Why Has Windows Vista Been Built?

[DaShi]

Re: Why Has Windows Vista Been Built?

Originally posted by VetLegion
I remember reading that Windows XPs main competition wasn't Linux or BeOS or Mac OS or some other of the dozen or so operating systems, but other Windows versions: 2000, 98 and even the occassional 95. People just found it not worth the time and money to upgrade.

So, if we assume that competition is still way behind, and it is, why did Microsoft spend billions to build and Vista? It would have made sense to keep selling XP at least until Linux desktops caught up with it, which would have meant ~2012, and then release Vista.

Who can offer an explanation as to why they built Vista this early?

You answered your own questoins. They don't want Linux and the others catch up. They want their number one competitor to be themselves. That's how you create a monopoly.

[Straybow]

It's supposed to do some things better. Whether it lives up to that is another matter.

[Ned]

I suspect that Microsoft will face a class-action lawsuit or government action if they stopped activation of Windows XP for major hardware upgrades at any time the near future.

I think the real reason for introducing VISTA is that Microsoft needs to sell new licenses to pay for all the R&D they have invested in new technologies over last several years.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Straybow
It's supposed to do some things better.

This is absolutely necessary in order to make the Microsoft actual monopoly almost tolerable, or simply reduce the effectiveness of attacks against it.

[Ari Rahikkala]

http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2218/061127vista/index.html

/me meanwhile just keeps his system up to date with a package manager and largely ignores software release news



(also: am I the only one who, upon reading "Why Has Windows Vista Been Built?", thought "Because it would run slow if it were interpreted"?)

[LordShiva]

I'm using Vista right now. I like it. Not going back to XP.

[Solver]

Shame on you, Shiva .

Okay, so how much RAM does it take up once you've booted it up and logged in, before other applications?

[LordShiva]

I dunno. But there's plenty left over on my new machine The only problem right now is nVidia's driver. They need another update before game performance catches up.

I got it free, too (MSDN). I'd have to be a vista to pass it up.

[Solver]

Yeah, I can get it for free too . Wouldn't install it, though. I am very disappointed by the memory usage figures I hear.

[Bkeela]

Vista is not only meant to generate more money for Microsoft, but to force us to upgrade our computers yet again.

Not me. **** this treadmill of consumerism. I'll just read a book instead of play games. I'm not even interested in FPS games anyway.

[LordShiva]

Alright. Bye.

[Elok]

Fight the system, Bkeela. Listen to pirate radio too!

[Kropotkin]

I'm not an expert when it comes to software and operating systems. Nor do I claim to be one. Here's my 2 cents however.

Microsoft would be foolish not to. Sure, there might not be any real competition over the mainstream users in sight. But that's not really a good reason to just stop developing their product. If they just stopped most of their development work, they'd be dead in the water if/when a competetor arrives on the scene. Why give them a chance? Perhaps they could keep their work for themselves, but where's the incentive in that? Besides, any new development must be tested on the consumers sooner or later. not much point in keeping it in some huge ivory tower until Linux goes mainstream.

I myself just bought a new computer. I pretty glad i got it now before Vista. There's enough crap on todays XP as it is; install XP and spend your evening removing MSN and about a hundered other annoying programs. Vista eats RAM for breakfast and the initial bugs. The horror, the horror!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One day I went to the store and was looking at laundry detergents. I noticed that about half the bottles had the same exact shape. Only the color and the labels differed. So I check, and indeed, half of the twelve types of detergent were made by the same company. Out of the twelve, there were only five manufacturers. So, by increasing the number of products, two manufacturers increased the amount of market share they had. Instead of 1/5th of shelf space, one had 1 half of shelf space, another had 1/4th of all shelf space.

I hope that answers your question.

It doesnt actually. First, companies buy shelf space from retailers,esp for new products, they dont get more shelf space just cause they have more lines with different names, without respect to either sales or payment. Retailers are NOT stupid, are in business to make money, and shelf space is the main resource they have.

Second, even if they could buy shelf space that way, in detergents, as youve noticed, there ARE major competitors. What one loses, the other gains. MS is pretty damned close to an effective monopoly - and anyway, OSs arent distributed that way. Or sold that way. No one with a Mac is going to run Windows, if you have a wintel machine its Win or Linux, and no one whos interested in Linux is going to buy windows cause its featured more prominently on the rack.

Thirdly, theyre NOT going to add to their shelf space, cause they wont be selling XP and Vista at the same time. Do you see Win 98 on the store shelves? Vista is going to replace XP. yup, there will be different flavors of Vista, as for most MS products - but they already do that with XP.

So the OPs question stands.

[lord of the mark]

so weve got three reasons

1. to sell more software

2. to prevent a competitor from having an edge that
would enable them to challenge


3. To make the monopoly more acceptable

1 has already been answered in the OP - they sell the same number of OEM anyway, theres no great market for upgraders (or is there?) and Linux isnt challenging their share materially (or is it?)

I think 2 is more important (keep well ahead of Linux) and maybe 3 - though i think the antitrust stuff against MS is weaker now, maybe in the EU its different.