Vista Resistance: Why XP Is Still So Strong

I think you will enjoy this article I found today,

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137635-page,1-c,vistalonghorn/article.html


Although I think this is a good article on the subject, I do feel the point is a bit understated.

What do you think?

 

I think it's obvious. Two reasons:
1: There's no pressing reason to upgrade.
Shinier graphics? Not everyone cares about the look of the start menu. Your games look the same, which is where graphics usually matter.
Better performance/stability? So far, Vista has suffered in both categories, while XP has been rock stable and a great performer for several years now. (Of cours this might change over time, but it's still competing against an OS that handles both criteria pretty well, so to provide a reason for upgrading, it has to be more than "pretty good")

2: Setbacks in a number of areas. More DRM, (slightly) worse performance in DX9 games, loss of (some) compatibility.


This is a very different situation from back when XP was launched. Sure, there was 2k, and those who used it took ages to upgrade to XP, but that was what, one year old when XP launched? Its userbase was relatively small. The main competitor was Win98, which was a piece of junk compared even to an unpatched vanilla XP.
Of course there were still a few setbacks there as well (loss of compatibility with some games primarily, and the final removal of DOS), but there were *also* significant improvements.

 

The reason Vista has had problems catching on primarily is because most users feel it was forced on them. Microsoft has a history of doing that, see Xbox and Xbox 360. Are they wrong? I think so because XP works great and is a mature operating system.

Vista requires performance tweaks from Microsoft in order so the OS doesn't require all kinds of hardware just to get to run to the level of semi acceptable. I recently upgraded to Vista and upgraded my gaming rig. Things run nice now but it cost me $575 to get it running nice. A new Intel E6750 CPU, 4 GB of PC6400 memory and a fast videocard.

Most users see no need in doing what I did if their computer is running correctly. I'm now happy with Vista but it took some money to get me there. XP is a very nice OS and most don't want to be troubled with upgrades.

And you know Vista is in trouble when Microsoft is already floating Windows 7 trail balloons.

 

While I agree with your last sentence, your claim that the Xbox console was forced down people's throats is very different. One, most people don't need video game consoles, but they do need a good OS. Two, consumers have other competing console makers to choose from such as Nintendo and Sony.

No, Vista is a much more severe case. I think that Microsoft will lose market share over the product lifetime of Vista, but hopefully they will have the sense to design Windows 7 from the ground up and make it modular, less centralized, and designed for multiple users.

 

Personally, I feel like XP was finally a fairly stable OS. Like the gentleman in the article, I've got its little quirks and foibles memorized. Vista brings nothing to the table that I need. XP runs all my programs, it plays all my multimedia, and it does it at a respectable speed. All I see Vista offering me is a lot of useless eye candy. It is my personal hope that Microsoft is forced to keep supporting XP for years to come. If software publishers would restrain themselves from embracing Vista as the only platform they'll write for, XP could have a very long and healthy life cycle far beyond what Microsoft would like.

 

My argument regarding the Xbox and Xbox 360 was because the original Xbox still had plenty of life and was very reliable. The Xbxo 360 is not reliable and Microsoft stopped making the machine and in essence no more games were made for it.

Wrt Vista and Windows 7 that's where Vista falls flat. Microsoft had touted Vista with a new file system from the ground up and no more registry and other really nice features including Aero. What we got instead was Windows XP2 with DX10 and Aero. That's it in a nutshell.

I hope that Microsoft does build a modular OS from the ground up but i'm not counting on it.

 

Vista seems like a half baked, knee jerk, paranoid reaction to Mac OS-X.

 

I disagree with that statement. MS is the market leader and people will buy their OS regardless. Unfortunately Vista's biggest competitor is not OSX, it's Windows XP.

Vista in it's un-neutered form would have been a really good OS. MS just got to much pressure from the outside to release something, anything so we got Vista. I think Windows 7 will be what Vista should have been. Just a hunch.

 

I agree. XP was what 2000 should've been, and I think Vista is Microsoft's new 2000. I have Vista, but only because I didn't have to pay anything extra for it. If the real Vista comes out, I may consider purchasing it separately from a computer purchase.

 

Vista is to XP what ME was to 95. The same OS after three years of eggnog and milkshakes. BLOAT.

 

Pressure from who?

Please be more specific.

 

To start things off with, XP is on the market long enough to "drill" in and anchor into the minds of computer users. And during this 5 years, every piece of Windows hardware and software used XP as a benchmark, base whatever you name it. Since it has such a foothold on the market, with the masses reaching out for something they know that just works, XP is going strong.

 

Shareholders, computer makers i.e. Dell, HP etc and the general public. At some point computer sales began to drop off and people wanted something new. This began to happen eventually after Longhorn was confirmed. As anticipation grew for what Vista was to really become everyone grew antsy for Microsoft to show something all the while Microsoft was starting to run into development problems as they realized they were being to ambitious with Vista.

Supposedly the project ran into several problems along the way and with mounting delays the pressure became greater on MS to release Vista. The rumor is that many of the original ideas for Vista were removed and eventually the OS was released in it's current form....neutered.

The comparison made to Vista, was to XP what ME was to Windows 95 is spot on IMO.

 

So true. People talk like Microsoft is gonna tank because Vista is doing bad. Who ever ISN'T buying Vista IS buying XP. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself. Hardly a losing situation there. While Linux has enjoyed a large amount of positive press recently, opensource software is a nightmare from an integration standpoint. When Vista matures, it will reign just like XP did 5 years ago.

 

Well guys, I have to agree with you, monopoly power clearly has it's perks!


I do disagree with most of what you've said, and I didn't mean to infer that the advancement of Mac OS-X was the only reason for the Vista turned Pissta conundrum, but I know that when the updated version of OS-X was being previewed and leaked, it was like the straw that broke the camel's back, like a stone to the head of Goliath, and contributed greatly to the situation. Many of the GUI and other elements implemented in Vista appear to be copied from Mac OS-X, but no where nearly as well implemented. M$ was obviously intimidated by the OS-X "eye candy" and advanced functionality, and switched their own focus away from many of their original plans and onto mimicking Mac OS-X's functionality and visual effects, shifting from a leadership posture to that of a follower, and the rest is history.

Mac OS X - Aqua

M$ Vista - Aero


Mac OS X - Widgets

M$ Vista - Gadgets


Mac OS X - Finder

M$ Vista - Explorer


Mac OS X - iCal

M$ Vista - Calendar

And on and on it goes!


Mac OS-X is the only real commercial competitor to Winblows, and M$ did not get to where they are by just siting back and not responding to threats to their market share and future prospects. The OS-X effect is real, and Linux is not as far behind as some may think. Look how M$ has bullied their way into SUSE, they see the storm clouds on the horizon, and they are in full on counter mode.

 

It's funny when people put M$.

It's not like Apple or whatnot don't want Cash.

 

Wave$lade

 

i agree with most of your points that Vista seems a reaction to OS x.

Explorer is propaply not the best example though, it has been around since Windows 3.11

 

I meant the new "Vista" version of it, it mimics the new Mac OS-X finder as well!

 

The main reason that XP is still going strong is that over the past 6 years, it has matured from an unstable piece of junk to an OS that is rather refined. The same will happen in time with Vista - when 7 is released with its higher system requirements and runs sloppily on the then mid-range machines, people will complain about it just as they did with 98 to XP and now with XP to Vista.

"shifting from a leadership posture to that of a follower, and the rest is history."

Until Mac OS X is the predominant platform used those claims really can't be substantiated. Yes Vista took inspiration from some parts of OS X but Apple aren't in the position to be considered leaders in the field. If Mac platform was so strong then surely every one would be using it?

 

Actualy, XP was good and stable very early on, and was never really a peice of junk like Vista, and it also ran just fine on my old system.

You've misunderstood my comment regarding "leadership position", read "posture", as in "attitudinal reaction".

 

Actually my Win98 Second Edition (that was the name, if I remember correctly) was working pretty well.
Win98SE was working pretty well as an "old OS", by that I mean that even loading newer software on it, it was still working fine.
WinXP instead is giving me quite clear signs of crankyness in its old age. Granted, it could also be a hardware problem, not necessarily an OS problem.

 

That's right if Mac OSX is so good then it would have better than single digit market share. And more would use the OS which has not been the case. Until Apple decides to license the OS it will never gain traction. Apple's upper management is worried the company will regress when Scully was in charge.

Damned if you damned if you don't because it all boils to what part of your business you want to grow, hardware or software. If they continue to tie the hardware with the OS then you need people to buy your computers as well.

It's not until Apple's OS is sold on store shelves alongside Windows will we see who prefers what. This won't happen with current Apple management as they don't want a repeat of the Scully years. I still think even if both OS's where being sold side by side Microsoft would still dominate and make Apple look bad and it's possibly another reason Apple shy's away from licensing their software.

 

What a great post. The large scale of hardware available for Windows is what makes it a market leader. Keep in mind, the majority of market is in server markets.

For example, AutoCad and 3dMax only runs on Windows. Apple server market? They all run Unix........ The corporate market is why Windows is the way it is. Not the end user market....

 

Yeah, maybe I overstated my point a bit.
It worked pretty well, but there were a lot of things it didn't do as well as XP. (the way it handled crashing programs, for example. And bluescreens were fairly common)
My point was simply that XP vs 98SE at least gave you some distinct advantages, and the disadvantages weren't too bad.

Funny, I keep seeing (vista fans, presumably) come up with stuff like that.
As I remember, XP worked pretty well before SP1. it wasn't as good as it is now, true, but it was certainly worth using. Am I hallucinating here?
Should we test it? I've got a spare XP cd, and could easily put it on a virtual machine.
If it is as bad as you people claim, it should be easy to make it crash.
If I were to set up such a VM, could you give me a few pointers on what you'd like me to try doing with it to showcase its horrible-ness and instability?

If we're going to criticise XP, we might as well be scientific about it.

 

My personal experience of XP pre SP1 was not good.. numerous BSoDs per day, programs/hardware not compatible.. drivers not being available..

setting up a VM to prove the XP vs Vista argument is not worth bothering with. You would not be running it on a machine that was around when XP first came out with the hardware that was around at that time. Basically to get a decent comparison you'd have to set up a PC with the equivalent setup, ie maybe a few bits of older hardware, older software and perhaps some new.. there's so many permiatations it's just not worth bothering. No sensible comparison can be made it would be as far from being scientific as half the arguments in the many XP vs Vista threads.

 

I'm able to run Vista on a AMD64 X2 1GB Desktop while running .......

Dreamscene
FireFox w/3 tabs
Gimp 2
Sidebar
Avast
Itunes
and Trillian

all at the same time and still have 328MB free.

And start-up RAM usage is about the same as XP. Usually have 550-600MB free on start up for both XP and Vista. And on my 2GB notebook I don't even worry about RAM usage.

RC1, RC2 had major problems with high resources IMO. The first few months of Public Release of Vista was horrible mainly because of Driver issues and people with lower memory than 1GB (like 512MB) adjusting to needing more memory.

XP is still the OS that is compatible with just about everything, but I see Vista right behind it's trail.

IMO I think all Windows OS that are NT have been great.

 

I have XP Pro and Vista Home Premium and i have had no problems with either and I actually prefier Vista any day of the week.

 

Which would seem to make it worse today than it was back then.
The computers we had back then were at least what XP tried to support. The original XP never had a clue that it'd have to support modern hardware. 400GB harddrives? Athlon 64? DDR2? SATA harddrives?

If anything, running an unpatched XP today would be even worse than it was 6 years ago.

If it is as bad as people like to claim, then it should be easy to reproduce some of the problems. From what most Vista zealots say, XP was completely unusable until SP2. If that was the case, then I shouldn't have to look very hard to find problems with an unpatched XP.
It sounds like I would basically just have to hit the power button, and I'd encounter at least one bluescreen.

Of course, if XP wasn't as bad as these people claim, then you're right, it wouldn't prove much. It'd probably run without any significant problems, which would just prove that... it was sorta ok'ish. Not as good as it is today, but good enough to use.

 

Again, I agree with much of what you've said here, with the exception of,

I had to keep from spitting my drink all over my poor little lappie!

 

You know its bad when the market leader can do little more than copy a much lesser rival, and a bad job of copying at that.

 

For now Apple's hardware is competitive with PC laptops, their OS just blows Windows away. It doesn't matter, they operate in a niche market and thats the way i like them.

 

"The computers we had back then were at least what XP tried to support."

not exactly true. When XP came out people were advised by Microsoft that it would not necessarily support older hardware and that some old software would not run on it and that you might have to upgrade some components and software, I believe I may even have some old XP launch literature about it somewhere in my files. Just like what happened with Vista.

I believe if you have a pre SP1 disk of XP and install it on a machine of that age, not an XP compatible one as sold by manufacturers of that time, but one that slightly predates the launch of XP you will have problems. Just like some people are having those same problems with Vista.

If XP does the job then fine.. don't upgrade. If you're interested in Vista then get it. If you're stuck with Vista due to buying a new machine and don't like it and didn't get the choice of OS then I agree that's a bit harsh but again .. the same happened when XP came out. History repeats itself, there's not a lot we can do about it. The same will happen when 7 comes out.

 

That's an utter load of crap, and although it will never die, it's worth pointing out why it is an obvious load of crap.

1. For what sort of heavy lifting computing does anyone use MacOS? Who has the really huge MacOS based server farm? Google? I didn't hear about that. And Google is not really a natural friend of Microsoft. If MacOS was a superior Unix flavor, then why isn't it anybody's large scale choice?

2. A majority of ndividuals who use computers have not chosen Apple, ever. Not the Apple II and not the Mac, and nothing since. (and I once wrote an accounting system for a Fortune 500 company to run on an Apple II+ - maybe I should put that on my resume...). The first majority owned object from Apple is the iPod. And iPod sales have been good enough that it has sometimes looked like Apple might be out of the computer business in a few years.

3. In any honest appraisal of widely available operating systems, about the only one which is actually worse than Windows is Apple, although not by much. There is no first rate commercially available operating system. Linux, Windows (all flavors) and MacOS (9 and X flavors) are all basically third rate. At some points in time, SunOS was a second rate operating system, I suppose Solaris could be still given that nod, although I haven't had front line responsibility for a lot of Solaris systems for a while. I can't actually think of an OS I've ever used that I would regard as first rate. Talking about which OS is "better" when confronted with the dazzling array of missed opportunities and crippleware that we get to have as operating systems is like deciding whether trepanation or castration is a good approach to curing the common cold. One might be better than the other, but they are so far from the mark than the word "good" really shouldn't be in the discussion.

 

zenpharaohs .......What exactly do you want from an OS then? If your looking for perfection/first rate, that can only come within the User. For me XP, Vista, & Ubuntu satisfies me very much. I haven't played around with OSX that much to make a fair judgment, but I do love the Native apps.

And as far as saying OSX is not good because it's not in a large market percentage is like saying Zune is a bad product cause Ipods have the largest percentage in that field.

 

Agreed, these people seem unable to differentiate between marketing, monopolization, zombie like go with the flow, whatever is most popular mentality, and actual product quality.

 

I want an OS to be stable, and have at least a post-1987 state of the art use of resources (you would be surprised how little of this has actually filtered through). I want it to be fast, which usually means that it should get out of the way more than anything else. I want it to be booted once and then not again for the life of the hardware. I want it to fully exploit modern filesystems using the modern VM approach.

I do not want the operating system to be full of things that are really applications.

I want to be able to clone a machine instance to any storage medium that has the capacity. There will be no vendor activation or other locks on the system (possibly this requires it to be open source).

The OS will not execute unauthorized instructions or applications. There are actually realistic approaches which can in theory achieve this now; I don't know when this one will be realistically available.

 

The point of that is whatever advantages OSX may have, (and it really doesn't have much from my computer science informed point of view over the other choices), it also doesn't have a great appeal to the end users of the world. If "get a Mac" was a realistic answer to most people's computing questions, then more Macs would have sold by now. A very large number of people have now been through more than one computer choice in their life. They have usually not chosen Macs.

Zune, on the other hand is a bad product because of that flea-brained WiFi misfeature.

 

:GEEK:


:SLEEP:


:laugh:


:tongue:

 

Ubuntu is very stable, XP is very stable, Vista is very stable. At least for me it is. Stable depends on 3rd party apps, Drivers, Hardware, and the User.

And what use of resources are you referring too? (post-1987)

Booted once and then not again. I think it's possible with Linux and OSX, unless updates require a restart.

Is this even possible or should we go back to using commands as a must?

Your () answers your own wants. In the real world of capitalism this will never happen unless you pay something.

Sounds like you need DeepFreeze.

Not True ........... I guarantee you if Macs were slightly cheaper than PCs(spec for spec), Home users would flock to them in Mass numbers. Only reason I don't have a Macbook(or pro) is cause their is very little choice of configuration and Pricing.

Not to mention Windows has damn near monopolized the PC industry in the last two decades. Especially business wise. People also tend to stick with what they know.

I'm not saying OSX is some great OS, I have only played around with it at retail stores. But I think the reasons you claim that people aren't getting Macs isn't true.

 

Not having Vista in January, I can't speak for the early release. I can however speak for the last month I have had a Vista OS. I really have to say that it is better than anything I have ever used. But I also have the hardware to support it.

Plain and simple people, we all know that the newest version of anything, always requires more resources. If you aren't willing to cough up the money for hardware that is Vista capable, Stop whining!!! Either spend the money or don't, I don't care. But to continually listen to your griping gets on my nerves.

Vista will mature, just as XP did. As far as I am concerned, it could sit in it's present day state, with no updates, and I would be satisfied.

 

Gee, that makes perfect sense, force everyone to shell out a few grand for a new system so that they can run a new, entirely unnecessary, crappy OS!

btw
There are plenty of other threads for you to read, no one is forcing you to read this one.

 

There is no reason to spend thousands on a new system. All my 1 1/2 yr old HP dv5000 needed to run vista respectably was 2GB of memory, a cheap $75 dollar upgrade.

My 3 yr old dell desktop doesn't have the hardware to support Vista, so you know what I do? I run XP Pro! But I don't bash a perfectly good operating system, just because I'm too cheap to upgrade the internals.

I put off buying a Vista system because of all of the negative reviews. Do you want to know what I found out when I did buy a Vista machine? Most negative reviews were completely unsubstantiated. I truly enjoy using vista and I look forward to the day that I upgrade to a new desktop.

 

Very true. I've had very few problems with Vista. Mostly of which are driver problems and the fact that I'm still too ignorant on where to find some of the drivers that I need.

Though, XP on my emachines.... Very stable, yes, I may just be limited by my hardware but I've had a rather rough life with XP. A little over a week ago I've just now achived my goal of smooth operation. After the fact that I bought a new notebook with an updated OS. Of course that may have just been my fault to begin with.

I would own a MacbookPro right now if it weren't for the price. I'm sure I speak for a majority of the populace when I say that I'm not willing to shell out over $600 for a simple upgrade in RAM. I understand that just buying a base Mac and upgrading it aftermarket would be significantly cheaper, but for those of us that want and need a warranty and accident protection plan of some kind, the Mac is not the way to go if you're just going to bust it open and upgrade it.

In my opinion, and it's just that, my opinion, OS X is an outstanding OS. Incredibly stable and easy to use, nothing that really needs to be learned. Even for the most die hard windows user/fan, OS X is a smooth transfer and is fairly easy to learn, I also want to say close to no headaches. I used to be a diehard windows user, but I've swayed and am now using XP/Vista/Ubuntu.

I wil say however, that a majority reason for people not buying Macs, is the price, lack of customizability (it's create a word day), and the all too familiar false Windows belief that Macs won't and can't support the same things that Windows does. The general populace is ignorant, they don't know the things we do. If they did, you would see a much larger user base among the OS X and Ubuntu/Linux groups, I'm sure of it. Large enough anyways, that the competition between the three would seem fair at least.

 

It's not that way. Of course you can do a lot of things in Linux and OS X that you would do in Windows, but not the same things, many important design/developing programs aren't supported but either OS X and/or Linux, and add to that most games. Also Linux OS are not for casual users.

 

trail balloons?

 

Believe this or not, I think buying a super computer to play video games is nuts...I may be old skool, but a video game console is and should be just that. It should only play games. If it doen't go online, fine with me.
(I think this is why I really like the Wii), it doesn't have a rocket engine, but is completly immersive, fun, and just a neat video game system.
Anyway, just thought I'd share....

 

Windows 7 is purported to be a server based OS, and subscription based as well.. greater use of live services etc etc, see this previous thread
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=2210583#post2210583

 

Whereas I have had six Macs over the past twelve years, and at one point, I carefully evaluated Mac OS-X for possible use in my business.

It's not a wretched OS. It's just another run of the mill OS where they stick on a bunch of low rent "features" that they think they can market. Apple works really really hard on marketing.

 

I've had quite a few. I've got the thing stabilized now, but I've already gone through quite a few hours with Lenovo and Microsoft support.

It turns out that the problem I had with Vista is due to Microsoft changing the way link power management was installed by default at the last moment, as well as an incompatibility between a Lenovo driver (active protection) and an intel Vista-specific driver (turbo memory). But I got more Vista freezes, BSODs, and corrupted system files over the past week than I got from any other OS in years.