The Top 5 Reasons Why Vista Failed

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Despite the fact that Windows Vista is selling well commercially, better even than XP did during the same timeframe, it isn’t doing as well on the IT side of the isle. ZDNet has listed the top five reasons Vista failed. What is your opinion? Do you think Vista is a failure?

The public reputation of Windows Vista is in shambles, as Microsoft itself tacitly acknowledged in its Mojave ad campaign. IT departments are largely ignoring Vista. In June (18 months after Vista’s launch), Forrester Research reported that just 8.8% of enterprise PCs worldwide were running Vista. Meanwhile, Microsoft appears to have put Windows 7 on an accelerated schedule that could see it released in 2010.
Click to expand...
 
The only thing I agree with on that list is number 4.
 
By far #1, for me anyway. I don't see any reason why should I try Vista if XP is pretty much the same experience (I do have Vista on my Wife's tablet, but it is mostly because of necessity than choice due to Vista accommodating tablets better than XP).
 
Do not agree with much, if any of that article. While Vista had its rough start, it has shown it is a good OS if given the proper support from third party developers.
 
The reason why vista failed is because the general public and even companies in some cases, hates change... they hate having to spend more money because it's "new". If windows 98 or 2000 was still fully supported and sold, I bet you a ton of people will still be using it.
 
#5 for sure....

way too many people parrot the crap found in the Apple commercials....

the worst offenders? IT people....

the toilet cleaners of the tech industry...
 
If I didn't have a spare XP license, I would have installed Vista on my latest build - as far as I can tell right now it's a great OS. However, it doesn't really bring anything all that new to the table for me. My XP install is stable enough that I only restart when I change hardware (or when Apple decides that an iTunes update needs to restart my computer to work properly). I'm not a gamer so DX10 doesn't mean anything to me (the same for most enterprise users, I would guess). If MS didn't keep pushing the new features back to XP (like indexed search) I'd have more of a reason to upgrade.
 
5. Apple successfully demonized Vista
Click to expand...
BS. Mac campaign had nothing to do with it. IT knows why they don't use Macs, and it's not because of marketing.

Even then, the latest version of Windows XP soundly outperforms the latest version of Microsoft Vista. No one wants to use a new computer that is slower than their old one.
Click to expand...
If I put vista on my company computers, there would be a revolt. They bitch about the speed of the machine as it is, and our standard box is very current and very fast. They'd fire me if I made them 20% slower.

I'm sure like most other companies, we will need to move to a 64 bit OS soon. And when we do, we will go to Vista 64. Because if we're going to 64 bit anyway, we might as well change OSs while we're at it.


The #1 reason should have been:
XP Works. Why fix something that isn't broken?
 
I Predict that People are going to be sorely Dissapointed when "Windows 7" Comes out... From the builds I have looked at, It looks Amazingly like Windows Vista with New features....
 
#4, #1, and #3 are the real issues with this.

#1 due more to poor coding/shortcuts.

#3 because it does cost more to upgrade to new hardware(in a lot of cases this is needed)

#4 Why change what is working fine for a business?

If Microsoft made a subscription based Windows, and kept streamlining/slimming/improving all aspects, I'd pay for it, dependent on price. (Unless Linux gets WINE to function better, so I can play all games on it, then Linux for me!)
 
Only problem I have with Vista is compatibility. But then again that has to do more with having 64-bit OS and trying to run 32-bit programs on it.

I have disabled UAC not because of the prompts, but because it hinders programs from saving stuff. For example, I configured Quake but I didn't do it it admin mode, so it didn't actually save my configuration anywhere when I asked it to.
Now I'm going to have to do it all again (this time in admin mode) :(
 
There is some denial going on in this thread. 5 has nothing to do with IT adopotion. It does have an impact on the consumer level. 3 and 4 are the key reasons. The install base for XP is too great the reasons for upgrade to small. Vista is dead on a corporate level and will never be adopoted. W7 might get a second chance but we will see.

3 is also big issue. Why pay more for a system that runs slower and adds little in the way of features? The biggest feature for Vista, the new disk operating system, got cut. Vista is a woddlying little pig. Be honest.

On consumer level Vista offers only these benefits for me.

1) More Secure
2) Got the sound out of the OS kernel.
3) DX10

Windows need a serious bloat reduction and focus on speed and performance.
 
If I wouldn't need directx 10, I would still be on XP not because vista is a failure, simply because it doesn't have features which I wouldn't get in XP anyway.

In XP I use a program called "Launchy" as a keystroke launcher (it does the exact same thing as the vista indexing system)
 
If it's not broke don't fix it. My company still uses software that is 15 years old. You know why? It's rock stable.

Windows 7 won't be any better, and Microsoft will just lose more market. They need to change their business model, it's old, showing it's age, and consumers are catching on.
 
A subscription model of OS updates would be MUCH easier in an enterprise level computing environment. WOW.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
#5 for sure....

way too many people parrot the crap found in the Apple commercials....

the worst offenders? IT people....

the toilet cleaners of the tech industry...
Click to expand...

Yea, pretty much.

Our IT is looking at Vista, but they have more pressing things to take care of right now... so I don't plan to see Vista at work for a very long time, if ever. XP works fine for us, in fact it does more than we need as we run Oracle eBusiness (yikes :confused:) and a thin client would pull that off just fine.
 
I actually can agreed with almost all the aspects in terms of what they are focusing on the reasons.
 
Now if Microsoft made a small, compact, unbloated, hardware & software compatible, secure OS, IT would jump all over it. Make an OS that works 10x faster with 1/10th the flash, and it will be so widly adopted it will make your head spin.
 
bonsai said:
If it's not broke don't fix it. My company still uses software that is 15 years old. You know why? It's rock stable.

Windows 7 won't be any better, and Microsoft will just lose more market. They need to change their business model, it's old, showing it's age, and consumers are catching on.
Click to expand...

i'm not saying you're wrong.... but what business model do you think they should adopt?

I dont think I'm alone in being *very* wary of any subscription based model.....
 
Someone mentioned Wine earlier. The day that I can run most games in WINE is the day I rock Linux fill time. Because other than gaming, all my needs can be met with Linux Distro. I can only imagine how easy, and smooth Ubuntu Zaney Zebra will be.
 
it was only a success at all because MS stopped selling XP and forced vendors to put Vista on new machines.

/shoves vista downs people throats
OH LOOK ITS A SUCCESS

FWIW
I agree with 1 and 4, and 3 to a degree. I had problems with games running slower pre-SP1

Only idiots believe marketing campaigns (5), and I fail to see how 2 is relevant at all
 
It’s not an opinion anymore, it’s fact. Vista is a failure. I don’t necessarily think it’s because of the reasons on the list, but IT shops are not, and will not, be deploying it. Microsoft failed to hit the mark with IT for whatever reason. Now they’re just trying to rearrange the deck chairs of the Titanic.
 
DrVal said:
The #1 reason should have been:
XP Works. Why fix something that isn't broken?
Click to expand...
Bingo. I think Microsoft's biggest problem is that there was too much of a time gap between XP and Vista. It gave everyone--OEMs, users, retail stores, repair guys, IT departments--plenty of time to build the whole ecosystem around XP. By and large, whether XP is good/bad or whether they liked/disliked it at launch, everyone is now quite comfortable with XP. Once the initial investment in training and setting up all the support infrastructure was made, IT costs decreased because the platform was stable. For businesses, Vista represents a rather imposing step change. A lot of existing systems and practices will have to be reworked. Users will be retrained, and the size of the helpdesk will have to balloon in order to keep up with customer demand. Note that this has nothing to do with the inherent quality of Vista--for better or for worse, it's different.

My company, which has held a place in the "world's largest companies" list ages, did not migrate from NT4 to XP until 2005. Current plans are to roll out Vista, along with all new hardware and Office 2007, next year. With Aero enabled by default. About half our employees, and probably 90% of our management, are over 47 years old. While I (as a whipper-snappin' 27-year-old) will be able to pick up the new interface relatively quickly, I can only imagine the teeth-pulling agony the helpdesk will go through when the older employees are presented with Vista.

(Incidentally, to date, I have only seen less than a handful of computers running vista outside a retail store. Seriously--everyone I know has a computer running XP (or Mac OS), and they're quite happy with it, thankyouverymuch. Again, that's not an indictment of Vista's quality, it's just a reflection of the market penetration--or lack therof--of Vista.)
 
1 is the fault of hardware and software developers. UAC can be turned off, it's a non issue.
2 I don't know anything about.
3 Vista isn't slow. I find it just as fast or faster as XP, only after a while with XP it gets slower and slower and starts using more and more RAM. Haven't had that problem with vista.
4 is true, people just love XP so much they don't want to give it up. Programming will catch up with them and they will need more than 3 gigs of ram and support for XP 64 is kind of a joke.
5 is true too, people really do believe anything they hear.

As for the entire article, it's a blog and the dude obviously hates Vista and for what reason I don't know. He cites and article from 2007 that just says "Vista is slow" to prove his theory that Vista is too slow.
 
I personally disagree with Vista being bloated and slow and buggy. I have not had any problems installing Vista on any computers thus far.

But I will agree that Vista is failing to take a foothold in the business world because of business app incompatibility and because.. well, what for? I'm sorry Apple, but you don't have a monopoly on the quote "it just works". XP just works too! I'm not about to shell out our company credit card and buy volume licenses for Vista and recall everyone's laptop (mind you, we're a global project management company with employees all over the planet) just for the stake of upgrading. Vista will slowly enter our company through new computer purchases just as XP did back when 2000 was king.

You could say that XP failed too in the first 1-3 years. It had to be phased out through new computer purchases for the most part.
 
You have to come out with new products because you cant keep running an os that is 7+ years old and keep making money - kinda like saying why upgrade from a Model T - it ran on solid tires and had a hand crank start and could be worked on by its owners - Gasp that worked why did we fix it?.

Vista works fine - people were pissed about security - they made vista more secure - then people bitch because of the things they have to do to muster through an install or update.

Also alot of apps still do not support vista yet - WHY THE HELL NOT - and how is that Microsoft's fault btw?

I have been reading about windows 7 as well and its vista optimized, and with a touch interface.
 
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.
 
My number one complaint is the UI ... why screw with the User Interface if you don't have to?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Make the UI updates completely optional ant the flip of a switch.
 
Luthorcrow said:
Windows need a serious bloat reduction and focus on speed and performance.
Click to expand...

Exactly, thats why we didn't upgrade to Vista at my work, I am the only one who got it and it Windows 7 isn't better on memory I will be the only one to ge that version too.
 
Shotglass01 said:
It’s not an opinion anymore, it’s fact. Vista is a failure. I don’t necessarily think it’s because of the reasons on the list, but IT shops are not, and will not, be deploying it. Microsoft failed to hit the mark with IT for whatever reason. Now they’re just trying to rearrange the deck chairs of the Titanic.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lamont Cranston said:
You have to come out with new products because you cant keep running an os that is 7+ years old and keep making money - kinda like saying why upgrade from a Model T - it ran on solid tires and had a hand crank start and could be worked on by its owners - Gasp that worked why did we fix it?
Click to expand...

This is not "Why upgrade from a Model T, it ran on solid tires and had a hand crank"

This is "Upgrade from your Model T to a Model M... It's slower, harder to operate, and won't run on some roads"

I don't see why Vista is an Upgrade. It's a downgrade in every sense of the word.
 
DrVal said:
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.
Click to expand...

So? XP was slower than 2000. 2000 was slower than 98. 98 was slower than 95.. see where I'm going?

XP was designed to work on new computers over 5 years ago.
 
Lamont Cranston said:
You have to come out with new products because you cant keep running an os that is 7+ years old and keep making money - kinda like saying why upgrade from a Model T - it ran on solid tires and had a hand crank start and could be worked on by its owners - Gasp that worked why did we fix it?.
Click to expand...
Not a fair anology. Vista had some neat features, but its not like people were hobbling along on XP in misery. Maybe if MS wants to make more money, make something people want, not force them to buy something they dont want.

Vista works fine - people were pissed about security - they made vista more secure - then people bitch because of the things they have to do to muster through an install or update.
Click to expand...
Upgrading secuirty - Good, the way they went about it - Bad. See the difference?

Also alot of apps still do not support vista yet - WHY THE HELL NOT - and how is that Microsoft's fault btw?
Click to expand...
Its not their fault, but its still a reality. Business deals with reality more than whose to blame. If it dont work, it dont work, end of story.
 
i have vista on my X61 tablet, i havent removed it so that i have a leg to stand on, and i can definately agree with the fact its really really slow... i had XP on an x60 (slower with less memory) and it ran significantly faster
 
One of the main reasons people aren't upgrading, and that this article ignores, is that the move to web based applications has rendered the OS largely irrelevant for a majority of users.

In past upgrades, like from 95 to 98, or from 98 to XP/2000, there were noticeable improvements in useability and stability. However consumers now expect that their computer simply "work", blue screens are supposed to be (mostly) a thing of the past so that avenue of improvement is largely over.

Additonally since modern browsers are now available for most OS's out there the applications that most people are using don't really require any expensive upgrades. Gmail doesn't really care what OS you're using as long as your browser is up to date, ditto for YouTube, CNN, HardOCP or pretty much any other site out there. The few programs that people do need to install locally are generally supported on most OS's; Itunes, MS Office, etc.

Microsoft faces a tough dilemma, at one point in time they were the centerpiece of the computing experience, but that star is increasingly fading. They need to either add compelling reasons for people to upgrade or change their business model.
 
There is no reason to use Vista is the business market yet, but for home it's awesome. Only thing I've ever had a problem with on Vista is nvidia drivers. Even my X-Fi works with a hitch.
 
Azhar said:
So? XP was slower than 2000. 2000 was slower than 98. 98 was slower than 95.. see where I'm going?

XP was designed to work on new computers over 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

XP was slower than 95, slower than 98, slower than 2000. But it was also brought the software and hardware compatability of 98 into the security and stability of 2000. It was slower, but was far more reliable, especially after SP2. Now that the hardware can run XP and hardly notice, it's even faster.

Why would I piss off my engineers by slowing down their machines?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top