Windows 7 will give 'heck of a Christmas' — Microsoft CEO says new PC designs cooler than Apple

Tech Radar ^ | 07/30/2009 | By Mark Harris in Seattle

[Swordmaker]

Ballmer expects Windows 7 to grab share from Apple In a bullish presentation to financial analysts today, Steve Ballmer promised Windows 7 PCs that would 'overturn the conventional wisdom that Apple has the coolest hardware'.

He also described Apple's impact on Microsoft sales this year as 'a rounding error', saying that; "Apple's share globally costs us nothing."

"Hopefully we will take share back from Apple," said Ballmer, "But they sell only about 10 million computers globally so it's a limited opportunity."

Taking a bite out of Apple

Ballmer said that research data showed that Microsoft adverts targetting Apple's prices were working, claiming that three times as many 18-24 year olds now think that Microsoft represents better value than Apple - a reverse of the situation before the commercials ran.

"We don't believe in coming to market like Apple - high margin, high quality, high price. We believe in high volume and low price," Ballmer told the Microsoft Financial Analyst Meeting. "Investors are pushing us to spend more money on this marketing."

Ballmer also released the latest data on Windows 7: 8 million copies of the release candidate have been downloaded; half of IT managers plan to upgrade to Windows 7 'as soon as it's available'; and 80 per cent intend to move within 30 months.

The Microsoft boss revealed a change in pricing strategy for Windows 7 in developing countries: "We did a programme to cut the price of Windows in emerging markets. The theory was that lower prices would lead to higher attach rates and higher revenues. That theory was wrong, so for Windows 7 we'll readjust those prices north."

He also had a few words to say about open source rivals, noting that: "It's hard to build ecosystem momentum with a chaotic operating system like Linux," and gloating over expected delays to Android-based netbooks.

[SmokingJoe]

“Let’s see: 3 x 1% = 3%. He’s right! “

Wrong answer!
In dreamland perhaps. This happens to be real life.
How about 3 X 3%( 13% percent of US population of voting age are 18-24) = 9%?
Given that Windows accounts for over 90% of the market?

[antiRepublicrat]

Win Sever 2003 is a server operating system

So? Server 2003 was based on a desktop OS, so why can't a desktop OS be based on it?

As far as desktops are concerned, the next operating system after XP was Vista

You were talking about code lineage, and the lineage is as I stated.

They knew exactly what they wanted to put in Vista.

No, they didn't. At least not in the beginning. Development was chaotic and feature control was practically non-existent until the 2004 project reset when they instituted new development controls. What took five years would have taken maybe three had it been managed correctly from the beginning. You need to do some basic history reading.

Jim Allchin also said Vista was one of the most complex, biggest software pojects ever undertaken

And it was "crashing into the ground." That was not due to technical problems, but management and vision. The project went quite well after the 2004 reset.

Win 7, is the direct continuation of what was started in Vista, not Win 2000.

Read up on the relative histories of Blackcomb, started in 2000 (not started in Windows 2000, that's not a date), and Longhorn, started in 2001. Blackcomb (later Vienna) is Windows 7, Longhorn is Vista. Vista was a stop-gap (read, "we need to release something to continue revenue") between XP and the more ambitious Blackcomb project. Unfortunately, the Longhorn (Vista) project quickly grew out of control and became the next major version in itself.

Win 2003 is a the server operating system, and Vista is a desktop operating system

That means nothing. The sole functional difference between Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, Server and Advanced Server was the value in a single registry entry. NT 4.0 was much the same, only a little more complicated. Using the same basic OS for server and workstation makes financial sense. Apple takes it further in that the server and workstation are the same basic OS for each version, differing mainly in the added utilities, services, and settings.

Vista wasn't developed from Win 2003 base code. Vista was stated even before XP shipped

You do know that companies have the pretty much finished code for products months before the RTM, right?

You haven't been reading. Vista was ORIGINALLY started using XP code but that was the development that "crashed into the ground." The 2004 project restart threw away the XP-based code and continued from the Server 2003 code. Thus Vista is directly based on Server 2003 code, not XP except as its grandfather. Last I heard, 2004 was later than 2003.

You are seriously misinformed of the history of Microsoft products. And I'm supposedly the Apple fanatic?

[TexasRepublic]

He also had a few words to say about open source rivals, noting that: "It's hard to build ecosystem momentum with a chaotic operating system like Linux,"

Ballmer should worry more -- ironically, I'm reading his bluster on a Linux computer.

[antiRepublicrat]

when I decide to go ahead and get 7 (which will happen the first time they make 64-bit Madden) is to buy another HDD and clean install there with dual boot.

When Leopard came out I was leery of just upgrading after having been burned in the Windows world (I never upgrade Windows anymore, I wipe and install). But I did it and haven't seen one single problem. My anal-retentiveness is telling me to wipe/install for Snow Leopard, but I may just update then too.

[Poser]

So, you can't run Windoze on your Macs. Everybody else seems capable. The hardware is definitely easier to use. It seems that you could have the best of both worlds, but are stuck within your mindset. So how much money do you make as a network administrator? Are you too heavily invested in making sure the status is quo? My seven year old grandson is my 4 Mac administrator. He showed me how to do some things with my iPhone, too...

Why the heck would I want to run Windows on a Mac? That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A Windows machine costs much less than a Mac. I find Mac hardware to be no easier to use than my PC. A mouse, keyboard and a monitor are required for both. The Mac mouse sucks. The keyboard isn't as good (IMO) and the monitor is no better and is attached to the computer so that I can't change it.

I am not stuck with a mindset. I try everything. That's not a very credible accusation. In fact, you started the last post with an insult as well. Perhaps your mindset is the one that is showing? Why would you personally attack me just because I prefer PC and Ubuntu to Mac?

I am not a network administrator. I am, however a 35 year network user and a teacher. I also have an iPhone and three versions of iPod. I use them because I find their technology better than the competition, just as I find my Windows machines preferable to Mac.

[discostu]

I don’t doubt that Apple upgrade better than Windows, just about everything upgrades better than Windows, buildings upgrade easier than Windows. I’m not making the jump though, don’t need to upgrade very often. Previously I left the OS until it was time to buy a new machine. In this case I really wanted a new machine but didn’t want the new OS (Vista) and even decided not to go with 64-bit XP because everything I want to run is 32-bit and there was no reason for it. So it was always the plan that when I went 64 there’d be a new HDD and dual boot, the only question was what would the 64-bit OS be, 7 looks good. I don’t expect to get my reason to jump until next summer at the earliest though.

[antiRepublicrat]

7 looks good. I don’t expect to get my reason to jump until next summer at the earliest though.

I'm having fun with 7 RC right now. Definitely the best OS that Microsoft has put out. I wouldn't want to taint it with a previous XP or Vista install.

[SmokingJoe]

“So? Server 2003 was based on a desktop OS, so why can't a desktop OS be based on it?”

Windows 2003 Server was the next version of Windows 2000 Sever.

“You were talking about code lineage, and the lineage is as I stated.”

Neither code lineage, nor versions did Vista come from 2003. Vista started from XP.

“No, they didn't.”

Oh yes they did.
Allchin himself gave interviews, where he listed the features they wanted to put in Vista, even before XP shipped, and when Vista was being written

“And it was “crashing into the ground.” “

Nope.
It wasn't crashing to the ground. It never crashed to the ground. It had delays like any big, very complex project can have delays due to its inherent complexity.
Right there in Seattle, Being 787 was supposed to have shipped long ago, and it still hasn't even had it's first test fligh yet.

“That means nothing. The sole functional difference between Windows NT 3.51 Workstation, Server and Advanced Server was the value in a single registry entry. “

Wrong!
NT Server has a heck of a lot more features, that are essential for any server operating system, that NT desktops simply don't have. They are 2 different creatures, with some common cide between them, but still different.

“Read up on the relative histories of Blackcomb, started in 2000 (not started in Windows 2000, that's not a date), and Longhorn, started in 2001. Blackcomb (later Vienna) is Windows 7, Longhorn is Vista”

What the heck has that got to do with Vista being developed from Win 2003 Server?

“Vista was ORIGINALLY started using XP code but that was the development that “crashed into the ground.” The 2004 project restart threw away the XP-based code and continued from the Server 2003 code. Thus Vista is directly based on Server 2003 code, not XP except as its grandfather. “

So you are now saying that in effect, both Vista and Win2003 came from XP code to start off with, no?
Meanwhile, let me see you show me the link about where Miicrosoft “threw away” Vista's XP based code, and started from the ground up using Win 2003 code in 2004 will you?

“You are seriously misinformed of the history of Microsoft products.”

You are desperately trying your best to peddle your Vista “crashed to the ground” story, and its still not working. I am still not buying it.

” And I'm supposedly the Apple fanatic?”

You said it. And every post of yours confirms it.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Why would you own a Mac and not use it at all? How old is it? I'm not doubting your veracity, just questioning your reasoning. I may buy it from you.

I have a Mac mini from two years ago and a 24" Imac purchased in November.

Seems like anyone who has to care at all about money would be putting a 24" iMac on the block rather than watching Moore's Law gradually sap its value. Unless of course Snow Leopard might make it more useful to you . . .

[SmokingJoe]

“Ballmer should worry more “

About what?
Linux has been around for over 15 years and hasn't been able to lay a glove on Microsoft's grip on the world's desktops.not even in China

“— ironically, I'm reading his bluster on a Linux computer. “

What's ironic or new about that?
Hasn't Linux been around for at least 15 years?

[WVKayaker]

Why the heck would I want to run Windows on a Mac?

You state that you own Apple hardware. The Intel chip in the iMac will run either Ubuntu or Windoze. I don't what operating system is "pc". My follow-up question would be "why have equipment idle, when it could be productive. At the very least, you could buy a copy of OSX Server, nd use one to run a virus-free network!

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

See my first response, and reconsider your reply.

A Windows machine costs much less than a Mac. Not an extablished "fact". While true that you may be able to buy a cheaper Windows based computer, you still have to buy more software to do anything. Apple gives you iLife with the box. To say that Apples are more expensive than oranges is not a fair comparison.

I find Mac hardware to be no easier to use than my PC. A mouse, keyboard and a monitor are required for both. The Mac mouse sucks. The keyboard isn't as good (IMO) and the monitor is no better and is attached to the computer so that I can't change it.

Nobody is required to use things they don't like. I use a Logitech wireless mouse with a Macally keyboard, attached to a 13.4" MacBook. I have a mini-dv adapter that runs my 24" ViewSonic monitor. I took things out of the box, plugged them together, and turned them on. I use the little icon on the top of the screen to click between mirrored or separate desktops. The OS automatically adjusts the screens. I understand that Microsoft is catching up in those niceties.

The things you list as complaints are opinions. They are based on your experience. Mine is much different. But, your premise that PC's are better because they are cheaper is a little lame. You like the PC because that is what you know best.

I got over 28 mpg with my '90 TownCar. My '88 420SEL gave me 16-17 mpg, on 93 octane. I sold the Lincoln last year for a grand. I got $4250 for the Benz a month later, with twice the miles...

I still have four other cars to drive, and a big RV in the driveway. I use them all. I have lots of old Macs on my shelf,dating to 1984. They still work, though that 2400 modem is no longer in use...

I live alone with my dog, Spot. I try to keep my life simple. I use Macs because they just work. Your mileage is obviously different. It does seem selfish to keep a computer idle that someone may find quite useful today!

[Poser]

"The things you list as complaints are opinions"



My equipment sits idle because I am the user and I'm using my Windows PC. Note: I use PC as an interchangeable term for Windows PC, left over from a time when there was PC and Mac. The Mac commercials do the same. I find it disingenuous of you to pretend not to understand.

I gave you my opinion and gave you the reasons I have those opinions. You are welcome to your own. You are not welcome to reply with insults.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If Windows 7 is somewhat competitive with Leopard, it would seem likely that there will be a big Christmas season for Microsoft and its hardware partners. Certainly there are tons of late-model PCs out there owned by people who know that XP is an ancient OS but who declined to use Vista, and undoubtedly people who want a new PC but are waiting for 7.

I don't see why this can't be a great Christmas for the computer industry generally.

But I think the interesting question is what use applications will make of the OpenCL/Grand Central type of features which will make the power of multiple cores and especially of graphics processor chips really accessible. I still say it will be speech processing and AI, moving toward making a computer which actually is friendly to the user.

[Poser]

“Seems like anyone who has to care at all about money would be putting a 24” iMac on the block rather than watching Moore’s Law gradually sap its value.”

No can do. It is owned by a giant organization that makes it more expensive and difficult to dispose of a computer than to leave it idle.

I also have to rescue the occasional Mac user who has file compatibility problems. Those usually occur during the first two months of a semester. Once I teach them to make their Mac files PC-friendly, I don’t need it as often.

Note: I do use it to play Christmas songs during December.

I’m not bad-mouthing Mac. I just don’t find it superior in any way I can measure in my line of work. The glowing reviews I read here did not translate into added utility and in fact, the Mac created compatibility issues that made it less useful to me. So... It’s a pretty file translating computer in my office.

I’ve been trying to give away the Mini (within the department) for a year. Nobody wants it.

[WVKayaker]

My equipment sits idle because I am the user and I'm using my Windows PC.

My question was to why have it sit, if you are not using it. Apparently, by your admission, you are NOT the user. I have used the 24" iMac, and that screen is AWESOME. I can't think you bought it for games at work.

It seems irrational TO ME to spend Two Thousand Dollars of somebody's money (you say it is used in your office, so you must not be paying for it) to sit around looking good. It tells me much about your character. Trophies are nice, aren't they.

You could at least trade it for a Glock or something!

[Poser]

It seems irrational TO ME to spend Two Thousand Dollars of somebody's money (you say it is used in your office, so you must not be paying for it) to sit around looking good. It tells me much about your character. Trophies are nice, aren't they. You could at least trade it for a Glock or something!

If you had read my post above yours, you would know why I keep it.

Once again you start with the insults. Let's agree to disagree. I won't respond to you and you can keep your insults to yourself.

I have three Glocks already.

[Mr. Blonde]

What file compatibility problems?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I’m not bad-mouthing Mac. I just don’t find it superior in any way I can measure in my line of work. The glowing reviews I read here did not translate into added utility and in fact, the Mac created compatibility issues that made it less useful to me. So... It’s a pretty file translating computer in my office.

I’ve been trying to give away the Mini (within the department) for a year. Nobody wants it.

Would the Mini be just as good for what you're using the iMac for?
You could consider getting Windows 7 for the iMac and have a pretty spiffy Windows machine at least. You said that you have some self-built computers lying around, so the iMac would at least look better than a tower, in most cases. And since you use Linux you could load that up without much if any expense at all.

I can see why not everyone would be attracted to a Mac mini, but I notice you don't say you can't give the 24" iMac away . . .

[itsahoot]

I think that Apple has been parroting the initial complaints of upgraders

Maybe you should actually know something about what you claim, before looking foolish. Google Vista complaints, or maybe even ask yourself, why did Microsoft offer free downgrades?

[antiRepublicrat]

PCs had embedded webcams way before Macs had any.

List one prior to the iMac or MacBook. Of course even if you do that was never the claim. The average PC desktop still does not have a web cam.

Macs don't have security vulnerabilities, PCs do

Never claimed. By using a Mac you do have an astronomically lower chance of anybody successfully exploiting any vulnerabilities. The proof is in the pudding. Name one out there self-replicating and actively compromising OS X Macs. This isn't so much kudos to Apple, but to the geniuses behind BSD UNIX.

There were many all-in-one PCs (very nice models from Sony, HP and Dell).

I believe they were all brought out in response to the success of the iMac. You forgot Gateway's offering. Interestingly, when these first came out they were horrible values compared to the iMac. They've gotten better.

There are plenty of superior video editing solutions for PCs

The included Windows solution sucks compared to iMovie/iDVD. Even for the included software you get automatic GPU acceleration of video effects, something available in higher-end purchased systems (often extra hardware required) on the PC. If you want to talk about extra puchased applications it's hard to beat Final Cut Pro, which has about half the professional video editing market, over twice that of Avid. It has been used to make dozens of studio movies, far more popular than Adobe Premiere.

Macs have better device support than PCs.

I can attest to that. I got two UPS when I first got my Mac and had a hell of a time finding Mac drivers. I used the other UPS (same exact model) for my wife's PC and found drivers easily.

But the problem was with me, not the Mac.

For my wife I read the instructions, dutifully installed the drivers BEFORE I plugged in the USB (don't plug in the USB first, or you'll be sorry). Then I plugged-in the USB, waited for everything to finish, and rebooted.

My problem with the Mac was that I was used to the hard Windows way. The proper procedure was -- this is the hard part -- just plug in the USB cable. The UPS functionality was immediately integrated into my power settings preferences panel.

Macs have automatic backup, PCs don't.

That wasn't exactly the claim. Macs have a backup and versioning system that is absolutely braind-dead easy to set up and recover documents even for an idiot. Windows, not quite so. It's somewhat like Volume Shadow Copy, but with completely different internals (leveraging Spotlight search and unique aspects of the UNIX file system) and orders of magnitude better ease of use.