| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/6/2009 11:52:06 AM |
November 6, 2009 6:37 AM
Microsoft moved a lot of install disks, but hardware makers got a bigger bump two years ago
When Microsoft (MSFT) launches a new operating system, as it did two weeks ago, PC manufacturers like Hewlett Packard (HPQ), Dell (DELL) and Acer are supposed to reap the benefits. And everything seemed to be in place on Thursday Oct. 22 for that to happen.
But PC makers didn't make out quite as well. Although they had a relatively strong week, with unit sales up 49% year over year and 95% from the week before, it was nothing like Vista's launch in Feb. 2007. Then, sales soared 68% year over year and 170% from the week before.
In a press release issued Thursday, Baker explained what happened:
A combination of factors impacted Windows 7 PC sales at the outset, Baker wrote. Vista had a slight advantage at launch, as January traditionally has a bigger sales footprint than October. The other hurdle Windows 7 faced was sales of PCs with older operating systems (XP and Vista) were high, making up 20 percent of sales during the Windows 7 launch, compared to just 6 percent of older operating sales during Vistas launch week.
Ironically, it was the computer manufacturers who did best in Feb. 2007. Sales of new PCs with Vista pre-installed were up 67% the week that Vista launched compared with the same week in 2006....
http://vr-zone.com/forums/504924/vista-sold-more-pcs-than-windows-7-did.html
Well i think it was mostly due to the economy. The economy is worse now then it was in 2006 when Vista was launched, so i'm sure that had a lot to do with it. | |
|
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/6/2009 1:15:54 PM | Well...here's what I did.
Wanting a new laptop...I bought mine a month ago...Vista 64bit installed...with the promise of a free Windows7 upgrade.
Reason?
I was soooo frustrated with Vista when it came out...I wished I had the older version until the kinks were worked out.
This way...if I don't like Windows7...I can roll it back to Vista. So...I would be a contributor to the lack luster numbers...even though my intention was to get a Window7 laptop. | |
|
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/8/2009 7:40:25 PM | Trust me, you will like W7 much more than Vista!
Actually, provided you have a fast PC that came with Vista, it's pretty stable, especially with SP2. But, it just doesn't have that much driver support. W7 has much more, as most software and hardware manufacturers have gotten behind the new OS, and have been working closely with MS. I have even read things from OS-X fans who actually prefer W7! | |
|
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/11/2009 5:04:41 PM | Well...here's the rest of the story.
I bought a fairly spendy laptop in September.
It took a dump in less than a week.
Got another one...same brand...around Oct 7(the one with Windows 7 in the mail). The hard drive went down.
Just fired up the newest one with 7 pre-installed and loaded all my stuff on it...and I'm lovin' it.
Anyone wondering about the specs on the other two lemons...you can email me. | |
|
| |
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/11/2009 7:23:52 PM | | Microsoft's plan is to operate like Apple, which is to create an operating system, and just keep improving on it every year or two. I understand that Windows 8, will basically be an upgrade to 7. | |
|
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/11/2009 9:16:17 PM | Well here is what's known so far about Windows 8
Now although information about Windows 8 will eventually become available, rather than the lack of information to this day about WMDs, Windows 8 details still remain sketchy. Here are Windows 8’s Known Knowns:
1.It will be called Windows 8 and there’s even a Windows 9 in the pipeline 2.It will be released no earlier than 2012 – it is unlikely it will be released in 2011 3.It will have new networking features 4.It will include 128 bit support and will see the end of 32 bit Operating Systems 5.It won’t be Microsoft’s last client based OS - Steve Ballmer says that won’t happen for 10-20 years.
http://windows8news.com/2009/10/22/windows-8s-known-knowns/ | |
|
| |
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/13/2009 9:24:56 PM | RE Msg: 7 by SteelCity1981:
1.It will be called Windows 8 and there’s even a Windows 9 in the pipeline I seem to recall that Windows Vista was originally called Longhorn.
4.It will include 128 bit support and will see the end of 32 bit Operating Systems Most apps I use are quite good enough with 32-bit. Even the GUID seems to be find with it. So I'm not even sure there is any need for me to run a 128-bit OS at all.
Also, I seem to recall that CPUs used to support multiple addressing modes. Why can't they do the same with 32-bit, 64-bit, and 128-bit modes? It would sure make a lot of smaller programs that only need 32-bit support much smaller in size, taking up much less room in RAM, and being smaller, would run much faster.
5.It won’t be Microsoft’s last client based OS - Steve Ballmer says that won’t happen for 10-20 years. What else exactly would they be running? | |
|
| |
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/14/2009 10:34:51 AM | been running 7 for a couple of weeks now. not a single problem. every single piece of hardware and software I have (some of which is pretty ancient) worked, though I did have to go out to the web and find a driver for my old HP scanner.
been screwing around with speech recognition which though still far from perfect does work pretty well for some things.
I'm sold. seems like a solid, trouble free OS to me which Vista did not. | |
|
| |
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/19/2009 3:57:01 PM | I don't have to use it - I already know what it is.
It's nothing "new." You guys are getting all excited about Vista-reborn. You DO realize that Windows 7 is just a "fixed" version of Vista I hope. It's the SAME kernel... they've just refaced it (stole some of Linux's features) and repackaged it as a whole new OS and you guys are falling for it hook, line and sinker.
Some of you are rushing out and buying a copy of 7 when you've already paid for it once with your purchase of Vista.
This whole topic of "Vista versus 7" gives me a good chuckle. It's "Ford versus Ford" the same product competing against itself under two different names.
Don't believe ME? Fine, read this article from PC Magazine (which indeed IS a reputable unbias publication).
http://www.pcworld.com/article/153624/under_the_hood_windows_7_is_vistas_twin.html
For starters, we can now say with some certainty that the Windows 7 build I tested is just a repackaging of Windows Vista. Key processes look and work much like they do under Vista, and preliminary benchmark testing shows that Windows 7 performs right on a par with its predecessor. Frankly, Windows 7 is Vista, at least under the hood; if nothing else, this should translate into excellent backward compatibility with Vista-certified applications and drivers.
I'm just amazed at this day and age as common and as important as computers are people are still so inept with them they have a hard time checking their bloody email. What's more disturbing is that people are blind that they're willing to fork out their hard earned money, for the same product, essentially paying for it twice.
Let me ask you a question. Say you want a new car, so you go out shopping and run across a nice looking, sleek ride... you buy it. You get it home and two days later the heads blow. So you take it back and the dealer tells you he can fix it but its going to cost you the price of a new car to have it repaired. Would you pay it? Hell no you wouldn't. You'd expect him to either fix it at no cost or replace it an exact model. Well, this is the same thing. You bought an OS that was nothing short of a POS product. In some cases people have been fortunate enough to get a free upgrade - but the upgrade is only being offered through the companies that sold the computer (some aren't participating) and Microsoft will not upgrade you for free - no - they sold you a pig and now they want double charge you for the same pig, only this time it has a pretty pink bow around it - and you people think its a whole new wonderful pig.
I CAN slam it because, again, I know exactly what it is. True to form Micro$oft selling the same old garbage wrapped up in a new shiny Glad Bag. | |
|
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/19/2009 5:09:19 PM | I'm fully aware of what W7 is, it's what Vista should have been if MS hadn't cut corners, rushed it to the market, and hadn't gotten sidetracked with security issues in XP.
I like very much what MS has given us this time out. It's still not what I call perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than the previous versions, IMO. The one thing they did that I don't like is that they, once again, made the OS less secure in the name of making it more user-friendly. Once they figure that part out? they will continue to be dogged. I still had to get a third-party firewall because I don't feel like spending time manually closing up the outgoing permissions. The other thing they need to do is get rid of the registry.
Other than that, it, great, and I recommend it to anyone. Even some of the Mac guys are impressed.
All the software I use is Windows-based, and don't even try to tell me about getting them to work in Linux. I'm not interested in the hassle. | |
|
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/19/2009 5:16:44 PM | *Some* programs are a hassle and I'd bet money you've probably never tried Linux - you're just going by what so and so said, yes?
But, I don't blame you - I DO have a Windows partition as well. Simply because I don't want to deal with the BS of trying to certain programs working as well. So I don't blame you for sticking with Windows if that is what you know and feel most comfortable with. Because you are correct - there are some programs that simply will not work in Linux. | |
|
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/19/2009 6:09:59 PM | RE Msg: 15 by funtunes74:
I'm fully aware of what W7 is, it's what Vista should have been if MS hadn't cut corners, rushed it to the market, and hadn't gotten sidetracked with security issues in XP. They didn't cut corners at all. This is perfectly in line with their business model.
They brought out Windows 95 with lots of bugs. Then when the customers had effectively tested Windows 95 and found the bugs, they brought out the finished version and called it Windows 95.
Then they brought out Windows 2000, let the customers test it, and then brought out Windows XP later as the finished version.
Then they brought out Windows Vista, let the customers test it, and then brought out Windows 7 as the finished version.
It saves them millions, because they don't need to test it themselves. They get almost double the income, by lots of consumers buying both versions. They've done it 3 times and every time, their customer base have accepted it.
It's a successful business strategy. You cannot blame them for making money with a strategy that has been successful again and again.
It's us consumers who are willing to fall for it. We're the mugs. | |
|
| |
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/23/2009 1:14:05 PM | | Most people who have Vista or 7 have it because they got it with a new PC or laptop. Everyone I know who's got Vista hasn't had any problems with it. I never even had any problems with XP. I think if you have any problems with your OS, it's probably because your PC or laptop can't run it properly. I think the XP versus Vista versus 7 debate is exaggerated. | |
|
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/23/2009 3:23:54 PM |
They didn't cut corners at all. This is perfectly in line with their business model.
They brought out Windows 95 with lots of bugs. Then when the customers had effectively tested Windows 95 and found the bugs, they brought out the finished version and called it Windows 95.
Then they brought out Windows 2000, let the customers test it, and then brought out Windows XP later as the finished version.
Then they brought out Windows Vista, let the customers test it, and then brought out Windows 7 as the finished version.
It saves them millions, because they don't need to test it themselves. They get almost double the income, by lots of consumers buying both versions. They've done it 3 times and every time, their customer base have accepted it.
It's a successful business strategy. You cannot blame them for making money with a strategy that has been successful again and again.
It's us consumers who are willing to fall for it. We're the mugs.
I thought that what beta testers were for. But I would not doubt they would do that. But then again I have not used Microsoft for the last 5 years now. | |
|
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/23/2009 5:16:21 PM |
Most people who have Vista or 7 have it because they got it with a new PC or laptop. Everyone I know who's got Vista hasn't had any problems with it. I never even had any problems with XP. I think if you have any problems with your OS, it's probably because your PC or laptop can't run it properly. I think the XP versus Vista versus 7 debate is exaggerated.
I would have to say the same. I think the biggest trouble with Vista was the fact it was designed for a next generation of computer. Much like the situation with 95 people weren't ready to jump make the jump in hardware to support the OS, but unlike 95 the Vista didn't represent a significant leap in capability. Most people saw it as giving them a bunch of things they didn't want including a suspicious amount of digital rights management. | |
|
| Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 PCs sales thus far. Posted: 11/23/2009 8:05:05 PM | MS did cut corners with Vista. It's just that there are a lot of MS haters out there who are very cynical of anything they do. news flash: not everything business does is so calculated.
And, the DRM issues in Vista? They seem to be removed or greatly relaxed in W7. The main reason for all the DRM in Vista is because Redwood thought they could suck up to Hollywood just enough to latch on to a piece of the pie. It didn't quite work out that way.
It's true, the people who cursed Vista the most were those who tried to use it on their existing machine without upgrading the hardware. They also probably upgraded it from XP. The best course is to always do a clean install anyway.
Well, the hardware driver support in W7 is much better, and more extensive. There are a few software apps that still aren't W7 complaint, but most of what I use is. I am even able to use a lot of apps written for Windows 98, and run better too.
I think it may come down to what one does with their computer that decides if they think W7 is worth it. | |
|