Windows

Are Vista sales slacking off?


On Thursday Microsoft announced a first quarter revenue of $13.76 billion; 27% up on the same period last year. Chris Liddell, chief financial officer at Microsoft said, "This fiscal year is off to an outstanding start with the fastest revenue growth of any first quarter since 1999." What I find interesting is that in the same press release Kevin Johnson, president of the Platform and Services Division at Microsoft is quoted as saying:

"Customer demand for Windows Vista this quarter continued to build with double-digit growth in multi-year agreements by businesses and with the vast majority of consumers purchasing premium editions."

Electronista claimed that take-up rates are actually declining. Over the first three months of sale, Microsoft sold an average of 20 million copies of Vista per month. That figure had declined to around 10 million per month during early summer and 9.3 million per month over the last quarter. I'm not sure this is showing a real drop-off in Vista take-up; the first few months of sale were obviously fuelled by early adopters and upgrades (I believe the coupon upgrades would have been included in those figures). Since then take-up would seem to have been relatively stable and some fluctuation could be normal. I wouldn't be surprised if we see figures increase as the holiday season approaches.

Statistics aside, I think the question should be, "Are you happy with Vista?" With the majority of new computers now shipping with Vista (unless XP is specifically asked for), it's obvious that sales will continue. Despite extended support for Windows XP running until 2014, many businesses will see a move to Vista as inevitable and start to plan deployment. Despite this ,I wonder how many people actually prefer it to XP? The majority of people I know who have been using Vista for a while are pretty unimpressed. Once the novelty of the sleek new look has worn off there isn't any real benefit to running Vista; I know several people who have rolled back.

What are your opinions after almost a year of Windows Vista?

159 comments
richhaynes
richhaynes

Sorry guys, just had to comment this one. You ask the question... What are your opinions after almost a year of Windows Vista? Well, where to start! Your spot on with the face lift thought. Once that wears off your left with pretty much the XP system (apart from the annoying UAC!) Well for me personally, i wouldnt role back, because of all the problems with Vista, XP is just as bad so its not worth the hassle of everything going wrong just to go back to that. But i have found one solution. Due to my wireless being screwed up in Vista, ive now switched to Ubuntu Linux and even though its alot more technical, its a breeze compared to Windows. You can tweak it to how you want it and it feels like home after a few months. I still use Vista for BOINC and the Media Center but thats about it now :)

azredwinger
azredwinger

I think the way sales are counted is misleading. It is difficult to get a new computer that doesn't have Vista installed. Not many of novice users know they can request XP be installed. I have replaced Vista with XP on a bunch of laptops for friends. It is the most difficult OS for a user to use and frustrating for a novice. With the population of baby boomers being in the majority in the US most of us older computer users don't have the patience to learn a new OS that requires such a large learning curve. For home use this is a lousy option. Collage kids have trouble with school programs that they need and are not compatible with Vista. I work for a US Government Agency and we won't be going to Vista anytime soon because of compatibility issues. As the first person in this thread said most eloquently; "Vista sucks".

unhappyuser
unhappyuser

Issues with drivers, applications and the UAC should be enough to dump Vista. Yes, we've gotten though the mess but it took TOO long. Too much money is being wasted on an OS that's bloated and not really any better than XP. I'd rather have XP with added security apps and solid drivers than the mess MS has given us. Testing shows that XP with 3rd party security apps loaded is faster, far superior and less prone to issues than Vista. Death to Vista! Go out and buy a Linux box or a MAC. You'll sleep better at night. MD

ethanbowenwon
ethanbowenwon

I agree 100% with you! I like your points, there are many people on www.betanews.com who say that Vista is so much better than XP, but deep down I knew that there were some AWESOME PEOPLE LIKE YOU who understood, that XP is better!

rcfoulk
rcfoulk

I???ve noted before in these discussions that the real question in business is ???what do I get for the upgrade expense???? With Vista there is cost for PC upgrades or replacement, particularly if a machine is over 18 months old, and possibly a graphics card upgrade regardless, the actual cost of the software, costs associated with installation/configuration and then costs associated with retraining staff since MS thought it a great idea to totally reorganize the user interface (their human factors people need a beating badly). For all of that one gets less performance, purported better security, which is very questionable based on a number of comparisons with XP, that will ultimately be turned off because it hectors the user with and endless barrage of questions most of which most user???s will not really understand, and an operational environment that confuses people . Even once the UI is mastered the reality is that a business has spent quite a bit of money with the result that staff are really doing nothing better or faster, just slightly different. And by the way, while home users may be wowed by it, transparencies on in the UI are functionally irrelevant in a business environment. So in reality the benefit for the business is nil and as a consultant I???m needing to explain why I recommended the upgrade. Similarly, Office 2007 will be used in precisely the same way to do precisely the same things as a user was doing the day before the upgrades. The difference will be that retraining will be required due to the frankly silly UI (my judgment) which when combined with the fact that since it???s more bloated code than 2003 means that the payback for investment is slower performance, initial productivity hits while people learn the new UI when ultimately they will be doing precisely the same memos, letters and simple spreadsheets that they were doing the day prior to the upgrade. So in fact MS gets revenue and my clients get screwed. In my business the only reason to recommend an upgrade of anything is that the user gets something in return for the expense: the upgrade lets them do something better or something they couldn???t do well prior. Both Vista and Office 2007 fail that test miserably. I suspect there will be a real surge in Open License purchases, which allow easy access to prior versions of the OS and Office, which of course MS will tally as Vista and Office 2007 sales. As an MS partner I???m seriously disappointed that the folks in Redmond didn???t learn from the ???Me??? experience. They are driving solution providers such as me to seriously start planning for non-MS solutions.

jdclyde
jdclyde

Start a blog about something very specific, are sales slacking, and then pretend like it doesn't MATTER? Half way through you hop on an irrelevant and unrelated opinion based "do you LIKE Vista"? If you don't CARE about the sale and don't wish to discuss the sales, then that shouldn't be the intentionally misleading title, just to draw people in.

Absolutely
Absolutely

You misplace the emphasis. jdclyde: [i]Half way through you hop on an irrelevant and unrelated opinion based "do you LIKE Vista"?[/i] After summarizing the trend in Vista sales since its release, and outlining some reasons for difficulty diagnosing this or any product's long-term prospects based on first year sales data, Justin asked "Are you happy with Vista?". If I put any emphasis anywhere in that sentence, it would be "Are [b]you[/b] happy with Vista?" It's a good question to ask IT pros, to address the primary topic of his article, the general commercial prospects of Vista.

jdclyde
jdclyde

I would never have even read it. I am not using Vista, so am neither happy nor displeased with it. I am in what NetworkWorld classifies at a part of the "38% with no plans at this stage" of converting to Vista. Why? Because of the completely insane system requirements to have a word processor. I WAS interested to see, market share wise, how much Vista is out there, and if it is gaining or losing ground. Reading how "Vista Sucks" isn't something I was interested in. Off I go to simmer down.....

afhavemann
afhavemann

While I doubt that sales of Vista are slacking off much, I think most people are being mislead by the sales numbers and paying little attention to the actual adoption rate. As a small company SysAdmin, I purchase a few dozen systems a year. The last two purchase cycles have all been with Vista Business or Vista Premium, so in that respect I added to the Vista sales figures, but consider this; while I?ve purchased maybe 75 Vista licensed systems, none (zero) are running Vista; so lets look at the real info. 75 Licenses, no actual installs of Vista, so why is that?; because Vista is a total failure as a business OS. We have a select license for XP Professional, so if I buy 25 systems with XP, I can configure one system to the corporate standard then clone it to the other 24 systems over the network that night. One day to prep one machine and one night to clone it to the others and all 25 are ready to go the next morning. Since I can?t get a select license for Vista and we?re too small for an enterprise license, I can?t clone. That means I have to hand configure every Vista system, and that?s a deal killer. We?ve used Sysprep, but that just doesn?t work for many reasons, cloning does and we?re blocked from that forever with Vista. Microsoft doesn?t provide IPX support and has dropped the Novell client from Vista which forces us to use the very top-heavy client from Novell itself. The network stack no longer supports IPX - a legacy problem but real just the same. Some programs we use just won?t run in Vista and we can?t do without them. Vista is also very difficult to work with when preping many systems with multiple logins. With XP it?s pretty simple to install and configure everything under the Administrator login, create the user login accounts later and copy everything to those accounts after the fact. Much harder to do that in Vista. There?s no corporate advantage to Vista at all. After an extensive test cycle, we concluded that Vista provided absolutely no additional benefit operationally to the company. XP not only does everything Vista does that we need to do, but does it faster with less resources. I sent a request to over 100 other SysAdmins that I correspond with asking about Vista rollouts and project plans. I wanted a copy of the project plan and an to build a list of the issues they encountered. Although I received a great many responses, the number indicating a Vista conversion was planned or in the works was Zero, none. Nearly all of the SysAdmins indicated that Vista simply presented too many impediments to wholesale adoption any time in the near future. The major impediments were :- 1. No select license - this is absolutely the #1 problem, no one wants to touch Vista with the current draconian activation restrictions - every admin indicated this was a death blow to Vista adoption in their company. 2. There are no business reasons for adoption and several reasons not to. 3. Many are either working on or waiting while virtualization is being sorted out, and here I fully agree. Virtualization and OS agnostic apps will likely be the wave we?ll all be riding within the next 2-3 years, and XP will do nicely while this jells. Even now, we are in the process of test bedding a Hypervisor controlled system running a fully standardized OS that?s identical in every machine. This has to play out some, but I assure you that the last thing the business world wants is more support overhead, and a virtualized OS running OS agnostic applications is what we want. In summary, I personally feel that with Vista Microsoft has delivered a very good OS for the average home user and that is the environment that best suits it, not the business world. SysAdmins have little interest it and lots of reasons to delay or completely avoid Vista. Please don?t think I?m one of those MS bashers or a Linux freak that hates everything not Linux, I?m neither. I use Linux, MacIntosh and Windows and I?m equally proficient with all of them. I can install, configure and tweak with the best if need be, but what I want (and what every other Admin wants as well) is less OS overhead and support. Right now, that part is filled best by XP Professional, Vista would only drastically increase my workload. As for Vista sales figures, consider this: It?s true that Vista sales are good, and that?s because that?s mostly all you can buy if your a home purchaser, and you can?t find XP in a store anymore. I can get XP Pro when I order a dozen new machines, but there?s no good reason for that since XP Pro costs the same as Vista Business does with a new system. But when I order them with Vista I get the EULA specified downgrade rights to XP Professional and I can use my XP select license to install XP on the new machines. If I buy XP Pro new systems, the XP EULA doesn?t grant me upgrade rights to Vista, so there?s no downside to purchasing Vista even though the system will never actually run it. Vista sales figures reflect the number of licenses sold, not the number of Vista installations. AFH

notsofast
notsofast

Most peole i knew weren't in a hurry to switch to XP when it came out either. Gamers got better performance from Win9x and better driver support. 18 months to 2 years later, that was no longer the case. This hole vista not doing well reminds me a lot of the HDDVD/BD sales not being great, in that the adoption of HD Technology is happening much quicker than with DVDs, but you'd swear that DVD's were instantly hot, when in fact, it took 2.5 to 3 years for the masses to get on board. Vista will take off in the next year, and not just because XP will be gone. Once driver support has matured the growing pains will be a thing of the past and we'll soon see games start to perform better on Vista and that will get the gamers on board. It's just a matter of time.

pepeledog
pepeledog

I'm reading this with Suse Linux, LOL. Vista! What's a Vista????? LOL!!!!!

TheGooch1
TheGooch1

What's a LOL? I am reading this with Blackberry OS.

pccoder28
pccoder28

I understand why you'd gloat: Suse 10.3 is way cool, very solid, and it's got that nice Yast tool which makes hardware installs and software upgrades a snap. If I didn't have to develop for the Microsoft world (it's nice to have money), I'd never touch a Microsoft box at all. I can run my Suse PC for months without a single crash...I never tire of finding neat things to do with it! When using any Microsoft product, I've always got that fear that I'm going to lose an hour of hard work at any moment (and, I often have), but, in Suse Linux, I can do my documents with the relaxed feeling that my work won't vanish in a puff of smoke--that alone makes Linux worthwhile.

Oktet
Oktet

next, since Linux is worthwhile, compared to Vista or compile some drivers and get them to work in Linux for a couple of hours and then tell me if Linux and Vista are any different in terms of problems or learning curves.

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

video in linux is my bane. using ndiswrapper and an internet connection, I have managed to get 4 different wireless pci cards working in several different distos, but 3d supported video drivers are an issue. When I installed Ubuntu 6.06, I installed ati drivers 5 times befor it worked correctly. (This is through Apt mind you.) And on the 5th time it worked because I manually ran the ati-config and tweaked the xorg config. But, once it was installed, it updated bith the driver and kernel with no lose of function as new versions were released to stable. When I upgraded my distro to 7.04, it installed and configured the ati driver for the 7.04 kernel. So I had 3d support immediately after the upgrade. In 7.10, after the upgrade from 7.04 all I had was a black screen. Manual editing did not help. I did a clean install of 7.10 and a manual load of the ati drivers, still just a black screen. I will try again in a month or so to se eif its fixed, but in the mean time, I have "downgraded" to 7.04. I also re-installed Mint. There is version 3.0, 3.1, and 4 beta out atm. 3.0 is the "base" system. 3.1 was released with a new look, and no update-manager installed by default, as there were some confilcts with some Ubuntu packages. I have not tried 4 beta yet. Mint does not turn on ndiswrapper by default, I was wrong in that detail. What it has is a script to detect common wireless cards and load the ndiswrapper driver for you. Or you can do so manually, it includes 5 or so common drivers. The included drivers, ndiswrapper version worked to set up wpa2 on a netgear (marvell chipset), a linksys (ralink driver, had to blacklist kernel 2500 driver first), and a Buffalo and a belkin usb adapter (I can't remember chipsets off the top of my head.) But, the additional setup took 4 minutes. Drivers are located in /usr/lib/linuxmint/mintwifi/drivers/(driver pci hex code from lspci -n) (not sure about second to last directory). And, I watched a dvd while setting up wireless and updates.

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

no wireless worries for my old HP. Trident Cyberblade video appears to my only nightmare re: running linux on that one. Video ok under Fedora, but seems kind of clunky to look at, no beryl or nifty desktop effects due to TC. Just may give it a shot between semesters!

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

is a gigabyte board with an AMD 64 3000+ processor. 1.5 GB DDR33 and an Nividia 7600 (was an ati x1300, but I had a lot of problems with the drivers for that card). And a Linksys pci Wireless adapter (cant rememebr the model off hand). Over all, the mobo, processor and ram are about 3 to 4 years old. It will run Vista, relatively smoothly if I turn off aero. Mint 3.0 is Ubuntu 7.04 with some re-branding, control panel mods, and non-free codecs included. After by love/hate with Ubuntu 7.10, I installed Mint. It detected the wireless card and loaded ndiswrapper and a windows inf file during install. So WPA-2 was up and running after install. Ubuntu took me 3 hours to get the wireless working. I had remove the default ndis and recompile the latest from code, which did not go so smoothly as I kept having to upgrade or add packages to compile with.... some days I miss Gentoo. Its definately worth checking out, but I do not think they have a kde desktop branded with the Mint colors or controls. And full access to the Debian/Ubuntu packages is also nice. Mint is well worth checking out. But I may be a little biased, since it works so well on my hardware, and since leaving Gentoo, I have stayed with Debian based systems (I Love Apt).

boxfiddler
boxfiddler

How old is the box you are running it on? I'm thinking of installing it to an older laptop that is now running Fedora. Any suggestions, warnings, etc...?

Dumphrey
Dumphrey

Linux distro that can be good for the transition from Windows is Mint Linux. Mint is based off of Ubuntu, with some custom control panels built in. Mint also comes with dvd playback, mp3 playback etc enabled by default (not in the lite version though). Technically this is illegal here in the US of A. But any company that took you to court for attempting to play back a legaly bought dvd would be in for a $h1t storm of bad pr (looking at you Macrovision). Mint also has ndiswrapper and many windows drivers included by default as well. And, being based on Ubuntu, it has full access to the Ubuntu apt repositories (and Debian as well by Default).

pccoder28
pccoder28

I was able to easily get SUSE 9.x and SUSE 10.x working fine on three systems, including the wireless drivers that seem to be causing so much consternation to other posters in this thread. I've got SUSE 10.2 on an 5-year old Compaq Presario, 1.9 GHz P4, and 512 MB RAM--it outperforms my new Core 2, 2 GB RAM Vista PC with 2 GB ReadyBoost--the SUSE box running KDE is far more stable and feels more responsive. The KDE desktop looks great and is very feature-complete. The Yast tool made the installation a breeze...I never had touched a Linux distro until SUSE 9.x and did not want to mess around with driver woes as a newbie to the OS...Yast solved that problem well. One thing about the Linux world that is profoundly different than the Microsoft or Mac ecologies is the fact that I am not nannied by proprietary restrictions such as DRM controls or anti-piracy DaddyWare in Linux--the Linux user feels that his PC is really his. Is Linux ready for the desktop?...yes, it's at least as ready as Vista or Leopard.

pccoder28
pccoder28

I just had to reply, especially as I am viewing this blog using a new Vista PC, plenty of RAM and processor speed, on IE7. Well, it crashed...froze completely, and this is not the first time. I could not shut the browser down easily--even the Task Manager requied about five attempts to "end task." I am seeing many bugs in Vista that are not application-related, when I am banging on the system's features, so to speak. As a degreed and experienced developer, I find much that is positive in Vista, but, as with all new software, when you really start using its features in a big way, all kinds of 'funny bugs' start to show up. I'd say that Vista, even a year on, is really in a beta 2 state. Operating systems are hypercomplex monstrosities, so let's give MS a chance to work it all out--I do find SUSE 10.3 and Win XP Pro more stable, by far, so I wouldn't use Vista for mission-critical business applications for a couple of years or so. Still, don't throw Vista out with the bathwater; it's still a baby!

theMusicMan12
theMusicMan12

After having upgraded to Leopard this past Friday I do not understand why so many people comment about having to wait 1.5 to 2.5 years before Vista will be capable of being used for mission critical applications. After five years of development and a year or more of widespread beta testing this should not be the case. I have had my issues with the Leopard upgrade, but they were mostly insignificant minor annoyances. Should it really take 7 years for an OS to be developed to the point that it acceptable? It took Apple a few years to get OS X right, but after that the past 2-3 releases have been more about going beyond acceptable into the realm of down right useful and productive. I know that Windows has a wider variety of hardware available, but is that "really" a benefit? When it comes to third-party peripherals I can use probably about 75% of the stuff on the market with my Mac. However, I can probably use about 90% of the stuff that is of any quality. I am not trying to make this an Apple vs. Microsoft thing but honestly sit down and spend some time with an Apple computer and you will understand why Vista is a flop.

pccoder28
pccoder28

I agree with you in principle, but remember that the early Vista code was completely scrapped (even the project leader got the sack), so it really has not had the five years of development many think it has. To answer your comment "Should it really take 7 years for an OS to be developed to the point that it acceptable?"...well, yes, for operating systems to really work well, it takes many years to hone and test the code base. Unlike the situation with cars and TV sets, newer is not usually better when it comes to software; good software is like fine wine in that it gets better with age. Leopard is the product of many years hard work...the newer features will still show some bugs, I'll wager, if you bang really hard on it. The Unix/BSD code base tht underlies Leopard was written over many years by some of the best software engineers in the world and was coded to the most exacting standards. One can really trace Leopard's genesis back to 1969's rollout of the first UNIX system; all of today's UNIX cousins, such as OS 10.x, Solaris and Linux, benefit from this early work. Leopard really is a gem and is far superior to Vista in most respects, but business users can't rewrite their mission-critical apps just so they can play with a cool new OS. I'd love to work on a Leopard Mac, but unless your work is on the artsy side of things, coding for the Mac won't pay the bills.

Mark Telco Eng
Mark Telco Eng

Unfortunately for MS word of mouth will be hitting them hard. My experience: Many hours sorting out drivers for quite new equipment. After several hours stuffing around, I still cant get the home network drives visible on my sons new Dell out of the box Vista laptop. and now I'm having a wireless problem the way Vista handles it is very frustrating I appear to have gone backward. Time over I would definitely stuck with XP.

callahan.gary
callahan.gary

Vista has been a mixed bag for me. I upgraded a couple of laptops (both WinXP/Tablet PC). Both were prettier to look at certainly -- Microsoft has done a nice job upgrading the Tablet PC functionality that's built-in to Vista. It's a much more natural, more fluid pen-to-screen relationship than before. However, both of these machines (Fujitsu P1610 and Lenovo X60) had NUMEROUS driver headaches as part of the transition and both machines run less well, too. They're slow to boot up and the Fujitsu, in particular, with its single core processor, just can't handle all the Aero effects without coming to a painful crawl. I've turned off most of the Aero eye-candy, in fact, and that definitely helps. But what you're left with looks an awful lot like, uh, XP? Hello Microsoft??? I then ordered a brand-new, straight from the factory Lenovo X61 Tablet which, unlike the X60 which had to be upgraded, came preloaded with Vista Ultimate. It works quite well, has none of the driver install pain I experienced on the X60 (or Fujitsu) but still it seems to spend quite a lot of time *looking* for drivers, updates, security patches, etc. etc. etc. I use both PCs and Macs (I'm in design and marketing) and both platforms certainly have their pluses and minuses. However, it amazes me that OS X -- especially now with Leopard available -- is SO FAR AHEAD of Microsoft in terms of stability, built-in usability features, attractiveness, and so on. In fact, if Apple ever comes out with a Table PC of its own (iPhone, iPod Touch, hmmmm, are they testing something perhaps?) it wouldn't take me long at all to possibly make the full jump back. I sat down last night to do some sketches on my X61 and instead spent two hours installing URGENTLY NEEDED PATCHES AND UPGRADES which, of course, had to be installed and re-installed a couple of times to get them all in there without triggering error messages. Scale of 1 to 10 (10 being "wow I can't believe I was able to live without this!) I'd give Vista a 4.5 or, on a good day (no freakin' security patch downloads needed today!) maybe a 5 or a 5.5. In comparison Mac OS X is up there in the 8.5 to 9 range. Not perfect. But workin' on it...

a777chance
a777chance

I purchased a laptop with Vista .. not good! I took it back to the store .. I found I had to get new software and even the sotware I owned when loading crashed and so on. The long and short is I bought a new laptop last model with Win XP .. so far I am happy .. Take Vista and .. sail off into the vista please - Thanks Rick =)

ProjectCoach
ProjectCoach

I know boards are a great chance to vent negatives, but reading the posts I see no positives. Could anyone who has had a fully positive experience of Vista please say so. I really get the impression that I am not alone in feeling that MS have seriously annoyed a lot of people here. How many other companies would risk that!? This is a serious question - I know of no one who welcomes Vista. Is it totally thumbs down?

cray
cray

I am the Sys Admin of a Broadcast Company. I had Vista for about 3 months. Here are my good experiences... the OS is kinda pretty and I liked the bubble screen saver. That was about it. I believe it is a fair OS if someone has not had a computer before and they purchase everything for Vista at the start, but if someones has had XP for 5 years and a whole slew of programs that need to run (and they use Hyper Terminal and NT Backup) it is NOT a pretty site!

jhofman
jhofman

Eh..it's an(other) OS. I'm not sure I'd go as far to say an "Experience". It does a lot of things better than XP does. Its just not as stable...yet. I built a new computer and it was the only way to go so I could take advantage of 64 bit and still use all my old applications. There is a learning curve but I got over that as soon as I realized there's a search in the start menu. The UAC is rubbish for a home PC so I said goodbye to that as soon as I found out how to shut it off. In an enterprise setting the UAC will be a lifesaver for admins. My question to you is what could you possibly be trying to do/work on that is making your Vista usage so unbearable?

armstrongb
armstrongb

Dell Duo Core 2.13GHz 2GB RAM Brand new system preloaded with Vista Ultimate and is fully patched. The Vista box takes over 3 minutes to show my local and shared drives on my other boxes, both XP Pro, on my home net. Vista just sits there. This one truly puzzles me since I have shut down any other app running, I even shut off the Trend Micro AV but nothing seems to make much difference. A very unpleasant experience to see this in a 21st century OS on a brand new PC from Dell. Dell says it's Microsoft's problem and MS says it's Dell issue. On the 2 XP boxes on my local net, one wireless and the other cabled, clicking on My Computer typically allows me to access local and network drives in less than 5 seconds, often much less. The Vista system is connected to router by a cable so it does not appear to be a wireless networking issue. Office2007 is fine for me at home but it does take a few moments to get one's head around the ribbon -- I like it once I figured it out but it is different it seems, more for the sake of being different. My workplace still uses older versions of Office and they forbid Vista, IE7 and Office2007 in the workplace all together.

armstrongb
armstrongb

Yes, this has been the way it worked out of the box. I have thought about reloading the OS but that is not on top of my to-do list yet. I may wait for the service pack and see if that makes any difference. The odd part is I can get to my files in very acceptable and normal times using apps like Nero, Office 2007 etc when I try to open a file via the app. But My Computer on the Vista box is very much a dog on the response time. When it finally gets set, it works fine.

Oktet
Oktet

My system is not brand new she was built a while ago. I have a DFI motherboard with an AMD Athlon 64 2.4 Ghz CPU-single core and overclocked to 2.7 Ghz (stable enough to pop wheelies accross the USA indefinetly) on air; in addition, to my 74 GB (small 10, 000 RPM) hard drive- dual booting Windows Vista Business Edition and XP with 1 GB Mushkin Black Special Edition RAM- and I have had no problems in terms of speed or drivers or networking for that matter. I have it on my small (SOHO) network with my Linux boxes, Win 98 machine, and other XP machines and everythig is just talking to each other. Now all I need is an Apple and the circle will be complete. And I have yet to complain, if anything I love my Vista more than some OS(es).

ProjectCoach
ProjectCoach

..to all who replied - I have found Vista so unusable it is interesting that some others have made it work. As to what I could possibly be trying to do that that makes Vista so unbearable, I wish I knew! PC came out of the box, worked but never easily. Emails kept disappearing. I can see nothing different from XP apart from a slight transparency around the windows and different Start menu. Non of this fancy 3D stuff. Loaded Office 2007 (Legit Educational copy - My associate is a college lecturer.) Had fun loading the Norton Antivirus upgrade we were sold, but got it eventually. Now 3 months on, it is so slow you actually have to wait for screen refreshes. It takes seconds to minutes to switch between windows. Have done nothing except load Norton, Firefox and Office 2007. What we have on the desktop now is a load of junk. I'm sure there must be something wrong, but I can't see it. As for where to look for help, where to start?? Hence I am going to follow what a few others I know have done and downgrade to XP. But as I say, it is useful to know that some people can live with it. As to what has gone wrong with this set up, your guess is as good as mine. Personally I see no advantages and show-stopping disdvantages. XP and 2003 does all I need. I don't relish being forced to change to something I don't want or need.

Oktet
Oktet

"to all who replied - I have found Vista so unusable it is interesting that some others have made it work." With enough determination you can make anything work amidst what society says.

Zaitoshi
Zaitoshi

Yes, I know I am of a rare breed, but for me Vista feels like the next logical step. All my complaints about Media Centre have been fixed, searching actually works (and it's a lot faster too), UAC is doing a very good job at making Vista more OSX-like, folder listing feels better, etc. People complaining about speed should get their hardware looked at, and for those that run new hardware and still experience poor preformace, complain to the manufacturer of your hardware instead of Microsoft. Anyone who owns a piece of hardware less than two years old should be able to get a hold of a Vista driver, easy as that. The only serious flaw (from a homeuser standpoint) is that DirectX 10 emulates DX9 and lower which causes decreased preformance in games (but only ever so slight). Anyways, I have no intention at all to switch back to XP. And as for Office 2k7, once you get past the new interface, it rocks.

ByteBin-20472379147970077837000261110898
ByteBin-20472379147970077837000261110898

I have a Lenovo ThinkPad T61 with Vista Home Premium. I haven't had too big a problem with it outside of one game that would not work. Other than that, most things seem to work. I can print via network. It saw my Kodak EasyShare C330 camera and got images from it just fine. Runs PhotoShop Elements 5 just fine. I even run Microsoft Carioca Rummy (after changing the program defaults to run as an XP program). In fact the program runs better in Vista than it did in XP! I like Vista. But I still have XP on my main computer (due to the fact I don't have the funds to upgrade the hardware as much as I'd like before adding Vista). On Vista I also run Virtual PC 2005 (with Ubuntu Server 6.0.61 running in it), Visual Web Developer 2005 Express, Open Office (latest), Firefox, FileZilla, Norton AntiVirus for Vista (you have to download the update), AIM, Windows Life Messenger, Yahoo mesenger, EditPlus, DevPHP, iTunes. I don't experience any problems. I also have the AeroGlass functional on it which is kinda cool (I use Stardock Object Desktop on my XP Machine). I even found that Vista's Windows Mail will also work with XP in that I can save the mail as an .eml file, transfer it to the XP machine and it will work in XP too. Also it worked fine with my two (different brand) USB drives. I often use those and/or the wireless home network to transfer or update files using Briefcases. I have no problems with Vista. If I had the money I would upgrade my XP computer and upgrade to Vista. It's not as bad as some said it was, and I was thinking it would not find/use most programs I need or hardware. I was pleasantly surprised. I have had more problems with driver/hardware compatibility in some distros of Linux than I do in Vista.

Oktet
Oktet

"I have had more problems with driver/hardware compatibility in some distros of Linux than I do in Vista." Eventually with enough time and research you get everything to work and it is beautiful. However, the initial phase of getting drivers to work in some Linux distros is very time consuming at most.

ByteBin-20472379147970077837000261110898
ByteBin-20472379147970077837000261110898

"Eventually with enough time and research you get everything to work and it is beautiful. However, the initial phase of getting drivers to work in some Linux distros is very time consuming at most." And some can't be found. Period. I've run into that in the past with certain distros of linux. As for time-consuming, many people (myself included) don't have several 8 - 12-hr. days to spend trying to find and fix a problem to try and get a certain piece of hardware working when needed. Vista seems to be a lot faster as far as that's concerned. I like Linux. But I wish manufacturers of hardware would either make more Linux drivers or at least allow others to do so.

WTRTHS
WTRTHS

Yes... everything worked fine... even joining the domain with in an AD Win 2003 environment caused no single problem whatsoever for me (as should be exspected), however I also heard for a lot people that's not the case. For corporate use though: it's no more stable than xp, the graphical user interface isn't needed in corp environments, and as such I see no reason to upgrade from XP to Vista, considering the amount of bucks it would cost, not only in licenses but also in hardware requirements. Also, to get full benefit from Vista in a corporate environment, one should be using win server 2008, which is still in beta if I'm not mistaken, and as they are already developing a newer version, I get the feeling lots of people will simply skip Vista. I can see the annoyances for lots of people, but I cannot understand: if you don't want it, don't buy it. It's different if you spend cash for it, and it didn't work for you either. I'm the only person in the company using Vista, because they needed someone to give support to our customers using it. That doesn't mean we're going to implement it. But truth to be told I'm curious about what the sp release will hold for both Vista and XP.

jdhannah
jdhannah

I work in the IT department of a college. I would say that at best, most users are indifferent to Vista. It tends to be IT folks that loathe it, in my experience. I am formerly a MS defender, but the two recent products have pushed me in the direction of open source. Aside from being slow, they seem to have made changes for the sake of change, causing me a lot of frustration.

cirwin
cirwin

In a corp enviro it does not meet all needs. I'm holding back till I see a SP....

frank.huminski
frank.huminski

After a year, there are still hardware/driver compatibility issues. After a year, the interface is still disliked by many. After a year, it has been not been significantly less buggy or less vulnerable than XP. After a year, they still can't get people to embrace it, with numerous people preferring to "downgrade" to XP. I think my point is made. I won't go so far as to say that Vista = ME. After all, even M$ eventually said "OK, look, WinME is crap and we know it. Sorry." I doubt you'll hear that about Vista.

normhaga
normhaga

I guess it was named for the Aeroglass. I worked with Vista for 6 months after RTM. In that time a bug in Vista's file synchronization destroyed my network. I upgraded my software to Vista campatiblity, yada, yada, yada. I found that Vista perform slower than XP, that it has a memory leak, it excessively uses system resources, in short numerous bugs. If you disable the UAC, then Vista disables RPC endpoint mapping and writing to temporary directories, thereby making roll out installations more difficult and time consuming. While Vista has a few plusses,I ended up rewriting policy to prohibit employees from connecting a Vista based computer to my network. After SP1, I will review my policy, but I do not think it will change in light of MS's stance towards Vista. Do I see Vista as becoming the standard OS? I have a new Hewlett-Packard notebook that HP refuses to issue an RMA for hardware failure because I refuse to reload Vista as the OS. Manufacturers will force Vista down our throats whether we want it or not.

kphayes710
kphayes710

I hate Vista with a passion. I tried it for a few weeks and had to get rid of it. In fact I call it Windows ME^2 (ME squared). I do however, like Office 2007. I really enjoy using it and find a lot of cool features. The only drawback I see with it is that it uses a LOT of resources compare with earlier versions. But I guess that is Microsoft's standpoint. "We'll make it bigger and 'better' and require you to use more powerful hardware"

woftbo
woftbo

I called Vista the new ME last week. This desktop has crashed out twice since I installed Vista Business in June. The backup and restore function fails to restore, restore points were not automatically created as configured. XP pro looks very appealing!

TechinMN
TechinMN

IMO, Vista is pretty ho-hum; i.e. it's nothing to write home about once you get past the eye candy, and there's still no compelling reason to upgrade in order to become a MS beta tester for their newest OS. It still has a lot of kinks to work out, and there are a LOT of compatibility issues. To be fair, this is normal with any OS, but as XP is far more mature, in widespread use, and meets every Windows user's needs...I just don't see anyone going out of their way to get Vista unless it comes with a new system. I find it humorous how MS is still blowing smoke about their huge first quarter adoptions. Of course the numbers are large since they are including the 'upgrade coupons', but that doesn't mean people are actually USING them. We've got a bunch of them here, but have only used two: one on a laptop, one on a desktop...both are for testing. And for those systems that ship with Vista, we 'dowgrade' them to XP (as we're allowed to do under contract) since XP actually works. Johnson's comment that "Customer demand for Windows Vista this quarter continued to build...with the vast majority of consumers purchasing premium editions." is exceedingly funny, as well as mildly insulting. Of COURSE users have been purchasing premium editions--it's the only way you can DO anything, because basic is a stripped-down joke. He can try to use it as an example of how people choose the premium editions because they're so great...but anyone with a brain knows it's because you NEED to purchase the premium editions to get the basic functionality users have become accustomed to. I can think of no need for Basic other than on a stand-alone platform used to duplicate CDs or DVDs...and even that's stretching it. Basic should be called Crippled. LOL Still, Vista isn't a BAD OS, not like ME. But the finished product, after stripping out the innovative parts that were supposed to be in it in the first place, is nothing more than a slightly-modified XP. They can say they wrote the code from the ground up, but after displaying the same holes as early XP did, that was shown to be false.

djmorrissey
djmorrissey

I think you stated the issue, but didn't stress it. Vista is not a bad OS, I just do not see the reason for it. It offers nothing but a changed interface to the average user. For most people it is a case of - Why? Very much like Windows ME - a number of improvements that were not quite clean when put together, after a bubble of business - it died. Will this happen to Vista? I don't think so, Microsoft has to much in this - I think we'll see some "New" options added as patches and in another year - this will be the OS of choice. For those of you ready to scream and rant about that - think about when XP came out - for two years Wondows 2000 wa still the first choice option for almost all of us.

ProjectCoach
ProjectCoach

I take your point about XP, but I can't afford to wait 2 years for MS to get it right. I have an associate who cannot work and have wasted too many weekends on this. I need a solution now. At the moment I know XP works and a downgrade will solve my immediate problem. As with other people I have found the Vista support boards pretty useless, filled with more questions than answers.

djmorrissey
djmorrissey

I only run Vista curently on non-critical systems that are on the AD networks. For odd men out and non-domain system we have no real issue. As I said - it's not bad, but what is th eplus right now? WE'll do deployments on new systems stating in about 5 / 6 months, till then XP is our choice, butI believe that we'll go to Vista fully within 18 months.