30 Days with Vista @ [H]

sdotbrucato

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
1,722
How long was XP around compared to Vista? XP has been out since October of 2001. . . Vista since January 2007. Besides people on forums like these, your average user buys a new PC. . . when their old one breaks.

Of course XPs market share is huge. It was out 2x as long as any other Windows operating system. . . ever.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Death Incarnate
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
16,585
been using vista since it's launch, from the start, I never wanted to change back to XP.....Only reason I got XP was I built a new PC in 2005 and got the OEM version to put on it. Built a new PC when Vista came out, installed Vista and never looked back
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
How long was XP around compared to Vista? XP has been out since October of 2001. . . Vista since January 2007. Besides people on forums like these, your average user buys a new PC. . . when their old one breaks.

Of course XPs market share is huge. It was out 2x as long as any other Windows operating system. . . ever.
I'm pretty sure XP overtook 2k within its first 2 years. And if it didn't overtake it, I bet it wasn't underrepresented by 3.3:1 ratio like the way Vista is vs. XP.

A big reason is that when vendors like Dell gave people the opportunity to "downgrade" from Vista to XP when buying a new PC or laptop, many of them took it. Now that that option has been taken away, presumably Vista #s will go up as old (XP) PCs and laptops are replaced.

2 years ago, I personally was aiming to upgrading from XP to Vista around this time. However, now I've decided to hold onto XP and will make the big leap to Windows 7, whenever that is released (and may wait until its first SP is out).
 

Joe Average

Ad Blocker - Banned
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
15,459
XP took over immediately because there was only Windows ME in the retail channels and on store bought OEM PCs - Windows 2000 was never sold as a retail/OEM installed OS on that sort of hardware, so... as soon as XP came out, the gap between it and ME was closed and ME just sorta died the death it should have died many months prior. :)

There was no gap with 2K to XP because 2K just didn't get the retail/OEM stuff done. You could get 2K on laptops, more often than not, and on OEM boxes from the OEM direct (Dell, HP, etc) but you couldn't walk into a Circuit City or whatever (Best Buy wasn't even a big chain in 2000, not yet), and CompUSA was king of the hill at the time where you could get HP, Compaq, etc brands but in their retail stores you'd never find one with 2K on it on the shelf.

The biggest knife in Vista's back initially when it came out was the fact that there was such a huge length of time that XP was - and still is - on the market. That's what hurt Vista more than anything else:

People got comfortable with it, and as I've been saying for years now, people don't like change hence Vista was getting off handicapped by that fact from the gitgo. They don't want to re-learn things even considering that learning is a good thing and stimulates the grey matter...

Doesn't matter to them, they just can't stand new stuff, simple.
 

maxius

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
3,370
i have moved from xp32 to vista 64 it will take a lil to get used to but im happy that my system is utilizing all 4gb of memory
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
XP took over immediately because there was only Windows ME in the retail channels and on store bought OEM PCs - Windows 2000 was never sold as a retail/OEM installed OS on that sort of hardware, so... as soon as XP came out, the gap between it and ME was closed and ME just sorta died the death it should have died many months prior. :)

There was no gap with 2K to XP because 2K just didn't get the retail/OEM stuff done. You could get 2K on laptops, more often than not, and on OEM boxes from the OEM direct (Dell, HP, etc) but you couldn't walk into a Circuit City or whatever (Best Buy wasn't even a big chain in 2000, not yet), and CompUSA was king of the hill at the time where you could get HP, Compaq, etc brands but in their retail stores you'd never find one with 2K on it on the shelf.

The biggest knife in Vista's back initially when it came out was the fact that there was such a huge length of time that XP was - and still is - on the market. That's what hurt Vista more than anything else:

People got comfortable with it, and as I've been saying for years now, people don't like change hence Vista was getting off handicapped by that fact from the gitgo. They don't want to re-learn things even considering that learning is a good thing and stimulates the grey matter...

Doesn't matter to them, they just can't stand new stuff, simple.
You're right about 2k not being as available to the masses like XP was. ME was the worst OS in MS's history, so it didn't take much to get people to dump it. :D

The learning curve from XP to Vista is nowhere as great as it was from 3.1 to 95, and yet Windows 95 became relatively quickly adapted (i.e., in < 2 years). So I disagree w/ that part of your statement.
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
XP took over immediately because there was only Windows ME in the retail channels and on store bought OEM PCs - Windows 2000 was never sold as a retail/OEM installed OS on that sort of hardware, so... as soon as XP came out, the gap between it and ME was closed and ME just sorta died the death it should have died many months prior. :)
Very true. Win2K never had the majority of the market as XP did. It was pretty short lived. In the consumer market it was 98/ME to XP directly and Win2K only enjoyed a year before being replaced by XP.
There was no gap with 2K to XP because 2K just didn't get the retail/OEM stuff done. You could get 2K on laptops, more often than not, and on OEM boxes from the OEM direct (Dell, HP, etc) but you couldn't walk into a Circuit City or whatever (Best Buy wasn't even a big chain in 2000, not yet), and CompUSA was king of the hill at the time where you could get HP, Compaq, etc brands but in their retail stores you'd never find one with 2K on it on the shelf.

The biggest knife in Vista's back initially when it came out was the fact that there was such a huge length of time that XP was - and still is - on the market. That's what hurt Vista more than anything else:
A good point, The current windows OS will always be in a mode of gaining market share while it is the "current" version. Even Vista increased it's market share by almost 300% in 2008 by going from 5%ish to 20%ish. XP didn't have to replace a single OS that commanded an 80% share. XP had another advantage in that it became the desktop os of both business and consumers where previously MS had two separate products for those markets. That made XP a lot more appealing.

People got comfortable with it, and as I've been saying for years now, people don't like change hence Vista was getting off handicapped by that fact from the gitgo. They don't want to re-learn things even considering that learning is a good thing and stimulates the grey matter...

Doesn't matter to them, they just can't stand new stuff, simple.
Not to mention the continuous bad press long before its release. Even press that was totally untrue hung around Vista's neck like dead weight. Then the anti-Vista marketing blitz by Apple did a lot to slow down adoption rates as well.

With all these factors going against it, Vista was never going to enjoy the same good times that XP did.
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
The learning curve from XP to Vista is nowhere as great as it was from 3.1 to 95, and yet Windows 95 became relatively quickly adapted (i.e., in < 2 years). So I disagree w/ that part of your statement.
Learning curve from 3.1 to 95 wasn't the reason 95 was so quickly adopted. It was because it was everything 3.1 users wanted. Going from 3.1 to 95 was so much better people were willing to learn things because it made other things much more easy.

95 meant that people no longer had to:
-load drivers is DOS. Windows Based Drivers simplified basic things like internet and getting a mouse to work much simpler.
-No more manual memory management to get things to run. Bye Bye QEMM. That alone made 95 a guaranteed quick replacement to 3.1
-Being able to use the desktop to store files and icons without the use of 3rd party apps like Norton desktop.

WinMe could have replaced 3.1 and it would have been just as popular.
 

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,619
I distinctly remember the CompUSA by my house in late 1999 had a whole Windows 2000 display set up at the end of one of the PC app sections. It wasn't a problem of it not being available, they just weren't really preloading it on much consumer stuff and MS at the last second decided Win2K was too much for the consumer and decided to shift to the business market.

I never had trouble with Vista even at RTM, but at the time the resource overhead was a bit too much for me to agree with. I've learned to accept it, and since then Vista has been running great on all the machines I use it on.

For the record, I didn't have much trouble with WinME either. Totally stable? No. But not many consumer OS's of the day were. It's not like anyone's Win98 or even OS/2 or Linux of the day was having record uptime with the functionality of a desktop OS.
 

alex2792

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
200
Vista is ok but I prefer XP because it runs much faster on a virtual machine. However both are still junk compared to Leopard ;)
 

Joe Average

Ad Blocker - Banned
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
15,459
Vista is ok but I prefer XP because it runs much faster on a virtual machine. However both are still junk compared to Leopard ;)
I know it was made as a joke but... let's keep this with Vista primarily and XP somewhat, shall we? :)
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Death Incarnate
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
16,585
I had windows 2000 from the start and it lasted me until late 2005 when I built a totally new system. Windows 200 is still running on a PC i gave to my friend upstairs
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
^ I still have a Win2k CD somewhere. Since I'll be rebuilding my PC (got a new 1 TB HDD staring at me waiting to get in my PC's belly), I may allocate 100 GB of it for partitions for alternative OSs, like Ubuntu, Solaris 10, and maybe even Win 2k. Why? For the hell of it, I guess. :D
 

Phantoms

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
303
Yeah, if one is doing well with XP, no need to upgrade. But for a new system, if one can deal with the learning curve, it's probably the better path.

I found it a little humorous that Dell and perhaps other vendors are still selling computers and give the option of "downgrading" from Vista to XP Pro but for a $99 fee, which is sometimes waived on higher end computers. :eek: :D

Many business apps are not compatible with Vista. I can tell you from experience most professional level automotive scanner software is not compatible with Vista. You can always run XP Pro in a VM, but for a person that needs his PC or Laptop for a specific reason and that reason doesn't support Vista, either he has to be tech savy to get everything set up or simply buy a XP pro machine. Most will opt for the later which is the simplest and most compatible route.
 

jzodda

Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
631
Wow this thread is still alive? Maybe it will keep going till the launch of Windows 7 :)

If we are discussing a personal PC for home use at this point as we start 2009 I can't see any reason why a person would not install Vista 64. Most stuff works with it now as its been out for a long long time! I haven't experienced a Vista related problem in over 13 months. Even creative drivers are no longer a pressing concern and that's saying something!
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
Many business apps are not compatible with Vista. I can tell you from experience most professional level automotive scanner software is not compatible with Vista. You can always run XP Pro in a VM, but for a person that needs his PC or Laptop for a specific reason and that reason doesn't support Vista, either he has to be tech savy to get everything set up or simply buy a XP pro machine. Most will opt for the later which is the simplest and most compatible route.
I don't recall such compatibility issues when people migrated from ME/2k to XP. :confused:

My company (a Fortune 500 firm) has told us that they'll finally "upgrade" us to Vista in 2009. I fear this b/c my company laptop only has 1 GB of RAM and is running slow enough w/ XP and all the security-related bloatware that's on it. :(
 
Top