Microsoft's Steve Ballmer said Thursday that Wall Street's current expectations for revenue from its newest operating system may be too 'optimistic'. "I'm really excited about how enthusiastic people are about Vista, but I think some of the revenue forecasts for Vista in 2008 are overly aggressive," Ballmer said in a meeting for financial analysts. "[Vista] is primarily a chance to sustain what [Windows] revenue we have - not every release is a revenue growing opportunity." On a related note, boxed sales of Vista trail those of XP in the first few weeks after launch.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-20
Vista retail won't go well till MS stops selling XP.
They can't expect much sales with Vista in this condition, with incredible hardware requirements, very bad reviews(worst since Windows ME), buggines, extremely hefty price tag outside of US and multitude of 3d party driver problems.
Member since:2005-07-06
That and the fact that they over sold it; I think Balmer needs to talk to his marketing department because the head is saying something completely different as to what the body is.
As for hefty price tag; its all relative, but given that there really isn't going to be any motivation for movement to upgrade until Vista optimised/compatible/hyped software and hardware is released, its going to be atleast a year before you see big moves.
Same happened with Windows XP; it wasn't until Windows XP compatible applications, games and hardware was released when people jumped on the bandwagon; but then again, that had to do more with a big improvement with hardware.
The interesting thing will be how well Windows Vista will run on multi-core machines when Dual Core become the mainstream dominant desktop on the majority of desktops, and 4 cores become the mainstream desktop being sold by the big names - if there is demonstrated to be a big improvement by running Windows Vista, it'll be a good selling point for end users.
As for "very bad reviews" - where? I'm running it on this Toshiba, and haven't experienced a single problem, all my hardware was supported out of the box more than I can say for the bug prone experiences I have had with Linux in the past.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
why are you not moaning that all your applications are not available for Vista... And, you know they are not !
1) I have been moaning about the Nvidia drivers for the last week - heck, IIRC, I posted a comment on this very forum relating to the fact that I had to resort to using beta drivers.
2) The difference is I *KNOW* that Windows Vista is going to be supported soon; I *KNOW* that Adobe is going to release updates and a new version which is compatible with Windows Vista - the complete opposit of Linux/FreeBSD where I have waited 10 years for Adobe to bring their software to that said platform, and I'm still waiting for it to occur.
Big difference; one platform you *KNOW* are going to bring out something in 6 months, the other, its 9 years and still waiting - which one do you think is going to occur first?
Member since:2005-07-06
I agree with you.... however, my point is that moaning about it here will not bring about change.
If people really want Adobe etc to prot to Linux/BSD, then they should moan to the companies themselves.
If you start an online petition Kaiwai, I will be amongst the first to sign !
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-06-03
Rational people rate the cogency of an argument based on its logic content, not on the wording of the delivery. For many people on this site (and others), English is not their primary language. Also, some people view internet abbreviations as being acceptable for use on the internet.
Of course, I'm not denying your right to use cheap tricks in an attempt to discredit your opponent in an argument about which you know nothing. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of doing so.
Member since:2005-07-06
Rational people rate the cogency of an argument based on its logic content, not on the wording of the delivery. For many people on this site (and others), English is not their primary language. Also, some people view internet abbreviations as being acceptable for use on the internet.
Typically rational adults don't use AOL chatroom speak to express logical, cogent arguments - regardless of their native language. But if there was such a argument hidden among the "LOL"s and "(NOT!)"s, I admit I must have missed it.
Of course, I'm not denying your right to use cheap tricks in an attempt to discredit your opponent in an argument about which you know nothing. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of doing so.
Well shucks, thank you for your generosity, and you're quite welcome to your assumptions.
Member since:2006-06-03
Typically rational adults don't use AOL chatroom speak to express logical, cogent arguments
Firstly, AOL doesn't have anything to do with this, apart from implied snobbery on your part.
Secondly, The use of these abbreviations and 'Emoticons' is actually a development in the field of written information transfer. With people writing in English from every country in the world, sometimes the implied semantics of a written statement can be misconstrued. The original author used the abbreviated term 'Laughs out Loud' to indicate that his comments were sarcastic/to be taken lightly. Something that may be lost on someone who has to rely on a translation dictionary to calculate textual meaning.
Thirdly, given your inability to control your prejudices, I'll have to paraphrase the guy's point for you: OSS developers usually work for free. Microsoft pays each of its developers a large salary and still the results of Windows Vista are not (programatically) much superior to Linux. So what is the point of having around $50 million in the bank if you don't know how to use it.
I hope this helps you to overcome your prejudices and lead a less bigoted life.
Member since:2005-07-06
Firstly, AOL doesn't have anything to do with this, apart from implied snobbery on your part.
It was something known as a "characterization." Stick around, I make them from time to time.
Secondly, The use of these abbreviations and 'Emoticons' is actually a development in the field of written information transfer.
Of course it's a development, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a positive one. Would it be an improvement in the field of visual expression/communication if the number of available colours were reduced?
At the risk of tritely invoking Orwell, all of his arguments against "Newspeak" apply to that sort of online shorthand. Oversimplifying a language doesn't automatically mean improvement - and in many cases, it just means a reduction in creative use (and able users) of language.
Of course, if I'm wrong and semiotics textbooks start ending sentences with "ROTFLMFAO!!!1111oneone", then I guess I owe you copies of the first hardcover editions.
The original author used the abbreviated term 'Laughs out Loud' to indicate that his comments were sarcastic/to be taken lightly.
Maybe if the LOLs had been followed by an actual rebuttal. But in the context of the post, it looks like just lazy ridiculing of the point being responded to, without a counter-argument of any substance being offered.
Thirdly, given your inability to control your prejudices, I'll have to paraphrase the guy's point for you: OSS developers usually work for free. Microsoft pays each of its developers a large salary and still the results of Windows Vista are not (programatically) much superior to Linux. So what is the point of having around $50 million in the bank if you don't know how to use it.
...not a debate I have the least interest in. Just because I thought the original post was sophomoric and made its "point" in a decidedly facile way, that doesn't automatically mean I advocate the opposite position. But if it makes you more comfortable to assume I'm a crazed Windows advocate or something, then go right ahead.
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:
2006-01-28
In the age of truly interconnected citizens, Ballmer implicitly says "the hype that we are able to generate is not as effective as it used to be as people are now more informed than they used to be, so guys please don't expect the kind of growth we used to enjoy." (Cluetrain manifesto and all of that).
Fair enough.
Vista will sell because it is preloaded. I couldn't get Windows XP, let alone Linux on some laptops I was perusing at HP's and Dell's sites yesterday.
The first OEM to offer a real alternative with strong support for all the features of the hardware and software they ship will strike gold.
Edited 2007-02-16 22:29
Member since:2005-07-08
Very true. In the age of interconnected citizens, even Joe and Jane appreciate transparency over hype. Vista will sell, but it will generate a lot of angry customers. People simply aren't getting what they (think they) paid for. Lost in all of the hype is an honest explanation that Vista is only ready for early-adopters.
As much as this is Microsoft's fault, it's also the OEMs' fault. They are bundling Vista with their systems as if it were a drop-in replacement for XP, rendering the latter immediately obsolete. But it isn't, and it doesn't. Three months ago, Windows XP was the most appropriate OS choice for the vast majority of consumers, and this is just as true today as it was then.
Member since:
2006-08-09
I'm really excited about how enthusiastic people are about Vista..
It's really funny, has anyone else noticed how often Ballmer (and Gates, to a lesser extent) have been using the word "excited" (or excitement), when it comes to Vista (or should I say, anything)? A little web search is quite entertaining.
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:
2005-07-09
Story was blamed in link for a dip in MS share price that may have helped pull down most of the U.S. market with it this morning. Could give one a sense of how big they are and how big Vista is to them.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=227946
Member since:
2007-01-13
Anyone who visited a retailer on the first day of sales would have seen there was almost no interest in Vista despite the hype.
Most cheap desktop PCs and very few laptops can run it properly.
Retail copies of Ultimate cost as much as a new low end laptop or midrange desktop outside North America.
It is slow, buggy and expensive. It will be Microsoft's Edsel.
Edited 2007-02-16 23:11
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2006-01-02
Member since:
2006-02-02
Member since:2005-08-06
Doesn't law allow you to use any earlier version of a software given you have a legal later version ? I'm not sure of that, just wondering ...
Well, at least if that's right you could wipe your Vista Basic and reinstall XP corp Pro on your machine 
. Anyway, even if that's wrong, you should do that, that's all they deserve
Edited 2007-02-17 13:43
