Home » News » Software News » Early Windows 7 Sales Beat Vista By 234% » Comments

Comments for Early Windows 7 Sales Beat Vista By 234%

Comments

Please wait while we process your request

Please wait while we retrieve the user's information

Bio

Your bio is currently empty. Now is a great time to fill in your profile.

This profile is private.

This profile is only shared with friends.

This profile is under review.

We were unable to request friendship with this user.

We were unable to request friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

Your friendship request has been sent to this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user.

We were unable to terminate friendship with this user. Are you logged in?

You are no longer friends with this user.

We were unable to ignore this user.

We were unable to ignore this user. Are you logged in?

This user is now ignored.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user.

We were unable to stop ignoring this user. Are you logged in?

This user is no longer ignored.

pluck_user_mp-abuse_too_long_err

Name withheld

AndyVandervell

4:58 PM on 6 November, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore AndyVandervell. Show Details Hide Details

If think Sophos has been a bit sneaky really. UAC as it is now is more about preventing/warning users against making changes to system settings that would compromise security. I don't remember MS ever claiming it was meant to replace anti-virus, so quite what Sophos is getting at I'm not sure...oh no, "you need to buy Sophos" - that's it!

Score:

Name withheld

jopey

5:56 PM on 6 November, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore jopey. Show Details Hide Details

I just put UAC up to the max setting like it was on Vista. Security threat over.

It hardly ever pops up once you have all your apps installed anyway.

Score:

Name withheld

Xiphias

9:53 PM on 6 November, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Xiphias. Show Details Hide Details

Not only is this UAC 'result' expected but it was always obvious Vista's sucessors would sell better - migration to an OS that makes big changes is always slow.

Score:

Name withheld

Terry

6:49 PM on 7 November, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Terry. Show Details Hide Details

... what exactly does 234% mean...? there's no such a figure...it just doesn't make sense... quite simply it's meaningless... selling over twice as many gives you a correct idea if that's what was meant?

Score:

Name withheld

gdawg304

3:21 PM on 8 November, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore gdawg304. Show Details Hide Details

well, 234% actually is a number, it's 2.34 times 100%, not meaningless at all to those of us who work in accountancy anyway...so first day sales of W7 were 2.34 times the number of first day sales of Vista....

I'm not in the number though, I'm holding off a couple of months...plus I want to get an SSD to install it on to give me a nice nippy system :-)

Score:

Name withheld

Timek

2:50 PM on 10 November, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Timek. Show Details Hide Details

@gdawg304 - 234% more means that W7 sales were 3.34 times Vista's not 2.34x.

If you work in accountancy, I hope you're not doing the books for my company.

Score:

Name withheld

Jay4d0

3:44 PM on 10 November, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Jay4d0. Show Details Hide Details

@Timek: you sure?

Score:

Name withheld

gdawg304

3:58 PM on 10 November, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore gdawg304. Show Details Hide Details

Yep, that's right actually, I misread the headline. I read it as W7 sales were 234% of Vista sales, not a 234% increase. It had been a busy day.

Thanks for pointing it out Timek - just goes to show you should always read carefully.

And no fear, got quite enough to do already without moonlighting doing other people's accounts!

Score:

Name withheld

Terry

9:29 PM on 11 November, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Terry. Show Details Hide Details

... as I said it's meaningless and doesn't make sense. 234 IS a number but 234% is not... there's no accounting for that misunderstanding!It seems that basically Gordon should rewrite the headline to explain clearly what is meant... Percentages can only meaningfully be expressed in terms of the number 100.

Score:

Name withheld

Timek

10:38 PM on 12 November, 2009

This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Timek. Show Details Hide Details

Terry - if somebody told you that their house price had gone up over 100% in the last 5 years would you tell them that this information was meaningless? According to you, no - you'd know that the price had at least doubled but not by exactly how much. Now, if the same person then clarified that their house price had in fact gone up exactly 125% would you tell them that this was meaningless because "125% is not a number" - even though you (should) now know exactly how much their house price has increased by? If your answer is Yes, please take some time to consider the absurdity of your position, then come back to us when you've finally figured it out.

Score:

Please wait while we file your abuse report.

We're sorry. We were unable to report abuse at this time.

We limit the number of reactions an individual user can submit over a given period for quality reasons. You have currently reached that limit. Please try resubmitting your abuse report again later.

Comment is too long. Enter 500 characters or less.