Posted on 07/14/2007 9:42:44 AM PDT by ShadowAce
SEATTLE (AP) — Chris Pirillo leaned away from his webcam and pointed to his printer/scanner/fax machine, which stopped scanning and faxing after he installed Microsoft Corp.'s new Windows Vista operating system.
"I can't live in Vista if the software that I use in my life for productivity does not work," said Pirillo, in the third minute of a 52-minute video he posted on YouTube.>
Nearly six months after it launched, gripes over what doesn't work with Vista continue, eclipsing positive buzz over the program's improved desktop search, graphics and security.
With Vista now shipping on most new computers, it's all but guaranteed to become the world's dominant PC operating system — eventually. For now, some users are either learning to live with workarounds or sticking with Vista's predecessor, Windows XP.
Pirillo is geekier than the average user. He runs a network of technology blogs called Lockergnome, and was one of several "Windows enthusiasts" Microsoft asked for Vista feedback early on.
Still, Vista tested even Pirillo's savvy. He fixed the hobbled printer and other problems by installing VMware, a program that lets him run XP within Vista. But when his trial copy expired, he decided the solution was too clunky — and too expensive.
He "upgraded," as he called it, back to XP.
Users' early complaints aren't a threat to Microsoft's dominance in operating systems. The various flavors of Windows run 93 percent of PCs worldwide, according to the research group IDC. Last fiscal year, Windows accounted for about a third of Microsoft's total revenue of $44.3 billion.
Industry analysts say Vista adoption is plodding along as expected, with most consumers and businesses switching over as they replace old hardware with new. IDC analyst Al Gillen said he expects Vista will be installed on the vast majority of computers in about five years, the time it took for XP to reach 84 percent of PCs.
It's too early for industry watchers to know exactly how many people are using Vista. At the same time, it's hard to gauge Vista's success by comparing it to XP, because the PC market has grown tremendously in the last six years.
In early May, Microsoft said it had distributed 40 million copies of Vista, which costs $199 to $399 depending on the version. But it did not specify the number actually sold through to consumers, versus those shipped to computer makers like Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Inc.
Analysts noted that as many as 15 million of those copies could represent upgrade coupons given to XP buyers during the holidays, before Vista went on sale. Microsoft would not say how many of those customers installed the new system, but Forrester Research analyst J.P. Gownder estimated just over 12 million U.S. consumers would have Vista by the end of the year, out of about 235 million PCs in the country.
As for the compatibility problems, 2 million devices — such as cameras and printers — now work with Vista, said Dave Wascha, a director in the Windows Client group.
"We are way ahead with Windows Vista right now than where we were when we shipped Windows XP," he said.
Still, it's an uphill battle: Vista interacts differently with programs and peripherals than previous versions of Windows, and some companies have chosen not to spend time and money updating older products. Printer makers, Wascha noted, draw profits from ink cartridges and services, and have little motivation to invest in updating drivers for old hardware.
As a result, many early adopters have made a sport of grumbling about the one device or program they still can't get to work.
And they've ranted about other things, from how hard it is to open Vista's snap-together plastic retail box, to what they see as arbitrary decisions on Microsoft's part to hide common settings and features.
One of the most common annoyances: Microsoft's user account control feature, designed to protect unwitting Web surfers from spyware and viruses that would otherwise install themselves on the hard drive.
Dan Cohen, chief executive officer of Silicon Valley startup Pageflakes, bought a Vista laptop a couple of months ago. After one too many pop-up windows warning of possible threats from the Internet, Cohen switched the control feature off.
Now he gets pop-ups warning him that turning off UAC is dangerous.
"I feel more secure — and more irritated," he said. When Cohen went to buy his wife a new computer in April, he stuck with XP on a laptop from Lenovo Group Ltd.
Some analysts say Microsoft hasn't put enough energy into marketing Vista's benefits to consumers. But it may also be the case that Vista's biggest benefits are ones that cause average PC users' eyes to glaze over, like improved security.
"Everybody wants there to be a repeat of Windows 98 — the excitement, the sales volume, the rate of growth and everything else," said Michael Cherry, an analyst for the independent research group Directions on Microsoft.
At the time of Windows 98's launch, broadband access to the Internet was catching fire and consumers were pumped up about getting a faster, cheaper computer.
There's no such compelling reason to buy Vista, said Gownder, the Forrester analyst.
Businesses, like consumers, are in no hurry to upgrade. Before the business version of Vista landed late last year, a Forrester survey of about 1,600 companies found that 31 percent planned to upgrade within a year, and 22 percent more planned to be running it within two years.
Most businesses think those plans now seem too aggressive, said Forrester analyst Benjamin Gray.
While corporate technology departments are looking forward to some of Vista's security features and easier administration tools, there's little reason to switch if more secure PCs end up choking on a critical piece of software.
"They're waiting for Microsoft to bless it with a service pack," said Gray, referring to a major software update that fixes bugs.
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, a member of Microsoft's Vista Technical Adoption Program, started evaluating Vista in January 2006. Today, only 300 of the hospital's 30,000 desktop computers run the software.
Karen Malik, associate director of technical services, said the rollout is behind schedule because several key programs still aren't compatible, including patient scheduling software. Malik knows the software vendors will catch up to Vista — someday. In the meantime, she's not rushing.
"We know eventually we're going to need to move to this operating system," Malik said. "It's not really an option."
———
On the Net:
Chris Pirillo's Vista video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?vHELrxLdP85c
Neither Win (name your flavor here) nor Linux is perfect. BUT, Ubuntu’s imperfections bother me a lot less than Window’s imperfections.
Guess which I find myself using most often? Why, Linux, of course!:)
Windows 2000 is still being supported by Microsoft and will be till 2010, even Shadow occassionally admits he has it on his laptop. No one has been forced to upgrade, XP will be supported till 2014..
Admit it, the only reason Microsoft is still in business after the Vista fiasco launch is that they are effectively a monopoly and everybody is still running XP...
No it's time for the Linux pushers to admit no one is switching to Linux, despite their constant attempts to paint Vista is a failure. Most people switching from XP are going Vista, not Linux, the sooner they come to grips with it the better, especially for them.
I feel much better already!!!
The mouse clicks to turn it off are particularly well hidden.
> Windows 2000 is still being supported by Microsoft and will be till 2010, even Shadow occassionally admits he has it on his laptop. No one has been forced to upgrade, XP will be supported till 2014..
You didn't read, or didn't understand, my comment. I didn't say they'd stop all support for XP, I said they'd withdraw support and MAKE IT MORE INCOMPATIBLE. For instance, they came out with IE7, but they don't allow it to run on Win2000. They came out with OneCare, but they don't allow it to run on Win2000. There's no technical reason in the world for that -- it's purely a business decision to jerk their customers to the newer product.
Personally I like Win2000 -- it's the best operating system Microsoft ever produced (and probably, ever will). The only reason I run XP is because I have to run the more modern applications that MS only allows on XP.
Within a year, some major, important applications will emerge that will be Vista-only. That will be the "withdrawl of support for XP" that I'm talking about. Microsoft has the entire computer world by the short hairs, and they have no scruples about pulling those hairs, because they know the majority of users will come along.
And look, Vista's success or failure is not about Linux. You don't get to change the subject to Linux, to avoid dealing with the problems of Vista.
You didn't answer my question. Have you converted all your own computers to Vista, and if not, why not?
Speaking of the blue screen of death, I’ve seen it pop up about six times in the last week or so. I’m not sure, but I think they began to happen after a Windows update. Then my ISP (dial-up) did something that fouled things up. So far, the blue screen tells me that I have an “IRQL-Not-Less-Or-Equal, been told to check for less than adequate disk space, been told to check for BIOS updats or to disable BIOS memory options and then last night, told to uninstall any anti-virus, disk defragmentation or backup utilities and to check for update drivers, plus to run CHKDSK/F.
I’ve done system restore a couple of times but last night, while doing a system restore, the blue screen came up and now I cannot undo the partial system restore. I tried other system restore dates and those don’t work either.
Since I am not all that computer literate, I am not sure what the problem is or how to fix it.
Upgrade to Vista? No thanks.
It is on threads created and occupied by Linux pushers like this one. And in that context it's been a smashing success, already pasing all versions of installed Linux combined in just a few months. Those users could have stuck with older versions of Windows, as Shadow proves is certainly possible, or downloaded and installed countless free versions of Linux had they wanted, but due to the "incompatibility" albatross clearly hanging on Linux despite your attempts to pin it on Windows, they didn't, nor will many in the future. People want things like Quicken on Windows, not some foreign Marxist clone like Kapital on Linux.
Well, sorta. In reality, the very DEFINITION of what is or is not a benefit is up to the customers, who are doing the right thing by voting with their dollars and buying or not as they see fit.
It reminds me of when the greenie weenies were attacking Staples or Office Depot or someone because they weren't selling enough office products with recycled content, even though the recycled stuff was on the shelves. The reds, er, ah, greens seem to think it's the sellers job to force us to buy what they want to sell, when in reality it's our job to tell them what we want to buy and their job to make it available.
I could almost see the greenies complaining if the stores failed to make the recycled stuff available for those who wanted to buy it, although even then it should be up to the store to decide if the market is big enough to be worth serving. At least then they'd be agitating for more choice and more power for the consumer, rather than for the sellers to take choice and power away from unrelated third party customers who don't share the greenies beliefs.
Thank you for providing my first out-loud laugh of the day.
Vista's success or failure is not about Linux. Linux fanboys can talk about gaining market share against Vista, and it's true some folks have moved from XP to Linux instead of to Vista, but as you point out, that train has already left the station. Linux isn't a Vista killer any more than MacOSX is a Vista killer.
So please stop obsessing on Linux -- you've become quite boring about hijacking Windows threads over to Linux. The topic of this thread is Vista and how well it's doing at being accepted despite its many compatibility and usage issues.
Most people who have Vista today bought it new, in Home Basic version, because they didn't have a choice at BestBuy, Staples, etc. Very few people have upgraded from XP to Vista; even fewer from 2000 to Vista, because if they were staying with 2000 against XP, their reasons are even stronger for staying with 2000 against Vista.
You haven't answered my question yet. Have you converted all your computers to Vista yet? And if not, why not?
When someone besides a Linux pimp creates a thread about Vista it won’t be about Linux, but since most Vista threads are created by them to bash Vista it’s only proper to point out the more obvious truth that despite whatever shortcomings Microsoft may have, they’re obviously not significant enough for Linux to capture the market.
As for my own systems, no not all of them have Vista on them (although this post is being submitted from Vista Ultimate on a laptop running Aero with only 512Mb RAM) simply because not all of them need it, just like I don’t need to update all my other electronics every time the manufacturer releases a new model of anything. I even have one Windows 98 system still going that won’t ever be upgraded, as it has unique peripherals and software that are only compatible with 98. And with compatibility being key, the last thing I would ever load it on it would be any form of Linux. Why ruin a perfectly good box?
Regardless of who posts the article, the point of the thread is not the original poster, it's the topic of the article.
Because of Microsoft's stranglehold on the desktop, Vista is obviously the Windows desktop OS of the future. No one in their right mind denies that regardless of its shortcomings, whatever OS Microsoft forces on their 90+% Windows userbase will eventually become that which the userbase uses. Folks like you, ShadowAce, me, and a few million others who keep systems with 98SE, 2000, and so on around will still do so, but within a few years Vista will be what Windows users use.
So the topic of the article, and this thread, regardless of who posted it, is: "How is Vista doing?"
The fact that ShadowAce posted it does NOT make it a Linux thread. And those Linux or Mac fanboys who use a Vista thread to boost their own fave OS are missing the point, just as much as you are when you use a Vista thread to bash Linux. Understood yet?
> As for my own systems, no not all of them have Vista on them (although this post is being submitted from Vista Ultimate on a laptop running Aero with only 512Mb RAM) simply because not all of them need it, just like I don’t need to update all my other electronics every time the manufacturer releases a new model of anything. I even have one Windows 98 system still going that won’t ever be upgraded, as it has unique peripherals and software that are only compatible with 98. And with compatibility being key, the last thing I would ever load it on it would be any form of Linux. Why ruin a perfectly good box?
That all makes sense (except running Aero w/512MB RAM, which even Microsoft says is asking for trouble, but if it's working for you, great).
In my role as Sysadmin, I've got a tech company full of engineering and project-management users, most running XP Pro on notebooks, and I have to anticipate compatibility issues way in advance before I roll out a new version of ANYTHING, especially an OS. The attempts we made at converting to Vista have been disasters of incompatibility and un-usability so far. I'm waiting for SP1 at least, and probably a couple months after that, before even I try it again.
For my own (personal) systems, I don't see any reason to have a Vista machine. I've got XP Pro and 2000 Windows, Fedora Core 4 and RH8 Linux, MacOSX on a MacBook and a Mini, and about a dozen VMs of XP Pro, 2000, 98SE, NetBSD, RH8, FC4, and plain-vanilla MSDOS that run on all the native machines.
The only reason I'll have Vista around will be when, as I predict, Microsoft releases a must-have application that only runs on Vista. I predict that will happen in about a year. And I'll run Vista in a VM, thank you. I'll never install Windows native on anything ever again.
So, how do you find Vista/Aero runs on 512MB? What applications are you able to run to your satisfaction?
Everything seems to run fine, including the software to download movies from my High Definition Video Camcorder, even though it only says XP compatible. Haven’t had a single problem I can think of, the only thing I’m doing without is some of my third party firewall tools, but with the increased security and capability of the integrated Vista firewall, I feel pretty comfortable just using it.
If your on anything earlier than XP by all means get XP.
I am using XP.
Glad to hear it.
Did you happen to upgrade to Ultimate from Vista Business? One of the recurring problems we had on the notebooks was, they were bought with Business, and later upgraded, and without exception, certain drivers failed to load, resulting in unrecoverable and unenlightening Blue Screens on boot-up.
Eventually we found a solution on a "Vista Compatibility Problems" forum (reload Business from scratch, force-upgrade the drivers while in Business despite the objections from Vista that it was unnecessary, and then upgrade to Ultimate).
Doesn't sound like much, except that my CEO was the unlucky user whose machine first encountered this. And after a succession of similar experiences, and incompatibility with some of his must-have applications, he had me revert the machine to XP Pro, and now he's happy.
So perhaps you're Microsoft's target user for Vista -- may it continue to please you.
Thanks I appreciate it, and sorry to hear of your problems at work but I am only using it at home myself. We’re still ghosting all our new machines with XP at work, probably start loading some around the end of this year after we’ve gotten used to it at home, and MS puts out a service pack.
Thanks for your suggestions. I have and do use - very frequently - Ad Aware SE, Pest Patrol, Spybot S&D, Spyware Bllocker and Anti-Vir anti-virus program along with Zone Alarm. I ran them all two days ago and they all indicated no problems. Ran them again a few moments ago and still indicated “clean”. Is there another anti-virus scan program (free) that you could recommend?
Thanks.
Well, that's why they pay me to do it. ;-)
> ... but I am only using it at home myself. We’re still ghosting all our new machines with XP at work, probably start loading some around the end of this year after we’ve gotten used to it at home, and MS puts out a service pack.
Yep, that's what I'd recommend. I predict that SP1 will be surprisingly comprehensive, though it'll be couched in gentler terms like "tweak" and "upgrade" rather than "overhaul" and "virtual rewrite", which will be closer to the mark. Informal indications from Redmond are that the true architects and best programmers have bailed from Vista work (including a few notable departures last year, I'm sure you recall) so as to avoid having their professional reputations smeared forever by association. That's not a good sign.
I hope (for the sake of corporate America, which relies on Windows) that they pull their collective ass out of the fire with SP1 and make something that can go forward the way that XP-SP2 did. Releasing XP-SP2 was a difficult lurch, and it broke a lot of things, but once the smoke cleared, it was a real improvement, and hardly anybody I know is still running XP without SP2 (unless they have to run something that it broke irrevocably).
I'll toss in a plug for AVG (Grisoft), both antivirus and antispyware. I use both extensively on my Windows 2000 systems. And I note they have come out with a firewall product, though I haven't used it yet.
I'll mention MS's WindowsLive OneCare, if you have XP. For an inexpensive product ($20 from Amazon for THREE computers), it does a surprisingly good job, and includes antivirus, antispyware, firewall, backup, defrag, and helps with other update and security aspects. Most important (in my opinion), being Microsoft's own product, you can pretty much guarantee two things:
One man's "adware" is another man's "value-enhanced-user-experience". ;-)
Full disclosure: I use Windows only when I have to (like at work, where I'm Director of System Administration). I have a number of Win boxes at home, but my preference lies strongly with Unix (MacOSX, NetBSD) and Linux, none of which I have to worry about viruses or spyware to the degree I do on Windows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.