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?

"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

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