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 suryad on 1/8/2008 8:52:41 AM , Rating: 0
I am one of the people who refuses to put Vista on my computer. It is just slow in general and I do not understand why it needs so much hard drive space and why it needs so much powerful hardware. In my opinion the OS should be as light and fast as possible because it is just a layer of software which will interface with my hardware to allow me to run my programs...note I am not talking about device drivers. All the OS has to do is run as fast as possible and get the most out of my hardware.

I went with XP Pro 64 bit instead on my new rig. Its blindingly quick and I have had no issues with it. Other than security which I have to admit, in Vista it does seem excellent because malware authors have so far been having a hard time on it...I do not see the appeal in using Vista. Its just tooo much stuff in it which I would never use.

As a power use, I would probably wait till there are games out that show a visible difference/improvement when running on DX 10, Vista DVDs are avaialable with SP1 slipstreamed in it, vLite has a few more version releases before I even consider Vista on my machine. Perhaps I will just wait for Windows 7 and skip Vista all together.

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.

"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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