Login:
Password:

Vista Sales Perhaps Not as Dire as Feared

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

February 16, 2007, 11:45 AM

Update ribbon (small)

This morning, NPD marketing manager David Riley offered to clear up some potential discrepancies with regard to how previous NPD launch week data for Windows operating systems has been reported, and how it's currently stated. Accounting for a change in tabulation strategies, what yesterday looked like a 58.9% decline in first-week retail sales for Windows Vista over Windows XP, might actually even out.

The problem, Riley said, is that over the years some retailers surveyed provided NPD with monthly sales data rather than weekly. As a result, NPD decided to no longer extrapolate weekly volume numbers, though for comparison's sake, the company continues to calculate weekly trend numbers, which is what NPD reported yesterday.

However, when you apply those weekly trends to the historical volumes -- as we tried to do yesterday -- NPD tells us the totals don't match up. Based on what we were told this morning, it appears only half of the retailers surveyed for the historical data figures actually supplied weekly sales data. To make a fair comparison between weekly figures then and weekly figures now, we'd have to know which retailers were the weekly ones and which were the monthly - whose figures should be excluded from consideration.

Thus the trend line, which BetaNews projected yesterday to mean retail sales for Vista could be 25% per day of what they were for XP, would actually not be so steep a decline - if it's even a decline.

Lesson learned: The early trend numbers don't apply historically, and should perhaps be treated like early indicators that Gore won in Florida.


6:25 pm February 15, 2007 - [with updates] As NPD marketing manager David Riley told BetaNews, NPD has always tabulated weeks as periods extending from Sunday to the following Saturday, regardless of what day the product may have actually launched. So a "launch week" is not seven days' worth of data.

Previous NPD data reported that Windows XP sold around 300,000 copies during its launch week. But with XP launching on a Thursday, that figure only accounted for three days of sales. Windows 98 sold 400,000 during its launch week in June 1998, although it was also launched on a Thursday. Windows Me, which was an admittedly lackluster launch of about 200,000 copies, first hit shelves in September 2000...on a Thursday. Windows Vista launched on Tuesday, January 30, so NPD's sales figures - which NPD confirmed yesterday - accounts for a full five days of sales.

From an initial read, and especially after comparing the trend data to historical figures -- which BetaNews learned this morning you can't do accurately -- one would get the impression that Vista is less popular, at least among retail consumers.

But there are other compensating factors which dampen the blow for Microsoft. According to this morning's memo from NPD analyst Chris Swenson, the firm's retail point-of-sale dataset is comprised of data submitted by major US retailers, including both online retailers such as Amazon and storefronts such as Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, and office supply stores. With just that knowledge in hand, two factors may help compensate for what otherwise would appear terrible news:

  • First, the download channel may be more popular, as XP owners could be finding it easier to simply buy and burn the disc themselves than drive home with a useless box.
  • Second, Windows Vista's launch is the first to have been split between business and consumers, with businesses having gained access starting last November. In 2001, many small businesses still upgraded to XP by driving down to Best Buy and picking up a copy, as many per-hour computer consultants at that time would attest. With Vista Enterprise's capability to be installed by way of a server through a company network, enterprises may now have more incentive to download the operating system now -- since prices are not likely to decline -- and implement their network migrations on a per-seat basis using the Software Assurance program, even though the migration process may take years.

NPD itself may have provided some evidence to back up the contention that retail customers represent a smaller segment of the overall market than before, with its revelation last month that commercial sales of Vista reaped 62.5% more revenue for Microsoft during the complete first month of March than did Windows 2000 during its first complete month of sales in March 2000.

Of course, Vista's average selling prices are as much as two-thirds higher as well, which evens things out significantly. But judging from Vista's total sales just to businesses in January, NPD's Swenson estimated last month that this figure was only lower than XP's total sales to all customers in November 2001, by a meager 3.7%.

If these figures are confirmed, we could be seeing a reverse of the trend many analysts anticipated: Businesses are investing in Vista now even if they can't adopt it until later, while retail consumers could be reticent.

Still, if data still to be tabulated accounts for all of Microsoft's missing sales from formerly traditional retail channels, there's a reasonable possibility that Vista will not have significantly impacted operating system or even computer sales other than a minor bump.

Add a Comment (49 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By DressUpYourPet

edited Mar 1, 2007 - 1:41 PM

Are there still fools left that are riding the microsoft OS scam? Like everyone, ive been with it from the start - 3x - 95 - 95SE, 98, 98SE - That God awful ME - 2000, XP. Isnt it tiresome just reading the list? The only common denominator is MS kept adding just the tiniest increment of stability and usability each time. In other words, the time between windows reloads became slightly greater. And everything MS said about each one was so much fluff, for the most part. Moreoever, can anyone tell me any real difference between Office 97 and - um whatever it is called now? A bunch of useless features, hopping dogs and paperclips to look at. MS says Vista may be its last OS ever, and thats fine. The real answer is when the computer comes out that needs NO operating system. Reloading Windows can be fun, kind of like changing your oil or cleaning your toilet - but an OS is really unecessary. The technology exists and is being perfected as i write this by someone, somewhere - MS the infinite loop does have an end.
By the way, i am (was) an official Microsoft MCSE, complete with the mimeographed certificate with Bill Gate's printed signature embossed. (Not even a stinkin auto sign.) I was certified on 95, 98, NT4, and 2000 before i threw up my hands. I took official MS training all the way - it was excellent. But it didnt earn me dime one - the IT market has tanked, everything will be automated and hard wired for evermore, so the corporations will buy it; because they wont have to pay anyone. I am open to replies, please prove me wrong -

Score: 0

By Bruce Ellis

edited Feb 22, 2007 - 3:49 PM

I write about 10 or so SAS programs a day in my work as a medical researcher. I've never found a Windows text editor (especially including the SAS editor) as fast, flexible and easy as old DOS programs like PC-Write and List. Every time I have to take my hands off the keyboard I say a silent prayer sending Bill Gates straight to the hearafter. I don't want all the work from my dozen or so projects dumped into MY DOCUMENTS, and I don't want to go looking for output that DOS batch mode automatically puts in the subdirectory I'm working in. So I go to the DOS window, run an old DOS scroller game, break it, and work most of the day in this old DOS mode. It's simply ten times faster than a bunch of frustrating drop-down menus, and easier for me to read. Can I do that in Vista? I need a new notebook but I usually don't give a rat's posterior about upgrades.

Score: 0

By ckjnigel

posted Feb 20, 2007 - 3:51 PM

Go into a CompUSA and look at the mountains of boxes for unsold PCs stickered: "Not to be sold before January 30."

Score: 0

By TechNoWeb

posted Feb 19, 2007 - 3:16 PM

I cannot blame Microsoft for hardware vendors not writing stable drivers for windows vista i

mean look at it like this if you buy a bad cd and it wont play you don't blame the cd player

most ppl will blame Redmond for everything i',m wondering when it will come out that they are the reason for global warming lol

back to my point software and hardware vendors dropped the ball vista runs like a top.

i remember when xp came out there was a transitional period it will not be long before software and hardware vendors catch up and everything will work

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Feb 17, 2007 - 1:23 AM

So, I guess what this all means is that while the projected sales of Vista will not 'be' dire, it is just the state and implications of the OS that remain so.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 4:53 PM

And the study was done by a company directly funded by Microsoft.

Nice try. But only fools will buy those figures.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 8:45 PM

You didn't read beyond the subject line did you.

No, don't bother to answer, that wasn't a question.

Score: 0

By frankwick

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 1:10 PM

Why would anyone think Vista sales would be huge in the first few months? Sure, some individuals will buy it, but the majority of Vista sales will come from large corps and holiday new PC sales.

Corps will need 6 months at least for testing and training. That is assuming they make financial justification to purchase. Justification will be hard to make since XPsp2 is such a solid performer.

One of the big targets should be corps who are still on W2k. We will see dramatic sales this time next year.

Whoever said below that Vista sucks is not informed. True, Vista is not a huge upgrade over XPsp2 right now. What Vista has done though is lay the ground work for new apps. Soon, ISV will only make software that is Vista compatible and not be available on the older Win APIs. MS has done a good job of making Windows apps even easier to develop and deploy in Vista. The downside is that the new API calls are not backwards compatible. We will all benefit, but it won't be this year.

Score: 0

By frank37

edited Feb 16, 2007 - 12:14 PM

I guess the buying frenzy will continue till March or April. I haven't bought a copy of the new Microsoft OS yet due to compatibility fears. However, a friend of mine pointed out the existence of a Web site (http://www.radarsync.com/vista) which has an extensive database of Vista drivers. I might make the shift next week.

Score: 0

By robertguda

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 8:31 PM

@frank37

thanks to you & your friend for posting that site with drivers for vista.
makes switching quite interesting...!

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 12:17 PM

I dont have any ideas why anyone would go for Vista right now.

http://www.microsoft.com...wsvista/100reasons.mspx

They got that right, im speechless...

Score: 0

By Joe Dirt

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 12:06 PM

Vista sucks. There is no reason to buy it. You can add on everything that it has via seperate downloads to XP SP2. The only thing you don't get is super duper good eye candy. Who freaking cares?

Eye candy doesn't help me surf the web or get work done.

Just buy an Apple folks. That way if you don't like the OS you can download the free "bootcamp" software from apple and run Windows XP on your Apple box.

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

edited Feb 17, 2007 - 2:26 AM

"Just buy an Apple folks."

No thanks. I can't legally install OSX on my custom built computer. I'd rather go to Linux than OSX. Plus I like gaming on my PC too and DX10 looks like it'll kick a$$.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 9:48 PM

As a once Vista hater, I will have to disagree with you on that one. I just bought a new notebook with Vista and I will never go back to XP. Everything about it is better than XP, not just the eye candy.

People who actually use thier computers for working and not web surfing and opening emails will know the difference. The new IE is better than Firefox, it has everything including tabbed browsing drop down search menus with eBay and Google etc....

The shutdown time and startup is amazing and the sleep mode is literally 1.5 seconds to shut down and about 5 to start up. Vista seems to manage power better because I got 5.5 hours of battery time. I charged it again, then ran it on battery again until it was down to 5 percent, same results.

I would never pay the premiums to upgrade existing PC's to Vista but as a pre-installed O/S, it's the s***.

Score: 0

By Joe Dirt

posted Feb 17, 2007 - 12:48 AM

Oh please do tell me the stuff that is better than XP.

You can download IE7 and that's all that is in Vista. I still don't think IE 7 is better than Firefox. Firefox will always rule for me. I work with my PC every day as a network analyst. Vista is even more bloated. The run command is buried deeper, and other stuff is again in the wrong place.

Windows Vista is why my next computer will be an Apple running the MacOS.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 17, 2007 - 12:22 PM

Oh please do tell me the stuff that is better than XP.

Okay, we'll do it again:

Patchguard
usermode vs. kernel mode drivers
Protected mode for IE7 (protected mode is *not available for XP)
DX10
The numerous improvements to the kernel (based on 2k3, not XP) that improve reliability, stability, and error handling.

....just to name a few.

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

edited Feb 17, 2007 - 2:22 AM

"The run command is buried deeper, and other stuff is again in the wrong place."

When you first get something that's different than what you had before, it always takes a while to get used to. After a while of using Vista, it's actually pretty nice.

Oh, and by the way, I don't know what you mean by the run command is buried deeper. It's actually easier. Just click Start and you can start typing your 'Run' command. The Search bar in the Start menu can be used to do Run commands too, not just searches.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 17, 2007 - 12:20 PM

Or, god forbid, hit WinKey-R.

It's tough, I know..

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 8:47 PM

OS's are tools. That's all they are. They're not religious icons or things to worship, well, except for simpletons. I use whatever I need to get a job done. If a customer or employer insists on UNIX, or OSX, or Vista, XP, oh hell, BeOS, I don't care. It's all screwdrivers and wrenches to me. They each do something better than others. They each SUCK at something also. They're tools. You get emotional like YOU carried it in your belly for 9 months and gave birth to it. Give it a break. Have a cold beer and relax.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 12:20 PM

Can you download for XP:

Patchguard?
usermode vs. kernel mode drivers?
Protected mode for IE7?
DX10?
The numerous improvements to the kernel (based on 2k3, not XP) that improve reliability, stability, and error handling?

No?

Huh...

Just buy an Apple folks.

Did that. Ain't gonna do it again.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Feb 20, 2007 - 1:09 PM

i got given an apple once. it still stis around unused, as i decided i didnt like it after about 3 months working with it. this was back in the windows 98 days, and i guess it was os 7.5.1 that i later upgraded to 8.5.x for god knows what reason only to not use it.....

i am stuck supporting osx on some macs here at work, and let me tell you, they are not fun things to work with.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 11:59 AM

http://seattletimes.nwso...574610_microsoft16.html

Ballmer: Vista forecast too rosy

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 10:45 AM

This isn't a surprise. The problem with Vista is that XP is just a great product. There is really no need to upgrade as of yet. If you look back, there is a reason to upgrade every release of Windows.

-3.x is an extension of DOS
-3.x -> 95/98, True WYSIWYG & easy to use, but not stable
-9x -> 2k, System stable, however, games does not work.
-9x/2k -> XP, Systems stable, games work.
-XP -> Vista, ?!?!?

I see some people said Vista due to high requirement, but if you remembered, when XP came out, it has the same high requirement.

Score: 0

By cory1492

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 10:42 AM

What's the sense in buying a new car if all the current gasoline doesn't have a high enough octane to work with it...

Yeah, upgrade the PC just to run the next incarnation of Patch Tuesdays until they want to sell us something else. Sure, sounds like a great idea if you aren't the one paying them for it.

Sorry, just bitter (if you can't tell).

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Feb 20, 2007 - 1:10 PM

many of the old systems around here that dont meet the requirements run vista just fine..... ive used it on a few just to test...

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 10:21 AM

Why switch from XP to an OS that is even crappier and less functional than WindowsME. Best Buy and other retailers were expecting hundreds of people to buy Vista at the "midnight" event.

Only 12 people showed up. 12 people. BWAHAHAHA

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 4:06 PM

Did you even use WindowsME?

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

edited Feb 17, 2007 - 2:31 AM

He probably doesn't even have a computer. He's a Sony fanboy. He used his PSP to view this website, he can't afford the PS3 yet.

Score: 0

By robertguda

edited Feb 16, 2007 - 9:23 AM

I bought an AMD 64 CPU and Gigabyte 64 board back in 2005. untill today even XP64 doesnt have all the drivers and not too much software I used to run in XP Pro. as I also switched to wi-fi, first thing I am having trouble with in Vista are exactly to find these wi-fi drivers. so I run XP Pro for usual software and 64 just to game some and a few graphic apps. it seems i will still have to do a lot of waiting before Vista 64 supports all hard and software I own and use. would I get something new again and wait seemingly forever for it to work completely ? the AMD 64 cpu I bought two years ago allready is obsolete, without it having worked for the fullest.
it should'nt be too hard to jump to not even a carefull conclusion.

Score: 0

By darkxiiindp

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 6:04 AM

Alot of people think XP SP2 is good enough. They won't switch soon.

Score: 0

By Joey Deacon

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 8:38 AM

And the same people thought Windows 98 was good enough, look how laughable that seems now.

Every release of Windows has brought ned stuff, people need time to realise it.

I use Vista at home, and XP at work, There are quite a few things I appreciate in Vista, that I miss during the day at work...

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 4:06 PM

And the same people thought Windows 98 was good enough, look how laughable that seems now.
Yeah, now, after XP and 2000...but you don't really think WinME was a step up? (Not that I am saying Vista is anything like ME. Vista has some rough edges, but could turn out to be very very good when those are smoothed out. ME was a pile of s***e to its core.)

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 12:22 PM

What "things" exactly? Just out of curiosity...

Score: 0

By ladylust

edited Feb 16, 2007 - 4:43 AM

Vista is more vanity then anything.. and I for one am a VERY vain person.. so I bought vista the moment it went live - and love it!

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Feb 20, 2007 - 1:15 PM

no vista is more stability and security than anything, at least thats what its supposed to be. i really like the new features and the sidebar and aero ui are just icing on the cake.

Score: 0

By mikefromuk

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 3:32 AM

Well, I am still on Windows XP Home myself, for a few reasons, firstly I dont feel the upgrade is worth the price in money and features , secondly havce heard from freinds about compat issues and finally XP is fine.

Prehaps if MS marketed Vista better more peeps would buy it

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Feb 15, 2007 - 11:23 PM

Even almost a month after launch driver hell is rampent. Nvidia still has beta drivers up on the site for any recent video card. Gaming compatibility is horrible. I mean I have to dual boot between vista and xp just to have a rig that can do everything. Creative drivers for older sound cards are horrible. I couldn't even get the thing to install so I had to use integrated sound.

I mean its obvious vista is a horrible os to write drivers for. I mean they had years to make drivers before hand and a reputable company like nvidia can't even handle it.

So I would say it will be at least 6 months before drivers are out for most modern products and they work well and are not buggy as it is now.

So what can you do but wait?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 9:12 AM

lmao...

Yes, of course failure to make decent drivers by *one* company means the whole driver model is crap.

Yeah...

Let's completely ignore the fact that ATI has some damned good drivers out. Let's forget that Creative has stated seevral times they will not support Live, Audigy, or older cards in Vista.

Score: 0

By BklynKid

posted Feb 15, 2007 - 10:51 PM

The slower pickup rate is probably due to higher system requirements.

I, for one, like Vista. No it doesn't run with Aero and it takes more idle cycles than XP but I love the little things. Every day there's something that makes me say "Oh, cool!"

Score: 0

By shy_one

posted Feb 15, 2007 - 10:35 PM

I decided to give Vista a try and i'm not looking back on my system Vista runs faster than XP looks way better aswell just a slight learning curve since things are diffent from what i'm used to in XP been almost a week since i installed Vista haven't had a single problem yet.

The only improvement i can realy say is for the price of home premium is it should come with the media center remote since windows media center software is included with the premium edition.

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Feb 15, 2007 - 11:31 PM

Its funny, now go back to xp. I bet it will be much more comfortable and easy to use.

I have been using vista for about a month on a regular basis and I find xp just works. There is no worry if something isn't going to work, like in vista. Drivers and program incompatibility is a huge burden and it really is not worth it right now. Spend that kind of money on a os and buy a product with vista on the box, I would assume it would work. But think again.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 4:01 PM

Its funny, now go back to xp. I bet it will be much more comfortable and easy to use.
Yeah, it could magically help him find the punctuation keys more than once per paragraph. :P

Score: 0

By steve17

posted Feb 15, 2007 - 8:27 PM

well they cant expect sales to be through the roof with vista. it shows sales data for launch week of 98, me and xp.... well comparatively windows 95 was sh!t so people were eager and happy for 98. 98 was still sh!t so me came out(not a huge deal) then xp came and owned the market. and today xp is still a damn good OS. so there isnt an urgent need to upgrade to vista right away.

and in the end most of us can recognise this is just a spin on words and graphs to make microsoft look bad. microsoft practically owns the world(and for good reason) they cant be doing everything wrong!

Score: 0

By DonGato

posted Feb 15, 2007 - 10:25 PM

Yes, some stats are made to make Microsoft looks bad, but the issue is that it was Microsoft who said Vista would have such big numbers.

IMO, the market is not ready for Vista nor it needs such product for now. Maybe in a year... who knows?!

I agree that XP is still a good OS and most people don't need to spend hundred of dollars for an upgrade that doesn't bring a radical change (not all people needs a witty interface).

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Feb 20, 2007 - 1:19 PM

no but i think all need stability and security.

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Feb 15, 2007 - 7:46 PM

Basically, you cant expect great results for an initial software release, people will wait and see if vista is awesome, then they will realize that it is and they will buy it. Like me, i'm waiting for my fav security companies to make software for vista .. once thats done im getting vista with a smile.

I'd be surprised if Apple sold this much initially for its weak/minor overpriced upgrade Apple OSX tiger. I remember people going crazy over the upgrade and i saw it first hand and it didn't really do anything for its steep price tag. Nobody complained then, but this is just the biased media trying to control people with propaganda again.

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Feb 16, 2007 - 10:55 AM

Well, what you can expected some 3% do? I mean, out of that 3%, probably more than half of the 3% are true fans/lemmings. They will buy and praise all Apple's products blindly. So think about it, a headline say titled "APPLE DID IT AGAIN!!! OVER 50% OF THE MAC USERS BOUGHT THE NEW "LIZARD" OS ON INITIAL LAUNCH"

Score: 0

By id242

edited Feb 15, 2007 - 7:30 PM

testing the waters on a $149 to $399 product is not uncommon. Especially when most people put value on the product that currently works and see that switching to a different product may create some sort of risk.

The risk being, "not sure if the new product will function correctly with all their current needs (ie; applications & settings)".

...and where are the 1st week sales estimates for Windows 2000 ???

Score: 0

By DonGato

posted Feb 15, 2007 - 10:17 PM

Windows 2000 wasn't a consumer OS AFAIK, so you won't see it being compared with other consumer OS from Microsoft.

Score: 0