Re: ARTICLE: Users Not Upgrading XP to Vista (Even with SP1)
- From: "M.I.5¾" <no.one@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 08:15:19 +0100
"Fiddler" <j.boy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OznRgGmuIHA.1240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MB"chipset"drivers are easy to get.
There easy to get if they are available. They are impossible to get if they
don't exist for the Operating System that you want to use.
"M.I.5?" <no.one@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:48329b19$1_1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Clear Windows" <carlferedeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:48328e09$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
My comment:
People want proof that vista is a pile of poo poo... and I tell them,
you want proof on a platter? Screw you! Do some surfing and you will run
into millions of
pages that state how bad Vista is and how much people absolutely hate
it!
Users Not Upgrading XP to Vista (Even with SP1), SP3 Didn't Do it
ARTICLE:
Over a year after the general availability of Windows Vista (January 30,
2007), and a year and a half after the business launch of the latest
Windows client (November 30, 2006), the product has yet to receive the
love forecasted by Microsoft. While predicting nothing short of Wow
experiences, it is waking up following the availability of Windows Vista
Service Pack 1 to the sound of silence where upgrades from Windows XP to
Windows Vista should have been. This realization seems difficult to sink
in for the Redmond company.
"During the conference call my team had on Friday, we were discussing
the upcoming content we are planning for the August-December timeframe.
One of my team members who shall remain nameless stated that most of the
customers he has talked to aren't upgrading existing Windows XP machines
to Windows Vista. Instead, they are just buying new machines with
Windows Vista as the old XP machines roll off the books and are
re-purposed, or die," revealed Keith Combs, Microsoft IT Pro Evangelist.
According to statistics provided by Microsoft, Windows Vista had sold in
excess of 140 million licenses by March 2008. Data published by Net
Applications give Vista a 14.57% share of the operating system market at
the end of April 2008. By comparison, Windows XP accounts for a share of
73.07%, down from a high of 85.02% back in January 2007. With worldwide
shipments of PCs reaching over 250 million items the past year, it is
clear that Vista's growth comes largely from acquisitions of new
machines rather than from upgrades.
"None of the security, network, search, etc. improvements warrant an
upgrade of an existing machine, even with Aero glass turned off so that
it performs on par or better than Windows XP?" Combs asked rhetorically.
But the real question was "Is that accurate? Is that what you are
doing?" with Combs referring to the customers' failure to upgrade. The
comments wrote in response to Combs' post indicate that customers are
steering clear of Windows Vista, and sticking to what they already know,
namely XP.
The reasons for doing this are multiple, and they are related to the now
year old problems of the operating system that caused a barrage of bad
publicity. Vista is avoided due to performance issues, compatibility
problems, but also the cost of the upgrade, although Microsoft has
continually touted that the operating system would deliver a lower TCO
in the end. However, the total cost of ownership does not generally
include the costs of the upgrade. But one thing is clear: none of the
users mentioned Service Pack 3 as the reason why the move to Vista was
avoided. At the same time, SP1 for Windows Vista also failed to catalyze
a new wave of upgrades to the latest Windows client.
"Are you running mixed environments of old and new machines with each
OS? I understand for small and small medium businesses that's unlikely,
but what about when you have several hundred PCs up? Are you buying new
machines with WinXP or flattening them and installing WinXP? What
happens when we stop selling Windows XP in a few weeks?" Combs asked.
It's probably fair to say that a lot depends on your perceptions and
expectations. I know 2 people who speak very highly of Vista themselves
and can't really see what the fuss is about. As both are translators,
their power applications are internet, e-mail and word processing, all
run on a core 2 quad processor. As non of those are remotely demanding,
it is perhaps not unsurprising that Vista copes well. They both like the
eye candy, but freely admit that that they rarely use it.
On the other hand, a visit to the forums of a well known video editing
application shows considerable problems with user trying to edit and
produce high definition video. Of those having major problems, there are
two common factors which seem to prevent the editor working the way users
expect, one is running it on any PC with a lesser processor than a core 2
duo (or core 2 quad for the really demanding formats). The other is
running it under Vista, not because it shouldn't run under Vista, but
because Vista hogs too many resources and leaves too little free for the
editor to do its stuff.
I have PCs that use both operating systems (Vista was preinstalled on my
laptop). I find it frustrating that once you discount the relatively
useless eye candy, Vista actually seems to have less functionality
overall than XP (not counting the software and hardware that doesn't work
under Vista - which only makes it worse). I know it includes extra
functions like DVD writing, but this could be added under XP using
freeware third party utilities.
I don't run heavy power applications on the laptop so if pushed I would
describe the Vista operating system as adequate, but I wouldn't mind
upgrading to XP, if only I could source motherboard chipset drivers.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Win XP pro activation period expired
- Next by Date: Re: WiFi does not function anymore
- Previous by thread: Re: ARTICLE: Users Not Upgrading XP to Vista (Even with SP1)
- Next by thread: Re: ARTICLE: Users Not Upgrading XP to Vista (Even with SP1)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
