Vista sales at 40 million....

2219 Views 34 Replies 22 Participants Last post by scientest, Jan 17, 2008

Jimwesternguy

Discussion Starter · May 16, 2007

Obviously, Vista is getting traction in the marketplace...

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/new...a-298375-2.xml

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

wildfire99

· #2 · May 16, 2007

That's like saying French bread is the most popular type of bread ever, after you've replaced every other kind of loaf in every store with French. Woohoo, it's a success!

Dell seems to think otherwise with their backtrack on XP installs. How well that will fare remains to be seen since XP is scheduled to be cut off from new sales at the end of the year.

Meanwhile those of us with Vista and Win Server 2k3 continue to suffer from ridiculous UI bugs and poor peripheral support...

Favelle

· #3 · May 17, 2007

If the nVidia drivers for PureVideo2 ever get released for XP, I doubt I'll move to Vista for YEARS. Once HD-DVD/Blu Ray playback is achieved, I se no reason for any upgrades.

sanne

· #4 · May 17, 2007

Vista is actually quite a nice OS, it just isn't as mature as XP is in terms of driver and application support. I'm gonna wait at least until service pack 1 comes out before I upgrade.

Out of curiosity are more Vista users running Vista32-bit or Vista64-bit?

Jimwesternguy

Discussion Starter · #5 · May 17, 2007

I'm a happy camper running Vista 32 and drivers are maturing rapidly. No point IMHO in waiting until service pack 1.

wildfire99....do you have Dell's sales figures of XP installs vs. Vista installs on their new computers? I seriously doubt if very many new Dell computers are shipped with XP vs Vista.

sync

· #6 · May 17, 2007

I recently bought two computers from Dell. The one for home has Vista and I'm quite pleased with it even though I'm waiting for M-Audio drivers.

The one I bought for the office I got with XP Pro because I don't want to take any chances there. But I look forward to when Vista is mature enough for the office because I prefer it to XP.

JM Anthony

· #7 · May 17, 2007

I've been running Vista on multiple machines for months without one single problem. And it even makes me look 20 pounds thinner.

Regarding Dell, it's worth noting that some of their low end configurations won't run Vista with all of its features. Even pretty enimic when it comes to XP.

John

wildfire99

· #8 · May 17, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimwesternguy /forum/post/0

do you have Dell's sales figures of XP installs vs. Vista installs on their new computers? I seriously doubt if very many new Dell computers are shipped with XP vs Vista.

No. I just know that it was a major customer concern . Part of the whole problem with Vista sales figures, and why I kind of bristle at the assertations that Vista is some kind of retail success is that there is no apples-to-apples comparison. Once Vista was ready for release you pretty much got the choice of Vista Home, Vista Business, or Vista Ultimate. Vista, Vista, or Vista. Of course XP sales would be low, you couldn't buy it!

The only key we really have is the retail sales at launch compared to XP. And in that instance, Vista was a flop .

It doesn't help either that MS is intentionally withholding some features from WinXP, to force adoption of Vista. That's just underhanded, but par for the course for any modern-day ($) corporation. So there are no objective sales figures for Vista, IMO. It's all artificial hype.

We haven't yet seen the real reaction from the business sector who will be forced to start migrating to Vista (and Office 2007) soon. I don't think the reason MS has started their saber-rattling over Linux/FOSS patent violations is just coincidence... they know they're approaching the edge of a big sales cliff as business get fed up with the artificially-created MS upgrade cycle.

I would love to upgrade to Vista, but I prefer to wait to do it until the code base is ready. For the first time, you can no longer do that, simply because of Microsoft's arbitrary sales policies.

See less See more

dandirk

· #9 · May 17, 2007

another Vista thread... o boy

Just as with Win98, Win2k (we will ignore ME), and XP... Software/driver support always takes quite a bit of time to catch up to the "seasoned OS", but many early adopters don't have problems.

Some people have success with Vista and others don't, too many factors play a part in which experience you will have, at least to praise or pan universally.

Sales figures do not alway tell the true story, especially with software licenses... Hell at my work we bought 1300 Office07 and Vista licenses, yet we use Office XP and WinXP... hmmm

Favelle

· #10 · May 17, 2007

I'm not getting Vista for the simple fact that I'd have to BUY it. Screw dat.

jagouar

· #11 · May 17, 2007

i also agree that vista already is better than xp... its just as stable (once you have the drivers) and more secure to boot. honestly the one thing ive really been surprised with so far is how few viruses and spyware there are.

ditcho

· #12 · May 17, 2007

Since this is the HTPC section, I'd definitely say Vista is the better OS for home theatre. My XP boot partition hasn't been used in the last 3-4 months.

mym6

· #13 · May 17, 2007

Why does everyone feel it is more secure? Is it because you tested it and found that indeed it is, or because that cancel or allow dialog gives you warm fuzzies?

So far I'm finding Vista somewhat annoying as a business machine. When joined to a domain, it feels more cumbersome to log in as a different user. My log on scripts sometimes don't run at all. The feel of the menus is cumbersome to me as well.

It sounds like some people really prefer Vista to XP and I'll come around after some more time with it. Most of my gripes are because things that were thoughtless to me before now require me to think a bit more or try to remember where they moved to.

rantanamo

· #14 · May 17, 2007

I have to agree with a lot of the sentiment:

- Better for HTPC. A lot of the complaining is very nitpicky, like, I don't like the thumb they chose for said show, I want to control that. Well, MCE 2005 didn't have them at all. Or, I don't like the horizontal scrolling.

- More stable than XP already

- No point in waiting. What exactly will SP1 bring? Its better than XP already.

Regarding complaints about Vista

- Many blame M$, but I've seen seriously slow 3rd party support on this.

- Many of those complaining know they don't have the muscle to run wild on Vista with everything turned up.

- Finally getting Office 2007, I can't believe that people are complaining about it. In case you've never used it, they're complaining about the old drop down menu transforming to basically drop down toolbars. Far far far easier to use and much more productive. Very logical extension

- Driver support. I took this very seriously from the get go, and had no intention of upgrading either computer without driver support or at least reading on the internet that certain parts ran without the correct drivers. It was about an hour of research. It wasn't hard, and if you're going to run a self install, I don't know why one wouldn't do it, even for XP as tons of hardware still don't play nice with XP. I keep reading, Vista wouldn't take my C2D overclock to 3.4 ghz. Surprise, XP didn't either most of the time.

- Computer manufacturers should take responsibility for putting together machines and just throwing Vista on them.

Otherwise, seriously, you are missing out if you're thinking XP is better right now. XP was surpassed by Vista in stability and security for me in February, when the last of my drivers showed up. The major HTPC programs and drivers that worked for XP, work for Vista.

See less See more

mym6

· #15 · May 17, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo /forum/post/0

Otherwise, seriously, you are missing out if you're thinking XP is better right now. XP was surpassed by Vista in stability and security for me in February, when the last of my drivers showed up. The major HTPC programs and drivers that worked for XP, work for Vista.

Maybe I'm trolling a bit, but what about Vista makes you believe it really is more secure today than XP is today?

jagouar

· #16 · May 17, 2007

because go look at symantec security response or others and see the "os's affected". nearly all of them say xp but almost none say vista.

that alone makes is more secure imo. and i think we are far enough along in the vista release if there are major security holes they would be discovered and attacked.

greeniguana00

· #17 · May 18, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by jagouar /forum/post/0

because go look at symantec security response or others and see the "os's affected". nearly all of them say xp but almost none say vista.

that alone makes is more secure imo. and i think we are far enough along in the vista release if there are major security holes they would be discovered and attacked.

My house has fewer reported security flaws than the white house.

Maybe you mistyped, but "i think we are far enough along in the vista release if there are major security holes they would be discovered and attacked" implies that Vista is more prone to attack than it was at the time of its release.

See less See more

JM Anthony

· #18 · May 18, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildfire99 /forum/post/0

...

We haven't yet seen the real reaction from the business sector who will be forced to start migrating to Vista (and Office 2007) soon. I don't think the reason MS has started their saber-rattling over Linux/FOSS patent violations is just coincidence... they know they're approaching the edge of a big sales cliff as business get fed up with the artificially-created MS upgrade cycle. ...

Interesting supposition. XP will still be actively supported for a number of years (4 or 5??) so why would businesses be compelled to jump. Major businesses with heterogeneous environments typically spend at least 18 months or so evaluating major OS changes before migrating. Smart ones time OS upgrades with equipment replacement.

John

galileo2000

· #19 · May 18, 2007

The OP must have the number of the M$ shares waiting to be fully vested.

He is on my Ignore list so I don't really anticipate any response.

wildfire99

· #20 · May 18, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by JM Anthony /forum/post/0

Interesting supposition. XP will still be actively supported for a number of years (4 or 5??) so why would businesses be compelled to jump. Major businesses with heterogeneous environments typically spend at least 18 months or so evaluating major OS changes before migrating. Smart ones time OS upgrades with equipment replacement.

Because Windows XP OEM is scheduled to be phased out apparently. I don't know how that will affect people with signed support/bulk license agreements with MS, but I know for those who can't just go out and buy a WinXP computer (for new hires or to replace dead equipment) come Jan 31, it will be a major irritation.

That also directly affects me because now I have to completely shift my development workflow to target Vista for new projects, which means buying into the entire MS line of new Kool-Aid. I don't mind upgrading... it's a fact of life for technology, but being forced to do so simply so MS can make more money more faster? To have to build out new systems with Vista and roll the dice with drivers and bugs just to make the sales numbers look cool for MS? Uh uh... that doesn't fly with me.

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.