Business | CES | Digital audio | Gadgets | Games | Green computing | Home entertainment | Internet & broadband | Laptops | Linux | Macs | PC Peripherals & components | PC security | PCs & laptops | Mobile phones | Digital photography & video | Software | Wi-Fi & networking
July 29, 2009
I can't lie, I've grown fond of Windows Vista. Like the perfect life partner it's pretty, practical and mostly stable. Sure, it flakes out on occasion, but we all have our slow days, right? [Editor's note: get on with it.]
Nevertheless, in the final months of Windows Vista's reign as the top dog at Microsoft, around 64 percent of PC Advisor readers are still running Windows XP on their PCs. Top dog? You lot think Vista is a hound. (Click here for the full PCA Windows stats.)
According to Windows user stats gathered from the 4,000 users of our free, online PC Performance Monitor tool, only around 34 percent of you are running Vista, with the remaining 2 percent already enjoying some variant of the Windows 7 Beta/Release Candidate.
Such stats may explain Microsoft's keenness to get Windows 7 on to store shelves - nearly three years after Vista was finally completed, two-thirds of a group of passionate, educated and tech-savvy Windows users have remained faithful to XP. Worse, a small percentage prefer to use an operating system (OS) that remains in beta.
If Vista was a rip-roaring commercial success, Microsoft might still be about to release a new OS product - but I'd wager it'd be called ‘Vista SP3'. You don't have to be a cynic to believe that this is exactly what Windows 7 represents (although it helps).
Windows Vista's perceived failure is not due to it being an inherently bad piece of code. Vista's unpopularity stems from the fact that it limped out late, on insufficiently specced PCs, missing promised features.
And once labelled a failure, Vista was condemned to remain thus.
So the Microsoft marketing machine is now offering creaking XP systems and self-loathing Vista users the chance to start again with a brand-new OS.
Here comes the irony bit: if Vista had been a success, there'd be no Windows 7 and no rush to buy it. Botching the Vista launch may have cost Microsoft dearly, but it's set to reap the rewards now.
See also: Microsoft to KO Google in (Windows) 7
Posted by: Matt Egan
Submit to:Digg
Slashdot
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Posted by Tres bien on July 29, 2009 :
monsieur Egan, vous avez mettre le doigt dessus
Posted by Matt Egan on July 29, 2009 :
Er... something about fingers... Je ne comprende pas
Posted by Peter on July 29, 2009 :
Operating systems have reached a point of maturity where it is no longer a pressing need to upgrade with each new in-iteration. I think Win 7's successor will have to be something very special to get decent sales. As for me I've only jumped on the pre-order bandwagon (at a cheap as chips price) because I want my next PC build to based on a 64bit OS.
Posted by Skidz on July 30, 2009 :
What the guy above was trying to say was
" Mr Egan, you have put your finger on it"
But the verb was not quite right.
Vous avez mit le doigt dessus.
Posted by Matt Egan on July 30, 2009 :
Peter, you're right of course, but you don't explain why you want a 64-bit OS. There will always be a reason for wanting the latest, 'best' thing, perhaps 64-bit is yours. (See also: HD TV)
Posted by rab c on July 30, 2009 :
Some people believe everything negative they see in print, there is nothing wrong with vista. Long may it last.
Posted by Hector Macias Ayala on July 30, 2009 :
Why should I have to explain why I want a 64 bit OS? why should Peter or anybody? People then should give an explanation of why they insist so hard in keeping an outdated and obsolete OS like XP, which is just as bad as the day it was released, my PC run Vista and Seven perfectly fine, why should I go back to a crappy 32 bit aweful B.S. OS like XP, just because everybody says? Im starting to get sick and tired of all those "backwarders" out there. get a better rig.
Posted by Mojo on July 31, 2009 :
Vista long may it last... lol. Good riddance to it.
Posted by David on July 31, 2009 :
Mojo, unlike you, I really had very litte problem with vista, oh sure the odd situation cropped up, and I did the odd complaining, but when I look back, Vista did what I wanted and a little more, so I was happy.
In everything I guess there is always two side to every story, and I suppose I just got lucky when using vista.
And yes I have been using Vista's successor via beta and RC, and in my humble opinion it is a very worthy successor indeed.
Posted by Matt Egan on July 31, 2009 :
There's nothing wrong with wanting a 64-bit OS. There's nothing wrong with wanting a new OS. I was just pointing out that the urge to upgrade isn't always a neccessity.
Posted by Peter on July 31, 2009 :
64 bit, not so much wanting the 'latest best thing' Matt but more about building a system that will have some 'grow room' in the yrs to come as more and more software takes advantage of 64 bit tech.
Posted by Wandering on August 2, 2009 :
I think you are missing the most important learning. XP owners now realize how much cost and effort are required to change a well-functioning operating system for an unknown that may or may not offer any real benefits to them.
Then there is the driver issue. How many XP installations will successfully convert without a huge effort to chase down new drivers, that may or may not exist, to retrain themselves and perhaps thousands of others on the system, and all for no particular gain.
I think the lesson is that you change operating systems when you change hardware, and only then if you have to.
Posted by Matt Egan on August 3, 2009 :
Couldn't argue with either of the last two comments. I think perhaps given that we're all technology fans, we have a slightly skewed view of things. Microsoft has always seen hardware manufacturers as its route to market, and I suspect that increasing hardware spec is the only compelling reason to upgrade the software. After all, what new 'features' do we need?