Print 82 comment(s) - last by Setsunayaki.. on Jan 15 at 7:37 AM

Windows Vista on only 39 percent of new PCs in 2007

Bill Gates’ keynote address at the Consumer Electronics Show 2008 revealed a rather startling statistic with regards to the sales and acceptance performance of Windows Vista.

Gates told the audience that Windows Vista has sold more than 100 million copies since the operating system’s launch in January 2007. When comparing pure numbers against Windows XP, which sold only 89 million copies in its first year, Windows Vista appears to be a hit – but looking at the big picture sheds a different sort of light on the matter.

With the PC market at nearly twice the size today as it was in 2001, InformationWeek surmises that Windows Vista captured around 39 percent of the new PC market in its first year, while Windows XP managed to grab 67 percent of the new PC market during its initial period.

The rather lukewarm response to Windows Vista must be troubling for Microsoft. In response to customers with cold feet on the new OS, Dell in April 2007 brought back the option for its customers to choose Windows XP. Microsoft then took things another step further by allowing OEMs to downgrade Windows Vista Business and Ultimate installations to Windows XP.

In December 2007, PC World named Windows Vista the #1 Biggest Tech Disappointment of 2007.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By mechBgon on 1/8/2008 5:39:46 AM , Rating: 3
I find it interesting that there's such a noticable anti-Vista spin displayed at DT (and elsewhere). I'm sure the criminal malware authors appreciate it, since Vista is proving to be a much harder target than WinXP. ;)

Microsoft MVP, Windows Shell/User

By djc208 on 1/8/2008 7:13:11 AM , Rating: 4
I don't think it's so much an anti-Vista thing as it is everyone being tired of Microsoft spending more time trying to convince everyone how great Vista is when you get the impression that not even Microsoft believes it.

Personally I think Microsoft should have made Vista 64-bit only, it would have given 64-bit the push it needs to become useable, would have provided a more valid reason to update than many of the "features" you get now, and would have cut down on having to split the delopment across two versions.
With the higher hardware requirements it's not like there are lots of people running Vist on computers that are not 64-bit capable, and while only a few are hitting the memory limit now that's just the beginning. There are already lots of PCs offering 3 or 4GB of RAM in their mid-range configurations.

By Aikouka on 1/8/2008 8:20:56 AM , Rating: 5
Well, to be honest... no matter what Microsoft does they'll be scrutinized for it :P. If they only released a 64-bit edition of Vista, someone would complain that they wanted 32-bit and Microsoft is forcing tech changes to an OS with worse driver support and yadda yadda yadda.

I actually find it amusing when someone tells me Vista is garbage or something to that effect. I ask them why and it tends to be something along the lines of, "I heard...."

By AlexWade on 1/8/2008 9:22:18 AM , Rating: 4
In another thread, I detailed 12 things I hate about Vista. Of course, I was downrated for it. No matter. I hate Vista. But it does have potential, that is the only good thing about it.

Part of the problem too is the software and driver designers out there. The final Vista build was officially released December 2006, with the first copies sold February 2007. If you had a TechNet or MSDN subscription, you could get a copy during that 3 month period. So really, software and driver designers had 3 months to write drivers and update the software, and they didn't do it. That wasn't Microsoft's fault there. To this day, some software is still incompatible. What idiots.

By mondo1234 on 1/8/2008 11:33:08 AM , Rating: 1
Check this out!
100 things people say about vista

By Steve Guilliot on 1/8/2008 3:19:05 PM , Rating: 4
Should be entitled "How to say the same thing 100 times".

They should have really tried to achieve something by going for 1000. Also, I can't help but notice that all 100 "things" have a really negative slant (some of it true, btw), really trying to make a few negative points sound like a dozen tragedies to humankind.

I suppose when you're a tech writer and you're going to have an opinion, you'd better make it sound important and polarizing, if possible.

By othercents on 1/8/2008 11:34:31 AM , Rating: 2
I had a friend purchase the 64bit Vista with his new gaming machine I built for him 3 months ago. He consistently has problems specifically around the 64bit Internet Explorer. The reason for these problems is that most software the integrates into Internet Explorer requires the 32bit version (which runs on 64bit vista, but defeats the purpose).

Drivers are another consistent battle with his new computer especially in the 64bit OS. Even if all of those things were working fine I still don't think the OS is made for Tech Savvy people. If there was an option during install that removed all the security checks then I personally wouldn't mind using it. Those checks are great for the uneducated, but nightmare for people who know what they are doing.

BTW. I'm running a Vista laptop and an XP desktop, but I still recommend XP for any new computer I build.


By darkpaw on 1/8/2008 1:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
It takes about 30 seconds to turn those checks off

By retrospooty on 1/8/2008 2:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
You can disable it, but then you always have to deal with the security alert reminding you that its disabled, and occupying a spot on your systray. IF not for that, no-one would mind UAC. Just disabling it does NOT make it go away.

By darkpaw on 1/8/2008 2:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I don't remember ever seeing that alert so it was something I probably disabled too. I've had Vista x64 setup on my primary system since last December, so it has been a while since I set it up. I do know I never get any kind of alert though.

By christojojo on 1/8/2008 3:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
I just bought a new PC. Vista premium for the week i have had it I find it sort of a one night stand that has gone on too long. Pretty, fun to check out, and take for a ride but not worth the frustration of dealing with a psycho-chick OS.

Drivers that came with the system were flawed. My Audio HD from Realtek only worked in the front and mono in both R and L. The USB HUB doesn't recognize my Fang gamepad (though according to sites I have visited others have not a hick-up).

I too, have that mildly annoying pop-up telling me I am stupid for disabling the UAC. I wonder if it is a 32 bit thing?

My PC (from Gateway) supposedly comes with a free 64 bit up-grade but I wanted to wait until i started read more favorable than negative reviews about the 64 bit fussiness (though I think this is more a developer reluctance than a MS plot to conquer us through frustration.)

I must agree with previous posters though when it comes to releasing the OS, it should have been 64bit only.

IMHO It would have ...
1 forced a single path of adoption and not let 32 bit computing drag on.

2 forced developers to patch their programs to a higher and more consistent level.

3 been a cheaper to advertise a new more future proof OS to the masses.

4 been easier for the masses to choose an OS without all that do I want my OS with or without onions crap for only 159 simoleons more.

(sorry to tired to edit)

By InsidiousAngel on 1/8/2008 3:58:03 PM , Rating: 4
Google and download TweakUAC, put UAC into quiet mode. You still get all the 'good' things from UAC like IE protected mode as an example, but no annoying popups for administrative activities. You still have to turn off the Security Center alert which states UAC is disabled, but it really isnt.

By christojojo on 1/8/2008 8:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you! I'm trying it right now.

By ChronoReverse on 1/8/2008 3:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
You can make that go away too. It's a Security Center alert. You can disable it inside the Security Center.

By retrospooty on 1/8/2008 3:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks... I'll give it a try next time I boot to my Vista Ultimate partition (maybe next month).

By yxalitis on 1/9/2008 1:22:19 AM , Rating: 2
you can ALSO turn off the warning icon in the system tray, simply open Security Center, click "change the way security center alerts me" choose "don't notify me, and don't display the icon"

Simple, huh?

By Final8ty on 1/13/2008 5:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Why is he even using the 64Bit Internet Explorer when the default is the 32bit version with vista 64.
Just use the 32 bit version until the rest catches up.

& the purpose of the 32Bit version is the compatibility problem with with integration software not being ready & lucky that MS thought about that & not just left us with the 64bit version.

Your friend mostly likely thinks that being able to run 32bit apps & games on vista 64 defeats the purpose as well.

It seams he likes making problems for him self as there is no noticeable performance loss using the 32bit version of IE.

By carl0ski on 1/8/2008 6:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
they wanted 32-bit and Microsoft is forcing tech changes to an OS with worse driver support and yadda yadda yadda.

Most 32bit Windows XP drivers don't seem to work under Vista anyways so it's pretty much a non issue forcing X64.

In Most case updated drivers needed to be released for Vista anyway

By mmntech on 1/8/2008 9:00:51 AM , Rating: 4
As far as I know, 2gb is still the standard for gaming unless you're including GDDR in SLI setups. I wouldn't call those mid-range configurations. The standard for the internet box is still 1gb.

I don't think the whole Vista bashing thing is the result of people ganging up on Microsoft for the sole purpose of ganging up on Microsoft. You'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to see that Vista does have its major flaws. I like to view XP differently because we were moving from the DOS based architecture to the revised NT based one. You're bound to expect software problems and incompatibilities. Vista though is essentially a kernel update of XP. For your average user, there really isn't a lot of difference between the two. They'd rather use something they know works and that they're comfortable with. We'll just have to see what SP1 does, if anything, before we can make any final judgments.

By tdktank59 on 1/8/2008 4:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well i used Vista for about 3 months... got the 64 bit ultimate version from my dad since his work was on msdn

anyways heres some things i found with it that i liked and hated...


-New look and feel (it was ok but it gets boring after a while)
-Search bar in the start menu (wish it was more like spotlight on mac osx with shortcut keys to start typing)
-Ability to use windows update without IE
-New games they have in teh game pack thingy

- Memory/CPU hog, Heres my system, Intel C2D E6320 (1.86Ghz), 2GB DDR2 800 low latency ram, 250 GB SATA2 HD, 8800 GTS 640MB, Gigabyte DS3 MOBO.

With this setup i constantly found my computer taking more than HALF my ram even after a fresh boot it would never go below half used.

- Random BSOD, by the time i installed Vista and Uninstalled it and went back to XP Pro, I got more than 10 BSOD in a 3 month period thats stupid id be browsing the web reading articles on here and Bam BSOD. I could not solve the problem... I eventually upgraded to 6 GBS of ram 2x4gb and 2x 1gb on cyber monday got it on sale and what not. And got about 10 BSOD trying to get the new ram to work in 1 day...

Mind you i did not overclock any part of my computer in this time.

I also could not get below 10% idling on my cpu... XP Pro i can get down to 1% and sit there. and not even use close to the 2GBs of ram that Vista was trying to eat up...

- Slow load times took about 10 -30 seconds longer than xp
- Stupid menus asking if you really want to do this after i said yes to the initial popup.
- No way to turn off "safety" features for your average joe without getting the stupid red sheild saying your computer is at risk.
- Of course the imfomouse Driver Support issues (didnt but me as much as the stuff above)

SO all in all i found more quirks about Vista than ive even see between 95, 98, 2000, ME (POS), and XP... Mind you ME was really a Pain in the ass as well... if i had to go to something besides xp id have to say 2000 or some flavor of linux.

Vista is a PIG for resources on your computer... Sure it does offer DX10 but i noticed nothing diffrent in Crysis or Call of Duty 4 or any game i had. In fact i got less FPS and sections of incredible LAG...

So form your own opinions but i think Vista is another ME and can sit at the bottom of my trash can...

By noirsoft on 1/8/2008 5:19:57 PM , Rating: 5
Responding to just a few of your more egregiuously wrong issues with Vista.

- Memory/CPU hog, Heres my system, Intel C2D E6320 (1.86Ghz), 2GB DDR2 800 low latency ram, 250 GB SATA2 HD, 8800 GTS 640MB, Gigabyte DS3 MOBO.

As has been explained a billion and a half times before, and you would know if you bothered to read anything, this is not bloat, but Vista caching recently run programs in order to reduce hard drive hits and increase performance. To put it another way: If your system is NOT using much of its ram, then it's wasing that memory holding a bunch of unused data, then it could otherwise be used to improve system performance.

- Random BSOD
Clearly a driver issue, since nothing less than that will cause Vista to crash. nVidia has been in the spotlight for bad drivers recently. I had some crashes when I installed an nVidia driver which went away when I reverted back to the Vista-supplied one.

I also could not get below 10% idling on my cpu

Same as above for RAM. an idle CPU is a wasted CPU. You're blaming Vista because it does more?

- Of course the imfomouse Driver Support issues (didnt but me as much as the stuff above)

Yes, it did bite you, you're just too ignorant to realize it.

By aos007 on 1/8/2008 5:54:18 PM , Rating: 1
<< Same as above for RAM. an idle CPU is a wasted CPU.

Actually no it isn't. A cpu that isn't idle when it should be is a waste of POWER. That's not like the memory which is really wasted if sitting empty since it draws power whether it's full or empty (as far as I know).

By andrep74 on 1/10/2008 4:06:31 AM , Rating: 2
CMOS only draws appreciable power when it changes state. It draws minimal power when idle. The more often memory changes, the more power is drawn.

By Christopher1 on 1/8/2008 3:16:24 PM , Rating: 1
I agree about the 64-bit only thing..... but the problem is that many people still have computers that only have 32-bit processors in them.

When was the start of the 64-bit from Intel? Pentium 4, I believe?

On new computers, yes, Microsoft should have mandated that 64-bit was the ONLY thing that could be put on new computers, period and done with.

By RogueSpear on 1/8/2008 7:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I'd rather be running 64-bit Mepis :)

By Spivonious on 1/8/2008 9:20:21 AM , Rating: 2
If you say Vista is slow in general, then you have never used it. I have 64-bit Home Premium installed on my main machine and it is noticeably faster/more responsive than XP was. Maybe it's a 64-bit thing, since my dad has 32-bit Home Premium on his machine with pretty much the same hardware and he commented that it felt faster using mine.

I agree Vista has a lot of stuff that I thought I would never use, but I have to admit that I've been using a lot of those extra apps.

I really don't care if I lose 5 fps gaming on Vista as long as it's still over 30-40 (i.e. a playable framerate).

As far as Vista requiring more powerful hardware, that's just the nature of technology. XP ran like crap on a 486 with 32MB of RAM. Vista runs like crap on a Pentium III with 512MB of RAM. What's the problem?

For the record, my machine specs are Core 2 Duo E6600, P965 chipset, 2GB DDR2-800 RAM, X1900GT.

By onwisconsin on 1/8/2008 10:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
Having experienced both versions (x86 version with 2GB RAM and x64 with 4GB), I agree...Vista seems to run slow below 2 or 1GB RAM...but fine with 2GB or more

By Christopher1 on 1/8/2008 3:18:34 PM , Rating: 1
That is pretty much how XP is. With 2 GB of RAM in my father's machine, XP FLEW! Same thing for Vista, even though the processor and Video card is worse than in my laptop, because it has 2.5GB of memory compared to the 1GB in my laptop..... his old computer is faster than my new one!

By Mitch101 on 1/8/2008 11:30:22 AM , Rating: 2
I agree the OS itself is as fast if not faster than XP. Just make sure you have at least 2 gigs or ram. Most laptops are sadly sold with less than 2 gigs making Vista seem like a poor performer.

No laptop sold with Vista should have less than 2 gigs of ram! No Desktop either but Laptops are the biggest sinner of this.

Compatibility is almost there for me to switch to Vista completely. I give it 3 months more and the final apps I need will be Vista ready.

The only difference is in Gaming that XP is faster than Vista.

The reason behind this should be that DX10 is a big jump from DX9. The recently released graphics cards just now are starting to be able to handle DX10 decently. Lets also add that a lot of us went from accepting 1024x768 as default resolution for gaming to 1680x1050 resolution as the norm. DX9 cards and first gen DX10 cards are still crushed by the DX10 specs and to draw DX10 stuff with 44% more pixels. Ouch.

Give it another year and we will all wonder how we lived with DX9 games looking so bad once developers begin to fully utilize what DX10 brings to the table.

I believe the next generation of graphics cards to come out will start the shift from XP to Vista. Second gen is acceptable DX10 performance when using a single card like most people will do. This is the Advantage Apple had by controlling the hardware and well no hard core gaming community to backwards support. How easy is it for them to come out with an OS and not have a gaming community to support.

Plain and simple the people I know who haven't committed to Vista or complain about it are
1 - Gamers
2 - Laptop users with less than 2 gigs of ram.
3 - Early adopters who should get an updated graphics card and try again.

Microsoft is aware of the Graphics performance but do they fix the problem or is that incentive for the graphics companies to sell you a faster DX10 graphics card? I think its the Graphics cards companies wanting to sell you a video card more than Microsoft. If DX10 flies then why would you upgrade your video card? I think the graphics companies would rather have DX10 remain where its at and let you buy a new video card instead to improve the performance.

By AntiM on 1/8/2008 11:16:07 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, it's easy to criticize Vista since it is so new and still a little buggy. However, I honestly believe it will go the way of Windows Millennium. I think Windows 7 will be the platform that moves people away from XP.

By Korvon on 1/8/2008 1:06:37 PM , Rating: 3
Windows ME introduced 3000 new bugs to the already bad Windows 98, thats why it died. Windows XP had 2500 known bugs on the date of its release. Windows Vista had just over 500 known bugs at the time of its release.

I think it has been so long since people updated to XP that they forget how slow it ran on the average PC. If you had less that 256mb of Ram it slowed your system to a crawl.

Its the same with Vista, if you run it on a system that cant handle it, then you will have a poor experience. I have been running it for over a year now and I wont go back to XP.

Last thing on the games, Bioshock runs at a higher FPS running DX10 on Vista then it does running DX9 on XP. The problem is not the OS it is that the games are not designed to run DX10 properly.


By darkpaw on 1/8/2008 1:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, anyone complaining about Vistas speed, really needs to go back and play with XP on old hardware.

A while ago I helped out a charity by updating all their systems. They hadn't installed SP2 yet, so that was the first thing I did. Their systems were all PIII-500s with anywhere between 128-512mb of RAM.

The systems with <256MB RAM literally took hours to install SP2 on.

I ask everyone I've personally met that bitches about Vista how much memory they have. Either A) they have no clue or B) its 1GB or less. With 2GB or more, Vista works great, just like XP with > 256MB.

By just4U on 1/9/2008 5:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
and that's the problem. Slow adoption of Vista because Microsoft has never been in a position where they've had to compete against a mature 6 year old operating system.

Going to take some time is all.

By eye smite on 1/8/2008 6:28:30 PM , Rating: 3
Here's the verdict from IT powerhouse CNET: "Any operating system that provokes a campaign for its predecessor's reintroduction deserves to be classed as terrible technology. Any operating system that quietly has a downgrade-to- previous-edition option introduced for PC makers deserves to be classed as terrible technology. Any operating system that takes six years of development but is instantly hated by hordes of PC professionals and enthusiasts deserves to be classed as terrible technology... Windows Vista conforms to all of the above. Its incompatibility with hardware, its obsessive requirement of human interaction to clear security dialogue box warnings and its abusive use of hated DRM, not to mention its general pointlessness as an upgrade, are just some examples of why this expensive operating system earns the final place in our terrible tech list."

I don't have type anything on this subject, Cnet says a boat load right there.

By rudy on 1/9/2008 2:23:38 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, all the new systems my family members have purchased were Vista. They bought Vista because they expect it will mature and it is already decent. And I find it hard to believe most consumers even if novice would not have a similar view.

Lets compare something useful. Windows XP came out during an explosion in computer use in the US and it came out after 98/ME which were terrible OS' 2000 was ok. Now compare vista coming out against a pretty solid OS during a growing but not exploding computer market, people have no reason to switch. Put it in perspective, how many new copies of XP sold in the same time frame compared to Vista. Don't fan angle some jacked up stats. Is Vista gaining ground to be come the dominant OS? Or did more copies of XP sell in that same time frame?

Article is misleading...
By The0ne on 1/8/2008 4:00:43 AM , Rating: 1
Vista captured around 39 percent of the new PC market in its first year, while Windows XP managed to grab 67 percent of the new PC market during its initial period.

Are we comparing year 2007 to year whenever XP was released? If so that comparision is almost useless. In the same year, 2007, Vista captured 39% and XP captured the rest? 67% as it's initial period? If it is, amazing coincidence.

regardless of the millions of copies sold, percentage-wise XP is still outselling Vista. I hope this is the statement the article is trying to point out. Maybe the author should rephrase.

RE: Article is misleading...
By Marcus Yam on 1/8/2008 4:09:59 AM , Rating: 4
I agree that there is a lot of room for confusion here.

The source for this information is based on Microsoft's statements and the PC market according to Garner Dataquest.

Assuming that 89 million copies of XP were sold in its first year and worldwide shipments of new PCs in 2002 were 132.4 million, that works out to 67.2 percent.

With 100 million Vistas sold and Garner's estimate of 255.7 million new PCs in 2007, that gives the 39.1 percent.

The missing piece right now is what the other 60.9 percent were for 2007. We'll be looking into that one.

RE: Article is misleading...
By mholler on 1/8/2008 8:09:34 AM , Rating: 2
I would also be interested in knowing how many of those 255.7 million PCs were low-cost models sold in developing nations that don't even meet the minimum requirements to run Vista. This wasn't an issue when XP was released since the price of PCs was still too high to cater to that market.

RE: Article is misleading...
By mforce on 1/8/2008 5:26:59 AM , Rating: 1
Of course Vista is outselling XP , it's not like you have a choice now , do you ? MS is pushing Vista on all new PCs so that's that , you buy a new PC , it's probably got Vista.
Let's see how many retail copies of Vista were sold or how many were sold to people businesses looking to update from Windows XP.
The truth is MS didn't manage to do much with Vista , I'm sure given a couple of years it will become dominant and XP will be a thing of the past. The truth is though that it's the same old Windows and while it does bring ca couple of things XP is lighter , not so bloated , and it's got more testing , support ... Given the number of PCs running XP and still doing there job well I'm sure XP is here to stay.
And yes the improvements in security in Vista are a good thing but while UAC is good I don't like it and find it annoying.
Linux and more so OS X are beginning to eat away at the huge Windows market share and this will continue , slowly but surely.

RE: Article is misleading...
By Shark Tek on 1/8/2008 7:46:22 AM , Rating: 2
Agree ..

The amount of computers today isn't the same amount when XP was launched in 2001. Computers are a lot more accessible today than a few years ago when they were very expensive. Also I'm sure that a huge percentage of that 100 million of Vista copies that were "sold" came in a new computer in where consumers don't have a choice and are forced to use/buy it.

RE: Article is misleading...
By qwertyz on 1/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Article is misleading...
By mcnabney on 1/8/2008 12:18:39 PM , Rating: 5
Linux is not a choice.

It is more like an alternative lifestyle.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

RE: Article is misleading...
By darkpaw on 1/8/2008 1:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO, wish I could rate you up, but I've already posted.

RE: Article is misleading...
By ebakke on 1/12/2008 7:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
I vote this gets either:

Rating of 6
Added to random quotes at the bottom of the articles

RE: Article is misleading...
By noirsoft on 1/8/2008 5:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
Linux and more so OS X are beginning to eat away at the huge Windows market share and this will continue , slowly but surely.

Ah yes, like all those people downgrading from Leopard to Tiger because of incompatibilities, bloat and crashes?

RE: Article is misleading...
By eye smite on 1/8/2008 6:56:58 PM , Rating: 3
Well....that's not entirely true. I ordered a system for my Father in law in 2007 around April. The reason I was able to get a fresh install of xp pro from HP on it is because I ordered a business machine directly from their website. You can still buy a new pc from Dell and HP and possibly others from their sites with xp as the OS and skip vista altogether.

I wouldn't take XP over a decent Vista
By gochichi on 1/8/2008 10:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
A group of things that has been creeping onto my wish list is Dell refurbished machines. Many of these machines come with Windows XP Home or Pro. To me, that's a deal breaker. Unfortunately many others are Vista Home, Vista Business.

Windows Media Center is a must for me now. I have a computer that is recording HDTV over the air and cable, and it has completely changed the way my household watches TV. Xbox 360's BEST feature is its media extender capability. So anyhow, having a laptop or another desktop that can be used as a media extender to those 500GB of recorded material is really valuable to me.

It seems that, it's one of those things that seems different than before. Something that you couldn't do in the past on a computer, now it's super slick. I got Vista 64-bit Ultimate on a whim, and now I find that this one feature is Vista's best feature. Unfortunately for them, the OEMs have been completely incapable of correctly marketing these new features.

Honestly, the only hard working OEM is Apple. They make their own OS that is custom tailored to their computers. Not some second rate OS either, but one of the best, certainly a tremendous OS when compared to other UNIX 03 systems. All of this to say, OEMs strike me as horrendously lazy, and much too eager to point the finger at Microsoft.

In seems as though, OEMs don't want anybody to blow their cover. Intel makes mobile processors up to 2.4Ghz in the mainstream. Yet they release 1.5Ghz C2Ds or below, and they won't even tell you the speed rating, they just give out an obscure processor number that means absolutely nothing to most people. They also seldom if ever include Vista 64-bit as an option at all. They KNOW, that your computer will be replaced that much sooner if you can't go beyond 2.5GB of RAM. Before you lash out against me here, take note of the fact that you can get 4GB of RAM for $80.00 on either desktop or laptop... this is amazing, this is unprecedented.

So, so what if Vista requires (as I believe it does) 2GB of RAM. When XP required 1GB, that one GB cost $150.00. Now you can get 4GB for $80.00. If you are truly satisfied with yesterday's technology, keep it, heck, give Ubuntu a try. Ubuntu does a tremendous job out of extracting a great user experience from 512MB of RAM and a single core.

I do think that Microsoft could have released a better OS. This is my battery of suggestions:
- Media Center on ALL VERSIONS OF VISTA. Even the ones without Aero. Certainly poor Vista Business (which is so expensive). It's ultimately a Trojan horse (in a good way), it "just happens" to be in the most common version. You unknowingly bring its capabilities into your home and next thing you know you are pointing and laughing at the Tivo crowd.
- Make 32-bit versions upgradeable to 64-bit without having to repurchase, without data loss either. (This is COMPLETELY possible, it's unprecedented, but entirely doable.)
- Set the system requirements higher, more honestly. Too many people thought 1GB was going to be "more than enough" for basic Vista use. Not the case.
- More elegant user interface. Copycat LINUX and MAC OS. Multiple desktop panes at a minimum. Coverflow is an embarrassment. Heck, release a Vista "Plus" type thing... something.
-Microsoft, make your own computers (as well). OEMs are dropping the ball on you, just make a few reference standard machines that people can go to for a "real estimation" of what Vista is and is not.

I think that 2008 is going to be good to Vista. The hardware to run it correctly is just too powerful and too affordable. Vista will beat out XP for sure in 2008.

Mac OS is the gateway drug into Linux though. I wouldn't be too shocked if 2008 brought the type of Linux Distros that could really compete with the mainstream. If Linux can make an open source version of Media Center that is as easy to use or nearly as easy to use that would be amazing. Particularly as it would allow the PS3 extender capabilities etc. Open source really is the future. I think it would be hilarious (yet unbelievably useful) if Ubuntu released a premium edition (a version that installs from a DVD instead of a CD that includes all of the junk to outbloat Vista.)

By Etsp on 1/8/2008 11:51:01 AM , Rating: 2
- Make 32-bit versions upgradeable to 64-bit without having to repurchase, without data loss either. (This is COMPLETELY possible, it's unprecedented, but entirely doable.)
With vista, when you buy a copy of the 32 bit version, the license you purchased covers both 32 and 64 bit windows. The only problem is that you don't have the media(unless you have ultimate) But if you have a valid copy of vista, microsoft will sell you the disc to install the 64-bit version for about $ should have been included in the box for all versions, but thats how they decided to do it.

Here are some links:
An overview on how microsoft is handling 64-bit
and there is a link near the bottom of the page that goes here:(For the english NA version at least...)
which allows you to buy the media.

By Techno Pride on 1/8/2008 3:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
The only reason why Vista sales haven't caught on is because many peoples' Pentium3 XP machines have not broken down yet. Give em the ultimate DenialofService with a sledgehammer and they'll buy a new powerful PC with WinVista.


By The Boston Dangler on 1/8/2008 11:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think your post was pretty good, but my opinion differs. I will be going back to XP in the very near future. I picked up Vista Ultimate Upgrade 32/64 relatively cheap ($150 when the nearest CompUSA closed 6 months ago) and I really feel ripped off. Retail price is $400, for that price I get:

A new version of a GUI I hated, which I now hate for different reasons.
A new version of a browser I still hate and don’t use.
A new version of a media player I still hate and don’t use.
A 10% performance hit with video games.
OS-related BSOD’s are a new feature, as I never had one with XP.
ReadyBoost and SuperFetch, which imo are completely worthless.
All those Vista Ultimate Extras, oh wait, there are none. The very idea of charging big bucks for gadgets and crap is insulting. Dreamscene, are you kidding?
I am no longer allowed to use the copies of Nero 6 and Outlook I purchased.
All the normal Vista complaints: DRM, bloat, calling home, et cetera.

rant off

“Windows Media Center is a must for me now.”
I avoid it like the plague. WMP is my least favorite of all audio or video players, for dozens of reasons. The MC GUI is nice, though.

“I have a computer that is recording HDTV over the air and cable”
Your recordings are in a proprietary format you cannot (AFAIK) opt out of, and DRM’ed up the wazzoo. The world’s one and only CableCard tuner card has been MIA/KIA for months, so one cannot record/play premium content of any kind. Hardly Vista’s fault, but it does hurt the value of the feature.

“Xbox 360's BEST feature is its media extender capability.”
Several million people might disagree with you there

“you can get 4GB of RAM for $80.00 on either desktop or laptop”
I didn’t believe you until I checked

“Make 32-bit versions upgradeable to 64-bit without having to repurchase…”
Vista should have been 64-bit only, with good 32-bit support for games or that little app you can’t live without.

“Set the system requirements higher, more honestly. Too many people thought 1GB was going to be "more than enough" for basic Vista use. Not the case.”
I’m not sure where you’re coming from with that. Outside of video games, all reviewers, like Anandtech, have shown 512MB to be the minimum, with 1GB being the plateau for good performance, and 2GB brings very little to the party. In my own experience, I doubt I have ever exceeded 1GB usage outside of a game.

“More elegant user interface. Copycat LINUX and MAC OS. Multiple desktop panes at a minimum. Coverflow is an embarrassment. Heck, release a Vista "Plus" type thing... something.”
100% agreed. At best, Flip 3D is a joke.

“Microsoft, make your own computers”
They already do, you own an Xbox 360, don’t you? In a couple years, the personal computer as we know it, regardless of its manufacture, will be extinct. The dominant species will be stand-alone consoles and all-in-one screens.

“I wouldn't be too shocked if 2008 brought the type of Linux Distros that could really compete with the mainstream.”
When I can play Call of Duty 4-caliber games on Linux, I’m going, and I ain’t coming back.


My favorite feature of Vista is the “Default Programs” tab in my Start menu. Why can’t I have this in XP?

By ajfink on 1/8/2008 10:02:38 AM , Rating: 3
If they released XP with Vista's full Media Center capabilities and DX10 support, in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors, I wouldn't see any reason to switch to Vista at all.

I'm not trying to lemming myself onto the anti-Vista bandwagon, but I've used it a good bit, and can someone honestly tell me they wouldn't prefer XP with said additions?

RE: Meh
By Flunk on 1/8/2008 12:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't, for one quick example I prefer the new explorer for file management, the sidebar now contains useful options and a directory tree by default instead of "email this file" and the other useless options from XP.

RE: Meh
By Jedi2155 on 1/8/2008 1:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
However I severely miss the options to customize your top menu bar for my commonly used options such as Up, New Folder, and be able to turn my explorer window into a web browser by hitting the home button (I did that in XP a lot).

By dyeager on 1/8/2008 10:10:45 AM , Rating: 2
The herd of Vista bashers may soon have to reverse course given falling memory prices that make systems with greater than 4 GB affordable. My experience is that Vista works better that XP on dual core systems and offers greater stability; however video performance continues to be a weakness even with the latest cards. Upgrading an old system for Vista is simply not cost effective. The number of Vista offerings also confuses the market.

Microsoft should address Vista concerns in its usual fashion: a SP with added functionality (and also consolidates the number of Vista products).

Office 2007 is the real problem child given its abandonment of menus, thus forcing massive retraining. Menus allowed Microsoft to surpass Word Perfect with its hidden codes, now we are back to that: abet with icons.

By ajfink on 1/8/2008 3:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
Office 2007 is maybe the best software release of 2007. For all its differences from earlier incarnations, everything is well-placed and intuitive. It took me all of 20 minutes to get used to Word, Excel and PowerPoint (the only portions I really use).

In the late '80s I bet you were saying something like "Why would I want a GUI? That would require massive re-training."

By ebakke on 1/12/2008 8:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
Office 2007 is maybe the best software release of 2007. For all its differences from earlier incarnations, everything is well-placed and intuitive. It took me all of 20 minutes to get used to Word, Excel and PowerPoint (the only portions I really use).

For me it is the complete opposite. I think Office 2007 is far worse than 2003, and offers no real improvements. The functionality is the same, and the interface is a step backwards. I've spent so much time searching for things that should be obvious. For example, why isn't printing easily accessible in Word. Why do are there all sorts of options on the "ribbon" but nothing for printing?? You have to click on the Office logo (which apparently is a button) to even see that printing is a option. Seems foolish. Also, they adopted the "ribbon" for the big 3 applications, but continued to use the standard menu system for Outlook. Why?

In the late '80s I bet you were saying something like "Why would I want a GUI? That would require massive re-training."

I'm all for new things, so long as they provide some sort of benefit. Microsoft has been pushing new Office versions for years that offer no improvements, but continue to provide funding for all of its other initiatives.

Testing XP and Vista in VPC2007
By Techno Pride on 1/8/2008 11:03:38 AM , Rating: 1
I've tried XP SP2, Vista Business (trial) and Server 2008 Std (RC) in VirtualPC 2007. CPU/diskIO-sapping features like menu "fading" and System Restore were disabled.

Pretty much a level playing field since it's all within VPC2007, except the RAM where XP has a handicap :>
XP SP2 -> 768MB RAM
Vista Biz/Server2008 -> 1280MB RAM

Vista business was consistently slower than the other 2. I never did understand why Start->ControlPanel has such a noticable lag time.

Server 2008 RC contains Vista SP1 and it is noticably faster than Vista Biz. I'm not sure whether it's due to certain services being turned on/off or optimizations done by Microsoft in SP1. Still not as fast as XP.

I'll stick with XP. It does all I need it to. I must admit those Vista DX10 Bioshock screenshots I see floating on the Internet look really nice. Probably worth the Vista upgrade if you play the latest, most violent games :>

RE: Testing XP and Vista in VPC2007
By Flunk on 1/8/2008 12:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
Your testing methodology is flawed. The advances in Vista are mostly in offloading processing of operating system features to multiple threads and graphics processors. Running within a virtual machine negates any benefit you might see.

I am not actually saying that Vista is faster, just that your test means nothing.

By Techno Pride on 1/8/2008 1:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
thanks for your feedback. With regards to the multi-threading part, there're many single core systems in use out there. Vista running in VPC makes use of only one of my two 2GHz A64 cores. Is a single A64 2GHz core not enough to take advantage of the uber-advanced features in Vista?

As for the graphics processing part, there;re no Aero effects in VPC. It's all 2D, and no one ever talks about 2D acceleration anymore since it's insignificant.

I'm not saying that everyone should not buy Vista. It has better *out-of-the-box* security, nice DX10 effects, Search function in the Start menu, maybe many more which others have covered. I'd gladly recommend anyone buying a new PC to get a Vista one, for the default IE Protected Mode and WinDefender. Did I also mention the nice DX10 effects in Bioshock that gamers will like?

"Running within a virtual machine negates any benefit you might see."
Too bad for the system admins that're going to pile lots of WinServer08 installations into 1 physical server. Microsoft is advertising the feature too. Sad.

Twilight of Windows Vista?
By Fox5 on 1/8/2008 5:11:14 AM , Rating: 1
If you combined the total economic, political, and military strength of XP and compared it against Vista, it would be 200 to our 80. Truly this is chilling news.

RE: Twilight of Windows Vista?
By anotherdude on 1/11/2008 9:58:43 AM , Rating: 2
could you show your math on that one?

Consistency plays a part
By eye smite on 1/9/2008 12:37:56 AM , Rating: 3
In many cases people don't want to learn something new, they get comfortable with what they have. They know how it works, they can do things within an OS they've used for so long without really thinking about it, it just becomes reflex or instinctive. I understand that MS is in the business of making money, most companies are. What I don't see as being harmful though is having 2 versions of windows so that people can choose a preference. I'm thinking back to win98 and nt4 at the same time. Win ME and 2k at the same time. What's the harm in having WinXp and Vista at the same time for 2 or even 3 more years. It's certainly not going to hurt their earnings and may help as you're giving people a choice to go and buy a new system without vista on it, or vice versa. Because of a lack of consistency and a changing pace that people do not want to adapt or conform to, you will see alot of consumers make their current xp systems last and run longer than is necessary. I still know people that stick to windows 98 and even the dreaded ME because they are comfortable with it, know how it works and do not want to learn xp and now vista. It's just that simple.

We KNEW this was going to happen
By DBZLuisD on 1/9/2008 4:46:39 PM , Rating: 1
The PC market has doubled itself from 2001, but also the quality of the market and the consumer's IQ has lowered.
The real reason why Windows Vista wasn't going to be a hit was obvious from the beginning: It runs like shit in shitty computers, that are like the 70% of the market.
And also because of the UAC, even when it can be tuned off "normal people" doesn't know how to do that (Because they doesn't even know how to get to the Control Panel, or what the Control Panel).
The true is that Microsoft targeted this OS for the wrong market, that's why I love it and that's why the General Public hates it.

RE: We KNEW this was going to happen
By raphd on 1/10/2008 3:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
actuallly people got smarter. They are sticking with something they know fully works and trust. Last time people jumped onto the bandwagon was from windows 98 to Windows ME and we all know what happened to that. Obviously this is not the same since ME was more of a MS issue then a drivers issue, but there is still no real reason to upgrade yet.

By tmouse on 1/8/2008 8:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
Well I do not know how relevant any of this "information" is. It must be put into perspective. First off the business market makes up a significant portion or the pc market, and they are VERY slow adopters (with good reason). Many of the largest buyers do not even get OS’s with their systems (they install their own licensed and pre-set versions). Second; around XP's debut many new systems had already been installed and updated to avoid Y2K problems so the adoption was much easier. Finally several features were not implemented in Vista yet so many of the larger buyers are still taking a wait and see attitude. I doubt seriously it is a judgment call against Vista. Quite frankly I have not seen any real problems running any software with Vista in our (scientific) environment. If you look you will probably see 20-30% or more medium to small businesses still running 2K. Many of the larger customers upgrade in a manner that Garner can not identify. Are Microsoft’s numbers just retail sales of the OS, total installed on new computers, Do they including license sales? Do Garners numbers include direct sales or just retail? Are we comparing apples to oranges? Since all of the retail (boxed) units probably have Vista installed I find these numbers hard to believe. In the home market the adoption rate on new systems is probably over 95% since most people would think changing an OS is far too challenging. The differences between XP and Vista are MUCH greater than the differences between 2K and XP so naturally the adoption will be slower. Add to this the (deserved) bad press at its release since I think it was released too soon and had poor drivers (initially). The bottom line is Microsoft has nothing to worry about and most of these "analyses" are just mouse milking.

Does it matter?
By snail on 1/8/2008 10:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
We've all read in various places that Vista is not selling as well as XP did when it was released and of numerous people who simply do not like the new OS. Admittedly, I'm probably one of the latter. I've only used the OS twice and on other people's machines so I'm keeping my opinion reserved until I can use it daily.

One thing, however, that I don't think people are considering is the OS people are upgrading from. When XP came out many were using Windows 95, 98 or ME. Consider the upgrade from a security, stability and usability standpoint from those OSes to WinXP. XP compared to those three was a phenomenal change in security and stability - at least, it was for me. Is it any surprise, then, that people comfortable with a relatively stable OS are hesitant to upgrade to the new Windows?

The other thing to consider is how many of the initial WinXP purchases were NOT with a new computer purchase. I know mine wasn't.

By crystal clear on 1/8/2008 11:11:40 AM , Rating: 2
Making statistical comparisons(sales) between Vista & XP does not prove vista as a good or bad operating system.

Its just reflects consumer preferences & choices,thats the important factor.
You might feel comfortable with the XP & hence you dont see the need to upgrade to you choose the XP.
Whilst others prefer Vista for whatever reasons they be.

Its your money you decide what you pay for or what you want.
Just because you choose XP does not imply Vista is bad & vice versa.
Its like I prefer the Sheraton over the Hilton-its my money my choice,my preferences,thats all.

People have & are still misinterpreting the sales data that comes out from surveys/reports etc.
The conclusions they draw are totally wrong !

Also can you rely on the authenticity of these reports-does anybody bother to check "what were the motives behind those reports/surveys" or is correct or accurate.
I can use statistics to prove the world is flat & not oval shaped.

Vista or XP both are good -its your choice & preferences thats important.

By crystal clear on 1/8/2008 11:37:28 AM , Rating: 2
An accurate "vista review for 2007"

I think buyers/users should be patient & not give up on the Vista.
In 2008 YOU should see a much better Vista,getting better by the day.

M.S. on its part should be patient & continue investing time & efforts in its refinements of the Vista.

Just remember "No O.S. is perfect-name your brand/choice they have their strengths & weaknesses-just like human beings."

If you play the blame game-

Microsoft is NOT be blamed for >All of the controversies and disappointments related to Vista there are OTHERS who equally share the blame & are responsible for the lack of mass acceptance of the O.S.

To name a few-

The OEMs/vendors/resellers who promoted the Vista as package of software & hardware,without ensuring that the systems they were selling were problem free.

All they saw was the Vista/M.S. promotional fundings & dumping their own hardware on the buyers for hardcore profitmaking & generate revenues.

The customer support they provide or provided was below acceptable standards & convieniently blamed Vista for all the problems faced/encountered by the buyer.

All they did was to use VISTA to promote their own sales of hardware-in simple words Dumping their hardware on you.
All they saw was PROFITS-Revenues-Marketshare thats all.

The DRIVER support for Vista(earlier in the year) was shamefull & very substandard,
Either there were NO drivers available or drivers that were not compatible or simple problematic,etc.

Blame AMD,NVIDIA,HP, & MANY many more like them who also FAILED horribly in their deliveries of compatible drivers in time for the VISTA.

So blaming M.S. for Vista's "controversies and disappointments" is a totally wrong assessment by all those criticizing it.

M.S. marketing had also it flaws & drawbacks & equally share the blame.
The marketing dept failed horribly in its efforts to promote Vista-their information campaign for the ordinary buyer/user was a FAILURE/neglegent/sometimes incorrect.

M.S. marketing preferred to TRUST OEMs/dealers/resellers etc in managing/handling M.S. marketing/information campaigns etc.
All M.S. did was to provide them with money for their promotional/marketing campaigns.

M.S failed to realize that these OEMs were misusing these funds,not in the interest of M.S.

As for the corporate world/business sector-they were/are traditionally slow to change over to a new O.S.-dont expect them to change over fast-simple.

It's All About the Marketing
By mikefarinha on 1/8/2008 1:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
Of course XP did better than Vista.
Does anyone remember the marketing blitz of XP?
I'd see an XP commercial almost everyday for a year since it launched, I have yet to see a Vista commercial.... all I see are MAC vs PC commercials.

By Domicinator on 1/8/2008 4:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
This is the same old story. Guess what!! Windows XP didn't improve on Windows 98 sales at launch either!!! Here's proof:

Windows Vista will be just fine. It's selling about the way MS expected it too. That link I put in is from a few years back. And I can supply more links for anyone who's interested that contain all the same complaining we're hearing now, except it was about XP!!!!

Die UAC, Die
By aos007 on 1/8/2008 6:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
I've been using Vista Ultimate 64 bit for a few months now. I can deal with hardware issues (compatibility and drivers) - if I could stand to deal with 64-bit Linux, I can certainly handle 64-bit Vista. The situation must have been much worse when it launched but other than my scanner (shame on you Canon) everything else works. Well, the other big problem is my professional E-MU 1210 sound card for which only beta drivers exist and which does not want to coexist with Creative X-Fi (the machine will not boot after installing the mixer - you need to boot into safe mode and uninstall drivers or disable the card - I did not expect such low tech solution from Vista).

But that is all par for the course (other than Microsoft should be ashamed for not making Vista 64 bit support MANDATORY in order for manufacturers to be able to advertise their products as working on Vista). No, the only major thing that annoys me in Vista is UAC. I tried to be a good boy and let the thing be there "for my protection". I can get used to clicking on "allow" many times a day for pretty basic stuff (like running cpu-z). I get pissed off but can still handle the UTTER STUPIDITY of often being asked the same thing TWICE (this has to be a bug - only a moron could DESIGN a system where you get two prompts for essentially the same thing - with 512MB min requirements you can surely find a BIT somewhere to store the info that I just initiated AND APPROVED the launch of an application and not ask for the privileges again for the launch that was initiated half a second ago and is already in progress). But now I am starting to get fed up. The latest problem I have no solution for - startup programs which need admin privileges are not allowed. Specifically stuff like RivaTuner which can be set to adjust, say, clock of your video card. A necessity for crappy 8800GT that have been factory overclocked beyond what they are really capable of. Well, ok, I thought it must be possible to do something to tell Vista that it's ok. After all, windows defender does have the "allowed" list.

But guess what, there is NO WAY to add a program to that list!! You're told that the program is added automatically if you click on such and such choice when the prompt comes up (at the time you attempt to launch the application). However this never happens for a start time application - you get notification in the tray but no attempt to run it so you are never able to tell Vista that it's ok. (Never mind that even when the prompt comes up, the required button to permanently allow the program is never displayed!) Furthermore, there is this whole fancy interface for classifying startup programs and enable/disable them. Except that the "enable" buttons are grayed out on some items with no explanation given!! UNBELIEVABLE. Why the hell create the whole interface if YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to change anything that really matters? I am now really close to just disabling this UAC thing for good. Or was I crazy for not doing it in the first place?

By andrinoaa on 1/9/2008 2:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
I would move to vista if
1/ all my hardware had 64bit drivers
2/ the software of choice - cubase and Quickbooks worked on vista 64.
As it stands, Quickbooks needs to be replaced at $190 ( this is a rip-off in itself ) and cubase cannot be recommended to run safely. AND vista is sold at $400 AUS!
Cubase costs $1200, and I have a feeling that the next upgrade is going to cost again. I have had 4gb of ram for over a year on 2 pcs at home. I don't have any real issues with vista or xp. BUT, why did MS decide to have 4 different flavours AND an option of 32 or 64 bit? This surely has sent the software developers to hell and back. No wonder they haven't caught up yet! Yes , I agree, it should have been 64bit . If legacy software doesn't work too well on vista 32, then it might as well be junk for most people. If its a new computer with new software, you would be absolutly stupid not to go 64b vista. A setting that allows legacy products to run in virtual mem could have been implemented
Yes, Vista could have been a whole lot more. People are entitled to belittle it for this reason. Yes , there is absolutely no reason to run less than 2gb ram because it is soooooo cheap at $59 AUS
Yes MS is choking on its sandwich because they would have expected better sales,not because of lack of sales.They are run by bean counters and they expect sales growth.

Vista vs XP
By wallijonn on 1/9/2008 10:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
I read an article that said that new end users prefer Vista to XP. That isn't too hard to do if you make it impossible for the user to choose anything but Vista on a new machine. A friend of mine had to go to 5 different stores (the usual suspects: Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry Electronics, Costco, Staples, Office Max, the mom and pop stores, etc.) before he found one that would install XP instead of Vista on his new laptop. Yes, he got the fastest possible processor and 2 gig of RAM.

remove security
By raphd on 1/9/2008 12:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
Just reading all the blogs about how people try to remove the UAC's then get the other security warning. To remove UAC's click User Accounts in control panel. Click the turn user account control on off at the bottom. Done. After this the annoying computer at risk thing. Double click the icon, when the window opens, on the left hand side choose "Change the way it notify's me" or something to that effect and disable all options. Done.

By MatthiasF on 1/14/2008 7:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
Until Microsoft adds the Windows 2003 Enterprise kernel (64 GB RAM limit) to Vista or Windows 7, I won't be buying either. At the pace RAM memory is growing and getting cheaper, the whole 32-bit/64-bit kernel crap is going to be a huge issue in 3 years. They might as well bite the bullet and feed us the kernel that's worked for years to save us all time later.

As far as I'm concerned, all of the other issues with Vista are easily avoided by disabling things (we don't need), so we shouldn't bother griping. In a couple years when you can get 8 GB of RAM for under $100, you're going to be really angry when you realize you need to reinstall the operating system to get your money's worth. This assumes Microsoft won't provide a 64-bit upgrade process at some point, but how many of you are expecting that miracle?

By Setsunayaki on 1/15/2008 7:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
MS spends millions of dollars to create an Operating system so that I can see A graphic of an ANALOG CLOCK on the top right of the screen through a sidebar.....while also seeing a DIGITAL CLOCK on the bottom right of the taskbar on the same screen....

Then you load it with all of this DRM crap...which screws up your audio and when you get into the issue of performance, it has 25% - 33% less performance than what XP delivers.

We then come to the issue of reliability. Windows XP has service packs as well as support for 7+ years...Vista is fairly new and Gamers only buy it because of Direct 10....and Vista Reliability is not that great either...specially when SECURITY means that you have more processes running against your will that monitor your activities..


The market has changed since 2001...

In 2001 it was XP vs Mac OS X. Then came Linux and all of these other Operating Systems that could be used as Work and research-based Operating Systems. This makes the market more competetive since 90% of computers out there are for basic needs.....while in the corporate world, SERVERS are king....and Linux offers a pretty cheap solution at the price of higher maintainance costs per system....and the gain of better resource management.

Microsoft has skilled programmers along with a good development cycle, yet.....their planning is poor considering that in the time it took to Develop Vista, its not so different than XP under the box....

Microsoft could have created something unique. They have the technology...The money...The Resources, the manpower and energy...

...Yet they didn't and the product truly shows it.

I think its better to Skip Vista altogether and wait for their next operating system.

Its not a im a computer enthusiast....People don't want to use double or triple the memory in order to actually run the same programs + the Operating system.

Vista is a flop
By Serafina on 1/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Vista is a flop
By darkpaw on 1/8/2008 1:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yah, because any product that sells 100 Million units is a flop. Damn, theres hate and then there is stupidity. That line definitely fits the latter.

RE: Vista is a flop
By The0ne on 1/10/2008 12:04:37 AM , Rating: 2
Getting a product sold because the consumer has little choice other than what MS is offering doesn't mean the product is a success. It means there are people out there that will buy crappy products simply because they have no other choice, as with ISPs. If you like it means it's a success to the marketing strategy of MS...eliminating support for previous version to force consumers on newer products all the while marketing that it's one great OS. Would you like to be that consumer or would you want to be a consumer that really wants a good product that's worth your hard earn money?

So yes, it might make sense for MS to rewrite a whole new OS but they aren't going to. They can just build code on top of the crappy codes they've already written. Oh, and don't think it makes any sense for MS to start from scratch :o

RE: Vista is a flop
By Techno Pride on 1/8/2008 2:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'm looking forward to WinServer2008. Multiple virtual machines makes for a better ROI.

I know there're already products from other companies that do this, but hey, nothing beats *official* support from Microsoft.

"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki