[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Vista May Still Have Its Day here

[glassmaster]

Finally a tech article that sees the current Vista-slam as it really is: simply a repeat of XP's entrance into the mainstream that most of us have forgotten long ago. Good article!

[AZITguy]

I think Microsoft should be paying all of us for Beta testing their crappy Windows software.

[rfsmit]

There's one flaw in your argument, on page 2, para 5: "Windows 2000 http://... was less than two years old when XP was released", whereas XP was five years old when Vista was release.
Another piece of information you neglect to point out is that XP is an incremental upgrade in the NT product line, but Vista is a whole new product line that comes with NT-workalike functionality. So it's perfectly understandable that professionals are holding off on this chance to completely hose their working environment.

[mathion]

In addition to what rfsmit said, the number of computer users in the world were considerably fewer when XP came out than today, meaning Vista has had a lot more ability to get out there than then. And with Windows 7 on the foreseeable horizon (assuming it doesn't do a Vista vanishing act), the incentive to go through an expensive and disrupting upgrade is pretty low. As for proponents of Vista, I've had many clients who were very happy with Windows ME as well, but that didn't mean it was worth buying for the majority of computer users.
As for the article, an informal survey of XP users (Really, 25 users surveyed? Out of how many million? That's not even a credible reference. It doesn't even rate as a statistic) and today's users, there are a lot more users today than then and a lot more inertia to overcome than then, and you need a superior product with which to do that. Vista isn't it.

[rgreen4]

Considering the source of the original article (ComputerWorld), the survey was most likely of 25 IT Managers for larger corporate installations, not 25 individual home users.

You probably knew that though. More important statistics that MS bashers hate to admit, 8.8% of corporate machines are on Vista 19 months after introduction vs 6.6% for XP 23 months after introduction, and the Gartner estimate that worldwide 28% of PC's will be running Vista by the end of 2008 (23 months after release) vs 22% running XP at the end of 2005 (26 months after release). These independent numbers confirm the statements from MS that Vista acceptance is ahead of XP's at the same point.

[tenney67]

I could never understand why all of the bad press for Vista. I replaced one of my home computers with Vista on a HP computer nearly a year ago and never had any problems with it. Meanwhile my XP computer hangs up every once in a while and I have to restart the computer.

[osanbob]

I recently purchased a Gateway with Vista SP1. After I removed the bloatware and installed my software Vista behaved worse than the computer I previously owned with windows ME! In less than two months I have had to re-install using the Gateway recovery disks. The Vista recovery options to repair or restore with a backup of data are useless. The only option that works is a full factory install. I had to buy an extra drive to prevent the loss of my data on the original drive. I had fewer problems with windows ME.

[cubbage]

One thing everyone keeps forgetting is that XP was basically Windows 2000 in its look and feel whereas Vista is a total remake of the interface with new names assigned to some menu's etc.. Right click on desktop of Vista to get into properties can be fustrating since it is now called personalize. Look & feel of Vista is totally different from XP/2000.



Thank You

Urban

[Northlite]

I have set up 14 Vista machines, laptops and dekstops, of assorted brands, since it came out, I fazed our 3 older XP ones of mine and the rest for family and friends as they added extra computers to thier households and we haven't had any problems, not nearly as bad as when I started to introduce XP into the group only the daring wanted to go there but as things get more improved and take advantage of newer hardware buying new ever 3-5 yrs is nice. We do still have one running Me. Apparently part of the negitive aditude going into it may effect the results.

As for me I like Vista better, I don't have all the fluff on which I didn't in XP either but it seems to be more smooth on the newer wide screen LCD screens, it opens and closes things faster, I manage three web sites and some times have several programs going and it figures that out, I rip and burn my music, transfer it over to my iPod or MP3 player, I work with alot of digital pictures with GIMP, Irfanview, Picsa, Windows Photo Gallery, I always have Thunderbird, AOL AIM and Firefox open. I test assorted software to recommend to others. One of the desktops is an AOL and kids games machine and I have games from DOS days that are working fine, one fall out Dogz 4 - it was not a Vista issue but a video issue it wouldn't reconize the newer Nivida one, the kids like Dogz 5 better anyway. It seems to do compatibility mode better then XP did also.

I think my take on an operating system is if it will run my software that I need it to for work and play I am good to go.

[cubbage]

Thought I was the only one left with an ME box though it is getting a little long in the tooth.

I went from ME to XP-SP2 for the rest of my boxes after SP2 came out. Have 2 boxes set up with Vista (Ultimate) and the first thing I did was get rid of its interface. I run all of my Windows boxes in Windows Classic interface. I will admit that there are some great things in the interface but I don't want to learn a whole new set of icons and menu wordings. Did not go to Vista until SP1 (I never jump on the band wagon for the first release of any software). I guess the real bitch I have with Vista is that I have to buy/build new boxes for it to run properly. By the way both of my Vista boxes are 64 bit. I thought it was a waste of time to do a Vista 32 since I already had a good 32 bit system (XP). Glad I waited for a while until 64 bit drivers stablized to start conversion to Vista. Did build a box for Vista upon RTM and installed Ultimate as soon as it was released. The headaches getting the drivers running were mading but it looks like the wait was worth it. The only driver I have problems is NVidia video card at the moment. It is mostly stable but wacks out every now & then when I am gaming online.

Wish there was an option during the install to set which type of interface you want. I have never used themes/wallpaper etc except for Windows classic and most of family dont either. Looks pretty but it is a waste of resources and besides when you are using the PC it is generally hidden behing your windows.

I have a great Vista box called 2008 Server which has the same kernal as all of the initial Vista releases but doen not have the problems Vista had (no one knows why either). Fast startup & shutdown and uses all of memory you throw at it. Got the information from .com. Once you turn off all of the server services that you dont need and activate the desktop services that you do it is one sweet box. If it wasn't so expensive I would do all of my boxes with 2008 Server.

I am a system administrator at UC-Davis and it will cost to much to upgrade to Vista since we have not had any budget to buy new hardware for 3 years now (we can lay off personnel but then who does their jobs). The faculty drives me crazy with their Vista problems with interface (they seem to buy new laptops every couple of years) and are always turning off the security software we install to protect them. We have set up network to check for proper configurations/installations of Anti-Virus/Spyware/Windows updates/firewall etc. If there is any thing amiss they do not get an IP address from server. When they bring in the laptops that have gotten attacked/hacked/full of malware they have to wait until we get the time to get to it and totally clean it. If it is to badly infected (cant be cleaned in a reasonable amount of time) we just clobber it and reinstall an image we have of their system which means if they have not been backing up their data they will loose it.

I agree with you on an OS.

Urban

[SirNomad]

This article uses the business market to gauge the overall success of Vista but one has to ask the question, how many of the installed base are actually upgrades and how many are simply new computers that came with Vista installed?
And for that matter what about the very important home market? I know several people whose only reason they have Vista is the fact it came with the new machine and if given a choice would rather roll back to XP.
One of the major motivations in the home market to upgrade to XP was the that game designers embraced it and in order to play the new games users HAD to upgrade. This has not been the case with Vista. The Games for Windows initiative could have driven this move but none of the game designers have coded Vista specific applications and until that happens Microsoft will have to make do with waiting for machine upgrades.

[rgreen4]

Sir Nomad - Me thinks you missed the point of the article, and show a misunderstanding of MS marketing aim for Vista. Somewhere along the line, it seems to have become urban myth that MS thought that Vista would totally replace XP. Not so. MS fully understands that while overtime Vista will replace most XP installations both corporate and consumer, it will never replace all of them. It is widely acknowledged that XP is the most sucessful version of Windows ever, and yet there are still small numbers of prior versions still in use in both corporate and consumer markets, mostly Win98 in the consumer market and Win2K in the corporate market.

Long after Windows 7 is released and Vista has reached the point where it is no longer offered, there will still be machines out there running XP, Win2K, Win98 and maybe a few still running ME. It's just the nature of the market.

For the past year many postings have been about how Vista is way behind XP as to the rate of acceptance in the marketplace, despite MS statements that from their sales of licenses, Vista is ahead of XP for the same time in the market. Now this article using independent surveys shows that statement is correct.

Osanbob - if you are having problems as you state, open a question in the Windows section of the community and state exactly what the machine is doing, what software you have loaded and what anti-malware programs you are running. The members are pretty good at solving most problems.

[raife1]

I dont know... it seems to me that there are an awful-lot of things that are factually-inaccurate, with many of this articles blithe-assertions...

First, I would hardly call "XP", "beloved". It is simply, clearly, superior to its mainstream (WIN32) predecessor "ME". And, much more accepted than "Vista" (will, probably, ever be). That simply represents the obvious market-reality, not, its place in consumers hearts.

And, "XP" has hardly become, "highly secure". Frankly, that one statement alone demonstrates what complete, and utter, BULLOX, this entire piece, truly is. "XP" (yes, and that includes "XP-SP2") is (very rightly, and clearly-demonstrably) still considered (by virtually every computer-security expert, and agency) to be the single worst, least secure, OS in mainstream use (...the term I hear most often is "Swiss-cheese"). In fact, many of "Vistas" (already) acknowledged "security flaws" are, in fact, actually hold-overs from "XPs" code-base and methodologies.

Next, is (as I have commented previously regarding the, at this point, painfully-obvious rhetorical-argument that keeps cropping-up amongst Microsoft-defenders, and was, predictably, a primary-component of this particular article)... the, bold-faced, assertion that "resistance" to "Vista" is nothing more than the run-of-the-mill resistance to "the new", which has been seen before. Yes, people, and industry, DO resist change (that is practically axiomatic)... however, most people in the industry HAVE acknowledged that, realistically, market-resistance to "Vista" HAS been far, far, more acute (and very measurable at the implementation-end)... hence the unending market-campaigns (by Microsoft)... and, the sudden appearance of such apparent, almost desperate, -apology- pieces (as the one that we are discussing at this very moment). Frankly, this is very similar to the bogus argument that we still keep seeing, that, anyone who points out the many negative-facts about, "Vista... ...simply hasnt actually used it" (another, intentionally-devious, and flagrantly-untrue, bit of marketing-rhetoric).

Next, as to the claims of better adoption-rates (than say... "XP")... The sales-numbers are actually quite hotly-disputed. Microsoft (and its small number of nearly-desperate defenders) claim one set of numbers (...which are primarily based upon little more than -paper- client-licenses sold; I.E. OEM-licenses, "software assurance", etc)... and NOT by any, actually demonstrate-able, count of, real-world, installations. Virtually everybody else is referring to "Vista" as a "market failure" (...or, even, as a, virtual, "train-wreck"). So, frankly, that information (and my own, personal, experience) would seem to indicate that "Vistas", alleged, -successful- "uptake" rate is little more than marketing-spin, fudging, and wishful thinking, on the part of a select-few.

This leaves Microsoft frantically pursuing its current goal of convincing consumers to accept "Vista" adoption (as a viable, even desirable), interim-choice... taking place between "XP" (which they most likely already have installed and running reasonably-well), and "Windows 7" (which is due out, shortly). So, this is hardly a soft-sell... based upon the, well-established, common-perceptions of the cost, and problems, associated with buying, adopting, and actually using, "Vista".

And... fluffy, marketing-pieces, aside... I just dont, realistically, see that happening (no matter how hard Microsoft pushes)... which is probably why Microsoft continues (to use "Windows updates") to make "XP" more "Vista-like" (I.E. intrusive, "Vista-friendly", and controlling).

...just my perspective.

[MAcUser21]

Problem with Vista is that Microsft announce new OS in 2010 called Window 7 so people question themself is the should buy Vista or not. however hear that Vista do better than Xp could based that Technology get improved and more people get aware of Vista than Window XP when it get release?

[rfsmit]

rgreen4's response is interesting, but still ignores the fact which I pointed out earlier: Windows XP was 5 years old when Vista was released; whereas Windows 2000 was only two years old when XP was released.

Possibly the most important fact is that it was still possible to buy Windows 2000 (pre-installed, OEM, & retail) when XP was released, so naturally the adoption rate of XP would only start to increase once Windows 2000 became unavailable.

Superficially, Vista has a higher adoption rate, but looking at the real situation and adjusting for that shows a very different picture. Microsoft's shareholders should be worried.

[rgreen4]

A few facts are being shuffled aside or forgotten here. Yes, Windows 2000 was only two years old when XP was released, but it was only pre-installed on business class machines. It was never available on consumer class machines. Consumer class machines came with either the 4 year old Win98 or 1 year old Win ME.

After the introduction of Windows XP, you could purchase a consumer class PC with only XP, but you could purchase a business class machine with Windows 2000 for another 2 years after XP's introduction. In fact, I purchased an OEM copy of Windows 2000 in the fall of 2003 from CDW.

[GMan]

To rgreen4: Thanks for setting the record straight.
Check this out: The Truth Behind Vista vs. XP at http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2328909,00.asp
G-Man

[rgreen4]

Hey G-Man - thank's for the reference to that article. Well reasoned, and straight forward. No BS either way.

[GeoffB]

XP vs Vista - As there are probably more computers sold today compared to back in 2003 then would it not be unreasonable to assume that there should be an increase in Vista use? In both instances XP and Vista would be pre-installed. Would this not skew the comparison?