"REDMOND, Wash., March 26, 2007 — Initial sales figures from Microsoft show its new operating system Windows Vista made a splash in its debut. In the first month of Windows Vista’s general availability, sales exceeded 20 million licenses, more than doubling the initial pace of sales for its predecessor, Windows XP. These initial figures reflect the broad interest in the security and usability enhancements in Windows Vista."

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/...

While Vista may have sold more in its first month than XP did in its first two, I doubt the main reason it did was due to the so-claimed "broad interest" in its features security-wise & the seemingly vague "usability enhancements", afterall those 20 million copies include "licenses sold to PC manufacturers, copies of upgrades and the full packaged product sold to retailers and upgrades ordered through the Windows Vista Express Upgrade program".

But at the end of the day - it remains the fastest selling version of Windows to date ;-)

You're messing with the wrong guy

TG Daily brings up a good point into why the real reason Vista has out-sold XP.

http://www.tgdaily.com/index.php?op...

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

It's a double edged sword. On one hand, PC sales quite obviously boosted once people could get Vista on their machine, or could get a free upgrade to it with a coupon. On the other hand, some of the sales of Vista quite clearly are due to people buying a new PC, not specifically because of Vista. Just how many people bought a new PC because of Vista? Hard to say.

Also, 2002 PC sales if I remember correctly were sluggish anyway because people were often satisfied with the performance of their current PC, so they had no need to get a new one.

I suspect that PC sales boosted the number of Vista sales far more than Vista boosted PC sales.

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

"I suspect that PC sales boosted the number of Vista sales far more than Vista boosted PC sales."

absofreekinlootely

Vista should do what Adobe is going to do with photoshop which is very smart marketing imo and that is allow people to download their OSes for free and charge for extra's and advanced features. By doing this it it will stop alot of pirating and millions of dollars wasted on preventing priacy.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Seriously, how can any other model be better than their current one as far as profit is concerned? Microsoft is one of the most profitable corporations in modern history. If you want to argue fairness to consumers, your idea is more sound, but from a profit margin point of view, the "millions of dollars wasted on preventing piracy" is nothing compared to the amount of money they're making from the sale of Windows.

Don't forget - your OS is not subject to the same trends of supply and demand as apps made by Adobe. Your OS is more like gas for your car. There is far more inelastic demand for an OS because you HAVE to run an OS. You don't have to run any application made by Adobe. What you're suggesting is Microsoft adopt the business model the likes of Red Hat. Last I checked, sales of Red Hat dwarf in comparison to Windows.

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

I wasn’t comparing Adobe with Microsoft. My statement was directed at the marking approach in how Adobe is taking a diff step in trying to lower the rate of pricey of their products by giving a basic version away and paying for additional features and extra’s, which in return reduces the cost of trying to prevent piracy. I think if Microsoft gave away a basic version of Vista they wouldn’t lose any money due to the fact that the majority of users and OEM companies would spring for the higher level of there OS that has the addition features and extra’s bundled with it. And for the ones that downloaded the basic version for free could always download the same additional features and extras for a price later on from Microsoft.

I disagree. if piracy wasn't nothing in terms of millions of dollars in profits lost vs. the amount of Windows sales, then Microsoft wouldn't be going to the extent that they have and spending millions upon millions of dollars trying to prevent it if they were making a lot more from Windows sales to not even worry about it.

You really can't compare Windows with Linux. Linux and Windows are night and day on many fronts in terms of longevity, market share and compatibility. People aren't going to use an OS regardless if it's free if more then half of their programs aren’t compatible with it.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"People aren't going to use an OS regardless if it's free if more then half of their programs aren’t compatible with it."

Thank you for making my point. People are willing to pay for Windows. From a business standpoint, it makes no sense for Microsoft to give away what a majority of people are willing to pay for.

"I think if Microsoft gave away a basic version of Vista they wouldn’t lose any money due to the fact that the majority of users and OEM companies would spring for the higher level of there OS that has the addition features and extra’s bundled with it."

The majority of OEM's are selling Vista Home Basic, not Home Premium. I seriously doubt OEM's would go with the product that will raise their selling price in the hyper-price competitive PC market. Most PC's being sold now are more of the $500 variety, not the $1000 variety.

"if piracy wasn't nothing in terms of millions of dollars in profits lost vs. the amount of Windows sales, then Microsoft wouldn't be going to the extent that they have and spending millions upon millions of dollars trying to prevent it if they were making a lot more from Windows sales to not even worry about it."

They're gonna lose those profits anyway with a free version of Windows available.

But you missed my point. To Microsoft, measures they're doing now to stop casual piracy in dollars spent is nothing compared to the amount of money they're gaining by scaring casual PC users from pirating the software. That raw amount of money gained is lost no matter what if there's a free version of Windows.

You are making it sound like the millions spent by Microsoft to prevent piracy is hurting them. That amount of money is chump change to them compared to the amount its increasing PC sales. That's why they're doing it.

From a pure profit point of view, there's absolutely no reason for Microsoft to make a free version of Windows. Maybe for Office, you could make that argument, but I just don't see it for Windows.

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

I think you're missing my point on a few things. If Microsoft gave away the basic version of the OS your avg pc user would download it in which in return would help cut cost in piracy, because you will no longer have standardize pre-bundled packaging Windows in which people can just crack and download. Instead the additional features would be pay per extra feature and it would allow users and companies to decide what they want to upgrade based on there own needs. Microsoft would make more money that way, because not only by allowing users to pay for separate features based on upon what they want, but also it would help prevent piracy due to the fact that there would be no longer any standardize pre-bundled packaging like there is in today’s Windows OSes. So if people want more features they would have to pay for it themselves seperatly.

It's the money that they aren't gaining by piracy is what i'm saying. This is the big reason why they are spending millions upon millions of dollars on trying to prevent it and it is hurting them in that manner in the large profits that they aren't earning and not so much the spending to prevent piracy. That has to be a real concern with Microsoft especially when people are cracking 400 dollar Software from them from Office to Windows. I mean, if just 20 million people world wide alone has a cracked version of your high-end software that makes up for a large amount of money that could have been earned that's now lost dew to piracy and i'm sure there is at least that many people if not a lot more within the last 7 years that have stolen Microsofts highend product line of software.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Dude, basic math. If someone pirates Windows, Microsoft only loses the profit on a potential sale. If they give a basic version of Windows out for free, they make no money either. Either way, there's no profit.

A pirated version of Windows doesn't "cost" Microsoft a dime. If you're saying they'll save money from not having to go to the lengths they are to prevent piracy, I completely disagree. For one, people will still try to pirate the more feature packed versions of Windows regardless. In fact, providing them with a functioning OS for free may actually increase the likelihood of them pirating the more advanced versions by hacking the a functioning OS already on their machine. Piracy will still be a problem. Another thing is the amount they're spending now in anti-piracy measures isn't remotely close to the amount of profit they're gaining from their most basic version of Vista right now. Again, it's silly to not charge for something most people are happy to pay for.

Also, I don't get the saving money from "you will no longer have standardize pre-bundled packaging Windows in which people can just crack and download." The basic code of Vista is the same. There's not a lot of cost having to do such standardized packaging in the big scheme of things. And again, people will "pirate" the more advanced features regardless.

"This is the big reason why they are spending millions upon millions of dollars on trying to prevent it and it is hurting them in that manner in the large profits that they aren't earning and not so much the spending to prevent piracy."

Dude, Windows Vista is the hottest selling OS of all time for the amount of time it's been out. Their anti-piracy measures like it or not have been largely successful. The hard core pirates are never going to stop. It's pirating by the casual user Microsoft was trying to stop, and they've been remarkably successful.

"That has to be a real concern with Microsoft especially when people are cracking 400 dollar Software from them from Office to Windows. I mean, if just 20 million people world wide alone has a cracked version of your high-end software that makes up for a large amount of money that could have been earned that's now lost dew to piracy and i'm sure there is at least that many people if not a lot more within the last 7 years that have stolen Microsofts highend product line of software."

Loss of revenue due to piracy is a tricky thing to measure. Of those people who pirated the big ticket $400 packages and up, from Office Pro to full Photoshop, you have to know that a significant portion of those people never intended to buy the software if they were not able to pirate the software. Again, these applications are usually not necessities. You can get by without Office Pro or Photoshop. You can't get by (at least as a Windows user) without Windows.

And face it, most people don't need anything more than the basic Windows OS, unless you make the basic version completely useless. And if they need more than the basic OS, people will begin to pirate it as they are now, and you're right back at square one, except now you're not making money on your most basic version of Windows since it's free.
TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

Well me and you have 2 diff opinions on this manner.

You don't see the point in giving away windows, I do. I think by giving away the basic version most people will end up paying more money on upgrading to the additonal features, then staying with the basic version especialy when it's a basic version with no bells or whisles to it. That's called marketing.

You'd make it to where each person gets a specialized proof of purchase code that would be placed in microsoft's data base which will varify the proof purchase. Kind of harder to hack when you have to varify proof of pruchase.

There is disupte over Windows Vista being the hottest selling OS of all time. TG Daily had a few good points to counter that. So I would take that with a grain of salt at this point.

I disagree. They haven't been greatly sucuessful in stopping the casual user from pirating their software. If they could crack it in the first place then chances are they know where to find it again if they ever had to recrack it especially on torrent and p2p sites where the casual ones normally go to get it in the first place more then likely.

That's my point in all of this If MS made an OS and gave it away for free that wasn't useless, but wasn't unqiue, then most people would buy features for it and Micrsoft could make thousands of diff features to caiter to just about anyones needs.

Put it this way we will see how Adobe will fair in this first, because they are sort of like the pioneers of this buffet style type of marketing. So if all goes well i'd imagine that others will fall suit as well.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Yup! - I lean toward hero on this one.

There's no way to empirically measure the true financial burden (if any) that is attributable to piracy, especially in cases of software, music & *related* digital contents - others might argue to the contrary, but it doesn't change that fact.

Let's see here, while on the one hand benefit is no doubt the absence of burden in all situations & as is the case with M$ only having significantly more to gain in the event of a total eradication of piracy but they know that's pipe dream already.

On the other hand, burden is not in all cases the absence of benefit, for example if I have a cracked version of Windows Vista (a $400.00) OS & M$ releases a patch that nullifies my crack and denies me from running the OS - I have not necessarily lost $400.00 and my not being able to run Vista is not a burden to me since I essentially was only running it because I found a way to circumvent it & my computing itinerary was never structured around it in the first place.

A much larger example is below:

Right now there are about 300M people running around this country of ours every minute or so.

Now let's assume a third of the population consistently turns in (at a hypothetical but functional penny bank) lost but found pennies (one at a time) twice a month & sure most people do find orphaned pennies more frequently than twice a week - that is exactly $2M every week that is going to this bank.

Consequently if this money is given to two randomly selected people every week, the overall population (excluding the weekly propeller heads that gets lucky enough to win the largese) is not any less poorer individually as a result of the loss of pennies. But a couple of millionaires are being created every week - all fine & dandy.

Now let's say that after about a year of doing this, the bank decides they want to scrap that method and now want to start giving the $2M back to a randomly selected third of the population as a penny twice a week. What you notice now is:

No one is still any poorer than they were - but now the country now has two less millionaires every week ;-)

This piracy subject always make me recall a statement Bill Gates first made well over a decade ago that was recently rehashed by one of his minions.

Lastly, despite what this is supposed to do to you - truth is; that company (M$) ain't loosing diddly-squat (at least not over here in America) from piracy, whether you want to accept that is another cup of tea altogether.

You're messing with the wrong guy

"You don't see the point in giving away windows, I do. I think by giving away the basic version most people will end up paying more money on upgrading to the additonal features, then staying with the basic version especialy when it's a basic version with no bells or whisles to it. That's called marketing."

Which model has Microsoft always followed - your idea or what they're doing currently?

Who is the #1 software company of all time in sales and profit? How about currently?

It's called a sound business model. Unless you want to argue that Microsoft hasn't been and currently isn't successful financially...

TECH-NO-LOGICAL ROMANCE!

http://www.homestarrunner.com/tgs12.html

Adobe followed the same idea that Microsoft has done for years and they are the dominate brand in photo editing. They are trying something new to even better improve there product when they really don't have to and last I checked they really don't have any major competitors around them anymore to cause them to take a diff marketing strategy approach, but they do it to further enhance the customers satisfaction and not because of competition.

And how long as MS been around for again? A very long time. So comparing MS to say Linux isn't even in the ballpark in terms of equal competition on a pc.

Again I disagree. But like yours these are my opinions. So it's cool.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"And how long as MS been around for again? A very long time. So comparing MS to say Linux isn't even in the ballpark in terms of equal competition on a pc."

How long a company has been around is irrelevant once they've been there a few years. IBM had been around far longer than Microsoft when Microsoft supplanted IBM as the de facto PC OS.

Novell and Unix had been in the server OS and IT software infrastructure market far longer than Microsoft was when Microsoft eventually supplanted those as the dominant server OS.

Linux has had enough time in the market to be compared to Microsoft now. They're unequivocally losing the desktop war. The biggest incursion to Microsoft market share on the desktop unquestionably is Apple. Funny story about Apple - they charge for their most basic OS, too. :-)

A linux PC costs far less money to build as hardware AND the OS is cheaper (as cheap as free in many cases with full feature sets I might add, not a basic version), and Apple STILL is killing them.

Sorry, I do not see OS's going to this business model, and Microsoft would be foolish to do so.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

Cobra,

One thing you seem to be downplaying perhaps inadvertently or maybe haven't really thought about is that the reason Adobe - specifically as it concerns Photoshop - is able to strongly dominate the digital editing sphere & continually stay well ahead of the closest rival is not because of very aggressive sale tactics or some over-the-top marketing promo - it remains the de facto king in that domain for one reason - R&D; and correspondingly its ability to consistently offer far superior software.

Its pending initiative to offer Photoshop for free (if anything) is not an active but passive strategy. The goal is to make it harder for people looking for such an application to look elsewhere. For example, if this is implemented, someone who might otherwise have ruled out Photoshop & gone with Jasc/Corel or even GIMP for financial reasoning is now likely to go with the far superior Adobe as a no-brainer since they can get it for free or next to nothing.

M$ on the other hand, is not loftily sitting where it's at primarily because of R&D or far superiority of its software especially Windows - it's there largely because of license agreement & IMHO slanted contractual agreement that it has had with the several player participants that constitute as the key determinant in the general computing field as well as the exclusive desktop OS environment.

In order words, Adobe is able to use pricing to its indirect advantage because it has an exclusionary effect in its domain, M$ on the other hand is not subjected to this type of theory, core M$ customers - a sheer majority of computer users choose or more appropriately put - end up with Windows not because of its far superiority - they simply have hardly any other viable option..............LOL

The economic theory of a successful business model that suggests pricing products based on what people can bear is unfortunately very subjective & highly manipulative in a monopolistic setting like M$', moreover since pricing is an intangible determinant in how many people are actually using Windows as a choice (where there is an equally viable alternative), there just isn't a persuasive enough reason for M$ to consider in the slightest Adobe's pending "free" strategy.

You're messing with the wrong guy

I don't think the reason people feel they have no alternative but Microsoft is at this point a slanted contractual obligation.

There is switching over happening. Apple does provide for some people a compelling alternative to Windows on the desktop.

The reality is other competitors in the OS market outside of Apple and Microsoft, namely linux, simply fail to provide something that offers the ease of use, compatibility of core applications people are looking for, and appropriate support whether it be applications or technical support for people to get ahold of whether it be by phone, by calling a trusted acquaintance, etc.

Like it or not, Microsoft has done an exceptional job developing an OS where there is so much out there in terms of these things, and it is easy to use for the average computer person. There is tons of software out there for Windows. There are many people and resources out there for support.

Even Apple as well as it has done is still not a serious threat to Microsoft. Many people who switched to the Mac still run Windows via Boot Camp or a virtualization product like Parallels. There are people who are often fanatically against Microsoft in principle, but they still need to run apps not available on the Mac, not because Microsoft is stopping the developer, but because the developer for whatever chose Windows as the only platform for their product.

One last point about Microsoft going to a free basic version of Windows that I assure you would prove problematic for Microsoft:

What do you think would happen in the courts with Microsoft in anti-trust lawsuits if they have been fined and punished before for unfair business practices then released such a free OS?

Remember, Apple is having a hard time competing, and Linux on the desktop is practically non-existent when you look at sheer market share relative to Microsoft. The European Union is already slamming Microsoft with fines as is. Such a marketing strategy would almost undoubtedly be viewed by at least the European courts as an attempt to drive out competition, and there's a decent chance US courts would do the same. The only thing keeping Linux's faint pulse going in the desktop market is its inexpensive price compared to Windows, and that would be effectively taken away.

The battle between Microsoft and Linux in the desktop market has largely been settled, although I'm sure Linux fans will disagree with me. Making a free version of Windows would be the equivalent at this point of stomping on Linux vendors' heads, and would certainly invoke the wrath of the courts.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

MS has shaterrated the generel pc market for years, so that's obv clear that anyone trying to competete with them in the generel pc market will have a huge hill to climb. So I stand by my statement.

As for the giving away the basic OS for free and allowing users to upgrade what they want for a price, I still stand by that statement as well.

So it's clear that you two have a diff viewpoint on things, but then again some of the best ideas get greatly critizied before they are put to use. I guess we will just have to wait and see how Adobe makes out with this new marketing sceme to really make a fair assment on giving software away and allowing people to upgrade for a price and to also see how it affects piracy.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"I don't think the reason people feel they have no alternative but Microsoft is at this point a slanted contractual obligation."

You know deep within you the playing field is not level out there ;-)

For example requesting OEMs to pay Windows royalty on every PC sold whether it has Windows on it at POS or not is a slanted contractual obligation IMO. The profit margin is extremely slim for OEMs & every penny literally count.

Furthermore, they stand to forfeit the lucrative MDF they receive for "market development" initiatives if they attempt to sell virgin boxes, so it is not going to be easy for people buying computers from their favorite outlets to come across something different than what they are used to seeing.

If Bill Gates was Henry Ford I can assure you commercial automobile will have a totally different meaning today.

Also, if IBM had had the same ideology & vision as Bill Gates' M$ - I can almost say without equivocation that he won't be the richest guy in the galaxy like he is today because Windows wouldn't be where it is now & I can't say for sure what would have happened to the company either.

M$ did not enter the OS arena as a considerate competitor, it pretty much took advantage of the naivette of those before it by ruthlessly asserting its presence & consequently acting in such a way as to prevent any later competitor from being able to mount the same type of offensive.

DR DOS was one of the earliest victims that is probably still licking its wounds. Netscape even though wasn't an OS, but this did not prevent M$ from strong-arming OEMs way back by charging an extra three bucks for every Windows 95 desktop that they (OEMs) dared to put a seemingly harmless Netscape icon on in addition to IE.

And it never stopped there as we all know, the campaign is still on & any OEM suicidal enough to poke that bear with a toothpick knows what's coming to them DOJ or not. I'll like to end this piece with quote from Stevie boy.

"BALLMER: These guys can be taken but the only way we are going to take them is by studying them, know what they know, do what they do, watch them, watch them, watch them, look for every angle, stay on their shoulders, clone them, take every one of their good ideas and make it one of our good ideas."

He made the above statement at that infamous pep rally (where he was seen running around jumping up & down like a decapitated chicken) - the footage of which has already made the round on this forum a few times.

You're messing with the wrong guy