Many of us have the same problem with our customers. Most of them don't care about the pretty GUI they just want to get their job done.
Vista price slash: Microsoft has cut the price of Windows Vista in an attempt to further boost sales of the operating system. http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1393
Most of the vista machines I've repaired the main problem is driver conflict and hardwar compatability issues
I find it very interesting that Microsoft now has to lower it's price on Vista. If it were selling as good as people say then they would not have to rely on lower prices.
Actually, no it isn't... 98 scores lower on 3dmark, lower on DivX encoding, lower on MemBench, almost the same on UT 2k3 (actually, XP is faster on flyby but slower on botmatch), and XP is faster on Q3 engine games... and if you are on a AMD cpu XP is WAY faster on Ogg encoding (though on an intel chip Ogg performance is almost identical between XP and 98, at roughly DOUBLE an 'equivalent' AMD cpu's speed - overoptimized for intel?) Win98 is faster if you have less than 256megs of RAM, if you have more than that, XP wins regardless of CPU. No matter how much RAM you throw at vista, it's still slower than XP. 8 gigs + vista = painful compared to XP at a 512 megs... 32 gigs + vista likely equals the same. Nice try though... wrong, but nice try.
omfg I can't believe this thread is STILL going. Just quit discussing this already and let the issue go. Nobody cares what anyone else thinks about their personal OS preference. It's like politics and religion...just keep it to yourself.
I personally believe Windows 98 is the best product MS ever released, then Windows XP. And most crappy ones are Windows ME and Windows Vista!!!
Okay, now this is unexpected: Microsoft is slashing the price of some retail versions of Windows Vista, effective when the SP1 version rolls out later this year. Vista Ultimate's full version will go to $319 fro $399 (an upgrade is now $$219, down from $259); Home Premium's upgrade is now $129, down from $159. I guess we where right Microsoft can't seem to be able to sell Vista no matter how much they try. http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/006570.html
Does that not happen on almost all products? As time goes on they depreciate in value and get cheaper?! Ok they stop at a point, but as far as I am aware when a product is first released it is sold quite expensive, then several months on a chunk is always knocked off, then usually again a year or two after, then it usually levels off. I don't mind vista, I have a couple of pet hates with it - like extracting files seems to take forever on my machine and downloading word documents/pdf's etc it seems to say 'opening....' for about a minute rather than just flying in. But otherwise it's fine. I dislike the security discussion with regards to Operating Systems, I just don't like the way people just expect the thing you buy to do all the thinking you should be doing. Who buys a padlock and expects it to lock itself? It's up to you to do that part - I like to try to apply the same theory to an OS whether it is a Mac, Linux or Microsoft.
i had vista before but i reverted back to xp vista isn't bad... its just that copying files takes forever and also some compatibility issues
I recently bought a new Sony Vaio Fz series laptop and cannot put my XP Professional 64-bit edition on since the SATA driver is not available on the Sony Vaio support website nor any other website. So, I have to stick with Vista for a few months.
Firstly, there is no need to repeat your post. We all saw your post earlier about this. I guess you wanted someone to reply to it. Now's here's a little info for you. Microsoft makes most of it's money via OEM sales. The price reductions do not apply to OEM. Also, if you read a bit more about this, you would also note that the price reduction is different for various regions around the world. It is greatest for regions where software piracy is common. Maybe, those "the price is too high so I will get a pirated copy instead" calls are being answered to a degree. Your input information and output conclusions have traditionally been weak in this thread. At least you remain consistent.
One of the more insubstantial posts I've ever seen. OEM do not rely on sales but rather on direct distribution. Most of the corporations run Microsoft because OEM have given the product to the corporation. It's easy for Microsoft to say that the recent price decrease of Vista is to deter pirate copies, because they're stock is low. It's an easy escape to ease investors' minds. The bottom line is Vista is very bad. Simply put, if Microsoft was losing money because of piracy, Microsoft would make Vista free, and then make money on security upgrades. It's a simple scenario being over-analyzed by many. Bad product from a good company. This happens alot.
You may want to look at your post for insubstantiality. Your obvious bias shows through your weak arguments. Give away the OS if money is being lost because of piracy. Are you serious. Do you know anything about business at all? The ensuring anti-trust suits from security vendors makes your statement worthless regarding Microsoft solely relying on security upgrades. Your "stock is low" statement makes no sense. OEM OS copies are the main source of income. The bulk nature of OEM direct sales is what gives Microsoft their main source of generated income for an OS, not retail sales. Corporations generally buy workstations without an OS because they have already bought volume licences for a particular OS. This can be XP or Vista. You must be talking about very small businesses, if their only OS licence comes in via OEM.