"Kicking off Microsoft Corp.’s annual Worldwide Partner Conference (WPC), a four-day event that celebrates the accomplishments of the company’s 640,000 global partners, CEO Steve Ballmer today thanked partners for helping make Windows 7 the fastest-selling operating system in history"
That, I assume, has nothing to do with all OEMs bundling Win7 with the computers they sell (and Win7 having no provision to be downgraded to XP like Vista had).
When OEMs tie their products to Win7, it's expected record hardware sales will translate precisely to "software success".
I think every PC around me (about 40 in this floor) counts as a Win7 sale. Two of them run Windows.
Widely adopted? Not causing a mass Windows Exodus? Almost entirely supplanting XP? Sure, it didn't get the press coverage that OSX gets every time it adds a forgettable feature, but look around. If it's not a Mac and it's not a server, the smart money is betting it's Windows 7.
Can people still buy computers capable of running XP without extensive tweaking? Last time I saw someone installing XP on a modern, post-Vista, PC the process included downloading stuff into usb drives so that the PC could use the network.
Windows 7 sells because Dell, HP and Acer sell and the machines that were in service running XP had to break some day. Normal people use whatever their computers come with and almost nobody buys boxed Windows. Vista was an exception - it was so bad people preferred using XP, even if installing it took a whole day of boots and downloads. When OEMs start to integrate 8 into their boxes you'll see 8's adoption match OEM shipments very closely. Microsoft even declared Vista was very successful based on that kind of number.
> FWIW I am typing this in Firefox on Redhat.
I don't see what effect this has on your reasoning. You won't be "more right" because you don't use Windows.
Just to point out that, maybe, it's not Windows 7 that's successful, but Intel's Core i-something family of processors you can't buy computers with unless they are bundled with Windows 7.
Someplace else I pointed out Microsoft has only 5 clients they really care about: Dell, Lenovo, Acer, HP and Asus.
How wide would that adoption be if not for bundled sales?
Competing with 'free' is only hard once the cost is broken out and made visible.
I was personally responsible for the purchase of 3 windows licenses last year, but I didn't use any of them. The Microsoft tax makes it seem as though things are better than they really are, it's only a couple of percent but it does make a difference and I think that percentage would be higher if people had to pay the full list price for their windows licenses.
Win7 is doing incredibly well at retail sales and enthusiasts who build their own computers and buy OEM copies.
Besides, if people wanted something else, they would get that. Every year Linux is ready for the desktop yet isn't and for many people Macs are too expensive for their budget. Both also have the associated learning cost which for many consumers who are not enthusiasts can't afford. It's up to ? to get Linux recognised and lamenting about how mean Microsoft is won't get ? anywhere. It's only for so long ? can blame others.
How wide would the adoption of Mac OS X be without bundled sales? Yes, Windows as sold to consumers is largely driven by new PC purchases, but I don't think that is in any way indicative of its success or lack thereof, just of how consumers think of computers.
The problem for them is that their core markets, the desktop and the non-web server, are becoming less and less relevant in comparison to mobile and web-based technologies. When people say the PC is dead, it's not that the desktop computer is dead - the form factor will continue to be popular - it's the local OS + applications + data model that was made popular with the 8-bit computers of the late 70's is losing space to a model where your apps and data reside on servers accessible through the internet using a wide assortment of different devices.
If Windows 8 becomes a big hit, then, perhaps, Microsoft will survive long enough to completely switch its own model of selling software licenses to selling hosted services and the attention of its users through their app store model. In any case, it will be a very different Microsoft than the one that sold me the FORTRAN/77 compiler I used in college.
They have to maintain a viable product lineup to create a smooth transition from their current PC software licensing model (and that includes their w8 app store) to a subscription or service-based model. If they cease to have attractive products for too long, their customers, who are getting more mobile as we speak, will easily move to their competition. And their competition doesn't have the burden of maintaining a lineup transition.
Throughout its history, Microsoft almost always won by persistence, by being there to exploit their competitors' mistakes (and, sometimes, inducing them). I don't see Microsoft having this luxury now.
Of course not, because according to your strong "Microsoft anything sucks" comment history, I don't see how you'd deem anything they could do as right in your eyes...
Actually I am always ready to say how much I love their keyboards (I am on my 4th natural keyboard now), mice (lost count) and I also have a healthy dose of respect towards SQL Server (it IS a very decent database server). The fact I dislike Windows, Exchange, Sharepoint and other miscellaneous infrastructure technologies they build has nothing to do with my opinion that they have bad HR problems, a spotty product lineup and questionable business methods.
Just like RIM and Nokia were tremendously success within their markets as these markets were once defined.
The crazy or impressive or disturbing thing about the present management/investment environment is that these successful companies panic and do a 180 turn based on a whiff that their markets are going change fundamentally, often killing themselves before anyone else kills them - look at Netflix.
