17 replies to this topic

[PeggyB]

According to Microsoft, sales of Windows Vista licenses where around 100 million for 2007. That sounds impressive, but if you look at the PC Sales numbers that have been released by IDC and Gardner, some 270 million PCs where sold in 2007. Now you will see the obvious quite easy: Vista was only sold with roughly 1 out of every 3 PCs sold. By comparison, Windows XP sold nearly 90 million copies in its first year, despite a PC market that was selling only about 130 million PCs that year.

Since Windows still shipped on nearly all PC sold, one can argue that the bulk of Windows sales in 2007 have come from Vista's predecessor, Windows XP.

Early on, when Vista just started selling in the market there were reports of significantly lower retail sales of Vista, in some cases nearly 60% less than the same 'sales week' in Windows XP's sales cycle. At the time, analysts attributed the 'sales slump' of shrink-wrapped copies of Vista to a shift in the way users get the new OS. More businesses are purchasing Windows through a volume licensing program, which reduces the number of shrink-wrapped copies that are picked up at a retailer. It was also argued that Vista's hardware requirements caused many consumers to order a new PC instead - pre-installed with Vista, further reducing the need for the shrink-wrapped boxes sold through retail, which was the back-bone of Windows XP's sales in 2001.

An early indicator of trouble for Vista emerged in April when several PC makers were pressured by demand to offer Windows XP as an option on new systems, particularly on systems sold into the small business channel.

Even Microsoft itself had to adjust some of its policies toward Windows XP. Originally Microsoft had planned to stop sales of Windows XP from 30 January 2008, but last September it announced it would extend that date by five months to 30 June 2008. Previous versions of operating systems released by Microsoft have generally been available for up to two years after the shipment of a new OS.




Save Windows XP?

InfoWorld has launched a "Save XP" campaign, arguing that "Microsoft plans to end most sales of Windows XP on June 30, despite a deep reluctance by many business and individuals about moving to Vista. InfoWorld believes such an expensive, time-consuming shift with problematic benefits should not be forced on Windows users, so we have decided to rally XP users to demand that XP be kept available". Not only that, the actual petition will ask Microsoft to "keep Windows XP available indefinitely". That's just plane insane! That way computing would be stuck in 2001.

Windows Vista is superior to Windows XP. That's a fact, plain and simple. And the horror stories you are hearing about Vista? I would argue that the majority of reported Vista problems stem from lazy third-party developers who didn't get their hardware and software compatible with Vista in a timely manner, despite a development cycle lasting many years. Let me just offer you one example I experienced myself: Panasonic took nearly ten months after Vista's November 30, 2006 (business) release date to offer a driver for their KX-FLB751/756/FLM551 multi-function printer/fax/scanner. When I tried installing the driver it caused my machine to 'bleu-screen'. Obviously that was the last time I purchased such a device from Panasonic (my Canon MP510 has been working fine with Vista since day one). As I have stated before, Microsoft gave third parties all access they needed to develop their Vista drivers, but if they (the third parties) fail to deliver these drivers, one can hardly blame Microsoft for it.

[jram]

The problem with Visa sales is much deeper than stated.
Windows XP was forever being sold, all big businesses have XP or 2000 installed on their old machines. Look at it this way, Vista may be way better than XP, but some businesses have a couple hundred of older computers and can't justify the cost of buying 200 new computers to run Vista. The older machines that companies use just won't run Vista because XP was sold for so many years the machines weren't upgraded. The only people buying Vista are home users, not businesses.
The complaints about Vista aren't Microsoft's doing, it's the computer manufacturers trying to convince home users that the 499 specials can run Vista. The bottom line with Vista, the better the computer, the better Vista will run, plain and simple.

[Moose]

jram, on Jan 26 2008, 03:18 PM, said:

The bottom line with Vista, the better the computer, the better Vista will run, plain and simple.

Ha! I don't think the machine has anything to do with it,Vista Sucks! Plain and simple.

[Broni]

Eh...I've been using it for over 4 months, and it works perfectly fine.
However, JR is right. It won't run well on cheap computers.

[Audrey]

Wth the BIG paycheck you guys are getting from Bush maybe people will run out and buy vista..instead of paying their bills ..maybe by June ....... http://www.smartestc...tyle_emoticons/default/yahoo.gif lol

[Broni]

Simply speaking. Vista to run well needs these:
- 2GHz processor
- 2GB of RAM
- 256MB of video RAM
- ~250GB hard drive
Then, you're all set.

You can get it for ~$700 + ~$150LCD monitor

[dobhar]

Sorry Robyn but I beg to differ...I run Vista and love it...I actually like it better than XP. I'm pretty sure Smokey agree's with me. And I think Broni (Mr. Win98) is converted over to the dark side as well...LOLOLOL. Vista, plain & simple, is a total rewrite so WinXP users have a learning curve when they start using Vista...similar to users going from Win98 to WinXP.

The plain and simple is that you have to have a PC or Laptop that can run Vista. JR is correct is stating that the $499.99 PC that people are buying just won't cut it. When WinXP first came out the minimum RAM requirement was 128MB but we all know that you need a minimum of 512MB to make WinXP run properly...oh it will run with lower RAM but it won't sing.

I also agree with JR on the Corporate Headache to come. "When" my company or our "Corporation" goes Vista I can see the big headache that we hare going to have...new PC's, new hardware, using Vista learning curve, etc. Hey Deekie that's going to be one big mean migration...LOLOLOL

Just curious Robyn...How are you coming up with your answer that Vista sucks Plain and Simple.

[Smokey]

dobhar, on Jan 27 2008, 02:05 AM, said:

Sorry Robyn but I beg to differ...I run Vista and love it...I actually like it better than XP. I'm pretty sure Smokey agree's with me.

I totally agree. It's the folks that don't take the time to try Vista for a while that come up with these kind of conclusions. I think Robyn is getting this from Mom. I also think that Peggy doesn't like Vista because she just doesn't like "change". That's the way my wife looked at Vista. Now that I made her use Vista, she would never go back to XP. Some day in the near future, Peggy and Robyn will feel the same way.

As for running Vista on a cheap computer, I don't totally agree with jr but it doesn't make much sense to me to buy a new computer without buying one that will be usable into to future.
When you buy a cheap computer it will come with Vista Basic installed on it like this one: [attachment=46482:attachment]When people buy a new computer they should buy one that they don't need to replace in 2 years.

Windows Vista Basic does not have "Areo" installed which is a neat graphics interface. Aero is the part of Vista that needs upgrades like a good Video card and extra memory. XP runs fine without these upgrades because it does not have the Aero interface. Aero allows you to preform tasks like this.
Areo is one of the best, new innovations about Vista but you have to pay the price.

I look at a computer purchase like this; the more you spend, the longer you will be using it and the more you will enjoy it.

[jram]

I see computers at Comp USA and Best Buy and hear the sales person say Vista will run find on machines that have 512 memory. I have stood there and heard the sales person say this, he's lying just to sell the computer. I think if the computer makers made their machines with 1 or 2 gigs off the bat or if sales people would suggest adding another gig to the 512 there would be less complaints. You can't compare a home built or 4,000 $$ laptops to the cheap machines with Vista installed. Though I didn't know about Vista Home Basic not needing the good video card, but I like to have the best so I'm not bothered every other year to buy a new laptop.

[PeggyB]

You got that right Smokey about me.......I hate change. Although I have both now, Windows XP for me and Vista on Cheryl new computer I can see that there are alot of things different and Windows XP is so simple.
I will stick with my XP until I have to change.....

I think Robyn is the same since she has been using Cheryl computer she sees the differences also, but will let her give her side of it.

[Moose]

Like I said before,Vista sucks!! That is MY opinion on it.I have been using Cheryl's computer with Vista now for a month and it sucks.I don't like anything about it.The looks,the configuration,Nothing!!it is no different or any better then XP.Ya'll may adore it and that is fine with me,that's YOUR opinion,but for me,I say it sucks! That is how I arrive at my statement that it sucks plain and simple.Or am I not entitled to my own opinion???

[dobhar]

Robyn said:

Or am I not entitled to my own opinion???

Hey Robyn...don't get your back up...Read my post again...Not once did I say that your opinion didn't matter...I simply asked how you came up with your answer. You said it sucks and I just wanted to know why "Plain and Simple" so don't get a little PO'd when someone asks why. I was just curious. It's like me and Macs...I am not a fan and I would never buy one, that's my opinion, but I would never say they suck without saying why they suck.

Anyways, again, yes you are entitled to your opinion and I totally respect that...I'm just curious how someone comes up with their answer. Admittedly I'm a Geek with a little Nerd thrown in cuz I totally love new hardware and I do love to play with new software.

[Smokey]

Robyn or Peggy, Is the "User Account Control" turned on or off on Cheryl's computer? If it's turned on, turn it off, it's a pain in the ass! Is that why you think Vista sucks Robyn?

[Moose]

I have many reasons why I do not like Vista.
1. You cannot move files with a left sub menu or right click.
2.Screen resolution always has pop up which invade what you are doing on screen,such as playing games.
3.Too 3-D Looking for me.
4.Too many added/uneeded extras such as "Public" files,WTH??Duh,I don't run a Library.LOL
5.Too much extra clicking to get to the files you want under Programs
6.Listed files are a mess,no organization.
I could go on forever guys but I simply Do NOT like anything about Vista.If I have made some of you Vista lovers mad,then I am sorry,You don't have to stomp on me simply because I am different in the things I like OR Don't Like.

[Smokey]

GGBreadMom, on Jan 28 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

You don't have to stomp on me simply because I am different in the things I like OR Don't Like.[/b]

I CAN'T believe that you think that either one of us was STOMPING ON YOU! I for one will make sure that I will NEVER STOMP ON YOU EVER AGAIN!!!!

[Moose]

I was refering to Dobby.

[dobhar]

Hi Robyn...

Can you please show me where I stomped on you. If I did I will apologize but I cannot see anywhere in my other 2 posts where I stomped on you.

You've posted some good reasons and I do have some work arounds...
1) Works for me whether using Left or Right click menus. I can left-click and copy\move a file to another folder and I can right-click and copy\move a file so not sure about this one.
2) Not sure what you mean unless your talking about the "User Account Control" if so see Smokey's post 13
3) Turn of "Aero" Engine => http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/966/vista_e...sparency_effect
Makes view back to "Classic" (XPish)
4) "The Public folder is designed specifically for file sharing. If a user needs to share a document with others in the organization, they can place that document into the Public folder on their machine. That way users can collaborate on documents without having to actually create shares on their workstations."
5) Switch to the "Classic Start Menu"...works and looks like WinXP
6) Not sure what you mean...are you talking about the view when you open Windows Explorer? If so I do agree somewhat...not a fan.

Again...this is not a "stomp"...I'm just showing you that there are answers out there.

And again...You have the right to voice your opinion and I totally respect that but pls don't get mad when I ask why\how you came up with it.

Take care and have a good one...

Laters,

[Moose]

Well,Maybe not so much as stomped but you get the drift.Sometimes when we read things online,they can be read to sound a different way then what the actual other person has typed.You mean it one way,I take it as another.This could be the case.Sorry for any confusion.Those fixes below will have to be up to Cheryl since this is her computer and not mine.I have Windows XP on mine *winks*