Vista Share Drops for the First Time In Two Years 332
adeelarshad82 writes "Windows Vista lost market share last month for the first time in almost two years, a sign that users are already abandoning the oft-ridiculed operating system in favor of the new Windows 7. According to Web metrics firm Net Applications, Vista dropped 0.2 percentage points during September to end the month at an 18.6% slice of the operating system pie. Windows 7, meanwhile, gained 0.3 percentage points, its biggest one-month gain since Microsoft began handing out the new OS to the public in January 2009. Windows 7 powered an estimated 1.5% of all computers that connected to the Internet last month, also a record."
Not even October 22 yet... (Score:2, Insightful)
This shows something, that Windows 7 is good enough that people are running the trial of it en masse. The date that will confirm this trend is when W7 gets released to the street for both upgrades and bundled with new PCs, on October 22.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
unfortunately it was on msdnaa for a month and was then withdrawm
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
i have access to 2 msdnaa accounts
http://msdn04.e-academy.com/elms/Storefront/Storefront.aspx?campus=ieee_cs_r9&np1=112 [e-academy.com]
http://msdn70.e-academy.com/elms/Storefront/Storefront.aspx?campus=santbabasing_cs&np1=112 [e-academy.com]
win 7 was available for a month on the 1st link, but was then withdrawn
it never even appeared on the 2nd one
and yes, i have tried logging in
check this
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=0&p=22981341 [slickdeals.net]
the 4th post on the page discusses why it was removed
also try searching for
wind
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm going back to school to get a CS degree. I've been looking forward to the MSDN-AA for nearly a year. (Say what you will against proprietary things, the MS VS IDE is quite nice to work in.) I finally get access now that classes have started, and I discover the Internet's immense crop of freeloaders have trampled all over it. Thanks, guys.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is still on my technet account.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
unfortunately it was on msdnaa for a month and was then withdrawm
Are you sure it wasn't just because it got modded flamebait? Oh, MSDNAA...never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
whats activation like on win7 ?, do they still do that thing where if you change too many hardware components it forces you to re-activate.
I am running the RC1 here, really like it, don't think I will move to the official release until it runs out next summer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you put up with that crap?
Re: (Score:2)
MSDN, Technet, enterprises with an SA agreement, and OEMs were given access to the RTM version of Windows 7 back in August. However, the boxed retail sets are not until October 22.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I'm yet to see a single advert for it. In fact I was in PC World the other day and they still have Vista adverts up all over the place. Although some of the Laptops do have a "Free Windows 7 Upgrade!" sticker on them.
Where are you seeing Windows 7 advertised?
Re:Not even October 22 yet... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"I'm yet to see a single advert for it."
You probably don't watch television. The wife always has the boob tube on, and I'm sick of that little far-to-cute child telling the world about "good things" in Windows 7. There are at least two of those commercials. I can't see the television from my home computer, but I HEAR her. GAAAAHHHHH!!!
It's telling, when their marketing campaign seems to be led by a child, and aimed at children, young mommies, and grandmas. I had to google - the girl's name is Kylie. A
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't you have put some sort of warning on that link? NSFTheLiving or something like that?
where is OS 10.6? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, XP fell 0.2%, win7 rose 0.3%, but OS X rose 0.25%. Considering that the source for their data, hitslink [hitslink.com], doesn't even have OS 10.6 up on their survey yet, I'd say the interpretation that Windows 7 is the one eating Vista's market share is unfounded, it's much more likely that it's a combination of losses to apple and win7.
Moreover, if you look at other stats like statcounter [statcounter.com], the monthly data shows no decrease in Windows Vista adoption rate (i.e., still increasing usage share), but still shows OS X increasing its market share.
Basically, there's just as much evidence that it's snow leopard that's eating Vista's lunch as it is win7. Win7 installs could easily be coming from people who skipped vista.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OS 10.6 is up on their survey, and is included, please read the article.
Re:Not even October 22 yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
The new taskbar alone is a step forward. The old model with the labels just doesn't scale to more than a few windows. Now I just hope the *nix desktop environments follow suit. This was in NeXTSTEP in the 1988, for Pete's sake!
Re:Not even October 22 yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
The new taskbar alone is a step forward. The old model with the labels just doesn't scale to more than a few windows. Now I just hope the *nix desktop environments follow suit. This was in NeXTSTEP in the 1988, for Pete's sake!
Since we, users of Unix desktops, have been using virtual desktops for ages, we don't need to cram tens of windows on each desktop. So an un-crowded list works fine. If we want a full list, we can display all of our windows or all of our desktops via some of the newfangled desktop effects, or just a list of all of the opened windows sorted by desktop, as all the window managers have been able to do since pretty much forever.
Traditional Windows users don't like virtual desktops. I never understood why. Couldn't do without them myself.
Re:Not even October 22 yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
Since we, users of Unix desktops, have been using virtual desktops for ages, we don't need to cram tens of windows on each desktop.
What's wrong with both? I'm a Windows user and use virtual desktops, and tend to end up with virtual desktops that have applications that fit into a certain category. For example, programming related fun on one virtual desktop, recreation on another, and so forth... That doesn't mean I don't have a lot of windows on a virtual desktop, quite the contrary at times. Swapping constantly between virtual desktops purely to try and ensure that no single virtual desktop has enough windows to cram the taskbar is in itself just as unproductive, if not more so; I'm sure I've read studies that scientifically prove this point.
Simply, the new taskbar is quite a nice step forward from what I've seen, and just because your current paradigm makes crammed taskbars (or alike) less likely, that doesn't mean that an improved taskbar should be shunned for no express reason than the fact that the problem it addresses is less likely to be personally encountered by you. Add in the progression of Linux moving into the mainstream of desktop computing with distributions like Ubuntu, and you'll find that many of your target audience will be _very_ confused by the notion of multiple desktops, and an improved taskbar such as that in Windows 7 is a far more intuitive solution (for most typical users that I've seen) while still being effective.
Traditional Windows users don't like virtual desktops. I never understood why. Couldn't do without them myself.
I think it's not so much the "traditional Windows user" but more just the "average user" irrespective of OS. As mentioned above, it's conceptually a bit hard for typical users to grasp, or at least, that's been my experience. It complicates the usage of the computer for them, and I can understand this perspective. Also, I'd argue you really need to be using hotkeys for the full benefit of multiple desktops to rapidly switch between them, or the actual time saving from moving the mouse to whatever control you need to use to swap the desktop (system tray in the bottom right usually) and then finding your target window on the new desktop is going to be barely faster than finding it with a single click in a cluttered taskbar. Average users rarely care to learn more than a very minimal set of keryboard shortcuts.
Honestly, Unix users probably use them more simply because the average Unix user is far more knowledgeable about computers and their usage than the average Windows user. It's (although slowly changing) a computer geeks/hackers OS; Windows has a much broader demographic. I'd be interested to know what the picture is with OS X with respect to the above?
PS: The snipe about Unix users using multiple desktops for ages is unwarranted. NT (and 9x?) has supported multiple desktops since the dawn of time via the Windows API, but the OS has never included a built-in tool to harness them for the usage of multiple desktops. Multiple 3rd-party utilities exist to address this, and I've been using them for probably over a decade now, as do most other Windows "power-users" I know.
Re:Not even October 22 yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
The snipe about Unix users using multiple desktops for ages is unwarranted. NT (and 9x?) has supported multiple desktops since the dawn of time via the Windows API
I disagree with your claim of virtual desktops being supported in Windows. I am always trying to use virtual desktops on XP and Vista. All of the available solutions are poor and frustrating. Some apps work some of the time, some don't. It's better than nothing, but it's very very weak support.
If you have found a good 3rd party virtual desktop app, please share a link with us. VirtuaWin is what I have been using in Vista, after going through several even-worse virtual desktop apps. SQL Management Studio is one of the apps that never seemed to work quite right, for example.
There's no excuse for Windows to not have an officially supported virtual desktop system. Even Macs were pretty far behind, but did finally put in Spaces a year or two back. That's still a decade after I was using virtual desktops in unix (and litestep on Windows).
Saying Windows users are noobs is no excuse, even if it were true. The number of "power" users of Windows is several times large than the total population of Mac and Unix users. With money to burn and such a large user base, it's very hard to justify how poor the Windows desktop experience is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely agree with you that it's rubbish that Windows doesn't have out of the box support for virtual desktops. It should have been part of Windows a long time ago, at least a basic implementation of, allowing 3rd-party developers to offer more complex and powerful implementations at their own leisure (as is often the case with built-in Windows functionality). Another personal beef is the lack of multi-mon taskbar support, instead having to rely on UltraMon or similar applications.
My point was purely t
Re:Not even October 22 yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Counter-opinion: the new taskbar is a HUGE step BACKWARDS. You can no longer have "quick launch" buttons, you can only "pin" items to the taskbar (and they're HUGE), and then they slide around like crazy depending on the order in which you launch things. You can drag them around after launching, but why is it a "feature" that I can drag something back into position that shouldn't have moved in the first place? After using 7 for a few days I was thanking God that I was only testing and didn't have to use this giant steaming pile of crap.
I started using both Windows and Mac OS heavily in 1995 and I preferred Windows for a long time because it was more responsive, multitasked better (than classic Mac OS), and ran on cheaper hardware. Windows 2000 was my favorite OS - it ran my few favorite games just fine, was totally stable, I could strip out the few effects I didn't want (fading menus, etc.) and it ran like a champ for YEARS on a 1 GHz Pentium III. I never liked XP (used it at work for years) as much as I like W2K and my experiences with Vista were very much like the stereotypical complaints. Windows 7 is slightly better than Vista in some ways but worse in others, like the taskbar and the fact that you can't use the 'classic' themes. Luckily for me, Mac OS X came out right around when Windows XP did, and it's been getting better and better and better (mostly) over the years while Windows has been getting worse and worse and worse. Mac OS X is the only OS I use for personal reasons and I'm lucky enough to be able to use it at work.
Re: (Score:3)
The entire menu structure is taking up much more surface area than it used in Windows 2000, XP has had the same issue with its Fischer-Price interface, which is the reason why most businesses I am familiar with had it turned off to gain room for various shortcuts and what not deployed from central servers via Roaming User Profiles and what not.
It does not work anymore
Re: (Score:2)
Well I can second this. I ran the RC and the full version, full version took me two days to install Office because of a "known issue" with my dvdrom.
just wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
you just wait for june next year when all the RC versions expire...
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft at it's finest, (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, while I've always maintained that Microsoft is an evil bloodsucking corporation, gaming would not be what it is today without Windows 98. Being that I run Vista, and it is forever crashing me out of classic games such as Warcraft III and Sacred Gold, not too mention the core compatibility issues for certain games and their online features, I've often times looked to switching to a Linux OS. But, the problem there is Linux, quite simply, is not up to snuff on gaming as of yet. Sure, Wine made it much easier to play games on Linux, but the fact is, most people simply won't swap because of the simple fact you have to find the correct drivers for the OS your on for your hardware, you have to install and configure Wine, and even learn to use commands. Since most people at this point in time are so established in Windows, the number of Windows gamers vs the number of Linux gamers is obviously in Microsoft's favor. This is why they aren't overly concerned with Vista's shitty performance, and this is also why they haven't been breaking their balls trying to fix it. Yes, I know, 7 is their "fix", but you have to realize, Microsoft doesn't particularly care about us anymore.
Re:Microsoft at it's finest, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is why they aren't overly concerned with Vista's shitty performance, and this is also why they haven't been breaking their balls trying to fix it.
I think they might not be overly concerned with Vista's shitty performance re: games because when there are other OS options to run the same game on the same hardware (take WoW on Vista, Wine, and OSX for example), Vista runs it the fastest.
Re: (Score:2)
Ida: get Sun Virtualbox, run your games on an abondonware OS like Windows 98 (Second Edition..) you mentioned.
Windows 7 (Score:5, Informative)
XP still going strong (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I installed Windows 7 RC on a three year old laptop (2Gb, single-core AMD Turion, ATI Xpress200 card -- overall a pretty slow system). The boot takes longer than XP, but after that is just as fast as XP SP3, even with all the fancy stuff turned on. My father, who doesn't care about eye-candy, only stability and responsiveness, says he likes it.
I don't think every XP owner will shell out $200 for the upgrade, but I'd say it's worth it, if only for the added security.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
trouble is, people said that about Vista when it first came out too.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll have to, as new desktops and laptops are released with oddball chipsets for which the vendors only provide Windows 7 drivers. This has been one of the key forces behind corporate upgrades for years: the new hardware with new features is impossible or painful indeed to run on older operating systems.
Vista's share doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering that Vista's share is less than 1/3 of XP's share (72% vs 19%), Microsoft will be more worried about getting people to move from XP to Win7. The 19% who have Vista really won't (can't, to be more precise) stay with Vista for too long. They will definitely "upgrade" (let's hope it's really an upgrade, not a regression).
Microsoft surely doesn't want XP's ghost to haunt them like IE6's ghost has.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn, I remember the days when XP was the abomination. I guess if you beat people up enough, they learn when to say "uncle".
Re:Vista's share doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember the days when XP was the abomination.
I keep hearing that lately, but I saw it happen. When XP came out, everyone was still stinging from ME. They had been happy with 95 because, like it or not, for the day, it was a pretty decent OS. ME came out and was a horrible. Then XP came out. It added the shiny of ME plus some, and the stability of 2000. The only people that I ever heard complaining about XP were the people who were already running 2000, had no interest in playing games, and were offended by the rounded edges of XP's interface. That was a pretty small group. Beyond that, all I ever heard were people who like the massive improvement in stability.
As far as I can tell, this XP hate is just revisionist history.
Re:Vista's share doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why the hell not? I have Vista, and I'm certainly staying with it. Windows 7 forces me to use the retarded new start menu and the retarded new task bar. Given that there's absolutely nothing wrong with Vista, and the only changes in Windows 7 are removals of functionality, I don't intend to upgrade at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows 7 forces me to use the retarded new start menu and the retarded new task bar
No it doesn't: if you right-click on the Windows 7 start button / taskbar, you can select "properties" and revert to Vista-style behaviour.
There's a surprising number of Anonymous Cowards spreading falsehoods about Windows 7 in this thread...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He's referring to Classic behaviour being removed. Rather than Win2k-XP-Vista behaviour, you're locked to Vista-Win7 behaviour.
How many Vista licences running as downgraded XP? (Score:3, Interesting)
Having just gone through the corporate PC purchasing vendor circus once again, I find it interesting that you can currently purchase a PC with an OEM Vista licence, which Dell/Lenovo etc will happily factory-downgrade to XP for you. As an added bonus you can also upgrade to Windows 7, for free. Yay! 3 licences for the price of 1, sort of.
I assume this is still counted as a "Vista" licence in the statistics as that's waht it was sold as.
I predict a big jump in Windows 7 licences as all the corporate PC OEM and volume licencing moves to the "Windows 7" licence with downgrade rights, as that's the only way you'll be able to get XP. I'm guessing at least 80% of those will still be downgraded to XP for at least the next year. Makes the stats for Windows 7 look good, though.
Btw, I like Windows 7, I use it at home. All our work PC's are XP as our "enterprise-ready" software won't run on Vista. One vendor recently installed their latest document management system onto our Windows 2008 server, only to discover the indexing service had been replaced by "microsoft search". They hadn't tested it on anything beyond Windows 2003/XP as "that's what everyone else runs". Yay for corporate software!
Re:How many Vista licences running as downgraded X (Score:2)
One vendor recently installed their latest document management system onto our Windows 2008 server, only to discover the indexing service had been replaced by "microsoft search". They hadn't tested it on anything beyond Windows 2003/XP as "that's what everyone else runs". Yay for corporate software!
That's nothing, one of the clinical systems in use within the NHS at the moment (iSOFT's Premiere) only supports running on Windows 2000 (Which is now out of Microsoft extended support) on the server end; apparently the new version out later this year will add support for Server 2003 (Yes, 2003). They're actually still providing HP G4 servers to GP surgeries because they can't get supported Windows 2000 drivers for current hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
I sympathize with you. And to avoid that hardware compatibility trap, you might consider simply using virtualization: a several year old hardware platform, such as the HP G4, should be reasonably equivalent to a virtual environment on newer hardware. And you can use the newer hardware's base OS or another client OS to provide read-only access to the client OS fileystem to run anti-virus scans, and provide a more clever network security toolkit with the virtualization server or another system as a proxy and
Re: (Score:2)
Net Applications measures OS usage by tracking the machines that surf to the 40,000 sites it monitors for clients, which results in a data pool of about 160 million unique visitors per month
It really doesn't matter how many are downgrades for the purposes of this article. This is actual use, not purchases.
I too would be interested in the number of downgrades, but Microsoft is the only person who could tell us (different OEMs have different target markets, so just one OEM wouldn't be a trustable number), an
Amazing (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, Windows Vista market share is falling before it ever hit 20%, and Linux has more market share than the latest version of Windows. ;-)
The elephant in the room (Score:3)
In other words, Windows Vista market share is falling before it ever hit 20%, and Linux has more market share than the latest version of Windows. ;-)
Linux broke into the single digit in the Net Applications stats in March. But has not been able to hold the ground.
Browser stats were more interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1 [hitslink.com]
IE: -1,26%
FF: +0.77%
Safari: +0.17%
Chrome: +0.33%
Opera: +0.15%
Everybody's taking a piece of Microsoft. The version graph is pretty interesting too:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=3 [hitslink.com]
While IE is switching from versions 6/7/8 at a glacial pace, Firefox users are upgrading rapidly. Since May with 20.03% vs 0.44% for FF 3.0 vs FF 3.5, it's now 9.62% vs 12.65%. That means you can much more rapidly rely on Firefox being a recent version and not dealing with supporting ancient versions.
Why do I care about that? Because browser stats drives most the ways I have to interact with the world. Linux has 1% or whatever, but what matters is how well it works together wtih the other 99%. Therefore, death to IE :)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the IE upgrade pace is controlled almost exclusively by companies refusing to upgrade from IE6 because of shoddily written apps.
who's losing share? (Score:2)
These are percentages. If Win7 is growing quickly it could be coming at the expense of XP. Vista might still be growing, but dropping as an overall percentage.
Vista Beta (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Vista Beta (Score:4, Funny)
I really have no clue what you're on about. I tested the beta and RC for free and because I did so I was able to purchase the upgrade for my two windows vista machines for around $50 per licensed copy.
Not only did Microsoft NOT sell the beta (it was a free download, though they may have charged to ship it on DVD(?)), but they also gave the public who tested it a huge discount on the upgrade.
Get your facts straight.
Is vista that bad or Win 7 that good? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lost users or percentage of users? (Score:2)
Perception is reality (Score:2)
Does it matter ? I don't have a corporate world, so when my XP machine died, I went shopping. I found only the pre SP1 Vista machines on the shelf. This site and others were screaming about it. Wanting more stability than I had (with three users none of whom were savvy) I went to OSX.
Three years later, I retire another XP machine. Living with OSX, I go straight back to the apple store and buy a mini. OSX has crashed, I think, once, in three years...and World of Warcraft patches were involved.
One the i
They CAN afford to get it wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
... They can't afford to get it wrong.
I'm afraid they can. They can force it on every new machine, like Vista. They can pre-install their office suite. With their influence on the resellers, they effectively have a monopoly.
They can force DRM down the customer's throat, Make every new version a pain to rediscover where all the existing features are, and have customers look out for the new version, because "everything will magically be better in the new version".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
... They can't afford to get it wrong.
I'm afraid they can. They can force it on every new machine, like Vista.
No they can't. Not if they want to maintain their status for a few more years. As you said they forced Vista on new machines and after 3 years it still has 19% marketshare, compared to XP which has 72%. But the biggest failure of Vista was that even regular users noticed it. It was the first time that non advanced users where really unhappy with Windows and sought alternatives, either downgrading or switching. If 7 proves to be another failure (I don't think so) people won't stick with XP for another 3 year
Re:They CAN'T afford to get it wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Everything has its limits
The reason microsoft and windows have been so successful has been because their software has been so friendly to use.
Its so easy it attracts developers, that make applications for the platform, which attracts end-users, some of which go on to become developers.
Its a self-feeding cycle, which is why microsoft has been so successful, and its also where linux is starting to show real growths.
Now your saying MS can give its customers anything it wants and they'll eat it. You might be right, but only in the short term. Longer term, a small amount, lets say that in frustration/annoyance 5% less developers drop windows vista, and start using using linux instead.
They go on to develop apps that DON"T work on windows but instead on linux, these apps appeal to other users who go on to get linux instead, and the linux cycle grows.
Those few developers, taht tiny market share, is all it can take to crush the windows monopoly. And without the monopoly, or ease of use, why would you pay money over a linux distribution which is free.
No microsoft can't afford to stuff up windows, its the cornerstone of all their software, everything is dependant on it, it just takes time (read: years) before screwups play out fully.
Heres a small post showing that MS's vista screwup has cost them dearly, the Mac's web presence nearly doubling from 4 to 8%.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/appleaday/blog/2008/06/macs_web_footprint_growing_at.html [baltimoresun.com]
It'd be simlar with linux.
Just wait a few years, and the results will play themselves out.
Don't even get me started on the fact that the netbook market is cut-throat pricing wise, MS are already having a hard time jusifying the cost of windows (to the point where they cut prices on windows oem to stop being excluded from that market)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
They've made a multi billion dollar business stuffing up Windows. They learned from Vista, but if you look at Windows 7 compared to Vista the biggest difference is that Vista drivers work in 7. That alone explains most of the instability and usability problems Vista had when it first got crapped out. A few more bug fixes for obvious issues and 7 launch will go smoothly, and you won't have the widespread fear-mongering everywhere. Poof, crap turns into a crap sandwich and people happily throw it down the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The reason microsoft and windows have been so successful has been because their software has been so friendly to use.
The presence of numerous more friendly alternatives over the years, all of which failed for one reason or another kind of throws that argument out wouldn't you think?
The reason Microsoft and Windows have been so successful has got more to do with Microsoft doing everything in their power to gain marketshare, including but not limited to bullying OEMs with agreements which state "every PC you ship ships with Windows and may not multi-boot", seeding "partners" with outright lies over their direction (IBM, OS/
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dixons Store Group, the largest computer retailer in the UK has been struggling since Vista came out because nobody wanted to buy computers with Vista on it.
The geek needs to lose this excess baggage (Score:3, Interesting)
They can force DRM down the customer's throat
This is what DRM means to anyone but a geek:
The PC with a Blu-Ray drive ships with a licensed Blu-Ray player.
DVD play out of the retail box.
No searching for the gray market codec.
The single cable HDMI solution for audio and video. HDMI 1.4 adds support for Ethernet, 4K x 2K video, and 3D.
Subscription and rental services of every sort - if he wants them.
"Trusted Computing" solutions for his employer or small business.
Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (Score:5, Interesting)
yeah I can use it just fine but it eats up a lot of screen real estate and it isn't better
I've used every windows systems in one form or another since 1987 and have generally found the criticisms of /.er types way overstated. The "awful unstable new versions" of Windows were usually better, more stable, easier to use than the previous one.
The are a total of three exceptions to that: Windows 2.0, Windows Me and Windows Vista. Windows 2.0 was a first release (Windows 1.0 doesn't really count). Windows Me was the last iteration of a dead end branch put out by the marketing department. Windows Vista on the other hand was driven by the tech types and was supposed to be better. The only noticeable difference in the user experience are useless changes for change's sake, and idiotic Allow/deny dialogues.
Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (Score:4, Informative)
Add to that list: Windows 200 and Windows XP.
Windows 200 had major problems with hardware drivers. Printing was a real pain, and running both AutoCAD and office on the same machine was almost impossible. Running Autodesk Inventor was near to impossible because it was so slow you could draw the screen by pencil faster.
Windows XP's "Genuine" disadvantage was the main reason I switched to Linux. I do value my privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Add to that list: Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Windows 2000 had major problems with hardware drivers.
That wasn't my experience at all. Of course YMMV and all that, but I found every release of the NT branch better than the previous. Vista tried to substantially change the underlying NT kernel and that might be one of the reasons for its failure. To be sure Vista is not the horrible monster that people speak off. That is typical /. hyperbole. It's just that Vista is not good enough to justify it's high pric
Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows 200 had major problems with hardware drivers. Printing was a real pain, and running both AutoCAD and office on the same machine was almost impossible...
My anecdotal evidence suggests the opposite of yours. I had 4 or 5 Windows 2000 Pro and Server boxes for several years, and found them to be generally reliable and efficient, even on older hardware. When I was writing, I'd typically be running MS Word/Access, Photoshop, a LAMP or WAMP stack, DreamWeaver, UltraEdit, and a few other goodies, on something like like an 800MHz P3 and 512 MB memory without any performance problems. Never had any issues with MS-certified drivers that I can recall.
I have no interest in making MS look better; two of the things that prompted my switch to Linux in 2004 were WinXP and Server 2003, each of which was a giant step backwards IMO. I could already see the direction in which Redmond was headed and knew that I didn't want to go there today. But Win2K generally rocked, and I even miss it a bit sometimes, especially when I have to deal with someone's XP or Vista machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry about that, I meant "WAMP or WIMP stack".
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Windows 2000 was MS's best ever release of Windows. The first time you could use a Windows power computer for more than two hours without it crashing.
Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this is nitpicking but both of his points are valid.
Windows 2000 had an awful process scheduler, which I'm guessing caused the problems GP referring to. By the way never attempt to run vmware-server on Windows 2000 box. Also Windows 2000 didn't have plug-and-play whereas Windows 98 did.
XP was okay until Microsoft silently added genuine advantage in it, incidentally that was one of the big reasons for me switching to Linux. Now it's been 3+ years using Debian. I'd rather live with flunky wireless card than a computer that holds me in contempt.
Four Exceptions (Score:3, Funny)
It even became a joke at MS. Check out Bill Gates Last Day Video [youtube.com] @~5:40 Ray Ozzie and Craig Mundie crack on BillG saying that they have to give credit where credit is due; Microsoft Bob was all Bill's idea.
Correction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft's done itself a lot of damage lately (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The ribbon is an abomination and no amount of marketing or brainwashed hyperbole from idiots parroting the marketing is going to change my mind - yeah I can use it just fine but it eats up a lot of screen real estate and it isn't better
If you had actually measured it, you'd know that the Office 2007 ribbon takes up less space than the default Office 2003 menus + toolbars. I guess that would make you the brainwashed idiot, huh?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mmmm... I don't think they're quite as bulletproof as you suggest. The thing that's been preserving MS' monopoly, post-Vista, is the fact that XP users have been refusing to upgrade. As any MS apologist, and they'll tell you that Vista's biggest competitor is XP.
But they're not going to offer XP forev
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is Vista "stupid?" Why do you think XP is better? Why didn't you buy a Mac if you wanted a Mac?
A lot of Vista's original criticisms revolved around drivers (since the entire driver architecture got re-invented). After a lot of the driver issues got resolved (*cough* Nvidia and Creative *cough*) the OS became no better but no worse than XP.
If I purchased a laptop today I'd rather have Vista than XP since I lose nothing but owning Vista but I lose a few things by owning XP (low privileged IE, UAC, et al).
Re: (Score:2)
Vista has it's high points, for example I really like the volume mixer (a feature I've long wished for in XP), but the general bulk of it all outweighs the positives. Windows 7 on the othe
Re:Stupied Fucking Vista (Score:5, Insightful)
I would venture that many of the Vista Haters have never really spent any time with the OS. A poster above commented that the initial release was flawed, primarily due to crappy driver support (and I was burned on the nVidia chips in my laptop), but by the time that the first SP came out, it was solid, reliable and, dare I say it, almost a pleasure to use.
My new job demanded that I go back to XP, and it reminded me of how much I prefer Vista over XP.
The true test will be how long will it take for major corporate IT uptake in Win7. Perhaps the learning curve of watching Vista and the polish that Win7 has added will begin migration plans. I sure hope so, 'cuz I can't stand XP.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously, I'm not "many" users. Certainly not a majority. But, I have installed every operating system that MS has offered since MS-DOS 3.1. Every single one. I've done every Windows version since Windows 1.something - I missed 1.0.
I will state bluntly here that WinME was the single worst abortion that MS ever put out, followed closely by Vista.
Windows 7 runs perfectly on the very same hardware on which Vista failed. Longhorn, in various versions, runs perfectly on the very same hardware. With some m
Yeah, that's the ticket. (Score:3, Insightful)
Millions of people on every forum on the Internet are bashing a product they've never really spent any time with that's actually great.
That's plausible. Why didn't I think of that?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
*AHEM*
Pardon Me.
A lot of people who continue to bash Vista are just sheep that have no real clue why exactly Vista was bad or why Windows 7 is better (hint: Vista paved the road for 7).
Let me address those for you.
Why was Vista Bad.
Right, about $200 or more for an OS. That's it. That is not a technical fault of the OS mind you.
It suffers from a lack of performance. To get anything like sane workable performance out of it you need a machine with at least a dualcore plus 2gb or RAM and a proper Graphics card. When Vista was released that was in the upper spectrum of Laptop specs. Heck laptops with dedicated graphics are STILL in the upper spectrum.
It suffers from Chronic slo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A good number of people myself included got ours through Technet already. I'm running on both my work, and gaming machine. And with the large number of people in school, they're able to get the student edition for a low sum of $20. I'm able head over to another colleges store, in my town and pick up a preorder of it on my colleges card for $25.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Vista got some really undeserved looks. (Score:5, Insightful)
a prime reason FOR those issues in usability is because lots of users don't know how to actually use them properly
Just a minor nitpick, but if the user can't figure out how to use it properly, that is a usability problem.
Re:Vista got some really undeserved looks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry dude. That never works as an excuse when some Linux interface baffles the average user, so I don't see why it should let Microsoft off the hook here.
Besides which, these same people knew how to use XP just fine by and large, so you're not talking about naive users baffled by computers in general. The complainers, on the whole tended to be seasoned Windows users who didn't get on with the new O/S. That's got to be a black mark, however you look at it.
It wouldn't be so bad, but (in technical terms, at least), user interfaces are what Microsoft do well. I don't have a good word to say about MS on the whole, but aside from two or three glaring exceptions, they do seem to have a knack for making things accessible to the less technical end of the user spectrum. So when someone tells me that if they couldn't even get that part right, I have to wonder what horrors lurk elsewhere.
Re:Vista got some really undeserved looks. (Score:4)
yes, using the "Start" button to shut down was brilliant and I love the power button symbol on Vista and how when you click it, it doesn't power down but logs you out. It's also brilliant to place icons on the desktop or in the taskbar menu system so that they can't be removed like other icons around them. Brilliant UI designs they are not and new/naive users are confused by these kinds of inconsistencies. I've seen it first hand helping a few good friends with their screwed up Windows based computers.
LoB
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. That's exactly my point.
Re:Vista got some really undeserved looks. (Score:4, Insightful)
I had a Microsoft refrigerator, top of the line. My neighbor couldn't figure out how to set the temperature with the foot pedal and built-in accelerometer, so all her food spoiled. The stupid woman took it back and got one of those Apple refrigerators that doesn't have a built-in accelerometer or foot pedal, choosing instead to have one that matched her decor. I painted my kitchen fuschia argyle to match and it looks AWESOME!!!11!!1!!eleventy. Why would you use a refrigerator that doesn't let you have that level of control?
Re: (Score:2)
Stuff running slow? It's certainly not that a GAZILLION processes are running at the same time, along with the spyware you've accumulated from using IE to surf for porn and free stuff; IT MUST BE VISTA!
I don't know about all the other points, but this one I can say something about. The first thing I did when got a new Vista machine was strip all the preloaded Dell crap out of it, got all the current updates, then downloaded and installed Firefox. I only use IE if forced to by a business-related website that I have to visit.
And what do I see? Sometimes it's just slow as fuck. I'm sorry, but it is. Usually the monstrous slowness centers around file system activity: trying to copy a folder with lots of s
Re:Vista got some really undeserved looks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of people gave Vista a bad rep because -- get this -- they didn't know how to use their damned computers!
I'm sure that must be it. I've only personally owned computers since 1982, taught myself assembler to write faster games on a C=64, hacked hardware on an Amiga, switched to Linux in '98 or so, got a Slashdot login some time the same week, picked up FreeBSD a few months later, snagged a degree in CompSci, built the home server sitting next to me from Newegg parts, and turned an HP Mini into a Hackintosh [facebook.com] last month. That must be why my wife's dual-core laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista ran like crap from the day we bought it, even after I stripped out the OEM junk and have almost nothing running at startup: because I'm a technophobic newbie who doesn't know how to use my damned computers.
Yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because only a M$ shill would suggest that some people out there aren't entirely au fait with computers...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, okay...get back to me when you don't need to tweak xorg.conf just to make video work okay...with Compiz no less.
Re: (Score:2)
If people had stuck with Tiger, and then fell over themselves to get Snow Leopard as soon as it came out, that would suggest that Leopard was rubbish. That didn't happen with OSX, but the equivalent did happen with Windows, which is why we say that it shows that Vista was rubbish.