't a single thing in Vista that makes me want to have it. Even if you gave it to me for free I wouldn't use it, i've got no need for it.
    • jrsims, on 10/12/2007, -10/+308Wasn't piracy one of the things Vista's irritating security model was supposed to fix?
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -120/+16Quoting from the caption: "we're not buying Vista because it's still not ready, not because we pirated it!"

      Who's "we"?
      Everone I know has pirated Vista. I haven't seen a single legal installation.

      This doesn't mean I agree that DRM is the solution - it isn't, streamed content is the solution - but I'm convinced Ballmer is 100% right about piracy being at such a level that it impacts sales.

    • portis, on 10/12/2007, -28/+280Who actually pirated vista? No one, that's who. Pirates don't even want to bother with it.
    • wafflez, on 10/12/2007, -55/+22*sigh* i hate to say it...but it's a half truth, I know about 30 people running pirated vista, including myself....it's just so...easy to crack >_>. (dr. chang =D)
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -23/+59Sure, i pirated Vista ultimate, but I haven't yet even burned it to disc. I don't see the point in disturbing my Linux/XP dual boot configuration for crappier gaming performance on my laptop (from what I saw with Vista RTM). And I have no high-end video card, which causes the performance hit stands out even more (aero disabled). Maybe I will someday if they reduce the mem footprint and better ATI drivers come out, or maybe better ATI Linux drivers so I can run all my games in Wine like my Nvidia desktop :/
    • Azerael, on 10/12/2007, -43/+15He's going to ***** kill Pirates.
    • blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -18/+260POLL: Has your company converted to Vista from XP yet?

      I'll start:

      No
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -73/+48Pirates don't even want it ? Explain the hundreds of torrents with thousands of seeders and even more downloaders, all the IRC chans (Bots) with it, Usenet, etc.

      Hell, than explain the hundreds of threads on all the warez sites with people desperate for working cracks/circumventions. People want it, just pathetic anecdotal evidence on Digg would try to tell you otherwise.

      blaze, it really has nothing to do with Vista. Companies have schedules, budgets, internal apps, etc. They can't magically upgrade like a single user, or even a family, it's a convoluted process when can take years.
    • gothicx00, on 10/12/2007, -7/+61@Junkyarddawg
      To be perfectly honest, your comment has flaws. Most pirates pirate something like Vista because they can. And of those pirates, how many of them would by it if there was no other option? I venture to guess far less than 1% How many people would buy a legit copy after using it and seeing value in it? Well to be honest that is the whole point behind shareware or donationware. Demos work on the same concept. Would you buy a pair of shoes, sight unseen, just based on size? No, you want to give it a try first. Does this make a good argument for piracy? No, the fact is it is still illegal. But those people who are pirating, more than likely wouldn't buy it to begin with if given no other option.
    • phatvolvo, on 10/12/2007, -17/+31@blaze03:

      Nope.
    • MaVeRiCK42, on 10/12/2007, -9/+71No idea about America, but I feel that a lot of people in the UK believe that Microsoft are trying to rip them off (as the price is doubled over here).

      I wouldn't mind that too much as long as I could buy OEM and not have to worry about upgrading my PC. However, it now seems that Microsoft are forcing us to stop this practice.

      Give us a fair price over here, and we'll buy your software!
    • greldenax, on 10/12/2007, -68/+267of7 is right. salgat, you're a ***** idiot - just like all the other idiots who bash Vista without having any clue what they're talking about.

      "pretty much every feature "unique" to Vista exists as a 3rd party app for XP or exists as a better version on Linux"

      Are you ***** kidding? Have you done any research to back this up at all? Where's the 3rd party app for the new memory-management and caching code in the Vista kernel? And the 3rd party app for the new UDM/KDM driver model? Eh? What's that? You were just talking out your ass, repeating what you've read on some retard's blog? "Vista is just XP with shiny, shiny buttons!"

      For god's sake, think for yourself.
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -17/+93Vista will be ready at SP2, like most Windows versions.
    • championchap, on 10/12/2007, -25/+30I gave it a download, just to give it a bit of an extended test run really.. I had every intention of buying it.
      But after 4 fresh installs, and every time being confronted with a HORRIBLY frequent blue screen, i decided to get rid, at least till a couple service packs come out
    • mistshadow2k4, on 10/12/2007, -14/+67"Where's the 3rd party app for the new memory-management and caching code in the Vista kernel?"

      Considering how Vista eats up memory while doing nothing, who the ***** would want that? No wonder no one has made an app for XP that does the same thing. That's like buying a hammer to bash yourself in the head with (maybe after a few hits Vista would seem like a good idea).

      Sorry, Steve, I don't buy your "blame the pirates" BS. Vista does not interest me and I'm not pirating it either. Give me a free copy and I'll see if I can sell it to some poor sucker. I just don't want it, period.
    • Emanji, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39I think the biggest obstacle for Vista is the hardware requirement. People read all the reviews and they see you need like 2gb of ram and 256mb of graphic for everything to work right. Like me, I have a 3 years old laptop, I'm not gonna upgrade to Vista until I get a new computer.
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -12/+44@blaze03

      Nope.

      PS: We switched to Linux a long time ago, employed a real unix admin and have had a great trouble-free working environment for ages.
    • Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -6/+82It's not FUD, it's practicality.

      Why upgrade to Vista if XP is working for you now? There is not compelling reason.

      Most businesses won't upgrade for a few years

      Most people won't upgrade till they buy a new PC.

      Vista is selling fine. Blaming "pirates" as the reason you're not hitting the piggish/unrealistic sales goals you set is just ridiculous.
    • highwebl, on 10/12/2007, -6/+52We have an enterprise license, so I upgraded my work machine. I really regret it and I wish I had time to put XP back on. Vista's a mess.
    • WoollyMittens, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34Why don't you fly on over and get the OpenGL to work on my ATI videocard without bluescreening.
    • toomuchgreentea, on 10/12/2007, -11/+41Don't be delusional ... MS will force you to upgrade. Like in the past, they'll cripple old OS performance with lousy patches so you'll have no choice but to either buy into Vista, or dump XP for good and switch to something else.
    • klang, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42@blaze03

      Nope.

      PS: We started switching 12000+ machines to Windows XP just a year ago. Switching to Vista will not happen in at least 3-4 years. (simple return on investment)
    • Agret, on 10/12/2007, -12/+129As a pirate i'm offended that Ballmer would even hint towards me wanting Vista.
      Since I can get it for free and I still don't want it, what does this say about his product?

      As for people toting BitTorrent sources, I warezd it when it hit RTM as there was hype about it, I had it installed for 3 days and then went back to XP. I honestly can't see why people would want it.
    • sulf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+44Sysadmin's rule #1: Do not break what works. Why would you want to buy an OS if the existing one performs all the functions that you need?
    • mjenkins, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25My company (a major bank) is currently in the process of migrating to Vista. The migration is expected to be completed for all employees by mid-2008.

      I won't be upgrading any of my desktops to Vista but I just bought a Toshiba laptop this weekend that has Vista. It works great now but the first time I turned it on it was slow as hell. I had to strip out all the crap Toshiba put on there (WildTangent, McAfee, Yahoo Games, etc) and install AVG. Now it works great, even with only 512 RAM.
    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25It couldn't matter less if consumers buy vista.
      We will be forced to buy it if we want new hardware.
      And ms will still make its billions.
    • r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2@MaVeRiCK42

      "I wouldn't mind that too much as long as I could buy OEM and not have to worry about upgrading my PC. However, it now seems that Microsoft are forcing us to stop this practice."

      That practice is actually against the license agreement unless you are making the PC to "sell" to someone else. OEM software is for build-to-sell machines. People are just abusing the option to get a cheaper install of Windows, and then whining when they can't use it like a retail license.

      You get what you pay for.
    • earl507, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27I use and love vista.. but Balmer needs to pull his head out of his ass. It is a beta release at best and who in their right mind would bother to pirate it. Having used it for a few weeks and witnessing the bugs, I tell all my friends to wait unless they like to live on the edge.
    • Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+71I'll get dugg down for this: I would blame the 1GB memory requirement. People like me with old computers don't even meet that requirement.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+53I do love the "I pirated it but I didn't inhale" comments.
    • shm1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4So what do we call you? Ms. Fanboy?
    • sabbac, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4What a tool.
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28I'm glad I had a chance to pirate Vista. I now know that most of it is hype and not worth my money. I'm glad I had a chance not to buy it.

      Thanks Sweden!!
    • ayeroxor, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4klang: "PS: We started switching 12000+ machines to Windows XP just a year ago. "

      What were you running in 2006? NT? 2k? ... good gravy... 98?

      Staying behind the curve much?

    • insomniac8400, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Vista has poor sales because people are only getting it with new computers. No one is buying it straight up because their current computers won't run it that well.
    • MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@Junkyarddawg Don't you hate it when you get dugg down for telling the truth.

      Anyways, I agree, I have yet to see a single purchased license. On yea, I have also yet to see a single person who used Vista for more than just testing it. No one in their right minds would pirate Vista for their permanent operating system, because it generates way too many frustrations with validation and whatnot. People are simply sticking with XP, and pirating or using MSDN versions for of Vista for testing.
    • spyderfreek2k, on 10/12/2007, -21/+14My techy friends all run vista....as soon as rtm was released I ... came across it and tried it out.
      I had tried the beta RC1 and it was TERRIBLE, but what beta MS product isn't? It had very little driver support for my video solution (Geforce go 6100 on my Compaq V3000) but every other system device i tried worked great! On first boot in fact, everything but my graphics worked! Laptopvideo2go had modded ini files which i used to get my graphics running.

      Now I'm "testing" Ultimate RTM, and I must say I am impressed. I've been with windows since 3.1 & DOS, and this is by far one of their best OS's.
      My following reasons make Vista More Desirable Than XP To Me:
      1)Stability-Hasn't crashed or bsod on me once. One 5 seceond freeze, when trying to play Duke 3D off the original disk with no mods.
      2)Sexy- Aero is teh windows sex! Its not Aqua or Beryl, but for Microsoft's tie and dress shirt (as in the commercials) normal look, Its 100x better.
      3)Smooth- Apps Load quicker in vista, in fact Unreal and CS 1.6 (keep in mind i have a 6100=Crap graphics power) run with higher FPS than they did in XP Pro.
      4)Easy Easy Easy Dual Boot- I popped the disk in and installed to a 40GB partition on my only HDD. Now when I boot I pick XP/Vista. Easy As Pie.
      Would Be Downers:
      1)WtF??? 450Mb Startup!?!?!- Surprised me too, but with 1 GB of ram I have yet to run into a memory bottle neck and I spend most of My time In Photoshop cs2.
      2)Drivers-With RTM and the Retail I installed on the same model laptop as mine, Everything worked. Windows update found and installed Geforce 6100 drivers. Which Nvidia needs to work on, I miss my control panel and multiple desktops.
      3)Cost- Ok I'll Agree, Expensive! But, Premium isn't much more to upgrade to than XP pro. But lets face it, Ultimate is way overpriced! Still I went to Vista to try it, and I can't ever see going back to XP.
      4)UAC- Turn it off, quit complaining. Uncheck the box in user accounts and reboot.

      From how it sounds, I may be one of a handful who have had a good experience with vista. Look at the past though, Its always the same when a new MS OS comes out. Most of the gripes everyone has come from Beta runs, not retail. RTM has bugs, but the retail one is by far Microsoft's crowing glory. And one last thing about DRM, if you don't like DRM, Don't Buy Music That Has It! Vista just allows HD/Bluray and supports DRM! Are people as ticked about Itunes as Vista? No. Why? Because everyone jumped on the bandwagon and has been firebombing vista. We live in a capitalistic society, DRM is a product of that.
    • Fentekreel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Thats funny... I never really had plans to pirate it....but if ballmer is right i guess i should....just to help his cause.... ;) cuz i wasn't going to buy it anyways....let alone install it to invalidate my windows xp key...
    • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4I love all these comments talking about how Vista will be "ready" by SP2 because "most Windows versions are". If by "most" you mean XP, then I'd agree. Otherwise, please get some perspective. Service packs don't exist for the majority of Microsoft's OS's in the first place so there's no way that that remark can be true.
    • dark_helmet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@ayeroxor
      I know that Nortel was using windows 2000 on alot of their computer up until the near the end of 2006, many of their employees just recently got XP on their computers.
    • glock22ownr, on 10/12/2007, -10/+29if ((WindowsXP + StyleXP + Konfabulator + Better Firewall) == Vista )
      Vista.Sales = theSuck;
    • mkw87, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@ spyderfreek2k

      The nvidia control panel is still there - there is an option in one of the top menus to use the 'old style menu' or some sort.
    • kristin364, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27I got a free copy of Vista through my university. Oh, how I regret installing it. It CHOWS through my system's memory...and that's when it's just sitting there running system processes.
    • drunkenrobot, on 10/12/2007, -12/+371- Ballmer is a morong
      2- Vista is a bigger piece of crap than XP
      3- People are sick of Microsoft sucking them dry financially for buggy overprices, bloatware
    • Absinthminded64, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Who gave Ballmer a Digg account?! He's really got his depends in a wad lately!
    • rebrad, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I like Vista but I also hate Vista. The massive amount of DRM code in Vista make it a non-starter for me. Vista with DRM is like pretty face on a 60lb fashion model; good looking but you can't do anything with it.
    • DrewBlood, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I got my free copy of Vista Business a month or so ago (Remember that Digg article about getting a free copy of Vista if you watched some training movies? Turned out it worked!) and have yet to install it. Even with the OS being free, it'll still cost me a SoDIMM RAM upgrade and hefty changes to DRM, so I'm holding off, not even for an SP, but for a reason to upgrade.

      I think MS' biggest mistake was waiting so long to let people get used to XP. There was a pretty big backlash against it at first if I recall, but after 6 years, the system has stabilized, most of us rarely see crashes, and it just does what we want it to. MS has previously relied on their customers being unhappy with the current product to boost hopes that the next one will be good. Then, oops, they put out a decent OS, and instead of fixing their business model to adjust to this, they put out just another update and expect people to react like it would change their lives.
    • SportBilly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"I am sorry Mr. Balmer, but Vista is UNCRACKABLE."

      Vista is sooooo easily "cracked" it's actually quite funny. I say cracked in inverted commas because it is debatable whether it can be classed as a crack. I'm entitled to change my BIOS clock if I want to, if Vista can't tell my 30 day trial is up that is not my problem!! But as people have said, people crack Vista to have a look before they buy it....and good thing too because its really nothing special at all. Maybe it will be one day....but its not right now.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"Did they not claim it was uncrackable?"

      No they didn't, even MS isn't that stupid. And no, I don't understand why you're modded up like crazy, because they didn't say this anywhere. They've made claims of improved anti piracy mechanisms though. But I think it's ridiculous how the most annoying version of Windows ever to a software pirate with all its activations and genuine advantage junk get this excuse now. I can't believe he's serious.
    • Teddystiltskins, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13I had no idea Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates read Digg!!! Vista blows!!! Look, they bought a MacBook Pro and said, "Make Windows do this!!! Now!!!" And so now you have Win XP that acts like OS X. Leopard will put a big ol' ***** in Ballmer and Gate's pants. No one will want a Windows machine after it comes out.

      Screw Microsoft!
    • BlackCow, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Your right, Vista is a grate OS and it isn't Microsoft's fault. Its the lack of drivers for my 7950 GT thats keeping me from switching.
    • DieselDaddy, on 10/12/2007, -23/+35You haters can Digg me down if you want but I've been using Vista for about 2 months (MSDN Subscription) with absolutely no problems. My PC is a 3.2ghz - 6600GT video card - 1gb RAM. I had XP and switched to Vista Ultimate and so far I haven't found a reason to go back. It definitely looks much better than XP. It seems to boot faster... it runs all my programs (Including Visual Studio). I just don't get the FUD.

      I'm not a MS fanboy - I've just honestly had a good experience so far.
    • posure, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I tried Vista for a couple weeks, I thought it was a big step above XP. However, the video drivers right now (nVidia) are terrible so I'm waiting a few months till they become not crap.
    • se1zure, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7No matter how it sells as an upgrade, it will be forced on 90% of the market sooner of later, through consumer desktops and laptops from bestbuy.

      THey even sell the E-freakin-machines with vista now! I didn't think it was possible.
    • cderry, on 10/12/2007, -3/+86You know who I blame?

      Developers
      Developers
      Developers
      Developers
    • TOTALineptitude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27It MUST be all the pirating. It COULDN'T be the fact that Vista is a memory whore with ***** driver support and the inability to see the XP machines on my network.

      I'd like to take a big steamy ***** on Steve Ballmer's bald head.
    • keyboardduder, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Ok, lets blame it on the "pirates" and well start making up reasons to invade and occupy your home, for no real good reason. And while were at it, well call up Mr. Bush and ask for any other propaganda tips.
    • Kelmon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Vista RC2 ran like a dog (and not a well dog at that) for me so I uninstalled it. I know it's beta software and all but I really couldn't see it coming up to XP's speed so I have no interest in it. At some point in the future I expect I'll end up with a computer with it installed but in the meantime I'll be damned if I'm going to pay the sort of silly money that Microsoft is asking for. XP works fine so if it's OK with Steve I'll spend my Vista money on beer, crack and hookers (given the price I expect I can afford all 3).
    • afreytes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Blaze, RE:Poll

      We have skipped not only Vista, but also VS2005

      We are telling our clients to hold off on Vista too.

      On the other hand, I'd love to get some quality time with Office 2007
    • ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Vista will be a major hit, but not right now. Why? Drivers.

      Yes, drivers. Here's the deal. Everyone now is buying computers that can handle x64 but still running a 32-bit OS. XP, while still popular, is on the way out and 64-bit driver support for XP will be dying out soon to make way for 64-bit Vista support. It's only a matter of time before people hit the 4gb RAM cap on a 32bit OS or decide to make full usage of the hardware they already have and move to 64 bit. The lack of driver development for XP x64 will spur Vista sales.

      I remember the jump from Win 3.1 (16 bit) to Win95 (32bit) and it was not an easy transition, just as the jump to 64 bit will not be easy, but it will happen.
    • AkshayGenius, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Vista is good as a secondary OS if you pirate it, if u pay for it, u suk, I pirated it, cracked and why should I pay for it anyway, for a OS that is released 3 years late, that is very dissapointing plus paying a high price for it? No way, I get it for free and I think I'll keep it is my main OS, its like XP fancy interface edition, so why not? Atleast when ur getting it for free
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12"You haters can Digg me down if you want but I've been using Vista for about 2 months (MSDN Subscription) with absolutely no problems. My PC is a 3.2ghz - 6600GT video card - 1gb RAM. I had XP and switched to Vista Ultimate and so far I haven't found a reason to go back. It definitely looks much better than XP. It seems to boot faster... it runs all my programs (Including Visual Studio). I just don't get the FUD.

      I'm not a MS fanboy - I've just honestly had a good experience so far"

      By haters you must mean people who know more about computers than you. Looks are not the sign of a good operating system and a fresh install of any operating system will boot faster than a long-installed XP, even a fresh XP install would boot faster.
    • nogami, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Vista - so bad that even pirates won't run it...

      I've usually upgraded to the "latest" MS operating system shortly after release... I won't even TOUCH Vista. When games that require DX10 come out, I'll probably dual-boot it and just use it as a gaming platform.

      (I can get Vista in about two months on my academic site license for about $20, and I STILL won't install it)
    • reichg, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10its not selling well because its a bag of *****

      go apple if you want a real change
    • knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Steve, we're not buying Vista because it's still not ready, not because we pirated it!"

      Actually I'm not buying it because I pirated it.

      $399.99 for ultimate is a high as hell price, and the OEM discs are $199.99 on newegg but that's still ***** high when I can get xp, which is not going to be outdated for a long time.
    • xen0blue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1vista is great, it just lacks driver support for the moment. also, they are charging waaay too much for....pretty much everything but the home edition.
    • drafhk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Of course. That $400 price tag has absolutely nothing to do with it. Anyone who says it does obviously doesn't know as much as Mr Ballmer.

      Is that finished? Phew. The sarcasm involved there almost made me abandon everything I believe in.
    • Actionjakson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3People who pirated it are people who would not have bought it regardless. Just HAVE to get the newest software, whether it be crap or groundbreaking.
    • ez12a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Bill Gates will rue the day he challenged hackers/crackers about attacking Vista...from another article he said something like this: "OS X is attacked everyday...i'd like to challenge them to do that with Vista"

      well...they pirated it before its release. What else do you want?
    • subliminalurge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Ya know, it occurs to me that there's another scenario that people aren't considering.

      I run Vista on 5 different computers. I have neither purchased it, nor pirated it. I'm simply still running the RC2 beta that doesn't expire for several more months.

      Once the expiration date approaches, I'll have to consider my plans for the future, but for now RC2 is stable enough for me that I don't feel a compelling need to purchase the retail version just yet.
    • CTRaider, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Two words:

      DRM
      (no) WinFS

      ok, 3 words
      now 6
      Oh sh*t, forget it.
    • trunkster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I wouldn't buy it. It just happens though that I was a beta tester and got a free copy ^_^
      I have been using it since December and really have not had any issues. Program compatibility is the big issue but even XP had that in the beginning. But XP was actually an "upgrade", Vista is more of a "cover our security holes and make it pretty" sort of release.
    • mictester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever heard from Ballmer. The "security" and "copy protection" was supposed to be "perfect" in Vista. "WGA" was supposed to eliminate piracy.

      The poor sales are simply because Vista doesn't work with most hardware out there, is just as fundamentally broken as every previous version of Windows, adds nothing new of value, and costs too much.

      I'd only "buy" Vista if it came with a $10000 rebate cheque (and I still wouldn't install it!)

      Game Over, Microsoft
    • jkaiser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'll get dugg down for this: I would blame the 1GB memory requirement. People like me with old computers don't even meet that requirement.

      1Gb for Areo..which you dont need. I have it running on a system with 512 just fine.
    • niceyuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"No idea about America, but I feel that a lot of people in the UK believe that Microsoft are trying to rip them off (as the price is doubled over here).

      I wouldn't mind that too much as long as I could buy OEM and not have to worry about upgrading my PC. However, it now seems that Microsoft are forcing us to stop this practice.

      Give us a fair price over here, and we'll buy your software!"

      Even if it was a fair price in the UK I still dont think many people would buy it, I beta tested Vista and got a copy free and I still wont use it. I just prefer XP.
    • GeorgeStone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@blaze03:

      Actually we just started.
      16 computers done so far.
      Only problem was MS giving us a wrong CD key.
      Had to upgrade the computers. We added 512mb of memory and a cheapo GFX card.
      Cost about 50 quid a computer to get it up to vistas standard.
      But the computers are 5 years old so i wouldnt say thats bad.
    • tendonut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To say that piracy has slowed sales is trying to say that those same people would have bought it if they didn't pirate it. Was Microsoft counting on ALL XP users (Pirates and the few non-pirates) to drop down $300+ and buy Vista? If so, THERE is the flaw in their logic.

      The way I see it, the only people who will upgrade to Vista right now are the non-tech savvy people who get it pre-installed on their store-bought computers. The Tech savvy people would either not buy it at all, or pirate it. Those people never planned on buying it in the first place, but since they could get their hands on it to play around, they did so because it is free. I have it downloaded, but have yet to install it and have no intention to.

      Bottom line is, the pirates never planned on buying it in the first place. So you can't count them into your sales projection. An idiot could have figured that one out.
  • joe90210, on 10/12/2007, -37/+21lol, sales are up over 60% in january from last year, over 130% from the first week of february from last year. office selling over 50% more than office2003 with no advertising, the sales are amazing
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42Where you referring to NPD's figures? If so, you got your numbers mixed up. New PC sales, not Vista sales, are up over last year. It is assumed that all those sales were of Vista-preloaded PCs, but there are no clear numbers yet--except for Ballmer's lowered expectations.

      "First-week retail sales of boxed copies of Windows Vista were almost 60 per cent below sales of boxed copies of Windows XP in the week after its 2001 launch, according to one leading market research group.

      The dollar value of retail box copies of Vista sold during the week of January 28 also fell 32 per cent from the value of XP box copies sold during its first week in October 2001, according to figures from Port Washington, New York-based NPD Group released Thursday."

      http://www.digitmag.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=7284

      Another source of the same story, in case you claim this is FUD:

      "Windows Vista Sales Are Slower Than When Windows XP Launched"

      http://www.legitreviews.com/news/3200/
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39"We think in the next three months we'll probably sell five times as many copies of Windows Vista as we ever did [Windows 95] in the equivalent period of time. ... We'll probably go double what we did with Windows XP." - Steve Ballmer, prior to Vista launch.

      Now his excuse for that not happening is piracy: "I think some of the revenue forecasts I've seen out there for Windows Vista in fiscal year '08 are overly aggressive ... PC growth is a driver of Windows revenue. You all have your own forecasts for PC growth. I will tell you that whatever you think it is, more growth comes from high piracy markets than from low piracy markets."

      http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/111773.asp?source=rss

      What Steve doesn't mention is that in those "high piracy markets" people can't afford Vista AND their hardware. In many cases, they can't even run Vista on their hardware. Piracy... right.
    • cozmoz365, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Not to mention when XP came out a lot of people where still running 98 and XP is actually stable, as for piracy maybe if the pricing was more reasonable that would be a much lower number.
    • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23@OBKenobi:
      "First-week retail sales of boxed copies of Windows Vista were almost 60 per cent below sales of boxed copies of Windows XP in the week after its 2001 launch, according to one leading market research group."

      In other news, a study has shown that if you repeatedly give electric shocks to hamsters when they attempt to eat a cupcake, 60 per cent will hesitate before attempting to eat the cupcake again. Bart Simpson on the other hand, will continue attempting to eat said cupcake, regardless of the repeating electric shock.

      So are people more like the hamster, or Bart?
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5AFAIK Vista was programmed by hamsters.

      Bart would probably pirate it anyway. And fall right into the hamsters' trap.
    • DrewBlood, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4@dacheetah

      I'd say Homer is probably a better example.
  • doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -9/+109FTA: "Microsoft may 'dial up' the intensity of antipiracy technology baked into Windows Vista as part of an effort to squeeze more revenue emerging markets"

    That's a brilliant way to market your product there - point out that it's full of logic bombs that'll disable your system if it thinks it's not 100% Gen-U-Wine. And given Window's track record of reliability we know that this code would never make a mistake, or be hijacked by malware.

    It's like a car salesman pointing out that the car won't start if it thinks you're late on a payment. You say that's a *feature*? Err, no thanks.
    • krux, on 10/12/2007, -8/+73hmmm... funny because I don't know anyone who's actually pirated it, or even has any desire to do so unless forced to. Everyone I know who usually pirates software is either sticking with XP, or switching to a Mac.
    • madjo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18@krux, I think that the biggest problem is not taking down the pirates, but not taking down legitimate customers at the same time.
      There are people who've bought Windows, and with these kinds of measures it could very well be that the anti-piracy software inside Windows flags your installation as a pirated version (a false positive), thus rendering your own PC to nothing more than a brick. And the only step you can then take is call up Microsoft and beg if they can send you a new key. (most likely it's not free, so you could be paying twice for the same product, even though you did nothing wrong)
    • sinurgy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37Even if most applications worked with it, why on earth would I pay a premium to have a "big brother" OS watching over me? Seriously, why?!?!
    • PasteEater, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27"I think that the biggest problem is not taking down the pirates, but not taking down legitimate customers at the same time."

      @madjo

      Exactly. So if it's not stopping the pirates, and only screwing with people who have legitimately purchased a copy, why is the DRM activation crap there in the first place? To put it another way, if the DRM isn't benefiting Microsoft, OR the end user, what's the point in having it?
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -24/+8> I don't know anyone who's actually pirated it, or even has any desire to do so unless forced to.

      I know several people who have pirated it and several people with the desire to use it.

      Does my anecdotal beat yours ? Maybe we could whip out some Pokemon cards and settle this the old fashioned way, mano 'e mano.
    • brindon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Microsoft has never cared about collateral damage. Seeing the "This machine may be PIRATED!!!!" warning on my Dad's (then) brand-new XP Home Dell machine was hilarious. He had no idea what to do and it took forever to get it sorted.

      Can't WAIT to see what they have cooked up. I'm thinking it will be the software equivalent of Robocop's ED-209.
    • meltingrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21"Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply."
    • Quix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Like krux, I also don't know anyone using Vista (either purchased or pirated) yet, and I know a lot of Windows users. Maybe there's just not enough "Wow?"

      P.S. I don't think estvir's Microsoft PR work is surviving this digg, though he's trying valiantly...
    • balmerblows, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It is not about pirates. The issue is most people with the minimum amount of brain cells required to be able to walk understand that:

      Paying $100.00 -> 300.00 for an OS that grants more rights to IP holders than it does to you (the buyer) is silly. Let them pay for the OS that is made for their needs, why should users buy the record and movie companies security system. Moving from XP to Vista for an average user removed more functionality than you gain, and the gain you do get is mostly look and feel instead of meat and potatoes.

      Go get your "Ultimate" Vista package today!
  • grendel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+137blame the price tag.
    • retral, on 10/12/2007, -35/+13I blame Canada.
    • edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44I get a free copy of Vista via my University. It's sitting on my desk, uninstalled. Until something comes along that /needs/ Vista (Halo 2, Crysis, etc), I'd sooner avoid the hassle of transferring files and programs (and weeding out incompatibilities). It's not that I don't like Vista (The beta was pretty nifty), it's just there's no point going through the whole upgrade hassle until there's something I need it for.
    • Hellman109, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6Vista is a couple of dollars more then XP.

      $170 Australian for a full OS and media centre really isnt that much when people spend upto $110 a pop on a single game
    • DuxDucis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28*cough*, Hellman109, what the ***** have you been smoking? As far as I know, the OEM version of Vista Home Premium is $269 and the retail is $405 AU. At least, according to the adverts in today's paper.
      Double that for business edition. Ultimate is about $800 Australian. Made me do a double-take at the prices. Just get it with a new PC. It's that easy.
    • redxii, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20I blame too many versions.

      Put out one product called "Windows Vista" (equivalent to what is Ultimate) in upgrade, oem, and retail flavors, and not such a damn high price.

      My laptop came with Home Premium.. but I installed XP Pro because I get more features in XP than in that particular version. There is NO anytime upgrade to Business; I don't want Ultimate. For the time being, I'm not buying a whole other license to get Business.

      Unfortunately, Linux freezes and crashes far too many times on the laptop. XP nor Vista has crashed or locked up yet, and the total time in XP is far more than that trying to set up Linux.
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -39/+6DuxDucis, maybe do a little research before you post ?

      The average price for Home Premium [Upgrade] in Australia (At Big W, Harvey Norman, Tandys, Dick Smith, etc) is around $170 though at a few stores they have it discounted. For example, I picked it up for ~ $148 at Big W.

      $148 for an OPERATING SYSTEM (You know, the core software of your computer), an OS that improves upon every aspect of the last (That being XP, which isn't much of a challenge since XP is pretty bad but Mac OS X / Ubuntu were once my favourite desktop OS' but Vista is now, it's a leap ahead of both of them) and I will most likely be using it for years (?). The same people who moan about the price will easily spend another $500 for a new CPU or GPU which will give them a marginal improvement over the last one.

      To put it in perspective, games cost ~ $120 brand new here, I'll easily spend more on clothes, I've bought sunglasses for a third (Bloody sunglasses which I never wear) of that cost, etc.

      ---

      The bottom line is, the 'price' argument is BS. You can get an Upgrade version (How many people would not be able to get the Upgrade version, I mean, some 90% of the world already runs Windows), OEM version, through some type of education (Uni, school, whatever), with your new PC, etc. There are so many ways to either get it dirt cheap, free (Legally) or for a good price (Which many of you will easily spend on something 'useless').

      There are so many ways to get it incredibly cheap (Queue pathetic/tired pirating jokes) yet no one wants to actually point that out, instead you're all happy with generic "LOL ULTIMATE $40400404" comments.

      redxii, I'm baffled as to how you could have more features in XP compared to Home Premium (You get Media Centre, Tablet functionality and a ton of other things the vanilla versions of XP misses out on) unless you're talking about one or 2 things like group policies in comparison to XP Pro.
    • DuxDucis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25@ estvir;

      He never mentioned specifically it was the 'upgrade' price. Most people will look at the OEM cost with a their PC (which the majority of people going to Vista are doing). And yes, I realize what an OS is. And I did my research - I looked it up in today's paper. However not everybody is looking for the upgrade edition. Some of us may not have a copy of xp that we can use for an upgrade. Some of use want a clean install on a system, with no leftover junk from the previous xp install. So before being an asshat, maybe.... just maybe... try to think about what the majority of users will be doing, and be a little more intelligent with your spending (so, you know, you don't waste all of that money).
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -27/+7> He never mentioned specifically it was the 'upgrade' price.

      Hence why I said, do research, if you did you would've seen the Upgrade price.

      > Most people will look at the OEM cost with a their PC (which the majority of people going to Vista are doing).

      What ? You lose me with the 'with a their PC' but I assume you're saying something about people getting Vista with their PC ? So.. it'd be basically free ? Good point.

      > However not everybody is looking for the upgrade edition.

      ~ 90% of the world runs Windows and the majority of those use XP. I think the Upgrade version is viable for most people.

      > Some of us may not have a copy of xp that we can use for an upgrade.

      How small of a number would that be ?

      > Some of use want a clean install on a system, with no leftover junk from the previous xp install.

      You can do a clean install from an Upgrade version, legally and not as some 'loophole.' Research, please.

      > So before being an asshat, maybe.... just maybe... try to think about what the majority of users will be doing, and be a little more intelligent with your spending (so, you know, you don't waste all of that money).

      Yeah, maybe you could stop being one too. And see above about ~ 90% of ppl / XP - I catered for the 'majority' where as you did not.
    • adriyel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30Bah. I'm an MSDN developer. I got a beta2 and an RTM copy laying on my desk. I just didn't care for it. I've got gaming quality hardware, and it just didn't run that well. The RTM was an improvement over beta2, but still not satisfactory. The combined horrendous amount of swapping when alt-tabbing out of CounterStrike and the overall fudginess feeling wasn't desired. And don't say, omg your pc sucks. Erm, no. It has 2gb of RAM and alt-tabs instantly in XP.
      XP + FreeBSD is just fine for me, thanks.
    • Philluminati, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44
      you WISH pirates were stealing Vista because pirates are COOL but unfortunately your OS is a joke.
    • Smokezz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18What do you mean the price is not an argument? Give a good reason to spend $200 on Vista. Nothing requires DX10. XP is still being patched... and unless you're an idiot that needs your hand held when you use a computer, asked every 5 minutes "Are you sure you want to do this!?"... there is no compelling reason to upgrade to Vista. Just because its "new" doesn't mean you should run right out and buy it.
    • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@Hellman109:
      >> Vista is a couple of dollars more then XP.
      >> $170 Australian for a full OS and media centre really isnt that much when people spend upto $110 a pop on a single game"

      Dick Smith has "MS Vista Home Premium Upgrade Academic" for AUD$179.
      Based on the Home Edition of previous releases of windows, home edition just isn't good enough for users that want more control over their computer. (Getting sharing to work the way you want in home ed is a pain, but there are many other things that suck)
      It's also an upgrade version, which means everytime you want to reinstall the OS, which with windows is often, you have to install an OLD OS, then reinstall Vista. (IIRC they refused to make it work just by entering the old products key as well as the new's)
      It's also Academic, which means only students and teachers can buy it, and while I AM a student, and my fioncee is a teacher, there are alot of people who cannot get such a version legally.
      Vista Home Premium, also from dickies, without the "Upgrade" and "Academic" is AUD$455. And then if you don't want Home, the only other one they seem to offer is Ultimate, at a whopping $754. (I could build an entire computer for that price easy.)

      Yes, you can get it cheaper, but you can also get the "$110" games cheaper, legally.

      @estvir:
      >> $148 for an OPERATING SYSTEM (You know, the core software of your computer), an OS that improves upon every aspect
      >> of the last (That being XP, which isn't much of a challenge since XP is pretty bad but Mac OS X / Ubuntu were once
      >> my favourite desktop OS' but Vista is now, it's a leap ahead of both of them) and I will most likely be using it
      >> for years (?). The same people who moan about the price will easily spend another $500 for a new CPU or GPU which
      >> will give them a marginal improvement over the last one.

      Vista, so far, is hardly an improvement, unless you want to be certain that your RAM earns it's stay in your computer the hard way. Maybe when SP1 comes out, it'll be stable enough for people to contemplate buying it. And AU$148, after discounts, for a crippled (Home edition, Upgrade, Academic, etc) OS when compared to sticking with say XP Pro, Ubuntu, etc. I'm not impressed.

      >>To put it in perspective, games cost ~ $120 brand new here, I'll easily spend more on clothes, I've bought sunglasses
      >> for a third (Bloody sunglasses which I never wear) of that cost, etc.

      So you're saying Vista is only for people who like to waste their money buying things they'll never use? And quoting the retail price for games, and comparing it to the discounted price of the OS is cheating, most games can be bought for > The bottom line is, the 'price' argument is BS. You can get an Upgrade version (How many people would not be able
      >> to get the Upgrade version, I mean, some 90% of the world already runs Windows), OEM version, through some type
      >> of education (Uni, school, whatever), with your new PC, etc. There are so many ways to either get it dirt cheap,
      >> free (Legally) or for a good price (Which many of you will easily spend on something 'useless').

      I think the arguments show that price IS a major factor, and when you consider how much time it would take to reinstall using the cripped "upgrade" versions if your vista install starts running slow[er], I wouldn't buy it.

      >> > He never mentioned specifically it was the 'upgrade' price.
      >> Hence why I said, do research, if you did you would've seen the Upgrade price.

      I think what DuxDucis was getting at is that the 'upgrade' version is inferior, hence it's being cheaper. If you want a real OS, it's going to cost more.

      >> > Some of use want a clean install on a system, with no leftover junk from the previous xp install.
      >> You can do a clean install from an Upgrade version, legally and not as some 'loophole.' Research, please.

      IIRC they removed that option from Vista. It was possible with XP, but for whatever reasons, they decided Vista was better off without it.
    • IdanE, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Actually, not only the price tag is to blame.

      The OS itself is pretty nice, I used it a bit during beta. BUT, in truth, it currently offers me very little. It sucks for gaming right now. I use some sites that don't support IE7 yet. Add to that the fact that it still has problems with legacy apps, and I don't have any reason to spend the money. I wouldn't install it for free right now.

      However, when I get a new PC (sometime after quad cores become economically viable), I will be installing vista and not xp - by then they should have more stability and will probably iron most of the kinks out.

      But *****, asking for that much money? that's *****. I'd actually be willing to "subscribe" to windows- paying a descent yearly payment (~$25 would be good, but maybe even $50 would still fly) and that way I get the most updated OS relevant for me, so if I use vista, I pay as long as I'm using it. If a new OS comes out, I simply upgrade to that, and keep paying the same price (maybe add a little "upgrade" price). I think that most people would be willing to go this route, instead of pirating.

    • macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5it couldn't matter less if consumers buy vista.
      what matters is what the massive computer manufacturers of the world buy.
      We will be slowly forced to use vista if we want new hardware.
    • skridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8vista is just another winme.

      it's windows with no regard for the customer.
      ms seems to have forgotten that the customer is the one paying for the software, not the drmites
    • JimV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My copy came with my new laptop. I actually rather like Vista, aside from a few irritating bugs, like network not working after coming out of sleep, and slow file copying over my network. (issues that should be addressed with SP1). I haven't noticed any compatibility issues with my software....yet. The only thing that seems a bit sketchy is Cisco VPN client, but I found an update that smoothed things over.

      So, from where I'm sitting, Vista is a pretty nice OS so far. And I probably would have bought it in a few months anyway...kinda like penance for pirating XP.
    • orian76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, I blame the lack of real progress.
  • dugg3r, on 10/12/2007, -5/+75ROFLMA! Didn't they (Gates and lame ass Ballmer) went on record saying that Vista is uncrackable - or it's got some sorry ass antipiracy proctection on it??
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -23/+9No, they've never said Vista was uncrackable.

      And the protection is actually okay so far (I'm not promoting WGA and the like, I don't like it either) and they've released a few updates which have killed various cracks (Like the frankenbuild which was a popular one).
    • CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The thing is, you don't even need a crack to run a pirated copy. You download the dvd, and download the timestopper file. Timestopper just stops the trial period clock from running, so you're running in full ultimate mode forever.
  • crono15, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5I am sure he is busy throwing chairs at pirates. http://youtube.com/watch?v=d_AP3SGMxxM, he is really funny in the video.
    • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8You got your comma stuck in your url. Always remember to add a space after every url, no matter how wrong it looks. A small gap before the comma is better than a broken link.
    • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8lmao, I just watched the video (which is rather ammusing) after removing the comma, and the two videos that YouTube linked to when it was done were "50 cal sniper rifle" and "Future Weapons AS-50 50 BMG rifle". Does YouTube want Ballmer assasinated?
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"""lmao, I just watched the video (which is rather ammusing) after removing the comma, and the two videos that YouTube linked to when it was done were "50 cal sniper rifle" and "Future Weapons AS-50 50 BMG rifle". Does YouTube want Ballmer assasinated?"""

      It's funny, it's only been like that since Google bought YouTube...



      (Is this a Google joke, or just their wonderful code providing good related information? It would be handy for Mr Ballmer if he could watch videos of himself and conveniently review weapons with which to kill Google in the same session, after all.)
  • ojk007, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11AS if we need another reason to hate m$
    • kults, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't hate them, just the PC is few years old which means it will not run Vista like I'd like to and my laptop (exceeds the requirements) gets noticeably hot as well as nearly 1 hour less battery time (using Vista power options to go as battery optimized as you can) compared to XP. I got Vista through school, but seriously considering reverting to XP.
  • Darph.Bobo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+11Developers, developers, developers,developers, developers,developers, developers,developers, developers,developers, developers....

    You get idea. Dance monkey boy dance, as always your rhetoric falls on deaf ears.
  • erzz, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3Simply buried as innacurate ... whilst Vista (and I do think it is expensive) out-'sells' even free operating systems by factors that barely fit on the calculator screen...
  • subterfu9e, on 10/12/2007, -5/+95Excuse me but why do I need vista ?
    • Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -10/+36because it's prettier than XP.
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+60Comfort. After a few hours of gaming on Vista you'll go back to XP or Linux install and it'll feel like you've just bought a whole new computer. It's a good feeling.
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -21/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_windows_vista

      ^ You can't figure it out yourself ?
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -28/+8Oh, and about gaming:

      Nvidia's latest versions of drives are basically perfectly fine (Including OpenGL games), so the 'LOL GAMING IS BAD' is basically rubbish and from what I hear ATI is now decent too.

      I also don't notice a performance hit between my XP or Vista install with the new drivers.

      And what, game on Linux ? HAHA.
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32"Nvidia's latest versions of drives are basically perfectly fine"
      My laptop uses an ATI Xpress 200M, When I play games on vista the framerate fluctuates between 10-max in 2 second intervals, it feel like it's giving me whiplash. And ATI's OpenGL support in Vista is terrible, won't run Nexuiz/Quake 4/Doom 3 playable at all. All of which work fine/are at least playable in XP.

      "And what, game on Linux ? HAHA."
      YES! I don't play all the newest games as soon as they hit the shelves at Best Buy. The newest game I play is Oblivion and they all work fine in Wine, and the ones that don't work fine in Cedega. And I play a few native Linux games that I wouldn't dream of playing in Windows (Legends, Nexuiz, Unreal, Postal 2, Sauerbraten, Quake 4, doom 3, Tremolous, etc). Believe it or not, One CAN game on Linux, The only reason I don't on my laptop is due to ATI driver shortcomings, which don't exist on my Nvidia desktop.
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22Here is the list:

      1. Microsoft will be preventing DirectX 10 from working on XP.
      2. A few good features from other operating systems have been copied or reimplemented in Vista.
      3. It will be preinstalled on the "off the shelf" PC in the hope the end user can't be bothered with the hassle of removing it - much like the AOL software, napster etc.

      You don't need it, the aim is to "get you to use it despite that".
    • neko, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Because it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?
    • StevoCJ, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31"Because it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?"

      I beg to differ
    • Agret, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6None of those new features really appeals to me outside of the sound system being re-done and directx10 which i'm sure they could've just released as windows updates for XP. The rest of the stuff i'd never use.
    • Fhwqhgads, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13"1. Microsoft will be preventing DirectX 10 from working on XP."

      Windows updates turned OFF. ***** you MS!
    • maximthegreat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Hey! Fair is fair. Vista is better than a poke in the eye with a blunt stick, surely!

    • Satertek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@blackadderIII

      Preventing?

      They would have had to practically rewrite XP's kernel.

      http://digg.com/tech_news/DirectX_10_why_it_s_exclusive_to_Vista
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4[quote]They would have had to practically rewrite XP's kernel.[/quote]

      Then perhaps you can explain how OpenGL and CgFX can use DX10 hardware outside of Vista. You don't kernel changes unless you want to use some specific features of DX10 that are not all that useful to begin with. Memory pooling and 3D multitasking (DX9 only support 1 3D app at a time). The hardware is doing the work, not Vista.

      MS doesn't want to admit that it's extorting gamers with DX10 so that they have no choice but to buy Vista. The game devs are all too eager to take this path of least resistance; usually by using some off-the-shelf engine and middleware instead of making their own engines. Some at least are starting to see the problems of being locked-in to DX when the rest of the world uses OpenGL.
  • ihaveplans, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30"It appears that Ballmer doesn't agree, for he hinted that Vista's antipiracy features might be tightened even more. 'We [will] really ferret through how far we can dial it up, and what that means for customer experience and customer satisfaction,' he said."

    "We will really ferret through how far we can dial it up"? Who talks like that?
    • Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43"It appears that Ballmer doesn't agree, for he hinted that Vista's antipiracy features might be tightened even more."

      Ah, good, because DRM has worked _so well_ up until now, hasn't it?

      When will these idiots learn that DRM doesn't stop piracy. Never has, never will.
    • yenster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"'We will really ferret through how far we can dial it up'? Who talks like that?"

      Ferrets.
  • SPThom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38Anyone here who's trying to stand up and say "Vista is still selling more than ___ (fill in the blank)" is missing the point. You don't have to talk about market share or OS sales or anything to draw some conclusions from this story. Vista didn't sell as well as they expected. Presumably XP did a decent job of selling back in the day, so if the last release sold better than the current release, doesn't that suggest that the company *seriously* dragged their feet and put out an less than stellar product?
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Exactly.

      Through the course of this year, I'll doubtless end up "buying" a couple of copies of Vista through buying a laptop or PC on a time-critical basis - I'm likely to delete them immediately because I will need to use those computers for things Vista won't work with*. This will happen with everyone who'll be staying with XP or using Linux (or something else).

      I'm not going to spend cash on Vista, and I don't really care enough about Vista to go hunting for different hardware because of Vista, I'll just buy what I want for the best price.

      If there's a Vista rebate available and I have time, I *might* bother with that, but it's very unlikely.

      The scary thing is, windows fans on digg, banks and the financial papers people read, will announce/give credit to these bundled copies of Vista as "sales" and the figures based on them will be seen to indicate "market share" - which in turn gives them power and influence in the real world.

      So you have a product you wouldn't use if it was given to you free, given to you with no recognisable outlay, and then not getting used, being counted as a sale.

      With new PC bundlings counted, the illusion of a sale being counted as a sale. I'd be very interested to see how many people have actually *bought* Vista with money they've worked for, and I'd also be interested to know why on Earth they did it.


      *Yes, I've used Vista and programmed for/supported it, shouldering a burden for the sake of users, before I get accused of throwing "FUD" at Vista. I will *not* be buying a copy for my own personal use unless there's some complete change in how things stand.
  • JohnBoySligo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Tip:
    make software people want to pay over 300€/$ for then your sales might pick up a bit
  • furo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21This is seriously funny! It's like he's saying "See, it's good enough for the pirates, so buy it now!". What he fails to realize is that even the pirates aren't thrilled with what they get in Vista, so there's no way they'll even think about getting a legal copy. The more he "dials it up" on the legal users, the worse the problem is going to get for Microsoft. How do they not get this?

    When all the talk of Longhorn was just ramping up several years ago, I was actually hopeful that Microsoft could bring some true improvements to users. The confusing and restricting nature of having a half dozen different editions, the incessant pestering with dialog boxes and exhorbitant hardware requirements for the best experience pretty much mean that it's the gamers and pirates that have any reason to even try Vista.

    I have steered everyone possible away from Vista and I've even provided demos to a few, which were met with "Uh... wow... I'm not upgrading". Yep, the wow starts now!

    -Furo
  • thealphabetman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I have to say I'm perfectly fine using WinXP and have not heard anything about Vista that would motivate me to upgrade. I could get a free copy through my university's MSDNA Alliance and I'm not even going to bother. Aero just sounds like eye candy. More secure? Meh, I haven't run into any problems yet using XP SP2 (Of course I do keep up with Windows Updates) with Firefox. Add to that the iTunes/iPod problems with Vista and I think I'll stay away for now, k thx.
  • Trat, on 10/12/2007, -18/+21I'm so glad that I switched to OSX, both private and in the studio. I couldn't stand the nightmares anymore, that I got when hearing about that DRM crap. Also, people who use computers on a professional level (like me), will never want it on their machines.
    • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -21/+7Are you ***** serious?

      OSX is almost pure DRM. Can you run it on any PC legally?? ***** no. You have to buy their overprice hardware.
      Can you listen to the music you downloaded from iTunes on any MP3 player? ***** no. See above.

      Pull your head out of your ass.
    • Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Because hearsay is always right.
    • Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11"OSX is almost pure DRM. Can you run it on any PC legally??"

      Why would I want to? I have a Mac Pro, two iMacs & a Mac mini. Why would I need PC hardware?

      "You have to buy their overprice hardware."

      It's overpriced if you're "unemployed" or just a "pirate" in general.

      "Can you listen to the music you downloaded from iTunes on any MP3 player?"

      iPods & iPhones work just fine.

      Apple makes great hardware. Get over it.
    • Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4>> "OSX is almost pure DRM. Can you run it on any PC legally??"

      > Why would I want to? I have a Mac Pro, two iMacs & a Mac mini. Why would I need PC hardware?

      I have several PCs and no Mac hardware. Why should I buy a new computer just to run OSX?

      >> "You have to buy their overprice hardware."

      > It's overpriced if you're "unemployed" or just a "pirate" in general.

      No, it's just overpriced.

      >> "Can you listen to the music you downloaded from iTunes on any MP3 player?"

      > iPods & iPhones work just fine.

      I don't have an iPod or an iPhone. I have an iRiver I bought before the iPod even came out. It still works just fine. Why do you keep assuming everyone has the same hardware you do?

      > Apple makes great hardware. Get over it.

      I have yet to see any significant difference in the quality of hardware in a Mac compared to a PC. Also, most of the hardware in a Mac is pretty much the same stuff you can get for a PC.

      Battery bulges: http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/laptops/0,239035649,240063900,00.htm
      Burning up: http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/laptops/0,239035649,240092310,00.htm
      Staining: http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/13/white-macbooks-showing-premature-discoloration/
      iPod batteries: http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/02/apple-agrees-to-settlement-in-ipod-battery-class-action-suit/
      In general: http://appledefects.com

      P.S. I don't hate Apple. I just get sick of the "I'm an Apple fanboy so I'm better than you" drivel.
    • Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I have several PCs and no Mac hardware."

      I'm sorry to hear that.

      "Why should I buy a new computer just to run OSX?"

      You really shouldn't. It appears that you already have an idea hardware/software solution, enriching your life and increasing your professional productivity.

      "No, it's just overpriced."

      Whatever. All of my Macs paid for themselves in less than a month each.

      "I don't have an iPod or an iPhone."

      Well, I have two iPods. I'm getting an iPhone in June. Would that be OK with you?

      "I have an iRiver I bought before the iPod even came out. It still works just fine."

      That's wonderful.

      "Why do you keep assuming everyone has the same hardware you do?"

      When did I ever assume that? You have me confused with your distorted world-view.

      "I have yet to see any significant difference in the quality of hardware in a Mac compared to a PC. Also, most of the hardware in a Mac is pretty much the same stuff you can get for a PC."

      All I said was that Apple makes great hardware. I didn't say "better than yours" or anything childish. I said that because I'm completely satisfied and content with the hardware/software solution I choose to run my business with.

      "Battery bulges: http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/laptops/0,239035649,240063900,00.htm
      Burning up: http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/laptops/0,239035649,240092310,00.htm
      Staining: http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/13/white-macbooks-showing-premature-discoloration/
      iPod batteries: http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/02/apple-agrees-to-settlement-in-ipod-battery-class-action-suit/
      In general: http://appledefects.com"

      I never had any of the above-mentioned problems. Sorry.

      "P.S. I don't hate Apple. I just get sick of the "I'm an Apple fanboy so I'm better than you" drivel."

      I give you that. It's knee-jerk reaction to all of the "Wattaboutda one-button mouse? Wattabout games? Why would I buy a new computer just to run OS X?" crap.
  • inukki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9only time will only make me buy vista
    am not against or with vista at this time, as i was when xp came out
    but i would choose linux over it if linux was found to be more secure and more fun. ( I would propably dual boot it first to compare them using ubuntu)
    for now, i stick with ubuntu and xp
  • tripfactor, on 10/12/2007, -14/+11Ballmer is a whiny poon. The truth is that M$ might as well be run by GW. They should just call it what it is, Vista is a fascist operating system designed to strip away the rights of the people that use it. DRM = The Patriot Act, Pirates = Al-Qaeda, and Ballmer = Zarqawi.

  • evilgold, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39Honestly, I pirated vista, and then after using it for a few days (maybe a week?), i switched back to good old pirated XP. In vista i wasnt able to get World of Warcraft to update without running it with administratior privlages, and the reason why turned out to be because it wouldnt allow writing to the start menu.

    Anyways, 80% of the computers in my house run linux, and the 2 that dont are for gaming only. I know a few people who are going to be making the move to linux once XP is out dated enough, simply because of the price tag and the fact that every good new feature in vista, has been on linux (and probably mac) for over a year now.
    • chadu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16you have ten computers in your house?
    • kiljoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@chadu
      Does that surprise you on Digg? I've got 4 running at the moment, and will have 2 more when I get some extra PSUs. Laptop, desktop, linux firewall and webserver right now, soon to be adding a file server and a backup server.
      • dacomputerfreak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Computers are cheap. Got 4 Macs, A FreeBSD web server, 7 Linux boxes, and a computer running genuine Vista. They all have a purpose and get used regularly.
        Can anyone guess which computer will experience an OS change soon?
  • gtfx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Ballmer forgets what made Microsoft product popular is there ease to pirate in those days, Windows for work groups, even MS Word for Dos, etc ... they are changing their business model by crucifying their user base ...
    • dacomputerfreak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not really... Those who have the experience and ability will continue to pirate and those who don't are so hooked that they'll lay down the cash. Microsoft knew what they were doing and used piracy as free promotion so everyone used their mediocre product. Even though great software exists for Linux and Mac people tend to "follow the herd" and feel that time and money invested in Windows means they can't easily use something else. The population really has no clue that some other operating systems (Mac, Ubuntu) can take less time to learn.

      I use all three major OS'es on a daily basis. Mac for multimedia and photo, Linux for gaming, and Windows because the company I work for has the "Windows is all that exists" mentality. That's their right- the only Windows machine is use is theirs and they maintain it.
  • Narwaffle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6The only reason I'm upgrading to Vista is for the gaming. And until NVIDIA gets their act together with their drivers for DX10, I see no reason.
  • Barnolde, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15So all that DRM failed?! I for one am shocked!
  • petespee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47Balmer is wrong. Vista isn't selling because like DRM, it punishes legitimate users.

    I spent 4 hours with MS Tech support yesterday because my PC would bluescreen on an upgrade but work perfectly on a clean install. Only problem was my Upgrade serial number did not allow me to activate a clean install. So we (me and tech support) struggled 4 hours to try to get the 'upgrade' not to bluescreen. We did not find a problem and the guy wanted to go home, so we stopped trying.

    So far my upgrade has taken over 7 hours of my time and it still doesn't work properly so I'm going to return it. Pirates to blame?? Yeah, thats why Mac sales are growing so fast.....

    what a tool.
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I had that problem too. I dual boot Linux and XP on my laptop and I tried to upgrade the XP install to Vista. After 2 hours of the upgrade running it was finally time to boot to Vista, but all it did was show the boot screen, flash BSOD, then reboot and continue. Even safe mode wouldn't boot. Now there's nothing special about my XP install, just ATI drivers and games, I don't even have my wireless card configured, so why is Vista having so much trouble? It does work as a clean install however I do not want to have to reinstall all my games, back up my savegames and migrate them, and then restore my MBR.
  • tomi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Ballmer blames piracy, Jack Thompson blames video games. Hmmm.
  • Lesson4Me, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19He should blame nvidia. The drivers are simply a nightmare!
    - no audio support
    - no whql driver
    - no opengl
    - no sli
    - raid drives being killed.

    M$ offered support for nearly two years and most hardware vendors could not offer usable drivers. This is a sign of a brainless IT industry.
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I had OpenGL working when I had RTM on my desktop. you have to install the drivers downloaded from the Nvidia website. Stock Vista Nvidia drivers don't include OpenGL support, but neither does XP.
  • scatteredbomb, on 10/12/2007, -22/+6I love how much people hate Vista just because they can. The OS has worked much better than Xp did on this same machine. A lot faster that XP, much smoother, and obviously looks much better. Things feel a lot better organized, and i think it was an upgrade worth making if you can. People will take a jab at Microsoft when they can just for the hell of it. Seeing comments like those above makes me feel like I'm looking at a bunch of people punching at the air. it's not perfect, but it's not bad, and surely not as bad as some people would try and make it out be.

    As for the low sales; I personally (without any source) believe that people are probably going to wait to make sure it's safe. A lot of people like to make sure they know that their computer is going to run, and because of the type of people i mentioned above, i think a lot of users will hold off a bit to make sure it's not going to make their computers explode.
    • chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23No old comp can run it without a upgrade, pretty much every DELL, Compaq, HP, etc they were usually made with 256MB RAM ataround 2005
      so
      Several Hundred $ for Vista
      and then Several Hundred for RAM and what not

      or
      just stick with XP
    • scatteredbomb, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7yeah, thats a valid point. i'm just saying it's not this piece of junk like i hear a lot of people trying to argue.
    • jdstorer2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14It is a piece of junk.

      Tell us at least one benefit we get from installing Vista over XP.
    • chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Tell us at least one benefit we get from installing Vista over XP.

      that is one of the very few things in this Universe that are impossible
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -26/+7chingy1788, stop lying and spreading FUD.

      http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=126

      Also, I'll give you several things:

      - Drivers finally using a decent model (As in, separated from the kernel so less crashes, security, etc)
      - Finally a decent GUI
      - Good search
      - Good default apps (Calendar, etc)

      .. etc. I guess I just did the impossible, do I get a cookie ?
    • chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6but no Pinball...
    • lyzz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@estvir
      What you've described sounds a lot like OSX about 2-3 years ago. All of the things you list either aren't much of a benefit or have been done with 3rd party add-ons to XP.
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@estvir
      The only one lying and spreading FUD is YOU! http://digg.com/tech_news/OLPC_has_anti_piracy_measures_Kill_switch_which_makes_WGA_look_friendly
  • chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23I think pirates wont even pirate Vista cause its just not worth the pirating
    • chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Ahhh im being hit by the vista fan boys
    • Apache933, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4good morning

      he's got a point.

      I'm still on win 2k pro - running flawlessly since i dont know when. once a year, i do maintenance, which is the same as saying : format c:

      me no want vista, me no need, me no care, me don't want to hear, me don't want to know and me don't need.

      have a nice day y'all

      oh, forgot, M$ is bad, or whatever people write to get thumbs up.

      digg is great
  • grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Wow, quite a misleading title. The fact is that many of the 'emerging markets' are so corrupt that those paying protection money to the authorities get advanced warning of piracy raids. To be fair, legally purchasing the OS (even the cutdown) is beyond the affordability of many people in these markets.

    Also, you can't compare Vista sales to XP? Think for a minute about the XP launch. Home users running 98 or ME were desperate for win2k stability which is what XP delivered. The general market perception (right or wrong) is that XP SP2 is secure enough and good enough. These people will not line up at midnight, but by the same token, the next time they buy a new PC they will get the OEM. A lot was made about the resource requirements, so many will hold out until their next PC.
    • Hattrick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"so many will hold out until their next PC"

      Ding! we have a winner.

      As a developer using a variety of OS'es, I have to say this is exactly my mindset. I've tried Vista Ultimate through my MSDN subscription on a couple of different PCs/laptops and I have decided that, for anyone who asks, Vista should only be acquired through a pre-installed, new computer sale.

      My main gripe is the apparent changing of things for the sake of changing them. The whole flow that we are all used to in XP is gone. The Start Menu is different, your Home folder is a bunch of pre-created links that seem like folders but aren't...or maybe they are, I can't tell. Actually going in and trying to tweak the settings in the control panel is just plain weird. Don't even get me started on the idiot prevention system or the DRM crap.

      Anyone heard of user acceptance testing???

      Vista is a perfect example of what Microsoft has become. A bloated company that doesn't know what the other hand is doing. Only in this case the other hand is the development team for Windows.

      Vista is the Windows Me for the new millennium. Ironic isn't it.

      Linux platforms like Kubuntu or Mandriva are really starting to shine in this light. The drivers from Nvidia and ATI are stable and in most cases you can just use normal upgrade tools to get them. After reading some of the headaches with Vista, I don't think that the "not ready for prime time" argument for Linux holds any water. Linux set up isn't any more difficult than trying to successfully install Vista on older hardware, figuring out where everything is, and then dealing with software and driver incompatibilities. It is actually much easier on standard systems like Dell.

      There is also the Mac option but they are way to proud of their systems and it shows in their prices. Plus I can't go out and "legitimately" get Mac OS for my PC at the store or get a new generic laptop with it installed. I really think Apple should release Mac OS under the FreeBSD license just to see what kind of acceptance it would get.
  • rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Is it that hard to realize the obvious, that almost everyone will wait to get Vista whenever they replace their current computers instead, especially when XP works just fine?
  • Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -12/+39Steve, you silly little boy, open your eyes.

    1. Vista does nothing to improve my daily computer use.
    2. It costs a lot more money than it should.
    3. It limits what I want to do.
    4. I'm no pirate. I just don't like you or MS.
    5. If I use it, people will point at me and laugh.

    There ya go Stevie. Now go walk the plank.
    • Tarnum, on 10/12/2007, -5/+266. We don't have 4 GB RAM, so it can run as fast as XP with 1 GB RAM.
    • estvir, on 10/12/2007, -32/+11Wonderkind, open your silly, ignorant eyes.

      1. Try actually using it. I have no idea how I ever put up with no search (Might as well have been no search in XP) and being able to use the Start Menu to quickly find things, for once a decent GUI (XP was ugly), speed (Much more responsive than XP), stability (It's yet to crash, at all), security (For once I actually feel somewhat secure by using Windows, previously I'd freak out if I didn't have a good firewall/AV set up), etc.
      2. The costs are in line with XP (For the most part), Upgrade/OEM versions are cheap, there are many legal ways to get it free/dirt cheap, etc.
      3. Er.. how ?
      4. You realise what you're doing ? You have a personal vendetta against a corporation.. but anyway, fight the man, whatever you think is best for you !
      5. See above.
      6. Go find a clue - Vista runs perfectly fine on 1GB.

      Have an opinion, whatever, just don't lie and spread FUD.
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16"4. You realise what you're doing ?"
      WTF? You realize you're not wanting to give MS every last penny of your hard earned money for inferior crap? What the hell wrong with you!?

      "You have a personal vendetta against a corporation."
      Why is that bad? MS makes a lot of people's lives harder in many ways, especially for those who are seeking MS alternatives.
    • dotZeen, on 10/12/2007, -27/+13"Steve, you silly little boy, open your eyes.

      1. Vista does nothing to improve my daily computer use.
      2. It costs a lot more money than it should.
      3. It limits what I want to do.
      4. I'm no pirate. I just don't like you or MS.
      5. If I use it, people will point at me and laugh.

      There ya go Stevie. Now go walk the plank."

      1.Superfetching, Improved CPU cycling, Improved I/O prioritizing, Indexed searching, Readyboost, IPv6, Kernel (mostly) locked down, Improved Shell Extensions, I could go on, but most "diggers" don't read a lot of 'wrdz'.
      2.The market sets the price point, your logic is fallible.
      3.See 2.
      4. See 2 + MS did something right to have 90% of the market on their bench.
      5.You worry too much what other people think of you. In that case, you should probably never try to be a leader, just keep on following.

      Crazy.
    • kethraal, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15"1.Superfetching, Improved CPU cycling, Improved I/O prioritizing, Indexed searching, Readyboost, IPv6, Kernel (mostly) locked down, Improved Shell Extensions, I could go on, but most "diggers" don't read a lot of 'wrdz'.
      2.The market sets the price point, your logic is fallible.
      3.See 2.
      4. See 2 + MS did something right to have 90% of the market on their bench.
      5.You worry too much what other people think of you. In that case, you should probably never try to be a leader, just keep on following.
      "

      Spoken like a man who has experience with neither Vista nor economics.

      1) Superfetching and ReadyBoost are of negligable performance value. Seriously. Try benchmarking them. They help with application launches... maybe. Improved shell extensions? HAHAHA. Seriously... you think the shell is an improvement? Jesus man... have you tried using the thing? It's a UI nightmare. In addition to an annoyingly overdone transparent effect _everywhere_ you look, you also have to deal with about 8 different UI styles, each with its quirks. Indexed searching still sucks (just like it did in XP). Sorry. I was actually looking forward to it, but it's not terribly good -- if anything, it seems like a poor Beagle/Spotlight clone. I will give you IPv6. That is an actual improvement.

      2) Except the market doesn't set the price -- MS is a convicted monopolist, and their using their tactics to extort upwards of 300 pounds per copy of Vista.

      3) The market doesn't like DRM. Seriously. The media companies do, but it's daft to think that DRM is in the OS because the consumers want it.

      4) Yes, MS is doing something right, from a business perspective. Their leveraging their monopoly to strongarm OEM's into bundling Vista. (Remember that this was one of Be's complaints against them, and that it held up in court.)

      5) Are you trying to make it seems as though not using Vista is following? I didn't really get this point, but I commend you on whatever the hell you said.
    • BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Sigh. One quick answer to rebuff, then back to ignoring the nonsense.

      """1. Try actually using it. I have no idea how I ever put up with no search (Might as well have been no search in XP) and being able to use the Start Menu to quickly find things, for once a decent GUI (XP was ugly), speed (Much more responsive than XP), stability (It's yet to crash, at all), security (For once I actually feel somewhat secure by using Windows, previously I'd freak out if I didn't have a good firewall/AV set up), etc.
      """

      I've "actually used it", it seems to me like a poorly performing heap, and all of the search functionality etc. is done better elsewhere at no charge - but each to their own.


      """2. The costs are in line with XP (For the most part), Upgrade/OEM versions are cheap, there are many legal ways to get it free/dirt cheap, etc."""

      Yes, and the price of 'absolutely nothing' is still not enough to get people using it. How does that tie in with your idea of Vista's absolutely undebatable brilliance?


      """4. You realise what you're doing ? You have a personal vendetta against a corporation.. but anyway, fight the man, whatever you think is best for you!"""

      You're being sensationalist - lots of people don't like a company if they don't get what they feel they paid for from it, and lots of people tell other people. These are perfectly normal things called "consumer choice" and "word of mouth" and work both ways. Brand loyalty, for instance is great because people can recommend their favourite product to everyone if they enjoy it.

      What's *really* weird, is having a vendetta of negativity against the general public on behalf of a corporation. Now what could motivate that?


      """6. Go find a clue - Vista runs perfectly fine on 1GB."""

      It runs less well, hyperbole aside, than it does on XP. I'd say that person had at least enough of a clue for people to see their point.


      """Superfetching, Improved CPU cycling, Improved I/O prioritizing, Indexed searching, Readyboost, IPv6, Kernel (mostly) locked down, Improved Shell Extensions, I could go on, but most "diggers" don't read a lot of 'wrdz'."""

      Wow, you must have a low estimation of diggers' intelligence. No, not because you think they don't read a lot of "wrdz", but because you think you can pass those off as great new features you couldn't get elsewhere.

      """Superfetching, Improved CPU cycling, Improved I/O prioritizing, Indexed searching, Readyboost, IPv6, Kernel (mostly) locked down, Improved Shell Extensions,"""

      Apart from "Superfetch and ReadyBoost", this reads like a Linux distro's changelog from about 6 years ago.

      Superfetch and ReadyBoost I won't be rude enough to snort a derisory laugh on those, but giving brand names to already common OS capabilities nobody has much is interest in and touting them as unique, compelling selling points is just pathetic.
  • chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I give Vista 2-3 years to take over by then (2008-9) we will see MS's new OS...
    right now Vista is taking too much RAM (relative to XP and todays mainstream PCs) to run
    not to mentiont he various drivers and compatibility issues with current hardware and software
  • johnstar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I installed it and an e6300 ,a gig of ddr2 900 ,and a 7600 only gets me a "vista experience of 4.5" I'll switch when I need more than 4gigs of ram (WinXp's limit)
    • chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6dont go vista
      go XP64, it supports 4GB+ RAM (or as ive heard)

      I tried the Beta, it was laggy and keeps popping up asking me to confirm stuff, its annoying... Uninstalled it after a few hours
    • systemlayers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2windows 2003 server standard 64 bit supports up to 32gb of ram... and doesn't rely on fancy gui as it's selling point. I think i can stick with it for a few years to come at least.
  • skEwb35, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27I just don't like the 35 nag screens I have to go through just to get to tcp/ip settings.
    • scatteredbomb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4yeah, that thing is annoying. I really like Vista and i'm happy i upgraded, but i had to disable that feature. annoyed the hell out of me.
    • jdstorer2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6You can turn the UAC off. Go to Control Panel, search for UAC, then use the link to turn it off.

      Not that you should have to, btw, just tryin' to help.
    • skEwb35, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I know how to turn UAC off I was just making a smart ass remark to the way they re-arranged everything and added like 4 nag screens on top to make it n00b proof. Irritates the rest of us that know what we're doing.
    • gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2You do realize you can disable that, don't you?
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think you're referring to the control panel disaster. They added new dialog boxes and buried the advanced settings so now you have to click twice as many times to do something.
  • ahpro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18How can a multibillionaire claim that not enough of their products are being sold when it's rapidly making millions in profit?
    • Heavy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Simple, as the 97 rule of Acquisition states:Enough... is never enough.
  • mrfx2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Someone ask him if he has seen beryl yet.

    By they way learn to make software your own software thanks!
    • Blom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Beryl adds (I should say added, it's gone now) about as much to my UI experience as it sounds like Vista adds to the Windows people... bugger all. Forget the fancy transparent 3Dness, none of it makes my job any easier. If they'd focus on making the underlying OS work better (I can't even close the bloody lid on my laptop - quite pathetic really) the Linux world would be a lot better off... And yes, I exclusively use Linux as it largely suits my requirements, but I can certainly see why people wouldn't want to use it also...
  • jacko1990, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I'm not buying it because there is just not enough new about it to make me feel compelled to want to switch.

    Plain and simple.
  • MadN, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9My sister is trying to find a new laptop, the problem is; no Vista.
    The lack of new laptops with XP is a pain.
    • LoveJackDaniels, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Might be easier to get one with no OS, or a Macbook with bootcamp.
    • coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"but giving a crap about the OS that comes on your laptop - proves you don't know enough to have a valid complaint"
      What? Even knowing what an OS is means you're a step above the average computer user in terms of technical ability. I mean people who think the 'blue e' is the Internet. I try to buy laptops w/o operating systems because I don't want to pay more for something I won't even use.
    • bryhhh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@hagnar

      I'd love to hear your reasoning behind your comment. If I'm paying hard earned cash for a OEM license shipped with a new piece of hardware, I'd be damn sure the OEM software is what I want to use, otherwise I'd be throwing money away wouldn't I?
    • decades, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@hagnar
      "I'm sorry, but giving a crap about the OS that comes on your laptop - proves you don't know enough to have a valid complaint..."

      So, if you brought a brand new £2,000 laptop, and it came with Windows 3.1 as the OS, you're saying you wouldn't mind?
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1"My sister is trying to find a new laptop, the problem is; no Vista.
      The lack of new laptops with XP is a pain."

      Don't be an idiot. Get a Vista laptop. XP will be obsolete soon.
    • punkrockscks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@hagnar
      "That's just silly. I doubt your sister really cares about her OS, and if she thinks she does, I bet she doesn't know why.
      I'm sorry, but giving a crap about the OS that comes on your laptop - proves you don't know enough to have a valid complaint..."

      Ok.
      1. you're a douche bag.
      2. you're comment made you sounds like a sexist douche bag.
      3. ask a mac user if the OS matters.
  • kheldorin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Nowhere in the articles does it state that Balmer blames the pirates for Vista poor sales. He just states that unlike XP, Vista would have an alternate source of revenue due to the anti-piracy measures inherent in Vista. Have you guys actually read the article??

    "We have new technologies built into Windows Vista, something we call Windows Genuine Advantage [that] we've really dialed up in capabilities with the Vista release," he said. "I do think that will bring some revenue growth. We will have strong growth in the Windows business in emerging markets: China, India, Brazil, Russia and many others. Those markets are very high piracy."
    • nufoto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4no he says "may 'dial up' the intensity of antipiracy technology" so there is more in the WGA than they are telling people! which is ok cause Microsoft will make even more happy customers!
    • el_jefe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The article also states...

      One way Microsoft can bump up Windows sales is to tighten the screws on pirates, Ballmer said. "Piracy reduction can be a source of Windows revenue growth, and I think we'll make some piracy improvements this year."

      While that doesn't come out and specifically say pirates are to blame to the "poor" sales of Vista, it does say if they reduce the numbers of pirates they will increase revenue. Some people might read that as "Piracy growth can be a source of Windows revenue reduction". Which doesn't state anything but the obvious. Its the same statement made by the RIAA, MPAA, artists, or anyone else that depends on the revenue of their pirated products to make a profit for shareholders and/or owners, and is true. If pirates bought the product instead of stealing it, then the company selling the product would make more money because a nonpay