Slashdot Mirror
Survey Finds Few Intend to Upgrade to Vista
thefickler writes "A recent Harris Poll has found that while most online computers users are aware of Microsoft's Windows Vista, few are intending to switch over to the new operating system anytime soon. The Harris Poll of 2223 US online adults in early March found that 87% were aware of Vista. Unfortunately for Microsoft, only 12% of Vista-aware respondents were intending to upgrade to Vista in the next 12 months."
On the other hand, I happen to need to buy a new computer for my son going off to college and being a mere consumer (i.e. powerless to get an OEM to sell me an XP system instead of Vista), I will be buying a stand alone copy of XP from a website to replace the copy of Vista that will come with the machine. My copy of Vista will end up sitting on the shelf. Yes, I know I'm paying Microsoft twice but what can one do? My son needs a Windows based computer and the university doesn't support (and doesn't want to support) Vista.
Truthfully, I don't want Vista on the computer. However, I wonder how many other people find themselves in this predicament of basically being forced to pay Microsoft twice?
Seriously... probably a more appropriate question would have been "How many of you intend to buy a new computer in the next 12 months?"
There will be a few bells and whistles, but the security aspect tells me they know less about writing operating systems than their predecessors of 30 years ago.
Not too realistic when you are comparing the security of software from 30 years ago (in a much different environment) to a global commercialized network with millions of computers being used by your Mother, Father, Grandparents, Etc..
After all these years Windows is still a big mysterious black box, wherein things happen of which we know little and therefore
have little say in behaviour of or control over.
Besides, I've always been a fan of having the actual code at my finger tips.
Most people could care less about having code at their fingertips or what operates inside of the big black box, as long as they are able to complete their task.
...from Win2k to ReactOS.
And this likely does not matter to MS. From some estimates I have seen, MS makes 80% of it's money from license only deals, and most growth comes from OEM sales. Therefore, MS seems to be most concerned with keeping the OEM in line, doing whatever is necessary to keep the desktop monopoly.
In any case,here are the facts as I see them. MS sold millions of copies of MS Vista even before the product was publicly released. Many were already sold through the commercial licensing program. I seem to recall that every one of those contracts were an implicit sale for MS Vista, which is why MS had to get out the OS, at least to corporate, by december. In addition, many machines that have been shipping since December are also an implicit sale of MS Vista, not to mention most machines that are now shipping.
I suspect that the retail software channels are kept awake at night figuring out how to convince the unwitting MS consumer that MS Vista "slim" edition is superior to MS Windows XP, but I doubt seriously many higher ups at MS are.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I just switched my Desktop and my Laptop back to 98. XP did not offer much good to me, and there were several annoying UI-things:
-Those ugly Theme things hog way too much CPU.
-XP dumbs the user way too down.
- The driver-situation is embarassing.
What i really liked in Vista was the smart icon arrangement in the startmenu. But i can live happily without it when the rest of my system behaves.
Fixed. It's just like Windows XP all over again.
Another 5 years and everyone will be bitching about the switch to Windows Panorama and asking why anybody would ever want to leave Vista. LOL
QUOTE "It's because of people like you that we have WGA and other such anti-piracy features. I'm still puzzled as to why people who are too damn cheap to pay companies their dues think that they're superior than us honest consumers."
There isn't much of a need to pay for XP if you've bought vista. Consider if a trade. Buy Vista (which is Windows tax with the new laptop) -- chuck it -- download XP and use that. Vista probably costs more than XP, so in fact Microsoft profited.
It's not like he's going to buy the vista/laptop, THEN download XP and use it on a 2nd computer.
I use to pirate Windows, but then I started using Linux primarily. Now I am legit I suppose. Although I did purchase a laptop loaded with XP, and I haven't bothered installing Linux on it.
It's all about the spin baby...
"In other news, a recent survey says that over 10% of all adult computer users are intending to switch to the new Microsoft 'Vista' operating system. This is great news for the software giant, as it indicates that Vista is being embraced by more than the 'early adopter' crowd.
Amazing how different that sounds, eh?
Err, forgot where I was, sorry. I mean "M$ sucks. Boo. Boo-urns..."
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
I would rather pay for Linux, than use Windows for free. But since the Debian Linux distribution I am using is available for free, I can contribute to the distribution in any way I feel it appropriate. cash donation (tax deductible), equipment, etc...
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Microsoft depends on piracy to increase the number of computers their products are on. People using torrents are just helping them out.
Question everything
So Dell is willing to call such a machine 'Vista-capable', and Microsoft was willing to certify it as such. What the hell do I want with an os that does nothing but boot? Dell and Microsoft conspired to screw us both: Dell wanted to unload low-end overstock hardware, MS wanted to limit the availability of pre-installed XP to boost Vista's numbers. Not everyone wants a gamer machine -- if I buy a low-end box that is 'Vista capable', I shouldn't end up feeling like a fraud victim.
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
Right. So aside from maintaining a separate frame buffer for each window, providing a toolkit that allows resolution independant user interfaces, forcing developers to stop assuming that only one user is logged on at a time and that that user is an administrator, moving most of the device drivers out into user space where they can't crash the rest of the system, improved scheduling on multiple cores, improved memory management, non-destructive re-partitioning, a version of DirectX where vendors can't claim their hardware is compliant when it really isn't, full disk encryption, 3rd party credential providers that don't replace system libraries, Media Center, and a desktop that doesn't look like ass, what does Vista actually offer?
Maybe it doesn't offer you anything. That's fine. Don't assume that's the case for everyone else.
The amount of unsubstantiated negative hype going around about vista is apalling.
Let's look at the facts:
1. For all intents and purposes it's a Windows XP + stuff. aka a glorified service pack.
2. Quite obviously it will displace XP in corporations, educational institutions and home with time.
3. Unless you're using domain logons, It is MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE SECURE than XP because UAC is on by default, palatable to power users (I've been working with it for several weeks now, it's ok) and teachable to non-tech users. Overall, it's worked out much better than you could have done on XP. It is not OpenBSD and shouldn't be compared to it, it is probably less secure than Gentoo with KDE. Nevertheless, compared with XP's work-as-root model, it's worlds apart. I'm not suggesting it's either bulletproof, bugless, unexploitable or mature. But A security model, ANY security model, is better than XP's *NO* security model.
4. Laugh at UI all you like, but a good UI is something everyone can use to get more done. Both joe averages and powerusers alike. Vista's UI serves as a welcome improvement over XP IMHO. I'm talking about useability improvements ala sidebar, "open containing folder" stuff etc, not eye-candy a-la aero which I frankly couldn't less.
5. It guzzles 700MB RAM on neutral right after loading. Who gives a flying fuck? My kde desktop at work eats 200MB. the number is *meaningless* unless it indicates, say, an excessive overpricing of the machine. is 200MB a lot? 10 years ago, we'd have all said it was. Does that make my gentoo/KDE desktop bloated crap today? no. On the same coin, when 1GB of RAM is next to free, 700MB is just another meaningless number.
1GB of DDR2 lappie ram costs 70US$ on ebay. Sure, if you have a P3, run XP. But if you run any form of hardware bought anywhere in the last 5 years, plug some RAM and you're good to go.
6. Microsoft will stop selling and supporting XP at some point anyway. So it's not like Vista will be some doomed stop-gap measure until something significantly better comes along, like Windows ME was. Vista is here to stay for the next 5 or so years until another "service pack" along the same lines appears.
7. If whatever DRM is built into the system prevents you from doing what you're used to do with a computer, use Linux.
Case in point:
If you're screaming "Vista's shit!" and have an old computer with XP you don't want to spend more money on, you're likely making the right call, but are an idiot for screaming out the shit bit. I have a 2005 Toyota echo and screaming how the 2007 model is shit because I don't need it (having the 2005 one) would make me the same kind of idiot.
If you're screaming "Vista's shit!" and you're using Linux/MacOS, you're either a clueless fanboy or someone who's tested both ends and can draw up pros and cons of each and stake a legitimate fact-based preference.
If you're screaming "Vista's shit!" and thinking you'd rather be getting XP with a new computer, you're a total clueless idiot. Especially if your spiel contains the word "security" in it.
Vista is a welcome improvement on XP. Give it some time to mature, give IT departments time to evaluate and learn to work it, it'll be ok.
Is it worth upgrading from XP? depends. Depends if you value a better security model (and eye candy). I've serviced many people with many malware computer problems who paid me lots of good money to fix said problems. Wild guess says a security model for them will pay for itself, from the money it costs them to periodically fix their shit. Locks tend to be cheaper than periodically re-outfitting a robbed house, and people tend to be able to do math when it's their money.
-
XP offered many REAL improvements for the user over windows98, not the least of which being real user logins and security.
granted most of thses "improvements" have been in unix since the 70's but still, at least they exist.
vista is no more than windowblinds+truecrypt except not as good as either
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I too recently bought a PC without any operating system installed, it took me around 5 mins to find somewhere on the web where I could do this.
I think that if people don't care that they are being forced to buy Vista and if they can't be bothered to seek out alternatives then there is no problem with all the places where they are likely to shop taking advantage of that. So long as the rest of us can excercise our own choices to not have any particular operating system thrust upon us, which we can, then all is well.