Submitted by “Microsoft told Wall St it’s reconciled to the fact the seven-year-old Windows XP will occupy more of the client revenue mix than Microsoft would have preferred, while revenue for the full year will grow less than the year just closed. With the ‘wow’ clearly failing to materialize in fiscal 2007, Microsoft was left to pronounce itself ‘broadly happy’ – not blown away – with Windows Vista sales.”
Just goes to prove that Vista’s biggest competitor really is XP.
Has it been seven years already? Oh blimey how time flies…
Microsoft: The XBox will be the dominant console in this generation
…
Microsoft: We’re happy with our position in the market.
“Microsoft: The XBox will be the dominant console in this generation”
The XBox 360 is the dominant console of this generation, even outselling PS3 in its own homeland of Japan. The Wii could have been, if only Nintendo could keep up with production.
jayson knight wrote:
-“The XBox 360 is the dominant console of this generation, even outselling PS3 in its own homeland of Japan. The Wii could have been, if only Nintendo could keep up with production.”
LOL, please site your source for this laughable statement!
http://www.the-magicbox.com/gaming.htm
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/795/795341p1.html
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=14529
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=14752
Here are the latest Famitsu (most respected console publication in Japan) figures (2007 up until July 2) reported by magicbox: (note these numbers are actual sales, not shipped)
Total sold 2007:
Wii
2,030,031 units
PlayStation 3
505,622 units
PlayStation 2
434,493 units
Xbox 360
120,953 units
Again, please state your sources Jayson, I’m dying to see from where your statement originated. I can dig up numbers from Famitsu for 2006, but they are even less flattering for XBox360 than those of 2007, within 2 months after release in Japan PS3 overtook XBox360 in total sales.
I think you need to also realise is that each Wii sold made a profit for Nintendo – they didn’t go on a massive loss making spree which Sony and Microsoft went on.
Also, from the above data, one could argue that Playstation 3 biggest competition is actually Playstation 2.
Regarding Japan – it will be interesting to see what Sony is offering to their own market versus the rest of the world, it would also be interesting to know the level of tariffs and a number of other issues as well – anyone who has ever looked at the Japanese economy will tell you that calling it a ‘free and open’ market would be an insult to Adam Smith.
LOL, please site your source for this laughable statement! etc…
Umm, I think he was being sarcastic! I have to admit that I thought he was being serious for a second though…
The-ox
I don’t think he was being sarcastic, unfortunately…
Actually I was…unfortunately it was very late and my thought process was waaaaaaay off. One of those comments I really wish I could have a big fat delete button for as when I re-read it this AM. It seemed funny to me at the time.
Those who know me around here know I don’t spout off randomness like that whatsoever.
C’est la vie.
Edited 2007-07-20 19:44
One should always use a smiley in such cases. 🙂
Or I can impose a “no posting after 2AM after a stressful day” rule on myself ;-).
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Why do you even care?
For 2007. Hmm. Let’s see.
2,030,031 + 505,622 + 434,493 = 2,970,146
Basic math in third grade.
Given amount / Total amount (100) = percentage
120,953 / 2,970,146 = 0.040722913957765039159691139762153
(100) 0.040722913957765039159691139762153 = 4.0722913957765039159691139762153
Rounded down it is 4 percent in Japan.
I guess in `Lil’ Bush math` this calculates to roughly 96 percent market domination by Microsoft in Japan.
Seriously, I agree with Valhalla that Jayson should list his source. Reader’s Digest and Microsoft marketing bulletins don’t count.
Edited 2007-07-20 21:22
“
”
It’s called PR. Any company trying to get an edge on the market will claim their product will be the dominant / best product.
After all, who would by the XBox if MS claimed it wouldn’t gain a reasonable market share or the console was significantly slower than other leading models?
While the Xbox 360 has more overall power than the PS3, it is of less qauility and reliablity overall.
The faults in the 360 are costing MS over $1 billion.
The graphics and sound capabilities of both systems are very simular, so games look and sound simular on screen.
Another major advantage of the PS3 is the ability to watch BluRay movies. The PS3 happens to be among the best players yet is the cheapest, while still being a full game console. The HD-DVD option for the 360 is expensive, plus BluRay is gaining more momentium because of stronger DRM (BD+).
Another advantage is being “open”. Yes, it has HDCP DRM because of HDMI support but that only applies to HD digital media. You can use the PS3 as a full-fledged computer and connect all your devices to the USB ports or a USB hub (if necessary); after all USB controller supports upto 127 devices.
Edited 2007-07-20 21:40
…has unsuccessful product forced on consumers, with a new PC, rakes in the cash.
Its odd how those people touting the success of Vista are suddenly quite.
Off-topic
=========
XBox360 is definitely sold more this generation consoles…so far, unfortunately for Microsoft its now being outsold by the PS3, and the Wii is looking to have outsold the the xbox360 in a matter of weeks.
Edited 2007-07-20 12:38
The consumer segment is expected to grow faster than the business segment… we are relatively conservative on business growth overall
VWe are always expecting that business uptake would be driven by their needs rather than the availability of Windows Vista per se.
Translation: business doesn’t need Vista, but we will still be able to peddle it to ignorant consumers.
Or more correctly that the only people upgrading at those who purchase new machines and paranoid people who think if they don’t have the ‘latest and greatest’ they’re going to be left high and dry – I laugh at those who purchase Windows Vista Ultimate which right now significantly lacking the ultimate area when it comes to the ‘extras’ they touted as being something exciting.
Microsoft is also having trouble – how many are actually adopting their new Office System and new middleware offerings? Sharepoint for example which seems like a glorified phpBB setup for example. All of it is hardly original and the only ones who appear to be sucking it up are existing customers who already get it as part of their licenceing scheme with Microsoft.
It sounds very similar to the hype HP made about winning a ‘customer’ from Sun whilst ignoring the fact that the computer they replaced was circa 15 years old with a whole heap of variables beyond the rivalry. Same goes for Microsoft, they may hype wins, but in reality, its achieving nothing over their competition because all they’re doing is feeding existing customers.
Same goes for Microsoft, they may hype wins, but in reality, its achieving nothing over their competition because all they’re doing is feeding existing customers.
I wouldn’t say this is exactly true. I work in an academic environment and for the most part students walk around with laptops with Windows XP. All those students will graduate and will continue to buy Microsoft software since it is what they are most comfortable with. I once saw a student running Fedora on a laptop but that student was in engineering. A new crop of MS loyal people is always being generated. The irony here is that the functions students need: IM, browser, mp3 playback, word processor – all work great on desktop linux if it is configured right. The configuration part though is what scares away most students.
It maybe the case in the US but from what I’ve seen in New Zealand at Canterbury University, the number of Linux and Apple laptops are increasing.
As for your assertion about configuration, Linux provides all the above btw using SLED 10 – again, there is nothing stopping an end user from going to http://www.novell.com/sled and downloading the latest version – and if they like it, paying a piddly $50 per year; it includes mp3 encoding/decoding. iPod support out of the box. Flash and Java support. Nvidia and ATI video support.
As for me, I constantly get asked to ‘fix my PC’ to which I say ‘no’. Unless I get paid, I don’t fix. Gone of my days of being the free IT guy – I’ve got my little piece of paradise, a realm of reliability. If these people choose to run Windows, thats their choice, but don’t expect any help or sympathy when things go wrong.
It maybe the case in the US but from what I’ve seen in New Zealand at Canterbury University, the number of Linux and Apple laptops are increasing.
When I first started going to college here (I live in the states), it seemed like I was almost the only one on campus with an Apple laptop. Now, three-and-a-half years later, it seems like 15-20% of the students’ laptops are Macs.
Linux could be slightly on the rise at my college too, if nothing else but awareness of it; some Tech dept students started giving out Ubuntu CDs shortly after Dapper was released, and people take them like they’re candy. But I’m unsure whether or not they actually install Ubuntu (or even know what it is)–I haven’t witnessed any laypeople talking about Linux or Ubuntu, which might show how people will jump all over anything that has “free” written on it.
Also, last semester, all of the university’s old Windows 2000 servers were replaced with new Solaris-powered machines. A lot of students and professors were highly frustrated by the resulting downtime. I was small-talking with one of the tech guys, and I asked him exactly what they were upgrading. (I didn’t know exactly why the servers were down, only that they were being upgraded.) He said they were replacing the servers with Opteron boxes running Solaris. A confused expression crept its way onto my face–I thought this place was die-hard Microsoft (not that there’s anything wrong with that, whatever works for you). The tech guy apologized for getting too technical for me, thinking it’s what led to my perplexed look. I told him he hadn’t and I’d toyed with Solaris before. After that, we had a rather nice, geeky conversation.
Anyway, I’m not saying Microsoft is dying–around my parts or anywhere else–but it sure seems a sizable number of people are looking at and using Windows alternatives. Microsoft still has their stranglehold and everything, but it’s interesting to see people look at its competition for once.
As for me, I constantly get asked to ‘fix my PC’ to which I say ‘no’.
I earned a reputation in my community as the helpful resident geek, but I got tired of fixing computers for nothing. Actually, I didn’t get tired of it per se–I just had a part-time job and too much schoolwork to throw away my precious free time like that. So, I stopped doing it, and then folks started offering me money to help them. Found myself with a new part-time job.
It’s less actual work than a ‘real’ part-time job, and I’m making more money. ‘course I live in a part of the US (*cough*Alabama*cough*) not exactly known for technology literacy, and Lord knows my frustration and stress levels haven’t decreased since leaving my old job.
Edited 2007-07-20 19:01
You would be surprised that there is a large number of people who went down the Windows 2000 path because Linux was not up to scratch – for all the hype about Red Hat there have been some horror stories by some very large organisations who were shunted into the ‘too hard basket’. Windows 2000 was the only ‘choice’ at the time.
Solaris could have been an option by the SPARC machines at that time were incredibly expensive and incredibly slow for the price being paid. When Sun did a complete 180degrees, put x64/x86 into over drive, Solaris became a very valid alternative to Windows for those companies who have found that Linux support isn’t up to snuff.
Well, Microsoft isn’t dying – their importance in the industry will diminish. Operating systems are becoming less and less important as many things that used to be done with separate applications are moving to the web. For example, features my bank now offers pretty make the likes of Quicken and MYOB obsolete.
Where does Microsoft fit in? you will find that as more companies move their files to OOXML the ability to move off it to Microsoft Office to OpenOffice.org will be made a lot easier.
What I see will be a slow bleed – people point to 15% at Microsoft but lets remember before there was a massive decline by Sun, they were growing at similar (if not higher) growth rates before everything went down hill – the view from the outside ‘they could do no wrong’.
LOL 🙂
Well, the good thing is this; it does give me the opportunity to ‘suggest’ a Windows alternative – alot of the time my class mates only have a laptop and for gaming they have their Xbox or Playstation 3 at home – so they’re perfect to be ‘converted over’.
The interesting part, the number of non-engineering students; I remember one commerce student who asked me to do something about his Windows issues – I installed SLED 10 for him and he has been happy since – paid for three years of SLED 10 upfront and couldn’t be happier.
It isn’t until someone actually introduces them to it, they realise that the problems they experience with computers isn’t a computer issue but a Microsoft issue. That there are alternatives and they are better than Microsoft for what they need to accomplish.
Like shadowcopy? or bitkeeper drive encryption?
Microsoft has become the most successful software company on the planet by not innovating, but waiting to see what works and what doesnt, then ripping it off.
I think everyone here would agree that MS is a monopoly, and if they are, where do they have to grow? The only growth MS can possibly see is what gets created as the industry grows, which aparently they do as they have an average of a 15% annual growth rate according to the registers figures.
I find it interesting how people are holding onto XP refusing to switch to Vista. Lately I have noticed friends who used XP in the past have been running Ubuntu Linux. They felt their systems couldn’t handle the requirements of Vista but worked well with Linux. I would never have thought that Microsoft’s actions would actually serve as motivation for people to explore alternative OS. I like it though.
Did they even try Vista?
I had Vista installed on my secondary desktop. Recently I installed Ubuntu on it instead and enabled desktop effects.
Funny thing is, they both run the same speed. Vista takes slightly longer to boot. The apps on Ubuntu tend to lag slightly more. Firefox loves to lock up a lot when I have more than 3 or 4 tabs open.
It’s basically a wash. The machine has an Athlon XP 2500 processor (1.8Ghz), 512mb of memory, 80gig drive (7200rpm) and an ATI Radeon 9500.
512 MB is too low for Vista.
I’m surprised that the Ubuntu apps seem to lag…they run quite smoothly on my Compaq laptop, which is not as powerful as your machine. Did you install proprietary drivers (i.e. fglrx)?
Here’s the best instructions for installing ATI’s proprietary drivers (since they’re not yet handled by Ubuntu’s Restricted Manager):
http://wiki.cchtml.com/index.php/Ubuntu_Feisty_Installation_Guide
I suggest Method #2 for maximum performance (strangely enough, they have a link for driver 8.39.4, even though the ATI site still lists 8.38.6 as the latest one…)
I tried with and w/o the “experimental” drivers. Both gave the same results. Even so, that should have little to do with Firefox locking up so often like it did.
You mean with or without the proprietary drivers, or with two versions of the proprietary drivers? (Not sure what you mean by “experimental” here…)
And yes, that might not have anything to do with Firefox locking up, I was talking about performance.
I don’t know what would be causing FF to lock up, as I’ve never had that issue, whether it’s under Windows or Linux. What version of FF do you have? (Version 2.0.0.5 just came out, btw…)
I’ll take what you say with a grain of salt.
If Firefox locks on 2-4 tabs there is something fundamentally wrong with your setup. I actually suspect its through flash, as its certainly not on any common lists of complaints.
It is true that XP was slightly snappier on a fresh install than gnome’s for menu’s etc which is what I *think* you are trying to possibly referring to.
What is true Linux internal politics aside this is appearing in
http://www.linuxinsight.com/cfs-scheduler-to-appear-in-linux-kernel…
the next version of Ubuntu.
If you really are concerned about *start-up-times* there are multitudes of ways of speeding these things up like pre-cashing files. None of them I suspect are worthwhile. Although I know of at least 2 competing products that look at speeding up boot time..one from red hat that I know little about, but for *fun* check out http://www.bootchart.org/
On a side not, because of the nature of GNU as a platform is *anything* does not work for you, *immediately* replace it with one of the many alternatives. It also is helpful to ensure correct working that you *report* these bugs to the appropriate place on bugzilla for the benefit of *everyone*. I suspect Ubuntu’s is excellent. It must also be noted that Ubuntu earns money from *support* so why not obtain professional support and *pay* for it.
It’s always something wrong with someones setup.
All I did was install it and start up Firefox. I didn’t even really configure anything. And Opera on Ubuntu didn’t keep locking up viewing the same sites either, so I know it’s Firefox.
But anyway, I didn’t say anything about XP. I was simply saying they (Vista and Ubuntu 7.04) were comparable on the same hardware for me.
Well, when it works for everybody else but not for you, chances are the problems *are* with your setup.
One thing I recently found out was that Linux PCs are sometimes more finicky about bad/misconfigured RAM than those running Windows. A friend of mine had severe lockups with Firefox (i.e. it would lock the entire system). These would be triggered when he tried to access Flash sites with streaming video (e.g. YouTube).
I spent hours searching the Internet for a clue, and then remembered he had had some instability in Windows as well (though much less frequently). So I turned to the metal and, switching his RAM around, found out that he had a flaky memory slot. So I used the other slots instead, and lo and behold! everything became rock-solid, and has stayed this way since.
Anyway, the fact is that for the majority of people FF does *not* crash, therefore it is likely that there is something that is not working correctly with your setup…
Same hardware has and does work fine with Windows and a previous install of Ubuntu (6.x). The memory is fine. It may be “my setup”, but it’s the softwares fault still.
Did you try updating FF to 2.0.0.5? How about Flash? What version do you have?
This is quite a bit off-topic…I suggest you check out the Ubuntu forums for a fix.
I would also suggest that you file a bug report. It is possible that you may find that others have also experience the same problem and a fix is in the works. Or you may be able to take part in the Open Source community by helping to find, troubleshoot and resolve a bug, in turn helping yourself and others.
While I certainly sympathize with you, it’s extremely annoying when things don’t work correctly. One of the most beneficial aspects of open source is that you actually have some options when something doesn’t work beyond calling microsoft tech support, jumping through half a dozen hoops just to be ignored when they can’t resolve your issue.
I guarantee that if you present your problem to the Ubuntu launchpad and/or forums in a constructive, proactive way you’ll be amazed at how far people will go to assist you. Of course complaining and blaming the situation on people that genuinely want to help and make things better will do just the opposite.
G
“And Opera on Ubuntu didn’t keep locking up viewing the same sites either, so I know it’s Firefox.”
It could still easily be Flash related, as Opera bundles and runs it’s own version of the binary.
*Despite* Vista? Did anyone seriously believe (as opposed to hoped) that Vista would cause MS to shrink?
No one expects that – heck, before the big decline of Sun, they were growing quarter on quarter – they could do no wrong – the only problem, they were gaining no new customers, their existing customer base were dodgy start ups; they were extremely reliant on an existing customer base to increase their purchases. It isn’t a long term strategy.
At the beginning of the year, many people here were seriously suggesting that by this time, Microsoft would be dead and everyone would be using Linux.
Uh, no. Even the most die-hard Linux fans wouldn’t make such a claim.
Perhaps you can provide a few links to bolster your claim?
Gotta agree with you there as I have never heard a Linux nut come out with such a statement (I should know. I used to be one, back in the good old days…;-).
The thing is, I’ve been running Vista since September last year and updates still regularly break the system. In fact, today I had to reinstall again because of just such an update.
Now, taking that into consideration, why on earth would I recommend either customer, job or friend of mien take the jump unless they really like messing around with they’re PC’s?
I doubt I’m the only early adopter to take this position and that has to be at least partly the reason why Vista sales are so lacklust.
Broken to the point of reinstallation? Where the heck have you been getting your updates from?? I could see this happening once or twice (I mean, Microsoft is far from perfect), but regularly is a little hard to believe. There is some pretty extensive testing going on in Redmond.
Have you been living on the moon for the past six months? The update problems that I am having, although extreme in my case, are a well documented issue with many people out there. Just Google ‘Vista update problems’ and you will find forum after newsgroup with complaint after complaint.
In my case, the problem stems from a combination of the raid setup that I have, updated drivers for the raid controller but also updates to the OS itself as installing the drivers on there own works fine.
I suggest you look around before you start claiming that someone may be stretching the truth as people tend to find that very insulting.
Uh, no. Even the most die-hard Linux fans wouldn’t make such a claim.
C’mon, Archie. Even you aren’t so daft as to deny that many pro-Linux/-Mac fans tend to prognosticate that “Microsoft is on its last legs as a company”. Whether they’re claiming that it’s going to happen 9 months or a year or 3 years down the road, I can’t count the number of times that I’ve read that kind of tripe here; when, in fact, even if MS shuttered its doors and failed to deliver any more products, the interest on its cash reserves alone would keep the company afloat for many YEARS.
Good to see that people modded your insults up. It goes to show that the anti-Linux camp has just as many immature fanboys as it accuses the pro-Linux one of having.
One thing is certain, I’m not so daft as to not notice when you dinsingeneously change the subject. Here is Almafeta’s statement:
“At the beginning of the year, many people here were seriously suggesting that by this time, Microsoft would be dead and everyone would be using Linux.”
*This* is what I was responding to, and nothing else. Now, if you agree with Almafeta’s statement, I will also ask you to provide links – otherwise, it’s just more BS coming out your pie hole.
Modded down as inappropriate *and* off-topic.
Please don’t accuse him of lying.
I’d love to provide you with links, but as you know, OSNews has no comment search function. However, you’ve been here as long as I have been, if not longer. You should be well aware that pretty much every article about Vista ever published here has had people interpreting it as Microsoft’s imminent failure, and just about every article about a new or updated Linux distro has had someone proclaiming that the giant killer was finally here.
In other words: “I can’t back up my assertions, so you’ll just have to trust me.” I’m sorry, but that doesn’t fly. There are ways to search Vista articles – if those comments are so prevalent as you suggest, it shouldn’t be hard to go through a couple of Vista threads, show all comments on one page, then use the browser’s search functionality.
Nice try, but you specifically said that people here were “seriously suggesting that by this time, Microsoft would be dead and everyone would be using Linux,” not that Vista would be “Microsoft’s imminent failure.”
Words have meaning. When you make wildly exaggerated statements, you have to own up to them. Tomcat was disingeneous when *he* claimed that I was somehow disputing that people were claiming that Vista would be a failure. I’m not. Vista has (mostly) been a failure, with sales being high only because it comes pre-installed on new PCs. Individual boxed edition sales have been disappointing, to say the least.
Really? Well, there have been quite a few Linux distro articles this week. Surely, if there were so many posts claiming that it would kill Microsoft, it would be easy to verify, hmm?
PCLinuxOS2007 article: nope, no mention of how this is going to to kill MS.
Ubuntu Gutsy Tribe Alpha 3 article: nope.
Fedora 8 article: nada – not even a mention of Microsoft or Windows
Mandriva Powerpack article: idem, no mention of MS or Windows
Mandriva Linux 2008 article: idem, no mention of MS or Windows
So, for the past week, your “just about every article” really means “no articles at all.” That doesn’t make for a very convincing argument…
Edit: you may want to read up on the following link…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Edited 2007-07-20 22:11
“Really? Well, there have been quite a few Linux distro articles this week. Surely, if there were so many posts claiming that it would kill Microsoft, it would be easy to verify, hmm?”
You might want to read some of the ramblings of ChrisA.
Here’s a sample:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=17024&comment_id=204717
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14582&comment_id=123703
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14579&comment_id=123537
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14543&comment_id=122170
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15218&comment_id=144050
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=15237&comment_id=144756
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16743&comment_id=193551
Edited 2007-07-20 23:04
I’ll pronounce Microsoft dead. The most profitable corpse in history, proped up by a American government…and now patents.
Seriously. I come in here and apart from the smackdown fun. Its all a bit dismal underneath.
I do not know what is in for supporting Microsoft. Its like time as stopped, and to a certain extent it has the computing industry as a whole, and they have slowed hardware as well limiting it to x86, and now DirectX10, and all the other rubbish that should have gone a *long* time ago
Vista is awful, its worse than XP in every way, but being a successful failure, it will grow marketshare every time a machine is bought thats about 5 years. DRM will slowly slip in. The spyware is already in place…and working to identify copyright content and switch off drivers, and the new hardware will depressingly support this, and Microsoft will print money.
Microsoft have moved from what they are, a marketing company to a content provider, the only thing that Vista does, and I can only see this being hugely successful, and I hope I am wrong, because the implementation is a little sick.
I’ve seen Apple/Corel etc reinvent themselves countess times and been pronounced dead lots, and they have eveoled, and not always successfully, but they have innovated; moved and shaked. Both companies have been propped up by Microsoft. If I was a Microsoft User I’d *want* Microsoft pronounced dead, just so *something* happened. Instead its a still breathing corpse, churing out the cash.
Those are all pretty old, it seems…the point is not that immature Linux trolls don’t exist, but rather that they’re nowhere near as numerous as the OP seemed to suggest.
Don’t make me drag out NotParker! 😉
I think everyone is aware that Microsoft hasn’t had a successful launch in 7 years of an OS and yet is still has a monopoly in the market, even when better alternatives exist. Is a shame really.
” … even if MS shuttered its doors and failed to deliver any more products, the interest on its cash reserves alone would keep the company afloat for many YEARS.”
Wrong.
If this happened the lawyers and stock holders would demand their cut of the disolved Microsoft equity. After that it would be a short period of time before it went completely away like Be, Inc. leaving only its OS to be rebuilt like BeOS.
Edited 2007-07-20 21:29
Does Artie MacStrawman have a Linux using cousin?
People use Vista or XP Microsoft gets paid anyway right ?
What’s better than getting paid? Getting paid *more*.
It’s sort of like a subscription-based business model: how do you keep your customers paying continuously over time (without locking them in a contract like cell phone companies). Relevant to software sales: how do you get people to continue to buy licenses/upgrade?
If Joe Six-Pack upgrades to Vista it’s a good indication that he still has faith in this company and perhaps continue spending money on their [Microsoft] products.
On the flip side: people who still buy XP licenses with a new PC is a sign that they’re hesitant about moving forward with future Microsoft technologies and unless MS does something to improve Vista (read: SP1 damn well better be good) this class of customers may migrate to other platforms.
If MS was seriously projecting anything different, then they had no idea what state the OS was actually in. Businesses do not want to be early adopters, they want to use stable, mature, and robust products.
The article itself really isn’t that great either, as the register likes to spin stuff about as much as MS does. Vista did better then XP did on launch, drove a record number of computer sales the first week, and after the first month the sales were eqivilant to the install base of any other operating system. It took, what, four years for XP to hit the marketshare of 98?
IMHO, microsofts projections were simply there to build hype and drive up the stock price, and the register bought into that hype hook, line, and sinker. It is only a small segment of the population that runs out and buys a new windows release, that is the way it has always been.
How is that whenever there are some good news about Microsoft OSNews editors link to an article that try to discredit those news?
Why not starting the thread as follows:
“Microsoft Posts $50 Billion in Annual Revenue”
Of course not, those are good news about MS and we need a *big*big* flamewar to keep the site running, right?
I’ve been an OSNews reader for the past 4 years and I know this is a pro-Mac pro-Linux site but enought is enought.
Sure, because OSNews never links to articles that are critical of Linux, right?
Look, MS is the dominant software company, and it often uses its market dominance to try and crush the competition. It’s only natural that people would often be critical of it. After all, who ever sides with the Empire in Star Wars?
Edited 2007-07-20 15:29
And they should be critical. I just wish some of criticism was more constructive, instead of some of the foaming-at-the-mouth stuff you might see here sometimes. Oh well, you take the good with the bad.
I guess it’s sometimes difficult to remain calm when MS pulls out some of their stunts, such as the recent ones when they have been trying to stack committees with friendly voters so that OOXML would fast-track through the ISO process.
http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/07/standards-org-d.html
Oh… you’re having trouble staying calm about that?
If you look at the composition of INCITS V1, the original members were mostly OASIS folks who worked on ODF. Rob Weir, whose blog that article is quoting, is a member of INCITS V1, but has been consistently dissing OOXML (not constructively or even fairly when compared to ODF). Rob Weir has been taking the non-traditional (and utterly demeaning to a US standards body) tack of openly flaming the OOXML format and calling for its destruction while being on the board that is evaluating it.
The OOXML – ODF affair is a straight-out brutal war between IBM and Microsoft. It’s about whether IBM will be able to get government mandates for an ISO standardized format for which they will be the only suppliers with a enterprise-quality product. Microsoft obviously does not want to get locked out of this market, because that is just about the only thing they can’t just immediately steamroll with their massive development resources and experience.
You really don’t want to see an ODF-only mandate from any government organization because the alternative products to Office simply aren’t as good or well-tested. And Microsoft will eventually have to support ODF natively in some form, but they’ll just use the extensibility points and app-specific sections to make their features work, which will make ODF just about useless for any interop. ISO OOXML is not bad for anyone, except maybe those who want to see SmartSuite deployed slightly more at high cost to national governments.
Replace “IBM” with “Microsoft” in this sentence, and you’ve got it about right.
MS was a member of OASIS, BTw. As far as Office 2007 goes, there is already an ODF filter for it, courtesy of Sun.
In any case, that does not excuse Microsoft stacking the committees with friendly representatives in order to push their own format, instead of agreeing on a *true* open, cross-platform format. I guess you might be as “agnostic” as your nickname suggest.
” ‘It’s about whether IBM will be able to get government mandates for an ISO standardized format for which they will be the only suppliers with a enterprise-quality product.’
“Replace “IBM” with “Microsoft” in this sentence, and you’ve got it about right. “
Um, no. Microsoft isn’t trying to force government mandates of a particular standard. They were on the ISO ODF committee and voted YES for ODF’s fasttracking. They then voted YES for ODF’s ANSI ratification. IBM, on the other hand, voted no for OOXML’s EMCA ratification, and is doing all they can to block OOXML’s ISO ratification.
IBM and Microsoft’s actions are in no way similar.
As for “stacking the committees”, I’ve seen allegations that both sides are engaged in that. You act like IBM has a halo over its head and wings on its back while Microsoft has horns and a pitchfork. Any article based on Rob Weir’s blog, such as the article you cited, is disseminating IBM propaganda and isn’t worth much.
But if you want to get to citing blogs, try this one on for size: In the Dutch OOXML committee, the IBM is not only voting “no” but he says that he won’t provide any reasons for fear that his concerns will be fixed and facilitate OOXML’s ratification.
http://blogs.infosupport.com/wouterv/archive/2007/07/20/Working-to-…
“The IBM rep states that ‘he will just say no’, and also stated that he will not provide any technical comment because that would allow the comment to be fixed, hence opening the door to making Open XML an ISO standard.”
Right, it’s trying to maintain its
monopoly on office file standards, knowing all too well that it is the cornerstone of their dominating position as far as the office desktop is concerned.
That’s why it’s against government mandates, because it knows that, in order to provide for the greater good, governments must avoid lock-in. This is why you see government support for ODF.
Of course. They have put their weight behind ODF, a true open standard. I think at this point the battle lines are clearly drawn. MS/OOXML on one side, everyone else and ODF on the other. I know you care about preserving Microsoft’s market dominance, but I personally prefer truly open standards.
It’s ridiculous to claim that there should be two office document standards. There should be one, and it should be ODF. But it seems MS cannot accept that the Office doc standard could be one other than their own.
Then I’m sure you won’t mind giving us links to substantiate these allegations. After all, you may claim that Weir’s blog is propaganda, but at least he provides verifiable figures. Where are yours?
A de facto monopoly on office file standards now? That’s a new one.
Where do you draw the line on that one to define it as such? Or is it just arbitrary, whatever fits your motives?
As far as you saying there should be one and only one office format “standard”, well that’s just gosh darn cute. So much for allowing competition.
Edited 2007-07-22 13:02
That’s certainly *not* a new one. That concept has been around for as long as MS Office has established itself as the Office-suite near-monopoly.
Don’t play coy, sappy. Surely you were aware of this. A substantial number of people have refrained from using OpenOffice *precisely* because it doesn’t have 100% Office compatibility yet.
My, my, you’re pretty quick to go into personal attacks, aren’t you? I guess everything’s allowed to defend your favorite monopolist…
Are you claiming that Microsoft *hasn’t* had a de facto monopoly over Office file formats for the past twelve years? Then why is it found in upwards of 90% of offices? Why is MS Office compatibility *so* important for anyone wanting an alternative?
From http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/144528_msftoffice20.html
“So successful has Microsoft Office been in achieving market share that the research firm IDC has stopped tracking Office’s position and those of its competitors. By most analysts’ estimates, Microsoft Office products are installed on more than 90 percent of desktop PCs in U.S. workplaces.”
I know you nearly always side with MS (and criticize them just enough to avoid accusations of outright shilling), but this is one where you should just accept the fact that MS has had a dominating grip on Office software/Office format files for more than a decade, and that has prevented any competition from getting more than a marginal share of the market.
Now you’re downright insulting. You shouldn’t be so arrogant when you right such nonsense, it only makes you look more of a fool.
Companies compete on *products*, not standards. If MS abandoned its megalomaniac effort to push OOXML and used ODF, they would *still* compete with other office suites – or perhaps you’re claiming that using OOXML would give them some kind of advantage? Do you even understand what a standard is?
[Begin sarcasm] Right, we should have *more* competing standards. That’s a totally awesome concept. In fact, let’s have as many standards as we can, so they all become completely useless! [End sarcasm]
A standard is not a product. It should be agreed upon by the entire industry, not pushed by a single player. With these simple truths your half-assed argument comes crashing down to the ground. You see, arrogance is simply not a good substitute for facts and logic.
Well, actually, having just one standard does precisely that.
There are myriad examples: television broadcasting is one. Having a common standard that does not favour any one manufacturer allows for a market where a number of comapnies can make competing products for television receivers and for television transmitters. They will all work with one another. That is how you get an open, free-enterprise market in the first place.
Phones and PABXes are another example. Roads and cars are another example. In fact, examples abound. File formats for Office suites (where competing products currently don’t work with one another) is an exception rather than the rule, here.
The rule is actually generally to mandate one standard that is open for all manufacturers to make products against.
In fact, there is even a law that outlaws trying to make it so that other manufacturers cannot make competing products:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_policy
OK, so I have provided here an arguement, and references to back it up.
Now, how about you come up with anything, anything at all other than Microsoft spin, which would in any way support your twisted view on this “allow competition” aspect.
Edited 2007-07-23 02:46
More on the topic of Office file formats and the idea of having competition
http://opendocumentfellowship.org/introduction
Then why should it be different for your documents?
Why indeed.
Interesting juxtaposition. I realize, of course, that you understand the issues are much deeper than any variety of bloggers ruminations and selective observations. That is clear in your post.
I do find fascinating irony in your comment “IBM and Microsoft’s actions are in no way similar. “ These companies actions are in no way similar because the motivation is in no way similar.
Microsoft is trying to protect its stranglehold on businesses, governments, and consumers. They are doing this by naming thier proposed “standard” to appear open and similar to ODF, and also trying to appear supportive Open Source with a filter project on SourceForge. I will give Microsoft credit for that, even though it smells rather ripe. Microsoft voting yes for ODF’s fastracking is a hollow attempt to make their efforts appear “interoperable” and “open”.
IBM’s motivations are certainly not altruistic. They are motivated by profit, and protecting their investment. The difference is IBM is pushing for a Common Sense solution. IBM is addressing the stark realities we see in the digital world. The irony is that open standards benefit everyone, customers and solutions prividers alike , EVEN MICROSOFT..
Microsoft has a very poor track record when it comes to tuly listening to customers. In this battle between OOXML and ODF, the simple core is the customer’s needs. What all customers want is to be able to work without concern for which platform they, their partners and customers are using. Users want the content they create and distribute to be appropriately used without the additional inconvenience of filters, or without the encumberance of another half-baked EULA.
Microsoft would do well to join in so that users can freely do as they want with their own content. Microsoft should work at making the best tools for users to create and use their own content, truly meeting the needs of the customers. The problem is Microsoft does not do well in the tool making arena. The halcyon days of proprietary formats is swiftly moving into the archives of history while Microsoft is looking more like a beached whale.
A very questionable claim, at best.
OpenDocument efforts to create an open, interoperable, vendor-nuetral, cross-platform common standard to support all features of Office files began as early as 1999, and work to make it a standard began in about 2000/2002 timeframe:
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/odf-adoption/OpenDocumentHistory
http://old.opendocumentfellowship.org/Articles/HistoryOfOpenDocumen…
Microsoft sat in on all the development process, offerred not one word during the whole time, then simply refused to support the format, despite Microsoft’s engineers saying that it would be trivial to implement.
Microsoft’s initial statement for their lack of support for OpenDocument (even though it would be trivial for Microsoft to implement, and it had been a long, long time coming) was that “there is no demand”.
When it became clear that there was in fact demand, Microsoft then claimed “it does not support our leagcy documents” … despite the fact that Microsoft’s legacy document formats are deliberately obscured by Microsoft, and Microsoft could have added support in OpenDocument for any feature they wanted merely by saying so during OpenDocument development. The Sun ODF plugin for Office nicely demonstrates the falsehood of this second position of Microsoft’s.
Microsoft’s latest spin is to try to frame the debate as purely an “IBM vs Microsoft” squabble, which is interesting spin in the light of OpenDocument actually being a freely-available royalty-free ISO standard based originally upon a format from Sun Microsystems, and heavily modified over a period of more than five years by a multiple-organization committee. IBM’s Notes product did not support this format until it was well developed.
The fact that Microsoft have totally changed their tune no less than three times on this topic underlines the fact that the Microsoft-speak is all spin.
The real characterisation of this issue is that Microsoft is all about desperately trying to keep its monopoly, proprietary position in document formats alive.
The real characterisation of the issue from a government perspective is that government should not be beholden to a single source supplier, and that government (and other public-interest bodies) needs sovregnity over its data.
http://conferences.aoir.org/viewabstract.php?id=482&cf=5
Edited 2007-07-23 04:48
Based on my past experience in playing Star Wars: Galaxies (mmorpg in case anyone didn’t know) quite a lot of people actually.
I don’t agree that OSNews is a “pro-Mac pro-Linux site”, but I was indeed wondering why, out of all of the articles regarding Microsoft’s record earnings, OSNews went with theregister.
:p
Edited 2007-07-20 22:22
So, the patient is in kind of stable condition?
There are few companies out there that wouldn’t kill to be in a state of ‘satisfactory’ in the Microsoft sense of the word…let alone ‘broadly happy’.
Since they have pronounced themselves only ‘broadly happy’, I think we are safe for another year from the dreaded “Ballmer Dance”!
“Since they have pronounced themselves only ‘broadly happy’, I think we are safe for another year from the dreaded “Ballmer Dance”!”
Its off-topic but for all his criticisms the monkey dance actually showed Ballmer for a leader encouraging the troupes. It looks funny out of context but what he did was showmanship, and worked quite well.
Now if you want to talk about that interview with Zune, and his fake laughing, and what a slimy toad he came across across as. I’d agree…but the monkey thing pure rock’n’roll
People I have spoken to hate vista for many reason. Half baked drivers. New “features” and the over boiled Office application that isnt realy compatable with previous versions.
Other people are waiting for it to be at least service pack 2 after microsoft anouncing that the service pack isnt far away.
XP is going to end up with a “roll up pack” which will end up disapointing XP users.
Based on how Vista Turned out, i think there is an OS Bullet in the chamber on Microsofts next Turn… so we might – i hope – see their clutch on the OS market fail if their next OS turns out as disastrous bad as Vista.