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 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.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

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