Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software Mozilla The Internet

PCWorld Says Firefox is Strong, Vista is Weak 395

Posted by Zonk
from the not-inaccurate dept.
twitter writes "PC World has released their year in review statistics and 2007 was not kind to Microsoft. IE 6 users are equally likely to move to Firefox as they are to IE7 and no one wants Vista. 'How much of an accomplishment is it for a new version of Windows to get to 14 percent usage in 11 months? The logical benchmark is to compare it to the first eleven months of Windows XP, back in 2001 and 2002. In that period, that operating system went from nothing to 36 percent usage on PCWorld.com--more than 250 percent of the usage that Vista has mustered so far.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PCWorld Says Firefox is Strong, Vista is Weak

Comments Filter:
  • benchmark? (Score:3, Funny)

    by rainman_bc (735332) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @05:49PM (#21859882)

    ? The logical benchmark is to compare it to the first eleven months of Windows XP, back in 2001 and 2002.
    I'd say it's probably better to compare to Windows ME than XP...
    • Re:benchmark? (Score:4, Informative)

      by thatskinnyguy (1129515) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @06:04PM (#21860018)
      At least every time I've installed Vista the disk preparation utilities worked like a charm. ME on the other hand, I had to mess around with a Win 98 boot disk.
      Also, the only problems I can find from a user perspective in Vista is that UAC is annoying as hell. With ME, I would have systemic problems right off the bat. That OS was just plain junk right off the bat. Nothing anyone could do could make it work right. The annoyances with Vista can at least be fixed with unchecking a few boxes.
      • Re:benchmark? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30, 2007 @07:02PM (#21860442)
        You don't find that Vista is a sluggish piece of crap? With 2GB of RAM, a damn fast Core 2 Duo, and a 256MB G70 video card, I find the interface chugs along after installing a few perfectly normal programs. XP is a dream in comparison.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          I'm running it with 1GB of ram and a 3.0GHz P4 just fine. It was a real dog when I first installed it. But after a few tweaks its quick and my processor idle is at about 11%. I was getting the same with XP.
          • Re:benchmark? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by peektwice (726616) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @09:47PM (#21861532)
            It's unfreakingbelievable to me that you consider it normal for your CPU to idle at 11% usage, whether it's XP or Vista. I know it's not a direct linear translation, but think of it this way: 330MHz of your 3GHz CPU are being wasted all the time. Why anyone settles for this type of mediocrity or accepts it as normal is beyond me.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by toddestan (632714)
              It's not normal for XP. My Sempron 3000 idles at about 2% or so. When I have Opera open with about 12 tabs, Winamp playing an internet radio station, and my IM client running it still 'idles' at about 5-10%, which seems reasonable.
            • Re:benchmark? (Score:5, Informative)

              by Kalriath (849904) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @09:55PM (#21861574)
              Not everyone does experience that. I have a 3.2GHz P4 with 1GB RAM and Vista runs fine with CPU idling at 0%-1% (although the 0% obviously isn't really 0%)

              The poster you're replying to either has issues with their PC/setup, Norton, or mistakenly included the spike caused by Task Manager starting.
        • by sarixe (1094661) <sarixe@gmail.com> on Sunday December 30, 2007 @09:33PM (#21861428)
          my boss has a dell running with a high-end intel core 2 duo (3ghz, i believe), 4gb ram, and ati x1k. it is a cheetah among computers, and vista makes it run like an oversized snail making its way across fields of molasses.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pembo13 (770295)
        I used Windows ME for several years without significant problems and only switch because some software I needed wouldn't work on Windows ME.
        • Yup, WinME was significantly better than Win98. I think that a lot of WinME's problems were due to bad hardware. For example, back then USB chips were notoriously bad and lots of people unfairly/ignorantly blamed Windows for that while the chips themselves were buggy.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Vista has a ridiculously large footprint. I've seen systems with 2GB of RAM and fairly decent processor (Athlon 64 x2 4200) run Vista and it's sllllooowwww. Much slower than XP on the system.

        OTOH, give Mac OS X Leopard or Ubuntu Gutsy that much RAM and CPU and watch it sing.

        Sorry for anyone who feels like Vista is great, but facts are facts. Vista is slow and bloated.
        • Re:benchmark? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Calmiche (531074) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @07:58PM (#21860862)
          You know, when Windows XP came out, it was fairly slow and bloated. So was Windows 98. It wasn't the software, it was the available hardware. (Not that I'm defending Vista. I can't stand Vista. I've tried it twice now, the first for a month and just last month for two weeks with a new beta SP1. Nasty.)

          I don't know if Vista is redeemable. I'm going to have to wait at least until SP2 before I want to try again.

          That should be by late 2009. So, imagine double the processor power, with an 8 core processor, a solid state disk and at least 64 gig of RAM. If Microsoft gets their butts in gear and start listening to their customers, SP2 might be something worthwhile. We shall see how it works out.
          • by andruk (1132557) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @08:25PM (#21861018)
            "If Microsoft gets their butts in gear and start listening to their customers..."

            So, you mean, never?
            • Re:benchmark? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by smilindog2000 (907665) <bill@billrocks.org> on Monday December 31, 2007 @04:13AM (#21863704) Homepage
              I wish I had mod points to up your funny score... For years in the late 80's and early 90's, I was dumb enough to call Microsoft customer support on occasion. It was a 100% waste of time, a truly unbelievable record of failed customer support. Then I discovered that the Dell customer support guys knew practically everything about Windows and it's popular applications, and they'd answer just about any technical question you had. I suspect they did more Microsoft support than Dell hardware support. All that ended when Dell fired their US based support staff and off-shored support to India. Now days, I just run Ubuntu. If I need support, I just use Google. I'm sure Windows users are also quite helpful on the web, but I have to say I absolutely love the community support hovering around Ubuntu.

              I suspect that Vista may be the result of Microsoft's aging. In the 90's, when the core of XP was built (NT back then - I was a big fan), Microsoft was growing at an insane pace. Much of the best talent (the kind Google gets now days) went to Microsoft. With that kind of success, XP was a natural result. With the web bust, and with the best talent often going elsewhere, and with Bill Gates effectively retired, Vista may be the natural result. I'm not sure I'd hold my breath waiting for Vista to become as good as XP.
          • Re:benchmark? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @08:47PM (#21861134) Journal
            The fact that the market forced vendors to begin offering XP as an option after they had shifted support to the new version of Windows is unprecedented.

            This would be a pretty strong indicator that the market is not "satisfied that Win XP is good enough for their needs" like the article suggests, but that a significant segment are actively rejecting Vista as a bad product even on a brand new computer.

            Which, of course, it is. Microsoft saw the writing on the wall, and they cashed in their chips. Which means, they saw that it was time to sell their install base out to third party interests instead of trying to keep hold of them.

            We've all seen situations where the value of a good name is measured in how long it's purchaser can sell substandard goods at high markup before the name isn't good anymore.

            That's what this is. The industry decided to back "Trusted Computing" despite it being contrary to the interests of consumers, and no one wants to buy it. That's why the new drivers don't work, why the old software is buggy, etc. The common person doesn't know why, but they know it's not working right, and they don't like it.
            • Re:benchmark? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by daeg (828071) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @09:29PM (#21861406)
              I'd love to see statistics showing the number of Vista purchases vs. Vista usage. I started my job about a year ago and we had around 10 machines purchased before I took over purchasing and they had Vista. Once I had time, I replaced them all with Windows XP -- I didn't bother trying to get replacements from our vendor, it was easier/quicker just to buy XP Pro outright from an OEM supplier. I know I'm not the only one that's replaced Vistas with XP.

              What percentage of Vista sales aren't permanent users?
              • Re:benchmark? (Score:4, Informative)

                by lxrocks (1205598) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @10:56PM (#21862040)
                I believe that OEM XP is out of production Jan 1, 2008. So if you want any more, you had better go an buy some quick. Have you taken a good look at the new Notebooks on offer ... I just got burnt with a Compaq v6620 - no XP drivers available. You can install XP, and it boots, but kiss the Lan, Wlan, Video, Audio good bye. No XP drivers - only vista and linux. So what does that tell you - Vista will be rammed down your throught whether you like it or not. Eventually, all new kit will be running Vista, because the Manufacturers won't be cutting any XP drivers for them!
                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by MojoStan (776183)

                  I believe that OEM XP is out of production Jan 1, 2008. So if you want any more, you had better go an buy some quick.

                  License availability (direct OEM and retail) has been extended to June 30, 2008 (January 31, 2009 for system builders) [microsoft.com]. This was covered at Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] and other news sites.

                  Have you taken a good look at the new Notebooks on offer ... I just got burnt with a Compaq v6620 - no XP drivers available. You can install XP, and it boots, but kiss the Lan, Wlan, Video, Audio good bye. No XP drivers - only vista and linux. So what does that tell you - Vista will be rammed down your throught whether you like it or not. Eventually, all new kit will be running Vista, because the Manufacturers won't be cutting any XP drivers for them!

                  Most real "business/pro" PCs offer Windows XP as an installation option. I noticed that the Compaq v6620 is sold on HP/Compaq's "Home and Home Office" store [hp.com], so it's probably really targeted toward the "home" user. If you browse HP/Compaq's current line of notebooks at their "Small & Medium Business" site [hp.com], you'll notice that almos

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Just pointing this out as a Linux/Windows/Mac user:

            The fact that the newest OSX installs and Linux installs aren't slow on my older machines would be...?

            Microsoft designs sluggish, crappy operating systems. The hardware eventually gets to the point that they run ok.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by jcuervo (715139)

            So, imagine double the processor power, with an 8 core processor, a solid state disk and at least 64 gig of RAM. If Microsoft gets their butts in gear and start listening to their customers, SP2 might be something worthwhile. We shall see how it works out.

            That reminds me of an XKCD strip [xkcd.com].

            Windows sucks. I guess I'll try it again later. Nope, still sucks. Nope, still sucks. Oooh, shiny! But still sucks.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          In deed it is slow and bloated out of the box. But when you disable UAC, turn the theme to "Windows Classic", turn off whatever Vista is using instead of dumprep, and turn off all of the startup processes, Vista can be just as economical with resources as XP. But the hard drive footprint versus what you get for it is a real head-scratcher. What the hell could be taking-up all of that space? Maybe there's some Hi-Def porn stashed in an Easter Egg somewhere in the %windir% directory.
      • The annoyances with Vista can at least be fixed with unchecking a few boxes.

        You know, I really wouldn't have much of a problem with Vista if it weren't such a bloated resource hog. For the most part, I like the new features, the new APIs I can use as a developer (WPF, WF, WCF), the new look, and believe it or not, I don't even mind UAC. I've actually been a fairly ardent defender of Vista on Slashdot until about a week ago, and now I'm finally starting to come back over to the pro-XP side, mainly due to p

    • It'd be nice to have stats on how many people chose to upgrade to Vista, rather than having it forced upon them with their new PC. I was looking for a laptop a month ago, and most had Vista pre-installed where an upgrade to XP wasn't an option. I'm using Vista x64 right now because it was pre-installed, and so far, it's usable. The only thing stopping me from upgrading to XP is my laziness.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by HiThere (15173)
        More significant would be the percentage that decide to switch away from Vista within more than a week, but less than a month.

        (People who got it on a machine and immediately switched to, say, Linux, shouldn't be counted. I'm after the ones that gave it a reasonable trial.)
      • by donaldm (919619)

        It'd be nice to have stats on how many people chose to upgrade to Vista, rather than having it forced upon them with their new PC.

        Unfortunately this is just about impossible since those people who decide to put on a different OS rarely advertise the fact that they have done so. Even if the person who changes their OS does advertise, how useful is this since many people will go for a dual boot and it would be very difficult to determine how often the person spends in one bootable partition over another.

        F

  • Well, I guess posting something brutally obvious is better than posting another dupe.

    *shrug*
  • by stewbacca (1033764) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @05:54PM (#21859928)
    Wouldn't the number of people using Macs be lower than average, since they were measuring visitors to a PC-centric website?
    • apparently not the number of visits nearly tripled from 2006. TFA says

      t was as low as one percent at some points, and was around four percent when 2007 began. Now it's seven percent. That's still teensy compared to the 90 percent-plus who use various versions of Windows, but it's almost certainly the highest in the history of this site.
  • Naming? (Score:5, Funny)

    by niceone (992278) * on Sunday December 30, 2007 @05:55PM (#21859930) Journal
    Of course a flaming fox is going to be stronger than a view. MS should have thought up a better name than Vista. Something that could beat foxes and fire - how about: Ice weasel?
    • Re:Naming? (Score:5, Funny)

      by NotAgent86 (888079) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @06:03PM (#21860010)
      I always thought it was an acronym - Virus Infections, Spyware, Trojans and Adware
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by syousef (465911)
        I always thought it was an acronym - Virus Infections, Spyware, Trojans and Adware

        Yeah, that'd be right. Typical MS marketing. Mention as many "new features" as you can to distract from the new DRM.

        Cancel or Allow?
    • Of course a flaming fox is going to be stronger than a view. MS should have thought up a better name than Vista. Something that could beat foxes and fire - how about: Ice weasel?

      Meh. A name isn't everything. Nintendo seems to be doing well with "Wii". And that is arguably the worst-sounding name since Price Waterhouse Coopers Consulting wanted to change it's name to "Monday".

    • by AB3A (192265)
      How about Water-Snake? It is venomous and it bites.
    • Debian [wikipedia.org] already did that! And don't try IceCat [wikipedia.org]. Don't forget other products like IceApe (SeaMonkey; suite product), IceOwl (Calendar), etc.
  • recession (Score:5, Funny)

    by BobZee1 (1065450) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @05:55PM (#21859938) Journal
    Could the United States being in a state of recession have anything to do with Vista's slow growth? Just kidding, I know Vista is TERRIBLE. My karma is bad and I wish it wasn't. I don't want to have bad karma. I am a good person.
    • by canuck57 (662392)

      Could the United States being in a state of recession have anything to do with Vista's slow growth? Just kidding, I know Vista is TERRIBLE. My karma is bad and I wish it wasn't. I don't want to have bad karma. I am a good person.

      Doubtful. A few reasons too. First, computers expire and need to be replaced. Computers are selling, just get wiped and back loaded with XP. Microsoft might even have a good quarter as people double purchase XP after buying a machine with Vista. And some are upgraded with Linux [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by h3llfish (663057)
      I'd give you a mod point for that if I had one, because the economic climate does have something to do with it. It's not so much the merits of the OS that matters in this context. It's how many people are buying new PCs.

      The American worker hasn't gotten a raise in 6 years. For some, a lot longer. So while it's true that unemployment is low, that doesn't mean much to the PC market if no one has much disposable income.

      It's similar to the situation with the PS3, and the other HD "next gen" components.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    People can come up with statistics to prove anything, fourty percent of all people know that.
  • Poor comparison (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RealGrouchy (943109) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @06:00PM (#21859978)
    Assuming the summary is correct...

    They're comparing usage based on visits to their website. Not only that, but they're comparing uptake of Vista in 2007 to XP in 2001. As a percentage.

    I can't help but feel that a lot has changed over that time to make that method of comparison completely irrelevant, both in terms of MS's operations (like how Vista follows a fairly strong OS that has had years to take root, compared with XP, which followed Windows Me, which sucked in every possible way) and in terms of the overall PC market (like how Macs are much more competitive, and how Linux has matured, but mostly how so many hardware and software has been developed for Windows XP).

    - RG>
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jawtheshark (198669) *
      I question your knowledge.... You say XP followed ME. That isn't remotely true. There was a consumer line which went 95, 98, ME. All of those were worthless. The professional line on the other hand went NT 3.51, NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP. None of those were worthless. They all were great within the time the lived. XP was NEVER a decendant of ME. Learn your OS history, please.
      • Re:Poor comparison (Score:5, Informative)

        by TheNetAvenger (624455) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @06:40PM (#21860292)
        They all were great within the time the lived. XP was NEVER a decendant of ME. Learn your OS history, please.

        Although you are 'technically' correct that Windows 2000 was released between WinME and XP, what is being missed in this argument is that WindowsXP was the FIRST version of the NT based OS that was focused on and designed to specifically replace the consumer level DOS/Win9x OSes.

        You are correct that XP is not descended from Win9x or WinME in any way, it is an NT based OS with NO code used from the Win9x era of OSes. (It is was as much of a jump from Win9X/WinME as System 9 was to OS X).

        In regard to the article, this is also why the uptake of WinXP was faster than even Windows 2000, as Windows 2000 was the successor to NT4 and was not pushed to home or mainstream consumer users. XP being the first NT version that was designed for and pushed into the mainstream consumer markets had quite an advantage even though Win2K users ignorantly thumbed their noses at it. In contrast to the generation of consumer OSes it was replacing, it was a massive difference in terms of performance and stability. XP not only ran faster than Win98 (the fastest of the DOS/Win9x generation), but it also was significantly more stable and secure than the previous OSes that had no knowledge of any type of security.

        So for consumers and home users, XP was good jump, and even just upgrading Win98 or WinME to XP would not only increase the lifetime of the computer, but would fix technical problems in the installation wihtout having to wipe settings, and gave the users a virtually crash free experience.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gatzke (2977)

        "They were all great within the time the [sic] lived."

        Did you ever use NT 3.51? 4.0? 2000? They were terrible. XP is the first MS OS that has actually stayed stable for me for more than a few days. I still get bluescreens, but hey, it is a MS product. The "professional" line was worthless in a variety of ways.

        For a lot of people, they did go from ME to XP because they had no consumer option. What was the consumer OS from MS after ME? XP Home! Another POS, but far better than ME. So YOU learn your
        • I used NT4 and 2000 from NT5 Beta 2 on my desktop. The only blue screens I ever got were caused by nVidia and ATi drivers (uncertified). NT4 was a nice desktop OS in 1996, although IE 4/5 slowed it down a lot later. The lack of plug and play and DirectX support were the biggest problems and 2K fixed them. The only things XP added were remote desktop and a load of UI regressions.

          I didn't use NT 3.51, although I did have to do some work for a company using it on their server (in 2000, would you believe)

        • As a daily user of Win2000 Professional on my home machine, from choice, I take offense at your ignorant assertion.

          Yes, I installed and ran NT 3.51, as well as 3.1 and 4.0. I run WinXP at work, where I'm pushing people to convert to Vista (for business reasons, not for technical ones). I have a Win XP/X64 box here under my feet, and a Windows Server 2003 box a pencils throw away. I still own the Windows 98 Upgrade disk that I used to convert from Windows 95 to Windows 98, along with every DOS disk I've

        • Re:Poor comparison (Score:4, Informative)

          by schnikies79 (788746) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @07:29PM (#21860638)
          I never used nt 3.51 or 4.0 regularly, but I did w2k and xp.

          I NEVER get blue screens, ever, end of story. If you get blue screens with XP, something is wrong and it's not the OS.

          2000 is absolutely rock-solid stable, as is w2k.
        • Re:Poor comparison (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ConceptJunkie (24823) * on Sunday December 30, 2007 @07:45PM (#21860760) Homepage Journal
          I used NT 3.51 and it was rock solid in my experience. So was NT 4, at least until SP2 came around. Windows 2000 was also reasonably stable and has proved to have great longevity... my kids still use it because the machine it runs on blue screens when trying to install XP. XP was better, especially by the time SP2 came around. The NT side of Windows never suffered from huge stability issues, and even when it did 90% of the time it was obviously and directly related to hardware drivers. No, the NT line was never perfect and there were features and bugs that would drive any user insane, but overall they were decent products that were worth the upgrades.

          Until Vista came around, each new version offered significant improvements, required significantly more resources, added some quirky problems but was overall an improvement. The problem is that with Windows 2000, MS pretty much solved all their major problems (besides security, but that could be mitigated by a little bit of common sense, despite the horrible track record of security issues). By XP SP2, even security issues were starting to be not so severe. The biggest changes between 2000 and XP were minor UI tweaks (and the ugliest theme ever put on a GUI since Tandy DeskMate, but that could be turned off, and was turned off, by anyone who realized it could be), and support for new hardware, especially wireless, which didn't really become "nice" until SP2 came along. All Vista really needed to do was support the newest hardware, throw a little eye candy in (because you always need a little eye candy in a new release) and fix some of the many problems that will always plague any OS and it would have sold like hotcakes. Instead we got a Frankenstein monster of an OS that looks and feels like it was designed and written by Cold-War Era East German government employees, with more bloat than the U.S. Tax Code and fewer useful new features than the, well, the U.S. Tax Code.

          IMO, Microsoft has been growing beyond their capacity to manage themselves since the early 90's and they have finally reached the point where they are so large they literally cannot do anything right. Just like the U.S. government, MS is so huge, bloated, mismanaged and downright corrupt, the only way it can possibly be improved is for 95% of it to simply go away.

      • by Zeinfeld (263942)
        question your knowledge.... You say XP followed ME. That isn't remotely true.

        No, what the original poster was saying is that Vista is to XP what ME is to 98. There are certainly some advantages, being able to use USB for example but nothing like the Windows 95 upgrade or the XP launch.

        If you have the hardware that will cope with it, Vista is a really nice O/S to run. But there isn't the same incentive to upgrade an existing machine as there was with XP.

    • Assuming the summary is correct...

      This is ./, the summary is almost never correct.

      If you bothered to read the article, you'd seen that the author has exactly your arguments why the adoption of Vista could be this slow.

      BTW, I don't see why these arguments should speak in favor of Microsoft. Vista does not deliver what the mutli-billion, five years long development cycle promised. XP is enough for most people and they probably don't see why they should pay hundreds of dollars for an eye-candy-only upgr

    • by Kjella (173770)
      Amen to that. I think a lot of slashdot think XP was only a new skin on Windows 2000, but most people never used that. They came from Win98/ME which was a consumer OS with poor stability and memory separation that particularly with ME was badly butchered to make Win2k instead. While I'm sure you can find a lot wrong with XP, almost all of it can be fixed using third party software because the foundation is solid. Win98 couldn't be fixed, it was like building a house on quicksand and upgrading to XP solved a
  • by Tim Ward (514198) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @06:00PM (#21859982) Homepage
    ... from Win2k to XP, a couple of weeks ago, because the child wanted to run something that didn't work on Win2k. (We have no Win9x or NT boxes left at home now, they've all been upgraded to at least Win2k.)

    In the end, that'll be why people upgrade to Vista - difficulty in obtaining applications that still work on XP.
    • by dprovine (140134) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @06:23PM (#21860166)

      [T]hat'll be why people upgrade to Vista - difficulty in obtaining applications that still work on XP.

      That may not happen very quickly: at least one developer I know is under orders to write only things that work under XP, and test them with Vista for compatibility. Anything that's Vista-only is explicitly forbidden, because Vista uptake has been so slow.

      Economically speaking, if Vista can run XP programs, your market for writing something that runs on both is vastly larger than your market for writing something that only runs on Vista. If you sold software for money, would you write anything Vista-only?

      • If that were the only argument, then it would be a simple choice. The question is whether writing Vista-only software is simpler than writing Vista-and-XP software. Does Vista include any APIs that dramatically simplify development? If so, then at some point it is cheaper to write code that takes n% less long but only runs on m% of your target market's machines.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Tony Hoyle (11698)
          The useful APIs haven't really changed since 2000.. and most of that was due to Active directory. If you're not doing domain authentication it probably won't affect you.

          You can use 'new' APIs for stuff but normally it's nothing that couldn't be done with two or three API calls to 'old' APIs.. and any developer will have a library of code that does that anyway so it'd be more work to change it than leave it as it is.
    • I could do everything I need to do on a Win2K computer, and in fact, I still use it at work. I think there are tons of people like us. The other problem that gets people to upgrade is security, though. The world is a lot different than it was just 10 years ago. The problem is, those systems were very insecure to begin with, and the patches have either stopped coming or are very close to stopping. I occasionally still get people trying to use Windows 98 systems on the Net. That's fine, if you want to get own
  • /. effect (Score:5, Interesting)

    by calebt3 (1098475) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @06:01PM (#21859994)
    The chart occasionally shows Firefox having more hits than IE. Maybe those months had more /. articles pointing to PC World's website?
  • by Ferzerp (83619) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @06:04PM (#21860012)
    The same BLOG linked to also states that ie7 is in use more than firefox. However, the tagline for the slashdot story says "firefox is strong". In the time it has come out, more people have adopted that single version of internet explorer than are using all versions of firefox combined.

    Only on slashdot folks.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30, 2007 @06:04PM (#21860014)
    From the original [slashdot.org] journal entry:

    Vistit the article to see the pretty graphs and to spike PC World's statistics more toward reality. It's clear that computer enthusiasts are not going for M$'s current offerings, show them what people really like.

    twitter also has another journal entry there [slashdot.org], which is hilarious if not for the fact that he spends so much time arguing that Dvorak is an idiot when he says something about Linux twitter doesn't like.

    For someone who has already ruined two Slashdot [slashdot.org] accounts [slashdot.org] with his misguided "evangelism" and is down to trolling AC, he sure has a lot of fun trolling [slashdot.org] the site.

    twitter, please stop "helping" us. Free software needs people who can make intelligent arguments about why it is superior to closed-source gunk, not trolls who spend all their waking hours making up shit about Microsoft with liberal doses of infantile creative spelling.

  • by LaughingCoder (914424) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @06:12PM (#21860078)
    According to this web site (http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62034821,00.htm [zdnetasia.com]), Vista, in less than one year, has many times the desktop penetration as does Linux (all flavors still constitute less than 1%) after 15 years. The article also mentions that many (most?) businesses are waiting for SP1 before even considering adoption. Given that SP1 is due in a month or so, I strongly suspect there will be a dramatic change in Vista's numbers in its second year of existence.

    Also along these lines, I know quite a few people who are getting Vista on their new home machines, and have been, for the most part, favorably impressed. This, over time, will also translate into increased adoption in the business world. Like it or not, Vista will become the pervasive desktop in the next 2 years.
    • Business is also waiting for Windows 2008 Server for a combined deployment strategy, as Vista's functionality in the business environment increases considerably when paired with 2008 Server.

      Windows 2008 also takes advantage of the new deployment mechanisms in Vista, and rolling out Windows 2008 first and then creating the automated VIsta rollouts will be significantly easier than moving the desktops to Vista before 2008 Server arrives. It is also something business is looking forward to, as the ease of auto
    • Well, sorry.

      Six months ago I bought a drive and Vista Business OEM. I flipped the new drive into my laptop and launched the Vista installation DVD. The OS detected all the hardware (on a May 2006 Dell Inspiron), installed the appropriate drivers and rebooted flawlessly. I installed all of my apps, doing the compatibility thing for the ones that balked, and everything just works.

      Please note: When Win2K came out every Win98SE lover bitched, then when XP came out every Win2K user bitched. It's a new day, bitc
      • by turing_m (1030530)
        "When Win2K came out every Win98SE lover bitched, then when XP came out every Win2K user bitched. It's a new day, bitch all you want then get over it."

        When WinME, everyone who loved Win98 bitched... and today it is still the punchline to jokes about operating systems. MS has a monopoly, but it is not on producing a good or even well liked operating system every time they try their hands at it.
    • by westlake (615356) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @09:22PM (#21861352)
      Vista, in less than one year, has many times the desktop penetration as does Linux (all flavors still constitute less than 1%) after 15 years.

      You see the much same thing in the w3Schools OS Platform Stats. [w3schools.com]

      There are, by some estimates, one billion Windows users.

      To claim 14% of a market that size in one year would be pure fantasy in any other context.

      MS Vista was the only OS showing significant growth in 2007. Linux has gained absolutely no traction in the w3Schools stats in the better part of five years.

      Vista's strength has been in OEM sales of Vista Premium and Ultimate in the consumer market.

      That is good news for Dell, HP and the big box retailer.

      The el cheapo $200 Linux box - the "network appliance" - makes headlines on Slashdot. But that isn't the only price point that interests Walmart - or the Walmart shopper: HP TouchSmart Desktop PC [walmart.com]

      Not only that, but the brand name multifunction color printer-scanner with a Vista driver will set him back less than $50. HP All-In-Printer & HP 21 Ink [walmart.com]

      The Geek tries to frame the "Microsoft Tax" as a percentage of the price of the computer. But the ordinary user - the middle class buyer - is looking at the price of the system bundle, the cost of services and consumables.

      OEM Vista is a one-time expense.

      The ink jet cartridge or the monthly bill for Roadrunner won't come any cheaper if he migrates to Linux.

  • by Skuld-Chan (302449) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @07:03PM (#21860452)
    We'd all be decrying the downfall of Microsoft. Does anyone realize how much 14% is? Its huge!
    • by ctid (449118)
      I think that 14% reflects the number of new PCs. I suspect that the number of people who have actually upgraded is miniscule and that is the difference between the stats for the first 11 months of XP and the first 11 months of Vista. Inevitably the number of Vista installations will trend upwards because it's hard to buy a PC with XP on it these days.

      From Microsoft's point of view it doesn't really matter if people don't upgrade from XP to Vista because they are guaranteed sales of Vista with new PC purchas
      • by turing_m (1030530)
        "I think that 14% reflects the number of new PCs. I suspect that the number of people who have actually upgraded is miniscule and that is the difference between the stats for the first 11 months of XP and the first 11 months of Vista. Inevitably the number of Vista installations will trend upwards because it's hard to buy a PC with XP on it these days."

        If that's the case, it doesn't bode well for future MS sales. They are stuck then on relying on malware (or low-reliability components, I suppose) to drive u
  • Since the typical home user will answer 'yes' to a popup by Microsoft. How many of these upgrades are from XP users taking the automatic upgrade from IE6 to IE7? I wonder how many actually thought "hmm, instead of upgrading from IE6 to 7, i'll download firefox instead."

    IE initially became popular because users did not need to make a choice.

    Therefore, if you want Firefox to take off, you need to get it included/bundled with Windows.
  • I feel like a large majority of the people who hate Vista do it because they think they're supposed to. Similar to people who like Titanic because they think they're supposed to, even though it's horribly depressing and all in all not that great of a film, average at best; or MS fanboys who hate Mac because they think they're supposed to--while these feelings might have a legitimate basis somewhere (Vista does have problems, Titanic did receive good reviews, and Mac has only recently started to shine), when
    • Have you used Vista?

      Its better than WindowsME I suppose.

      I bought a new laptop last week which is a sparkling new AMD Turion x2 dual core with 2 gigs of ram and a fast 7200 rpm 200 gig drive and it came with Vista. My previous laptop was a Compaq which had a 1.7 ghz PentiumM with only 1 gig of ram and a slooww 4200 rpm drive running XP.

      Man is this new machine slower than my compaq thanks to Vista. I could transfer hundreds of megs off my flashdrive to my XP machine with a 4200 rpm in about a minute.
      • by headkase (533448)
        I've had the opposite experience: I have a Dual-Core Pentium D @ 3Ghz, 2GB RAM, Ati 1650, 1TB HD. And Vista runs great and I haven't had any major issues at all. And I don't even have any of the stability/compatibility hotfixes or even RC1 of the service pack installed. Like it or not Vista is what its going to be for the next 1/2 decade at least. It's not even mature yet! Once a service pack or two settles in along with the general Windows Update stuff trickles out it will - I'm sure - become an excel
  • by owlstead (636356) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @07:50PM (#21860798)
    I'm just wondering how much of a backlash Vista will have on the open source operating environments.

    The most different thing about Vista and XP is the off-take of .NET. This means that most of the operating system, and in short time - the applications - will be managed software. This will mean that, in general, software will indeed be safer to run - e.g. no more buffer overruns. I don't see any movements within the Linux environment towards this direction. Somehow, just playing the NX-bit game doesn't really cut it.

    On the other hand we have the more fine-grained security model. Yes, this means more popup boxes. But if I'm running Ubuntu, it's much worse. I'll have to type my passport so many times that it isn't even funny anymore. Just clicking a popup box seems more user friendly to me.

    Not to nag, but even though Vista is a bit of a pain to work with, are we sure we (yes, we, I'm not a Microsoft fan boy, far from it) should keep discrediting Windows? Lets play the technological game and innovate instead. We can do better than MS, both at security, speed, and UI design. Now let's show what we're made off instead of screaming foul.
  • I recently installed vista ultimate 64bit in trial mode on one of my PCs and it's light years ahead of where XP SP0 was, I personally don't find UAC bothersome at all (it asks for permission only for things I like it to ask permissions for) and the PC has been super solid since day 0 playing games (tf2, crysis demo, etc.) and trying things out.

    Yeah, my pc is a bit above the minimum requirements (quad core, 4gigs of ram, 8800gt 1gig, etc.) but in dollar terms a PC that could run XP well when it came out was
  • What is the purpose of posting this? Is it news? Is it the intention of the editors to fan a flame war? Will any reader learn anything, or will they just read statistics which either confirm their world view, or dismiss as being flawed in any of a thousand different ways? Is this just to get zealots of one flavor of another to come here and rant for a bit and possibly click an ad by mistake (probably yes to this one.)

    You can spot inflamatory and ultimately useless stories like this a mile away. If it w
  • by garry_k (1204760) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @08:07PM (#21860914)
    It's not reasonable to compare how many people are upgrading to Vista from XP. XP is a far better OS than say ME was, so not as many people would want or need to upgrade to Vista. It kinda funny listening to all the yahoos whining about Vista (same as when XP first came out, same as when ME first came out, etc, etc). It's also interesting to hear Apple nuts carrying on about Vista security, when it's been proven that Vista is more secure than Apple. It's especially interesting now that Apple is actually managing to get 10% of the market and the morons who write virus/malware are starting to target Apple. If people would start to understand that a more secure, more sophisticated OS needs better hardware to run as fast as an older less secure system, then it makes sense that Vista will run slower. Yes, Vista will bug you to OK changes (just like most add-on firewall programs do if they are really any good), so what do you want, less security or more speed? You aren't going to get everything and speed, unless of couse you use a more powerful computer to run it. I've seen many, many customers runnung Vista with no problems (so long as they didn't buy an underpowered system), and yes, Microsoft needs to have a few years to tweak Vista (read fix stuff), but what system doesn't need fixes in the first year. I've heard about Leopard having problems losing files, security flaws showing up, etc. Firefox said they didn't have any bugs and techies were running around telling everybody they should use it, now they have fixed 300 hundred memory leaks with the new beta. Get real people, nothing is perfect! But I'll bet that in a couple years Microsoft will still be the top selling Desktop operating system and it'll be Vista.
  • As much as we like to think we're the only ones that matter, why is it that we always look on graphs, data, trends, and feedback from geeks and draw global conclusions from them?

    Since when did PCWorld.com become the de facto website that all web users visit?

    More interesting to me would be the same analysis from a website such as CNN or MySpace or Amazon.Com which has a much more normalized audience. Did I just call MySpace normalized?

    As for all those new Mac visits, my guess is that now that they have Boot
  • by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @08:35PM (#21861078)
    From TFA: We'll show you how the Vista transition will become smoother.

    To Vista or From Vista?

  • I haven't seen so much penetration take place on so many desktops since Brittany Spears!

    rimshot!

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...