Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th Jan 2010 16:26 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft presented the results for its second quarter of the 2010 fiscal year yesterday, which ended on December 29 2009. As it turns out, thanks to sales of Windows 7, Microsoft experienced a record quarter, which is especially welcome after the previous two lacklustre ones. It sold 60 million Windows 7 licenses during this record quarter.
Thread beginning with comment 406662
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
foldingstock
Member since:
2008-10-30

Microsoft only really shines when it has to work for it which is why we have had lackluster releases from Windows XP to Windows Vista.


The mentality in which you are referring to is not exclusive to Microsoft. It is human nature to "slack off" when one is not under pressure. That is why monopolies are generally a bad thing in free market economies.

Also, I wouldn't call XP a "lackluster release." It had problems, yes, but maintaining 90%+ market share for as long as it did is far from "lackluster," in my opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 8

SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

You talk about Windows as if their are equal competitors in the desktop market on the same footing.

Windows competes against itself, since hardly anyone can get a foot into the desktop market with OEMs. Windows 7 is the first OS since 2001 that Windows users can properly upgrade to. This is good for Windows users, but no doubt people will treat it as, the second coming of Jesus.

Edited 2010-01-29 17:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

siride Member since:
2006-01-02

OEMs aren't the problem. This meme needs to die. The problem is simply that Linux, on a technical level, simply can't compete with Windows and OS X. I don't care how good it is in the server room, or how many developer tools it has, for everything else, it lags Windows and OS X by miles.

Reply Parent Score: 2

hackus Member since:
2006-06-28

Agreed.

Windows is by definition a monopoly. Saying it is a success would beg the question compared to what?

I mean, if you have no competitors in a market segment, claiming a profit success is really, well hardly surprising.

You never need genius to be outstanding in a monopoly market. IN the USA, you just need to make enough money to keep the government on the Dole (pay off the right people) and keep a casual eye on the market. (The next step after a monopoly is fascism...which has come to America now in so many ways.)

Just on a off topic, we are seeing the final pieces being assembled by the open source community to make Linux a viable desktop.

The final missing piece for Linux is open graphics hardware, to break onto the desktop. Those pieces will be assembled in the next 2 years.

If ATI continues its path toward opening up the hardware so that source code can be worked on it for 3D functions, it will succeed.

The open source community also has a backup, which is the open graphics project. They are working on open sourcing the hardware. For 2D and 3D acceleration coming later.

From that point on, games will come to Linux, and since games is what the largest application segment for Windows is, Linux should be able to attract the same market.

Windows 7 looks like a decent OS (used the beta for about 2 hours.), but the only reason why I use Windows is to waste time. (i.e. fixing some elses problems, or playing games.)

I certainly can't imagine it being used in any serious way to be useful, without investing huge amounts of money into it.

-Hack

Reply Parent Score: -1

REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

I refer to Windows XP being lacklustre not due to it's market share, but more to it's predecessor, Windows 2000. Windows XP didn't offer much over Windows 2000 apart from a light dusting over the UI.

Windows XP only grabbed 90% market share as it was the only windows offering available.

Reply Parent Score: 3

smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

you are seeing xp from the workstation-side where it didn't improve much since 2k
the picture is completele different on the consumer-side where it replaced dos and all it's bastard-children up to ME

Reply Parent Score: 4

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13


Also, I wouldn't call XP a "lackluster release." It had problems, yes, but maintaining 90%+ market share for as long as it did is far from "lackluster," in my opinion.


I don't disagree with your statement but that "90%+" market share is on the desktop only. In the other markets (server, netbook, mobile, embedded) the penetration is not nearly as much. It is worth qualifying your statements to make them more accurate - otherwise you look like a fanboi that thinks all of computing is the desktop only.

Edited 2010-01-29 21:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I don't disagree with your statement but that "90%+" market share is on the desktop only.


Well that should be pretty obvious since he was talking about XP which is a desktop OS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

True, but anyone who runs windows xp as a server OS is crazy. Its a desktop OS, its pretty safe to assume when talking about a desktop os what anything we say about it is referring to its intended use as a desktop OS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

chuck97224 Member since:
2005-08-27

The mentality in which you are referring to is not exclusive to Microsoft. It is human nature to "slack off" when one is not under pressure.


Very true for wage slaves (as most employees are). Not true for those who can choose to do what they love and love what they choose. Open source development comes to mind.

Reply Parent Score: 1

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//. Open source development comes to mind.//

Right, because you can earn all kinds of wages coding for free.

Reply Parent Score: 2