Xp still outselling Vista

How about this?
http://www.techspot.com/news/31153-windows-xp-still-outselling-vista.html

 

Thats unsurprising to be honest, i mean, with Vista not performing up to par and being a resource hog (in comparison with XP), I wouldnt expect many people to buy it. Not to mention the cost to upgrade systems to work smoothly with Vista. Of course, XP SP3 didnt help at all either.

 

Here is a research based on people's opinion of VISTA

According to InformationWeek, Microsoft tried an experiment on a group of users who were not going to purchase Windows Vista under any circumstances. They were told they were watching a demonstration of the forthcoming "Mojave" operating system and asked their opinions. Reactions included:

"It's awesome"

"The speed is incredible"

"I'd give it a 10"

Later, they were told the OS they were looking at wasn't Mojave but Windows Vista, the operating system they claimed they were unwilling to buy under any circumstances. Prior to the experiment, they gave Vista a 4.4/10 rating. After the experiment, the rating jumped to 8.5.

Based on this experiment, Microsoft believes that much of Windows Vista's problems are in users' heads. They've hired a marketing firm to help change users' perceptions of Vista.

 

And it is.

Having worked in a large corporate IT department, I fully understand why enterprises with 100's or 1000's of seats wouldn't rush to upgrade to Vista, and further would continue to deploy XP (we were still deploying Windows 2000 and yes, even Windows NT 4 a full two years after XP was released...guess XP must have "sucked") a year or two later.

But this blanket notion that Vista is a technical disaster is just hysteria reguritated over and over until it somehow becomes fact.

 

that experiment was the dumbest thing on earth. it was very flawed. it didn't prove anything. first off, the users DID NOT USE THE OS. it was shown to them by microsoft programmers. second, they only used common day to day apps which do not require any performance. and third... they used really fast computers with only signed drivers and microsoft approved hardware.

pretty much all businesses (including microsoft and intel) are not switching to vista. heck, the biggest cooperate windows user is NASA and they're still running windows 2000 on most their machines.

when bill gates even thinks vista sucks.. it's not surprising that xp is up.

 

yeah everything is our imagination ...matrix ffs

 

But large corporations don't adopt new operating systems based on the relative "suckiness" of them. And for bloggers to use the (allegedly) slow adoption of Vista in the enterprise as some sort of indictment of Vista's quality is disingenuous and misleading.

 

It's hard for huge business to switch OS's. You can't just expect them to give a copy to the employees to pop in and expect everything to be working.

 

That doesn't really surprise me. I plan on buying a copy of XP:SP2 instead of Vista also.

 

I don't know, for me personally, vista lowers my 'frames per second' , so I'm not using it. Not to mention that I feel I know all of the intricacies of XP, and don't really want to move on.

 

_Vista is certainly not a "technical disaster" but, in many relevant respects, neither is it an improvement over XP, and it does come with some additional bells and whistles as compared to _Vista that only serve to pull it down just that little bit more.

In terms of performance, _Vista is intentionally designed to underperform as compared to XP by, for example, intentionally prioritizing the user's requested I/O over background I/O, even if that results in less throughput (i.e., less overall performance). The topic is discussed in rather rosy terms in a Microsoft whitepaper entitled I/O Prioritization in Windows_Vista.

Also, a number of functions have been removed. Most are of no consequence as they are typically only for legacy support; however, a few had use for experienced users, but were most likely removed to further dumb the system down for purposes of the targetted audience - the "typical" consumer user. A brief discussion on Wikipedia can be read here.

To be fair, there have also been some improvements, such as a much more sophisticated event monitoring subsystem, as described in this Wikipedia article. As I've gotten more and more interested in plumbing the guts of my OS, I've found myself resorting more and more often to the event logs, and while helpful, the XP event logs can be quite frustrating at times.

In terms of large enterprises refusing to move over, that to me is less surprising than the objections from individual users given that mixing _Vista machines and XP machines (or, heaven forbid, even older types) on a large network that needs to be secure must be a nightmare; for example, in order for a _Vista machine to properly "see" an XP machine, an extra utility, the Link Layer Topology Discovery Responder, must be downloaded and installed on all of the pre-existing XP machines.

All in all, _Vista is simply not worth the trouble and hassle of moving over to it, and does not provide a significant enough benefit to outweigh the additional downsides that it adds. Finally, unless you have an enterprise or business version of _Vista, security support will run out on your copy of _Vista two years before it runs out on XP. That means that anyone, other than those with business versions, who moves to _Vista now and is concerned about their security will be forced to move to Win7 in 2012, whereas anyone who's stayed with XP will not have to move to Win7 for security reasons until 2014. Why make two moves, particularly when one will be forced at a time when Win7 is still relatively untested, when you can get to exactly the same spot by 2014 at less cost and hassle with rejiggering your systems, and at a time when Win7 will have been more thoroughly battle-tested in the real world?

 

Shyster really hit the nail on the head. A Company/Firm needs a reason to switch, some cost savings benefit, or feature that the prior version does not contain. When it comes to Vista the feature set for business is just too minimal for the cost requirements.

 

Here's a great blog post on the Mojave experiment:

http://wilshipley.com/blog/2008/07/mojave-experiment-bad-science-bad.html

Read it, it's hilarious

Cheers!

 

You just keep playing this same tune. You believe what you want, I'll download this month's security updates for _Windows 2000.

At this point, Vista's reputation isn't going to recover, no matter how much MS throws at it. Vista wasn't perfect at launch, but it wasn't bad. The naysayers made it much worse than it is. PC tech has caught up and far eclipsed the "high" resource needs of Vista (which aren't that far off from other OS's of this same usability). Your typical $800 Newegg econo-build can handle Vista, even Vista x64, with ease.

Windows 7 isn't going to help, and any tech-saavy IT person knows this. In fact Windows 7 is probably going to end up being even larger and more resource heavy than Vista.

 

Blah blah same old Vista hate, different day. Why do XP users get off on this? Go use your 7 year old OS and we'll use ours. We don't care that you don't like Vista 'because of the annoying UAC popups'.

 

XP is outselling Vista because it was released in 2001. Stop debating xp vs vista for this simple answer.

 

XP outselling Vista? People are snatching up the remaining XP discs before it all disappears. Corporations don't usually switch because it's not cost effective and with no real difference in performance. My work uses XP Pro even though they are new computers. It used to be Windows 2000. XP will linger for a while but like previous OS's will fade to glory.

 

Where did you get all these details about this experiment? You actually researched on it? I guess that all that you have wrote here are your assumptions which may or may not be true...and I'm not trying to prove that VISTA is better than XP because I believe it doesn't too (for now)...It's just like when XP comes out for the first time....it has its problems like VISTA too...but then the problems will eventually get solved....thus the OS becoming more stable like the current windows XP is right now.

 

I can bet you that VISTA has better securities than your MAC OSX, and your MAC OSX isn't exactly created by Apple...so go ahead and use your form over function OS which I admit is nice and user friendly but overpriced.

Last year's CanSecWest security conference introduced a "Pwn to Own" challenge in which security experts could win an Apple MacBook if they were able to breach its security. As that contest continued, the requirements for breaching the device's security were relaxed gradually until the security was in fact breached. This year, to make for a "fairer" challenge, the contest organizers used three different laptops: A MacBook Air running the latest version of Leopard with all available patches, a Windows Vista laptop with all current patches, and a Sony Vaio laptop with all available Ubuntu Linux patches.

Researcher Charlie Miller of Independent Security Evaluators (ISE) won the challenge on March 27 by breaking the security on the MacBook Air in under 2 minutes. When asked, he said that he chose to attack the Macintosh for one simple reason, "It was the easiest one of the three. We wanted to spend as little time as possible coming up with an exploit, so we picked Mac OS X."

The $5,000 second prize was won a day or two later by Shane Macaulay, a consultant with Security Objectives, breaking into the Fujitsu laptop running Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1, exploiting a bug in Adobe's Flash Player.

The Ubuntu Linux laptop, it should be noted, remained unclaimed and unbroken at the end of the contest.

 

I think he was supporting Vista rather than dissing it. Vista Ultimate is double the price of Leopard, so which one is overpriced?

 

And I expect that used cars outsell new cars, too, probably by a 20:1 margin or greater. That does not make used cars "better" or "worse" than new cars, just more availability (20+ years of models from which to choose versus one year for new models), generally lower priced (It depends on the models), and so forth.

If I were buying a new PC, I would get Vista. Oh, wait, I did just that, didn't I? Way back in May/June of 2007!

 

I don't support VISTA...I didn't even mention that it is better than XP at all...since u can get better performance with Ubuntu or XP with the same specs....I am just suggesting that a part of the problem with people being reluctant to upgrade to VISTA is in their mind (consumers).

 

Even so, it's not numbers Microsoft would be proud of to say the least. Their first OS in several years, people petitioning the company not to pull the plug on XP. Manufacturers basically saying to MS, tough we're going to sell XP as our customers are demanding it. And this took place well after Vista had already launched.

So MS finally kills off XP from retail and you would think that shiny new OS would get some positive press. Nope we still hear XP is outselling Vista. I personally think Vista is an average OS and partly because it was not the OS we were supposed to get.

Even in it's current bloated form. If Microsoft had kept it's word that it would have been a built from the ground up OS with a new file system that no longer needed a registry I would have cut Vista some slack. But this is just a half arsed effort IMV.

Hopefully W7 will do the trick. At least MS will support XP till 2014.

 

Now there's an interesting concept. Would that be the mean, median, or mode? What is the standard deviation to an above average OS? Have you calculated the correlation coefficients?

 

Oh boy. Hot debate, drop it like it`s hot.

Dudes, the simple truth is that even though XP is the oldest OS here, it still provides more power to the basic user than Vista. And 0 compatibility issues with ANYTHING. People don`t want eye-candy, especially bussiness ones.
They want speed and something they`re accustomed to.

 

I knew this would become another XP vs Vista thread. Get a life guys!

 

Yeah, they should get a life and stop posting on internet forums. Next thing you know they'll have like over a thousand posts or something. LOSERS!

 

Let's look back on this and see how many posts you've made after 2 years.

 

1. If I sound like a broken record, that's because the truth doesn't change.

2. Naysaying cannot of itself create what isn't there, particularly when every purchaser of a new computer is forced to adopt it as a matter of course. The reason _Vista has such a sh**ty reputation is because (a) it doesn't markedly improve over XP, and (b) MS built expectations up to such a fever pitch, then dropped the ball so badly - if you promise me a Rolex watch for my birthday, then spend two years coming up with excuses for why you missed this year, then finally hand me a Roolax watch and at the same time try to take away from me my Timex that still keeps time, of course I'm going to be disappointed, and moreover, since I'm getting a counterfeit, I'm going to be p**sed off at you as well.

3. Who said Win7 was going to "help?" As far as I'm concerned, Win7 is just an ultimatum - upgrade or die (i.e., lose security support). Which is too bad, because MS doesn't seem to quite grasp the fact that, certainly by 2014, when XP finally dies, there will be a third option - going elsewhere. I am willing to put good money on the proposition that, by 2014, there will in fact be at least one variant of *nix that is ready for prime time.

 

Please try and understand what I was trying to say. You mentioned MacOS in your previous post, while the user above you didn't.
And yes, I totally understand the mind problem. I have quite a few friends that don't want to upgrade, but mainly because their computers perform poorly. Other than that they believe lots of things written by inexperienced Internet writers that comment every bad aspect of Vista without even comparing it with the early year of XP, when drivers weren't exactly all warm and fuzzy and people were still using Windows 98 (some of them even do it now) because it was faster and there was no point in upgrading. Time passed by and those die-hard Windows 98 fans lost. It's not all in average Joes head, but most of it is.
Linux is something totally different and really not in Vista and XP's league. When it will be as easy to use as XP then we can talk about it. Until then it has it's own mini-forum here. Let's not add it into equation, as this is a Vista & XP talk.

 

That blog is my sentiment exactly. I dropped a couple grand of my own hard earned money on a new rig, Vista X64 included. All geeked to get up and running, see this great new OS in action, and was only a wee bit 'wowed' by the new interface, I'm a minimalist at heart, so bells and whistles don't impress me.

First run at a new Windows OS, I spend a lot of time in the control panel, installing drivers, arranging items how I like them.

BAM! First thing is getting hounded by this thing called UAC. WTF is this? Ok. Fine, click "I'm fine with this you dumb f***" button. After trying to install drivers, configure my display, among a billion other things to customize my new Vista, my good friend UAC repeatedly kicks my ass. I'm not even connected to the internet yet you s***head! Can't you at least figure that out that nobody is hacking my machine?

Fine, disable it.

Now some hoo ha thing called Windows Defender starts to bug me. Can't disable you? WTF? Fine, get on the internet and find a HACK to get rid of it. No real way I could find relatively easily. So fine, live with it and get the system up and running.

Latest nVidia drivers give me ERRORS and lock up my PC repeatedly. To find out I need this new BETA driver.... oh, stupid me. I should have known to download unfinished software to run on this new released OS. sigh.

Now for the fun part, my X-fi. $#@%#$@. 'nuf said. Let's use onboard audio, thanks.

After compromising performance with beta video drivers, using onboard audio, and fighting with defender, I finally get things set up the way I want.

Go to the Start menu. WTF, folders are at the bottom? Ok, surely there must be a way to switch this. The start menu structure has remained the same since Win95 and I'm used to it. I must have accidentally changed an option somewhere. Ok, right click, sort by name. hmmm... hmmm.... hmmmmmmmmm...... WTF?!!!! Nothing happened. Further searching. No way to switch? Ok, I'll just rearrange manually. Oops, I accidentally clicked on sort by name again... CRAP!

Ok fine, another compromise.... deal with it.

So I install Tomb Raider Anniversary, let's have some fun now. Installed fine. Ok, start/all programs/ --- where's the damn game I just installed. Hmmm. Look in the preloaded games menu - all sorts of cheap ass windows games, great. No sign of the game I just installed.

Start Windows Explorer (again hidden deep in the start menu structure)... oh nice, another modified useful utility botched. Trudge through the directory structure and find the executable and now I can run the game. S*** I'm too tired now. Time for bed.

This is just one of many experinces I've had with Vista. Needless to say I spent ANOTHER $150 for XP installed side by side with Vista to "complement" the OS. Vista hasn't seen the light of day for a year now, and have zero inclination to go there.

So you see, moral of the story. Many of us have spent money to get a new Vista PC, only to be disappointed with the end result, and buying ANOTHER Microsoft product to get our stuff to actually work.

 

I think Vista is AWESOME.

 

Unless you enjoy a lot of eye candy, XP is better than Vista in just about every way.

 

Ah another satisfied Vista user. That's been my biggest beef with UAC, not that it was a bad idea but t was poorly implemented. Why does UAC alert me if i'm renaming a desktop icon? Where's the add to exception button so it doesn't go off for the thousandth time when all you want to do is defrg the system. Vista should be summed as nice idea, bad approach.

To a couple of post above. I agree Windows 7 better be the cats meow because there will be mass defections if they pull the same crap as they did with Vista.

Something tells me they'll do it. There's too much riding on the next OS.

 

True Lou, and you can get better eye candy with available apps that make XP look better than Vista. I will say Vista has better built in security features than XP but as I said earlier, Microsoft didn't properly think things thru with a lot of the features found in Vista.

 

Ah, I see it's the weekly Vista -VS- XP topic.

 

Or you like to have some consistency on where and how applications are installed and run, perhaps even separating system data from user data. If that's important to you, then Vista is much better than XP. But don't take my word for it, take the word of someone who either never ran Vista, or only ran it for a hour or two, and never saw an OS before XP. That person is probably better informed. Or at least will agree with you.

 

I've said before that I think this is a lot of it. Not all of it of course, but I do think that given the gap between OS releases there is a huge base of users who have never used anything except XP. Today's college age kid didn't boot DOS 3.2 from a 5 1/4 inch floppy and then run WordPerfect from another floppy. They didn't install Windows 3.1 on top of DOS 6.22 from a pile of 3 1/2 inch floppies. They didn't feed an even bigger pile of floppies to the PC to load Windows 95 for the first time. They didn't do the Win95-->Win98-->Win98SE-->WinME dance. (And unless they were in an IT department, they didn't have the joy of wrestling with NT 3.51 and NT 4.0.) And they probably weren't around for the actual XP launch, and if they were they were complaining about how slowly WinXP ran their games, so they stayed with Windows 98 until 2005 when hardware finally caught up with XP. (Talk about a pig in mud...doesn't anyone remember XP on the hardware of the day in 2001/2002?)

The whining over Vista is comical. There's nothing new here. It's only a new experience for some people.

 

I think that this thread should be closed.

 

Yes, I do enjoy a lot of eye candy very much. Vista goes awesome on my laptop. It's Vista and, if anything else, Ubuntu for me.

 

Agree with everything u said

 

I actually like Vista. I got no problems what so ever. With right configuration it runs pretty good. Thats my two cents worth.

 

i agree with paul r d! ive been using vista on my desktop for quite abit now and have had no prblems with it so far . but yet again i have it dual booted on my laptop too o.o lol

 

and hell, my daughter plays the original "The Sims" on our Vista desktop..... a program designed for Windows 98/2000... compatibility issues my foot.

 

Average as in nothing special, could be a lot better, no big deal, where's Windows 7?

 

I've never considered the possibility that an OS could be "special", although the BXLE instruction in MVS/XA was pretty cool.

 

At the price parts are right now, you can have a high end gaming machine for $800 lol.

 

If you think Vista haters are up in arms, wait 'till Windows 7 comes along. It ain't goin' to be pretty! Windows 7 requires even more strict adherence.

 

Yeah I was supporting Vista But that was interesting about breaching the security of each OS nonetheless.

 

Vista rules FTW!