The Top 5 Reasons Why Vista Failed

[Shotglass01]

Speak for yourself. As an IT Manager, I love Vista Business. I'm just not upgrading existing computers, but slowly phasing into Vista via new computer purchases.

I don't have to. The data backs it up.

 

[Crotan]

As far as the subscription model goes for small businesses and consumers, instead of disabling Windows on a user’s PC if they don’t renew their subscription, just don’t allow that machine to get any more updates if they don’t renew. Microsoft could also work with OEMs to sell something like a three-year subscription to Windows with every a new PC. Then users would have the choice of renewing on their own after that.

Say what, is this guy insane maybe businesses would be fine with a subscription based os but I for sure wouldn't for the consumers. If anything I feel this would make people look elsewhere for an os that they wouldn't have to pay to renew every 3 years and lose market share.

I love Vista 64bit on my desktop at home and would love for it to have the same run that xp got

I also think they need to stop selling laptops with vista and 1GB of ram, that hurts its image more than broadening its base.

 

[chinesepiratefood]

Vista is slower than XP.

You don't need to cite any article to know it. You just have to use it.
Benchmark it if you don't believe. All benchmarks will show you that XP is consistantly faster than Vista.

I have used Vista since beta 2 (which on my old computer was rather slow) but now my Vista x64 partition boots faster than my XP, and for the most part things are more responsive.

Transferring files across hard drives, or USB ports is the only noticeably slower part of Vista.

I have run my benchmarks and the differences are so small it is almost immeasurable for many programs

 

[magoo]

I have one Vista license, because I game and I like DX10; and multiple GPUs like triple-SLI and Quad CrossfireX and not supported on XP.

Other than that, I use XP MCE for all my other computers.
My kids are just seeing XP roll out in most of their school computers..... Starting to replace Macs because most households have PCs.

I even got a new EeePC that runs XP. (pretty slick little box, I might add)

Vista just doesn't offer anything new to basic computing.
Especially in the business sector. We use XP Professional and our basic box probably cost us 500 dollars.

 

[DrVal]

I have used Vista since beta 2 (which on my old computer was rather slow) but now my Vista x64 partition boots faster than my XP, and for the most part things are more responsive.

Transferring files across hard drives, or USB ports is the only noticeably slower part of Vista.

I have run my benchmarks and the differences are so small it is almost immeasurable for many programs

Alright, well I'll qualify.

I work for an engineering firm. Our main production software is AutoCAD (Civil3D, Land Desktop, AutoCAD Vanilla, and Electrical). Every AutoCAD, 3dMark, and office app benchmark I've run show a marked decline in performance between Vista and XP, and even moreso in a 64bit environment.

If all you're using a PC for is browsing and making spreadsheets, Vista is fine. But so is a Mac or Linux. But when you're actually USING a PC's resources, you see very quickly the decline in performance.

 

[Crotan]

Alright, well I'll qualify.

I work for an engineering firm. Our main production software is AutoCAD (Civil3D, Land Desktop, AutoCAD Vanilla, and Electrical). Every AutoCAD, 3dMark, and office app benchmark I've run show a marked decline in performance between Vista and XP, and even moreso in a 64bit environment.

How do the 64bit versions of some of those programs come in to play for those benchmarks im wondering

 

[Azhar]

I don't have to. The data backs it up.

you spoke in absolutes.

but IT shops are not, and will not, be deploying it.

I'm disputing it because you're wrong. I'm deploying it in my company. Again, for the most part, there's nothing wrong with Vista. There's simply no reason to upgrade, only purchase new computers with Vista on it if the company doesn't mind straying from standard setups. XP is merely a victim of it's own success.

How long does this Vista hate mongering need to go on guys? The [H] is supposed to be above all that. We look at facts, not fucking Mac ads and by listening to your aunt's daughter's cat.

 

[Lamont Cranston]

Transferring files across hard drives, or USB ports is the only noticeably slower part of Vista.

I cannot find the link but there were a couple reviews out that showed that vista and xp actually copy at about the same rate its just vista actually leaves the copy window up there as where xp takes it off and copies the files in the background

 

[DrVal]

How do the 64bit versions of some of those programs come in to play for those benchmarks im wondering

Not well. AutoCAD Vanilla and Electrical work pretty well in 64 bit. But Civil3D and Land Desktop run on top of Map which is just littered with old, slow code.

Vanilla 64 Vista certainly keeps up with it's 32 bit XP rival, but there's still enough performance loss that my users would complain... a lot...

 

[Ockie]

Alright, well I'll qualify.

I work for an engineering firm. Our main production software is AutoCAD (Civil3D, Land Desktop, AutoCAD Vanilla, and Electrical). Every AutoCAD, 3dMark, and office app benchmark I've run show a marked decline in performance between Vista and XP, and even moreso in a 64bit environment.

If all you're using a PC for is browsing and making spreadsheets, Vista is fine. But so is a Mac or Linux. But when you're actually USING a PC's resources, you see very quickly the decline in performance.

lmao, you are using 3mark benchmarks and synthetic to determine actual application and desktop performance?

 

[Ockie]

you spoke in absolutes.



I'm disputing it because you're wrong. I'm deploying it in my company. Again, for the most part, there's nothing wrong with Vista. There's simply no reason to upgrade, only purchase new computers with Vista on it if the company doesn't mind straying from standard setups. XP is merely a victim of it's own success.

How long does this Vista hate mongering need to go on guys? The [H] is supposed to be above all that. We look at facts, not fucking Mac ads and by listening to your aunt's daughter's cat.

Azhar, there is no point in arguing with XP Zealots, they are the worst of all fanboys... trust me on this one.

 

[bonsai]

only purchase new computers with Vista on it

We purchase a lot of PC's with Vista on them. Then we format them, and put XP on.

 

[niconx]

My top 5 reasons:

5) Vista project had bad rep because it was delayed and changed and restarted so much.

4) XP was not atrocious like 3.1/95/98 so people's expectations were different for Vista.

3) People's perception of software compatibility.

2) You need a new computer, you are not upgrading to Vista, this upsets people who must have the newest OS for whatever reason.

1) People don't like change. (from something that's already good)

 

[Shotglass01]

How long does this Vista hate mongering need to go on guys? The [H] is supposed to be above all that. We look at facts, not fucking Mac ads and by listening to your aunt's daughter's cat.

Azhar, there is no point in arguing with XP Zealots, they are the worst of all fanboys... trust me on this one.

I said nothing about love or hate. I'm said, in the business world, it's failed. It's well known. When even your BFF Intel passes on it, you've got a real problem. I'm done.

 

[NeghVar]

Anyone in the IT department of a large corporation would know not to jump to a new OS. All applications that the company uses are to be confirmed as fully functional witt the OS.
Thje software/application developement department of IT has to start from scratch with new version of applications and will not migrate until those are confirmed fully functional. I know that Countrywide did not update to XP SP2 until about two years ago.

I know a company that made the jump with newly purchased Dell systems. Few of their printers worked due to lack of drivers. The entire graphic design and advertisement department halted due to buggy Quadro drivers and incompatibility with the applications they used. They eventually went back to XP. It was a nightmare for their desktop support department and a lot of valuable time and money was lost.

 

[rustygunner]

Microsoft's stupidest operating system release ever. Even counting Windows ME and MS-DOS 4.0. As a gamer, I would really love to see a sleeker and more responsive OS, not more bloat.

 

[Ockie]

I said nothing about love or hate. I'm said, in the business world, it's failed. It's well known. When even your BFF Intel passes on it, you've got a real problem. I'm done.

It's pretty standard for most companies not to jump on a new operating system, a lot of companies are lagging behind not because the new OS sucks, but mainly because of budgetary reasons, compatibility reasons, company software testing, etc. Companies that I've worked with in the past required more than a year of sitting back so that they can create a new global desktop and test the entire system.... you can't just throw new software into production without extensive testing. Some companies also skips a generation mainly for budgetary purposes... it's not cheap to buy new operating systems every few years.

So by that reasoning, your argument is flawed. It's not that it sucks, its just that it takes time. Companies are also going to do the same with the new operating system coming out in the future.

 

[DrVal]

It was a nightmare for their desktop support department and a lot of valuable time and money was lost.

Valuable money? Couldn't have been an American company then.


But seriously, I have 129 programs for my users. About a two thirds of them are made by mom&pop shops that don't care about making their software to any microsoft standard, and half of those haven't had a new version come out this decade.

Getting most of this software to work on XP was hard enough. Multiply onto that; our users only have user-level access. Then add in time constraints, non-existant companies, black and gray hatting which boils down to simple licensing fraud by previous IT staff members... Sprinkle in our use of demanding 3d software and a customer cying that their PCs are too slow, and now you're in my world.


Like I said, a company that does 95% of it's work on the internet, in office, or using basic, commercial software made by software developers with degrees in their field and not in structural engineering, Vista is perfectly fine. But so is a Mac, or even a Linux box on a 1ghz P4.

My guys need bleeding edge hardware, require the latest software available, require support software that is a decade or more old, and can't be trusted to not break anything or to follow any type of standard if there is a way around it. I'm in IT hell...

 

[iTYPE]

All's I know is that XP works well for me and I only game so I think that there is just not enough diff to change. As far as my wife goes, she's got a laptop and it's got vista on it and I as well as her like it for day to day use but her work which is global Insurance, loaths the thought of switching anything just for fact that there cemmented in XP because they like and know what they got. So I suspect as long as there's support, there will be no change, for me or her.

 

[Jutsu]

My Questions:

Q: What does Vista have to offer to business users that XP doesn't have or can't do?
A: Nothing

Q: Whats Vista have to offer to IT and Administrators that XP doesn't have or can't do?
A: Not that much.

There are tons of minor things, with AD, Group Policies, Exchange, etc that the IT community has been asking for Microsoft to implement solutions for. Microsoft did not really answer any of them with Server 2008 or Vista. The majority of things I have implemented on my 2008 server is still using scripts from 2003 to accomplish things. Why do I have still use scripts to get things to work the way I want them to?

Changing over to Vista costs a lot of time and money and there really isn't a benefit.

Microsoft really needs to start listening to its community and implement tools and services that people want and need in order to give everyone the "experience" that they tout in all there ads. If they want people to change over they need to give us more of a reason too.

 

[Master Blaster]

The original post on ZD is misleading. Vista has sold more than Vista in the same time frame; but failed? Uh...okay?
#4 should be in the number 1 slot. If you give nobody a reason to upgrade, why do it? There were absolutely reasons to upgrade from 98/Me to XP. The difference between XP and Vista are marginal at best for the average user experience. I own Vista and XP, and I'll continue to use both. I also believe that Vista gets a bad rap as #2 and #3 are non-sequentor. As others have stated information that just trumps that information. Does anybody really buy into #5?

 

[HardDrugsUser]

VISTA IS A DANGEROUS CULT!

 

[Mav451]

lmao, you are using 3mark benchmarks and synthetic to determine actual application and desktop performance?

Ockie I expected better of you.

I don't understand how you conveniently glossed over the other applications he mentioned, particulary AutoCAD. I use AutoCAD at work everyday, it is memory and CPU intensive. And it's not 3dmark or synthetic - it is something real-life application used by millions of engineers everyday.

You attract more bees with honey, and Vista zealots are employing quite the opposite tactic. You don't attract anything with rat poison.

 

[TheCowOfNow]

I can't say no to any of those reasons, outright at least, but #4 is the biggest for me.

 

[Ockie]

Ockie I expected better of you.

I don't understand how you conveniently glossed over the other applications he mentioned, particulary AutoCAD. I use AutoCAD at work everyday, it is memory and CPU intensive. And it's not 3dmark or synthetic - it is something real-life application used by millions of engineers everyday.

You attract more bees with honey, and Vista zealots are employing quite the opposite tactic. You don't attract anything with rat poison.

While I did leave out autocad on purpose, the idea of using 3dmak or those synthetic benchmarks is a sham. He mentioned 3dmark earlier so that's what I nailed him on, not the autocad.

The point is, you can manipulate 3dmark variable in ways which you can't manipulate real world performances and to use 3dmark for a business machine and judge on that using it as a benchmarking factor is flawed.

And I am well rehearsed for autocad, but autocad does not set desktop computing standards in the business world... so it's quite flawed to include them as such as an umbrella.

Lastly, if you are calling me a vista zealot, I lolls at you right now

 

[bonsai]

You attract more bees with honey, and Vista zealots are employing quite the opposite tactic. You don't attract anything with rat poison.

Mav451, there is no point in arguing with Vista Zealots, they are the worst of all fanboys... trust me on this one.

 

[Ockie]

Mav451, there is no point in arguing with Vista Zealots, they are the worst of all fanboys... trust me on this one.

quite original. and i do find it very very humorous that I'm called a vista zealot... but hey, thanks for labeling me based on pure assumptions when you have absolutley no idea.

 

[Mav451]

And I am well rehearsed for autocad, but autocad does not set desktop computing standards in the business world... so it's quite flawed to include them as such as an umbrella.

Wouldn't business world software be less intensive than AutoCAD though? Database software, or your typical Office or similar software isn't exactly taxing RAM or CPU. Why not compare more resource intensive applications, as a worst case scenario?

Especially considering how wide-spanning the use of AutoCAD is in the engineering world.

 

[bonsai]

but hey, thanks for labeling me based on pure assumptions when you have absolutley no idea.

Hypocritical much?

 

[Ockie]

Wouldn't business world software be less intensive than AutoCAD though? Database software, or your typical Office or similar software isn't exactly taxing RAM or CPU. Why not compare more resource intensive applications, as a worst case scenario?

Especially considering how wide-spanning the use of AutoCAD is in the engineering world.

Let me throw a wrench in your argument by saying this instead... why don't we compare performance when playing WoW?

You can't compare one application and decide on the basis of that test that its the to be all and end all of all applications and business systems. Perhaps that works for your niche environment, but all businesses are very different, so it's a better idea to look at the entire platform and everything it encompasses.

 

[Azhar]

Hypocritical much?

No not really. Ockie and I don't dislike XP nor Vista. You on the other hand show irrational dislike for Vista in just about every post I read from you. We were merely defending Vista from FUD spreaders. Fanboyism != telling the truth.

Nobody's saying XP is bad. It's not. XP also took awhile to gain foothold in the IT world.

 

[Ockie]

Hypocritical much?

Considering that I wasn't directing my comment to you nor was I bashing XP.... fail.

 

[bonsai]

Considering that I wasn't directing my comment to you nor was I bashing XP.... fail.

You mean just like how Shotglass01 wasn't directing his comments at you nor was he bashing Vista? fail.

 

[Ockie]

No not really. Ockie and I don't dislike XP nor Vista. You on the other hand show irrational dislike for Vista in just about every post I read from you. We were merely defending Vista from FUD spreaders. Fanboyism != telling the truth.

Nobody's saying XP is bad. It's not. XP also took awhile to gain foothold in the IT world.

Yep.

Some of my rigs still run XP, the others run 2000..... and I'm called a zealot... oh I guess I forgot one of my playground is a linux platfom and my other 3 machines are apples.... but hey, lets not forget, I collect old operating systems too.... so yeah, I must be very biased and a BIG hipocrite!!!

 

[Outamyhead]

Reasons 4, 3, 2 ,& 1 seem like good reasons to me, the Apple ads just pissed me off and made me want to buy PC's even more, seeing as Apple's have flaws as well, they just don't advertise them. Vista is bloated (honestly what business has basic workstations with 1GB of RAM?), it doesn't play nice with XP and 2000-2003 server networks, software and hardware older than 3 years will not work on the OS, and it's just another Windows ME to fill the gap between XP and the brand new OS in the next couple of years, just to stop the unknowing herd buying Home Server Edition (like when everyone went a little nuts when 2000 came out, thinking that was the new windows 98 replacement).

And it's kind of strange they showed the stereo typical average home user in the mojave adverts, I want to see the off duty computer techs they pulled off the street, that instantly said "this is just like Vista"?

 

[Drudenhaus]

The #1 reason should have been:
XP Works. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Ding ding ding. I went from 98 to 2000 for stability. 2000 to XP for SLI support and better multimedia support. XP to...still on XP. Why? No reason to waste my time reinstalling just yet. I'm not going to nuke my current, working XP install to upgrade for the hell of it--I need a reason to do that. Maybe in the future I'll think that DX10 is worth it, but not right now.

 

[Ockie]

You mean just like how Shotglass01 wasn't directing his comments at you nor was he bashing Vista? fail.

Honestly, are you in third grade?! Get your own arguments instead of copying and pasting someone elses.

Oh and btw, you fail at reading... perhaps you want to read shotglass01's posts before you keep looking like an immature brat on here.

I know you are but what am I?! There, I stooped down to your third grade argument responses.

 

[swale]

LOAD A C%$P

 

[bonsai]

You on the other hand show irrational dislike for Vista in just about every post I read from you.

Irrational dislike... I like that... very similar to irrational fanboism. Yeah because I've never used Vista, nor have I ever had friends use it, and of course no one has ever had any problems with it. nor do I currently have Vista on my own machine. But of course I have no clue whatsoever about what I'm talking about, and I'm just a "Xp Zealot." Please stop with all the blind fanboism, some of us "know the facts" about Vista, and it's precisely those facts that we don't like about it.

 

[MasterShake]

I have a slightly older maching that i use for gaming... xp just runs faster for me