backtop


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 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

http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007/12/anything_sp...


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.

Other


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
quote:
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...

Likes:

-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

Dislikes:
- 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.

quote:
- 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.

quote:
- 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.

quote:
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?

quote:
- 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 :)


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki