Why Windows Vista failed (or so people say)

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Help and Support' started by Matt, Mar 26, 2008.

  1. jimbo45

    jimbo45 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,208
    Likes Received:
    41

    I haven't actually got the official statistics to hand -- but I think the number of actual purchased Retail versions of VISTA don't exceed XP -- could be wrong but my surmise is that from very early in Vista's development cycle OEM's were more or less forced to install VISTA on their machines so p[eople had it without any choice. If you count the number of "Licensed" versions then you could be right but a huge number of these were OEM's.

    The other HUGE GRIPE is that very early on you didn't get an install disk so apart from VISTA often being installed on totally inadequate hardware there was very little you could do in Optimising the OS.

    If you had to re-install / repair it all you often had was a "Hidden Partition" and a boot CD which re-installed the system to as it was when you bought it. If you've ever purchased a computer recently you know how much "Crap and Adware" is usually installed on it to start with.

    Now often this partition was deleted (users thought --he I've got another 30GB or so of free disk space -- so their nice recovery disk wouldn't work -- your great machine is just now a hunk of metal. You then had to "re-purchase" a recovery CD which didn't require a hidden partition at an extra cost sometimes as much as 45 USD -- this at least should have been initially given with the system but usually wasn't. Of course this would re-install all the crapware again.

    So the initial user experience was pretty horrible especially as it was relatively easy to tinker around with XP to get really fast systems.

    So VISTA was given a bad reputation from the start. -- Why on earth didn't the OEM's just give a proper install disk with the machine -- the OEM disk can be re-installed as many times as you like on the same machine and it wouldn't cost the OEM any more as they have to pay for the license anyway.

    Nowadays with even humble laptops having 4GB (RAM or more) and and dual processors Vista (especially now with SP1 and even SP2) isn't so horrible but in marketing if a brand gets tainted with a bad reputation even JC himself couldn;t resucitate it.

    W7 is a totally different animal -- will even run on small netbooks with tiny Atom processor quite well.


    BTW anybody buying a new computer (in store rather than via the Net) - ALWAYS Haggle with the saleman to throw in a RETAIL copy of the OS with the machine -- most stores will throw this in to make a sale -- their retail OS'es are quite heavily discounted anyway so it actually doesn't cost them much. If they say no go to another store. -- Make the "Credit Crunch" work FOR you rather than Against you. Stores are DESPERATE to make sales at the moment.

    Cheers
    jimbo
     
  2. john3347

    john3347 Extraordinary Member
    Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    36
    "if Microsoft gets crazy with the price of W7"


    I have seen, in two locations the expected price for Windows 7. Windows 7 Pro (the version I would want) is expected to be priced at $300! I forget the other prices, but they were equally obsene. I think Ultimate was like $400.......or maybe $500. Even with all its improvements over XP, I don't think I would be willing (not to mention financially able) to fork over $300 per unit for the 8 computers on my home network. Consider that XP is already paid for on all units.
     
  3. djwayne

    djwayne New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    27
    I wonder if they are going to have an update version available like they usually do, you know, upgrade from Vista to W7 for $100 ??

    I saw on Amazon that Leopord 10.5.6 OSX is available for $109.99. So should a Microsoft OS really be that much more ??


    :)
     
  4. john3347

    john3347 Extraordinary Member
    Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    36
    They should offer a deeply discounted price for current Vista sufferers. I doubt seriously that they will, though. It would be like admitting to the train wreck that Vista is. I would be willing to pay $100 to $150 to replace my one Vista machine with Windows 7 after the dust settles on the public release. Based on what I have seen of Windows 7 so far; If I were buying a new "store bought" computer, I would not hesitate to buy one with Windows 7 on it. (After Windows 7 "hits the streets", one could probably buy a Windows 7 equipped computer for no more than $50 to $100 more than the OS alone would cost.) Still, though, I don't see a $300 per client improvement over XP.
     
  5. Overlord Laharl

    Overlord Laharl New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi, i'm new here, but allow me to give my thoughts on the whole Vista issue.

    Personally, i find that Vista is faster than XP in many aspects. I have Vista running on all 3 of my machines, as listed below:

    Rig 1:

    Intel Celeron D 2.4GHz
    DDR1 512MB SDRAM
    Integrated VIA P4M800 graphics

    Rig 2:

    Intel Celeron Dual Core E1200 1.6GHz
    DDR2 1GB SDRAM
    Integrated Intel GMA 950 graphics adaptor

    Rig 3:

    Acer Aspire 6530G notebook
    AMD Turion X2 RM-72 (2.1GHz)
    3GB DDR2 SDRAM
    ATI Mobility Radeon 3470 x 2 (3200 HD + 3470 HD)

    In Rig 1, initial startup was much slower than XP. After a few days of conditioning though, Superfetch did its work, and it was close to XP levels even on an ultra dated machine.

    In Rig 2, i just installed Vista directly and the system flies. No problems with lag or anything on the PC, although IE7 still hangs up occasionally when running sites with heavy Flash animation or movies.

    Rig 3, my notebook, was pre-installed with Vista by Acer themselves. It was horribly slow, no doubt due to the crapware which Acer has loaded in. Decided that i had enough, used the Acer e-recovery system to create backup copies of the recovery partition, wiped the entire hard disk clean and installed my retail copy of Vista Business. System was flying immediately after installation and driver installation.

    I have since installed Windows 7 on a dual boot for all 3 systems and, to my surprise, Vista actually feels slightly faster than Windows 7 in some ways. There're also some problems with video in Windows 7, like artifacting and the rare slowdown when running other applications behind while watching the video.

    But from my own personal experience, Vista was one heck of a solid operating system. In fact, just a few days ago, i was trying to install my 10 year old scanner in Vista and was prepared for the worst. So i was pleasently surprised that the drivers installed themselves perfectly after selecting the driver exe to run in legacy mode.

    Trust me, Vista is much better and stable than what most people make it out to be. I for one am a very happy user of Vista and will never go back to XP ever again.
     
  6. jimbo45

    jimbo45 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,208
    Likes Received:
    41

    Hi there
    EXACTLY THIS


    If you re-read the TOPIC of the post is WHY VISTA FAILED and not Is VISTA ACTUALLY ANY GOOD -- that's a DIFFERENT Issue entirely then your Rig 3 Hits the main problem exactly.

    At Launch time (Pre SP1) Most people bought machines (often failrly low spec hardware) with VISTA already installed on it and as you correctly state in your rig 3 this stuff is usually loaded with vast amounts of crapware installed when you buy the machine.

    Having NO install disk (which is how most of these machines were (and unfortunately still are) delivered WITHOUT AN INSTALL DISC) it is pretty well impossible to remove the crapware and optimise the OS (which was in any case nothing like as good as SP1 or even the newer SP2).

    And of course if you do make an error and have to re-install the OS you only have the install image that sets the machine back to the state it was when you bought it -- crapware and all. -- That#s assuming you haven't deleted the hidden partition that these "recovery" disks use for OS re-installation. Sometimes people had to pay extra for another recovery disk because they had done just that deleted the partition.

    Of course they would have been better buying a retail version of VISTA and installing it themeselves but here again unless you are fairly computer literate installing an OS for the first time (especially a new one like VISTA as it was back then) isn't easy when you have to hunt around for obscure drivers (especially for laptops) etc etc.

    Being stuck with an unoptimised OS on unsuitable hardware without any legal means of tweaking it just added to the user perception that "Vista was no good" -- doesn't matter how technically good vista could be made the damage had already been done -- and once a brand gets a reputation as being a "Real Dog" that's it.

    That's why MS is RUSHING to get W7 out of the door ASAP -- it's been generally perceived as a good OS -- you can't take benchmarks of "unofficial" builds like 7048 (IMO still the best) and 7057 (and possibly 7061 but haven't tried it yet) as being exactly what you get in the final. There's all sorts of debugging and diagnostic traps in the kernel to fix problems that have been reported bach to Microsoft in the user feedback and from Manufactueres testing hardware (and software) compatability.

    Anyway again the post is about WHY VISTA FAILED, Not the technical merits of Vista good or otherwise.

    Sometimes BTW an excellent product in the real world can fail on something stupid just like the name -- doesn't have to do with the actual merit of the product or otherwise.

    Thats why Marketing is such a difficult area -- get even an excellent product wrongly perceived as a "Dog" and you are in trouble.

    Perversley with skillful marketing you can get even a Crap product seen as good.

    (Typical example which loads of younger readers will understand). Try listening to a hideously compressed MP3 downloaded song on a very high quality "Old fashioned" amplifier with an expensive pair of Mission or Bose speakers (at 2,000 USD a pop :razz: -- the music is usually UNLISTENABLE to. However played with those nasty little white bud earphones using an Ipod in a noisy place like a plane / train etc the sound can be "almost" passable -- however nobody these days ever talks about the quality of typical MP3 compression -- regarded as a great product even though technically its mainly JUNK)

    Cheers

    jimbo


    There's no way an "Upgrade" will cost anything like 300 USD. This would in the present times be SUICIDE and if that is really the case then it won't be long with all the zillions of pre-build (and eventually RC1) copies of W7 out in the wild before someone works out what to do about the Mar 2010 expiry date -- but we don't taalk about those topics do we. :):)

    If Microsoft is in line with similar developments in technology costing then I would actually expect "Street Price" (that's the price you can find in discount stores etc -) to be around 15 - 25% lower than any "Recommended" or "Manufactuers" List Price.

    I'd imagine you could probably find after release a version of "Professional" version copies going for around 100 USD (Upgrade price). - Don't forget a lot of the development has already been done from the VISTA kernel so W7 didn't require a huge (by Microsoft's standards not ours) amount of extra money for development.

    If it's still too expensive and you've got a machine with a lot of RAM on it -- just install a V'LITED version of XP-64 bit on it (lightening fast) with bare minimum stuff on it. Don't bother with any apps either.

    Then install VMWARE or Virtual PC and run a whole slew of XP Virtual machines -- on even an 8GB rig you could comfortably run up to a dozen (yes 12) VM's concurently.

    (Or run the VM's from a 64 bit version of Linux (free).

    You need the 64 bit OS to address all the memory in the machine of course -- that's how you can run so many VM's -- if you try to run a load of VM's on a 32 bit OS even with loads of RAM it will just grind to a halt.


    Cheers
    jimbo
     
    #46 jimbo45, Mar 18, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2009
  7. john3347

    john3347 Extraordinary Member
    Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    36
    But doesn't rumor hold that there will be no upgrade path directly from XP to Windows 7? This would mean that current XP users could not upgrade, but would have to purchase the full install sku. I have one Vista machine and that is why all the rest of mine are still XP. According to pricing that I saw, it would require an expenditure of $2250 (assuming that I could upgrade my Vista for 1/2 price) to upgrade my 8 functioning computers. Yes, some "shopping" would probably uncover a few dollars discount from this price, but I don't see much discount on current, and even older MS software. I expected to see mail order prices for XP drop substantially after Vista went mainstream.............didn't happen.

    VM's, like Linux, have a LOT of simplification to do before they are ready for the masses..........or me. I have tried VMWare Player with several Linux "breeds" (Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora, PCLinuxOS, etc.) and have not found any of them to run smooth and without complications. I have found that a dedicated computer with a KVM switch works best for me. I am currently experimenting with Windows 7 on my Linux box.
     
  8. cmillens

    cmillens New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sales of Vista broke XP sales records because MS started something new with this OS. They're counting PC's sold with VISTA per their agreements with PC Manufacturers even though the end user downgraded to XP or installed Linux.

    Truth be told, Vista lives on much fewer PC's that XP ever did or will.
     
  9. Havoxx

    Havoxx New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2

    It's not a rumor, Windows 7 isn't compatible with XP, simple as that, MIcrosoft has stated it plenty of times, which is why the talk of the new compatability mode is to install it in a virtual machine.


    I'm on the boat with the smart vista users, face facts, it is not up to the OS to provide the drivers, it's up to the manufacturers, I for one know for a fact that Creative didn't even make beta drivers for Vista, and they waited until after release to start, this made me get rid of that creative, and buy an actually pretty good soundcard from Best buy. A peice of crap that's branded by them, and has a much better sound chip IMO, I installed it, and out of the box, no issues, nothing.

    DJ, you said the reason vista failed was because of drivers, however, that isn't vistas fault, that's your audio card manufacturers fault, for waiting too long to start making drivers, every beta release of Vista I tested had new Nvidia drivers, never had an issue, and ding ding ding, on release, those drivers were running fine.

    Windows 7 is now having a quite strict program requirement, where the programs MUST work on 64 bit editions, they don't have to be 64-bit, but they damn sure have to work. As has been stated, it's the developers problem to follow this guide, I don't know about you, but I have yet to play a GAMES FOR WINDOWS title that hasn't worked great out of the box. Microsoft releases great Operating sytems, I knew straight off the bat Vista would do bad on preinstalled machines, and while I was working at circuit city during it's launch, I knew it would fail because of that, however... That again, has nothing to do with the operating system, the fault lies in companies like Dell, and HP, that just want to make more money, so they toss on a nextgen OS on a peice of shit that can't run anything.

    Superfetch? Best thing ever created, I can't remember a time when Call of duty or Photoshop opened so fast, and gee, what a surprise, it's because I had enough foresight to get vista, and to get more than 1GB of ram.

    What I find funny of course, is that the people complaining about the issues, are usually the ones that have the money to upgrade, but are too damn cheap, 4GB of ram Costs next to nothing these days, I think I payed $80 total for mine, and it's pretty high end. I actually read through all the posts here, and it sickens me how many people so quickly bash a company, you say microsoft is charging too much, and the MAC os is cheaper, did you forget? You can't really customize a mac much, other than over pay up to 5X for a PC with a special locker chip designed to FORCE YOU to use their OS, not only that, their OS barely has different specs, so theres nothing to make there, it's glorified linux. I'd like to see anyone make a program that can work on millions of different hardware configurations and make it cost effective, it's impossible.

    But still the bashing, and after all this, microsoft has actually listened to the whiners, they've made a shit version of windows 7, that runs on next to nothing, they've allowed us to completely remove things like internet explorer, and windows media player(IE sucks, but WMP is one of the best out there if you know how to use it). ON TOP OF THAT there are even talks of allowing you to get a free copy of an older OS when you buy Windows 7, but still, people talk shit, and most of it has no actual basis. We are in 2009, about halfway through, the people that have the issue here, are the ones that can't see that technology keeps going forward.

    Microsoft won't stop upgrading, and in the world of PC gaming, imaging, audio, modeling, we can't stop upgrading. I know I sound like a fanboy, but I've suffered through ME, I've gone through some of the hardships you guys have, with the drivers, it sucks, but it's not the OS's fault, it never has been, fact is, you install Vista, and you rarely even think of a driver having to install, because it's already there. You install 7, and I don't know about you, but I literally have to install 1 driver, and that's for my LCD screen on my keyboard, nothing else, everything is recognized, from my second monitor, to my cheap Kodak printer.

    That's my rant, the TLDR version, It's not microsofts fault, it's not vistas fault, it's the greedy manufacture and OEM companies faults.
     
  10. djwayne

    djwayne New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    27
    Well Havoxx, like I said, it's anchient history now as my soundcard company did come up with drivers over a year ago, and I'm migrating to Windows 7 RC next week so my Vista is heading for the dust bin, unless the price of Windows 7 becomes unaffordable. So we'll see.


    :)
     
  11. Havoxx

    Havoxx New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    Oh yea, I've seen the RC, it's great, but yea man, I think Vista is a great OS, I know you had your issues, but don't blame that on the OS, it really is a nice OS when you get into it.
     
  12. djwayne

    djwayne New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    27
    Well XP is a nice OS too. I may go back to that because I do audio work and my programs were designed specifically for that.

    The problems I had with Vista have been rectified, but Windows 7 leaves it in the dust. So that's why I'm looking forward to the RC.

    I'll repeat the problem I had with Vista, when it first came out, my hardware would not work with it. Vista was totally unusable for me. So I had no choice but to revert back to XP.


    :)
     
  13. john3347

    john3347 Extraordinary Member
    Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    36
    Havoxx, I wish to offer an opposing view to "who's to blame". I don't know how old you are or how much "computer experience" (in years) you have, but I remember the criteria years ago of "backward compatibility". Microsoft threw that away with XP and now has adopted a policy of "planned obsolence". One instance of this is a graphics program that I learned to use when I was using DOS 5/Windows 3.11. I used this same program (application) through Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 pro and even in XP, with some reduced functionality. When Vista came along, this program will not even attempt to install. Now part of this is the "planned obsolence" policy that Microsoft has adopted and part is due to the fact that the whole computer world is inside out. There should be a worldwide organization that sets recommended protocol for software and the OS be written to run ANY software that conforms to that protocol. When someone writes an application, their work should be done on that application. They shouldn't have to keep re-writing it over and over because the rules have changed in midstream (Because Microsoft has made the application obsolete.) This just costs the public more money and reduces productivity.

    When I use an application for 10 years and suddenly it doesn't work on the current OS, what has changed? There is the problem.
     
  14. confused

    confused New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    6
    The vista aero took up too much memory for the hardware that was out there on its release. Now with bigger hard drives and motherboards able to handle huge amounts of memory vista aero runs smooth. Vista runs great on the upper memory machines just gets bad P.R.,.

    That will be solved with Windows 7.
     
  15. whoosh

    whoosh Cooler King
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,704
    Likes Received:
    379
    Very good post :)

    Yes a OS b4 its time . To get vista working well had to get a computer that was vista capable . Which basically meant more ram and better hardware .
    Vista was a fairly expensive option for some people not all but few people then had the memory or the best hardware to run Vista well .
     
    #55 whoosh, Apr 27, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2009
  16. Havoxx

    Havoxx New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    I do understand what you mean to a certain extent, but as I've always been taught, humans keep moving forward, so why should programs that are 10 years old work? Don't you think that program needs an update? I know where you are coming from, don't get me wrong, but if everyone had your way of thinking, computers would be no more powerful today than they were 10 years ago, why change what works? Simple, to make it better, faster.

    I've only been into computers for about 9 years now, in that time I've spent a little over 7k on PC's, and I had a top of the line last year, it's outdated now, but it runs everything fine, for now, will I need to upgrade? No doubt in my mind. I know some older programs are great, I for one miss my SP firewall, that doesn't exist anymore, at least not for vista, or 7, but I moved on, and that's how it should be.

    I've been mostly a gamer, and as you know, if you don't upgrade for gaming, you can't run squat with nice graphics, but there are people that refuse to upgrade, and in games like Anarchy online, and World of warcraft, that are perfect examples of how things evolve, people still refuse to upgrade, and they lag, complain about bugs, and it's not because of the OS, it's because of them refusing to adapt.

    I understand your point of view, I really do, but in the case of technology, that view can't be applied, if I tried to do schoolwork with office 2k, I wouldn't be able to read anyone's items, nor would they mine, and I think that's fine, because if we don't move forward, then we are just standing still.

    I read what I write, and I swear, I'm a MS fanboy, but I really do give them credit, even as Windows 7 isn't even finished, they are working on Windows 8, evolving, and moving forward. I believe this is how it has to be, with Windows 7, there are bigger guidelines, and companies will have to MAKE SURE they're programs work on 64-bit, in 2-3 years, 32-bit will be obsolete, and that's how it should be. If you choose to stay behind, then I think it's only because you chose to, no-one is forcing you, PC's are so cheap now-a-days, that honestly, there isn't a reason to not upgrade.
     
    #56 Havoxx, Apr 27, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2009
  17. john3347

    john3347 Extraordinary Member
    Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    36
    So Whoosh, are you saying that my graphics program thst ran perfectly well on a 66 Mhz 486 DX-2 processor with 16 MB memory (if memory serves me correctly) and a 540 MB hard drive (not GB) will not run on my Vista machine because a Pentium D 2.8 Ghz dual core processor and 2 GB memory is not enough horsepower? Could I expect this program to run on Vista if I had an i-core processor, and 4 GB ram maybe?

    Software incompatability is not because of lack of horsepower, it is due to planned obsolence on the part of Microsoft.
     
    Havoxx and (deleted member) like this.
  18. whoosh

    whoosh Cooler King
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,704
    Likes Received:
    379
    Not going to argue with you on that yes that is all part of the plan . I would say though that though it may be bad for the consumer in the end it will help with inovation . THe more MS up the anti the more hardware moves forward ;)
    A catch 22 type scenario :)
     
    Havoxx and (deleted member) like this.
  19. Havoxx

    Havoxx New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2

    I don't think that's exactly what he meant, but in reply to your post, why would you need a program that ran on a calculator to run now?

    Also, this is the same for everything, not just computers, you can't put a part from a 1990 car into a 2000+ car, it won't be the same, because it's since been obsolete, that goes for mostly everything else, I will say though, computers are the one thing that when a technology dies out, you can't find it, I know a year ago or so, DDR1 ram was almost twice the cost of DDR2.

    Edit: What's rep power?
     
    #59 Havoxx, Apr 27, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2009
    whoosh and (deleted member) like this.
  20. whoosh

    whoosh Cooler King
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,704
    Likes Received:
    379
    Let me get this straight you are I think asking will Vista run on a 486 with 16 megs of memory ? Well I would say no :)
    the rest looks kinda confused .

    Intel 486DX
    My first computer was a 486DX . Then they bought in the new Pentium and my puter was now in the old catergory :)
    My puter with 4 meg of ram had trouble running windows 95 ! Try running Vista =no way :)
     
    #60 whoosh, Apr 27, 2009
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...