[update] Windows Vista have surpassed 100 million licenses.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080124/aqth094a.html?.v=1
Yes it's true!
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...ame=M&qpsp=108
--
Clogwog, resident yap-yap dog of alt.os.windows-xp & alt.os.windows-vista
http://www.angelfire.com/psy/doctorbill/yap-yap_dog.jpg

"Clogwog" <> wrote in message
news:. nl...
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080124/aqth094a.html?.v=1
> Yes it's true!
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...ame=M&qpsp=108
> --
> Clogwog, resident yap-yap dog of alt.os.windows-xp & alt.os.windows-vista
> http://www.angelfire.com/psy/doctorbill/yap-yap_dog.jpg
>

Consumers have no choice. It's already on the new machines they buy.
100 million computers have probably been sold world wide.
-Pete

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete
<>
wrote
on Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:31:09 -0500
<yuLpj.5863$>:
>
> "Clogwog" <> wrote in message
> news:. nl...
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080124/aqth094a.html?.v=1
>> Yes it's true!
>> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...ame=M&qpsp=108
>> --
>> Clogwog, resident yap-yap dog of alt.os.windows-xp & alt.os.windows-vista
>> http://www.angelfire.com/psy/doctorbill/yap-yap_dog.jpg
>>
>
> Consumers have no choice. It's already on the new machines they buy.
> 100 million computers have probably been sold world wide.
> -Pete
>

http://www.system76.com
http://www.eracks.com/

There are a number of vendors:

http://www.linux.org/vendor/

and Dell has its offerings:

http://www.dell.com/content/topics/s...n&s=dhs&~ck=mn

The choices are there though they may not be that obvious.

--
#191,
Windows Vista. Now in nine exciting editions. Try them all!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Clogwog wrote:
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080124/aqth094a.html?.v=1
> Yes it's true!
> http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...ame=M&qpsp=108

Any idea how many have since /upgraded/ to Win XP SP2, by
over-installing Vista? (I have)

In article <>, occam <> wrote:

> Clogwog wrote:
> > http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080124/aqth094a.html?.v=1
> > Yes it's true!
> > http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...ame=M&qpsp=108
>
> Any idea how many have since /upgraded/ to Win XP SP2, by
> over-installing Vista? (I have)

Businesses are not rushing to Vista.
In fact they are requesting XP be continued:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/

"Josh S" <> wrote in message
news:Josh-...
> In article <>, occam <> wrote:
>
>> Clogwog wrote:
>> > http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080124/aqth094a.html?.v=1
>> > Yes it's true!
>> > http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...ame=M&qpsp=108
>>
>> Any idea how many have since /upgraded/ to Win XP SP2, by
>> over-installing Vista? (I have)
>
> Businesses are not rushing to Vista.
> In fact they are requesting XP be continued:
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/

The main reason they are not switching is because they don't want the down
time of re-training their employees. The same thing happened when XP came
out. It took a couple of years before businesses would adopt it.

* Notrod peremptorily fired off this memo:

>> Businesses are not rushing to Vista.
>> In fact they are requesting XP be continued:
>> http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/
>
> The main reason they are not switching is because they don't want the down
> time of re-training their employees. The same thing happened when XP came
> out. It took a couple of years before businesses would adopt it.

However, XP was mostly an incremental upgrade to Win 2000. Vista is too
much of a different animal. It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft's
focus skipped Vista and went ahead to Windows 7.

Microsoft bit off wayyyyyyy more than they could chew. And, even with
dropping features massively, Vista is still indigestible to anyone who
requires backward compatibility.

Your analysis is simplistic.

--
Like almost everyone who uses e-mail, I receive a ton of spam every day.
Much of it offers to help me get out of debt or get rich quick. It would be
funny if it weren't so exciting.
-- Bill Gates

* Max peremptorily fired off this memo:

> I'm beginning to think that MS should just admit it and kill Vista and
> move on to 7 as you mentioned. XP is the most stable o/s MS has
> put out ...

Well, for some meanings of the word "stable".

--
In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things
happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I
think religious principles are quite valid.
-- Bill Gates, PBS interview with David Frost (November 1995)

"Max" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:26:48 -0500, Linonut <>
> graced this newsgroup with:
>
>>* Notrod peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>>> Businesses are not rushing to Vista.
>>>> In fact they are requesting XP be continued:
>>>> http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/
>>>
>>> The main reason they are not switching is because they don't want the
>>> down
>>> time of re-training their employees. The same thing happened when XP
>>> came
>>> out. It took a couple of years before businesses would adopt it.
>>
>>However, XP was mostly an incremental upgrade to Win 2000. Vista is too
>>much of a different animal. It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft's
>>focus skipped Vista and went ahead to Windows 7.
>>
>>Microsoft bit off wayyyyyyy more than they could chew. And, even with
>>dropping features massively, Vista is still indigestible to anyone who
>>requires backward compatibility.
>>
>>Your analysis is simplistic.
>
>
> exactly. Also, the incompatibility of old devices scared many away.
> Not to mention the confusing array of the *types* of Vista.
>
> In the corporate environment, the security features are difficult to
> manage and causes all kinds of problems running admin mode
> applications at the user level.
>
> I'm beginning to think that MS should just admit it and kill Vista and
> move on to 7 as you mentioned. XP is the most stable o/s MS has
> put out and they want to dump it. How come I'm not surprised?
>
> Vista is the new Windows Millennium
>
>

I stand by what I said earlier. I work as a software consultant for a
company that is the 5th largest producer of software in the country. It took
a while but we have adapted our programs for Vista. When XP came out we did
the same thing, waited for almost 2 years that time. Why? Because XP was
unstable, it had compatibility problems with hardware and software, it was
slower and it was a resource hog. Sound familiar? When XP first came out
everyone was complaining about how bad it was. I had a rather heated
discussion with Kyle Bennett of the Hard OCP site because he was slamming XP
so hard. It was much more than an incremental upgrade to 2000. Way much
more. All of the so called experts hated it. And now everyone is clinging to
it like it was their long lost child.

I've been using Vista Home Premium on my home computer for almost a year and
I have had no more problems than with my laptop that has XP Premium. Yes
Vista is different, but new software often is, its just a matter of getting
used to it. When I switched to Vista every piece of software ran fine,
including some that dated back to 1999. All of my games run with no problem,
including Medal of Honor Airborne and Call of Duty 2 and 4. The only piece
of hardware that didn't work was a 6 year old scanner. Vista even ran a 10
year old IDE add in card with no problem. I am still running on the original
install I did back in April 2007, no reinstalls needed.

So far as the confusing array of *types*, according to Microsoft's website
there are 5 different editions of XP and 5 different editions of Vista.
Seems pretty even to me.

I guess that's what frustrates me most about this. Everyone wants to jump on
the bandwagon slamming Vista but there is no content to their arguments.
Most of those who criticize Vista have never even tried it. They throw out
statements like 'incompatibility of old devices', but don't back it up with
facts.

I've been a power user since I started using an IBM PC XT on DOS back in
1984. I've used DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, 98, Server 2000, XP Home, XP
Professional and now Vista Home Premium. I've also used Unix, Linux and even
written software. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with Vista and I am
glad I made the switch.

"Notrod" <> wrote in message
news:mIryj.13752$...
>
> "Josh S" <> wrote in message
> news:Josh-...
>> In article <>, occam <> wrote:
>>
>>> Clogwog wrote:
>>> > http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080124/aqth094a.html?.v=1
>>> > Yes it's true!
>>> > http://marketshare.hitslink.com/repo...ame=M&qpsp=108
>>>
>>> Any idea how many have since /upgraded/ to Win XP SP2, by
>>> over-installing Vista? (I have)
>>
>> Businesses are not rushing to Vista.
>> In fact they are requesting XP be continued:
>> http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/
>
> The main reason they are not switching is because they don't want the down
> time of re-training their employees. The same thing happened when XP came
> out. It took a couple of years before businesses would adopt it.

That almost makes sense, however, if they wait a couple of years before
implementing it (like XP), what's the difference? They will still have to
re-train their employees, if they did it then or a few years later. Your
reasoning isn't logical.