Comments

1. dovella

   
   Posted on: July 26, 2008 at 1:00AM  

   Mr. Chris Flores

   I know only that with or without IT, for now ,with Vista we are 180 million active licenses ,

   for Now Vista Sold +355%

   Mr. Flores the problem of Vista is Blogosphere,

   another problem is when some of botany journalists want to talk to Vista.

   Vista sells twice as XP and 40 times more than any other system
2. mfisher1967

   
   Posted on: July 26, 2008 at 2:09PM  

   I work at a company that is slow to adopt new applications, especially server and workstation operating systems.  Everything has to be extensively tested before being released into the production environment for active use.  Many companies are operating on tight budgets and have small, frequently outsourced IT departments these days. Because of this, there is a natural inclination to take a "wait and see" approach when it comes to adopting new applications or performing upgrades.  The old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a widely held view when the subject of adopting Vista comes up in the IT department within my company.  We currently have ~2000 workstations using Windows XP at my site alone.

   As far as Vista sales are concerned, I know that my company purchases computers and then uses the downgrade option to revert back to Windows XP.  It is my understanding that Microsoft considers these downgrades as Vista sales, which casts a shadow of doubt over the validity of published adoption rates.  

   With the above being said, I use Vista on my computers at home.  I even wiped Windows XP from the notebook that my company bought for me and performed a clean install of Vista Business.  I like Vista's GUI, organization and search functions, but clearly Vista is not geared towards the Power User crowd.

   My suggestions to improve Vista adoption:

   Suggestion #1

   Offer XP GUI setting: Just as the GUI on XP can be adjusted to provide the look and feel of of Windows 98/2000 via the "Windows Classic" option, why not provide a similar setting in Vista to make the GUI look and feel like XP?  Many folks do not like the drab gray GUI of "Windows Classic", but prefer the colorful GUI of XP over the default GUI in Vista.  Vista, while visually stunning to me, is a radical change for someone who is used to using Windows XP.

   Suggestion #2

   Offer setting to adjust hardware requirements: Let's face it, not every workstation needs all of the bells, whistles and services that Vista provides.  Why not provide a scalable version of Vista Business with configurable, clearly defined options (i.e. Basic Client, Typical Client, Advanced Client).  This will allow companies to hold off on purchasing new hardware.  It is difficult for an IT manager to explain the benefits that Vista will bring to his/her organization to someone who doesn't understand computers and only wants to know what the return on investment will be from purchasing hundreds, perhaps thousands of new workstations.  This holds especially true when that same organization is getting by just fine using Office 2002 and Windows XP.  After all, Vista to the average computer user is just a "dressed up" version of XP that brings little in the way of added functionality.

   Suggestion #3

   Offer two versions of Vista:  As was stated above Vista Business is one, the other should simply be called Vista (no need for the designations Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium or Vista Ultimate).  All versions should be scalable to allow for systems with sub-par hardware, which was suggested above in regards to Vista Business.  Both Vista and Vista Business should provide a setting to adjust for each user's computer proficiency level (i.e. Low, Average, Power User).  For example, a Power User should be able to configure which conditions merit UAC prompts to appear.  As a Power User, I should not have to accept a UAC prompt each time that I decide to run a program like CCleaner.  Most Power Users are currently turning off UAC, but are then forced to also turn off how the system provides warning messages to avoid numerous notifications that UAC has been turned off.  When it comes to UAC, let folks assume the level of risk that they feel comfortable with.

   I sincerely hope that the above will be taken seriously.  It took me quite a while to type this post, but I happen to like Vista and feel that it will be well received by personal and business users alike if some minor changes are made.  I hope this helps!
3. someone

   
   Posted on: July 28, 2008 at 7:07AM  

   Dunno about others but the reason I've not upgraded from XP on all my PCs is because of the removed features (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_removed_from_Windows_Vista), some of them were so useful and their removal is so disappointing and upsetting. File types tab, some font folder options, Explorer toolbar buttons, IColumnProvider shell interface, no ability to slipstream updates/service packs, hardware profiles, context-sensitive help, DirectX components, the MMC-based defragmenter, hibernation progress bar...the list goes on and on. Several of these were not obsolete features by any means, maybe the code was old and insecure but MS did not rewrite it, it simply removed them. Customers do not like a less full-featured operating system.
4. Uncanny

   
   Posted on: July 28, 2008 at 11:13AM  

   >>It's also important to note that we've sold 180 million copies of Windows Vista so far, 40 million of which were in the last quarter alone, and that there are thousands of enterprise customers deploying Windows Vista by the thousands of seats on a weekly basis, including heavy hitters like The United States Air Force, PPG Industries, and Cerner.

   Come on Chris.  You know better than that.. or, at least we hope you do.

   Sales of Vista is a figure usually attributed to OEM licenses sold.  And, yes - in part, to sales over the counter.

   SALES and ROLLOUT/INSTALLATION though, are two very distinctly different terminologies though.

   I bet if you looked at ROLLOUT/INSTALLATION numbers, you'd find a somewhat different overview.  Heck, the company I work for apparently is a huge consumer of Vista according to our OEM - but we don't have a single installation using it.  Downgrade rights, baby.

   Look, nobody can honestly say that Vista is not without it's benefits.  Come on, everyone loves a pretty OS.  But lets cut across the top of the problem; and list what's wrong here:

   1) Price.  Who in their right mind set the price for Vista?  Come on.. I can buy OSX for far less, and it works a ton better.  And no DRM* rubbish either.

   2) User confirmation dialogs.  I guess this is an attempt at duplicating the SUDO feature on unix; and a way to backpedal out of the "Administrator rights required" attitude of windows.  THIS is something that is on the right track.  Now you just need to figure out how to reign it back a bit and make it as unobtrusive as in Unix.

   3) Doing the music biz and film biz's job - at the customers cost.  Yeah.. you know, the guy that's paying for the software?  Get rid of the DRM "management"; it's slow, it does not work right, and it's easily circumventable.  Oh yeah it's against the law to circumvent it.. do pirates care?

   4) License clauses.  How about a common sense license that doesn't need a lawyer to interpret - let alone when you find out you've contravened some obscure clause?

   5) Versions.  Lets see.. previously we had XP Home, XP Business for desktops.  Now we got.. umm.. Vista Home, Vista Home Ultimate, Vista Business Cappa-mocha-latte.. gimme two choices.  Revolutionary, yet easier.
5. iRead

   
   Posted on: July 28, 2008 at 7:24PM  

   About time Microsoft started speaking up....it's about damn time!
6. KevinR

   
   Posted on: July 28, 2008 at 9:14PM  

   Schizophrenia huh? Well, I certainly didn't imagine the fact my winsxs folder (under Windows) went from 25 Mb to a whopping 8 Gb!!! after installing all my software suites. Were the "Mohave Experiment" PCs loaded with software or was it simply an experience not based on reality?
7. CMC

   
   Posted on: July 29, 2008 at 12:45AM  

   Having been one of the, or perhaps "the" first implementers of corporate business critical systems using Windows, and judging based only on my own personal experience with Vista and not diving into the depths of things, I dare say I would think long and hard before using Vista for business critical systems (sorry).
8. YorickBrown

   
   Posted on: July 29, 2008 at 2:14AM  

   <rant> The negative flack that Vista is receiving shows exactly how lazy minded the tech industry has become.

   The biggest complainers seem to be users who have become spoiled by the ability to blindly install Windows XP onto any box they can find. Now that Vista is in full swing, they somehow expect to do the same with a completely different OS.

   Few seem to want to abide by hardware requirements and fewer actually take the time to run the Vista upgrade advisor or check the HCL/SCL. Then, when they run into issues because of an incompatible hardware or software configuration, they loudly proclaim that Vista is “the problem” because the "same configuration" gives them no issues on XP (for which 3rd party software/hardware manufacturers have been producing stable drivers and software from 2001!).

   In those instances the real problem is between the keyboard and the chair.

   The above may be a bit harsh, my fellow techies, but the reality is clear. Collectively we have a bunch of posers who have sprung up with little understand of what tech is really about, but yet jump at the opportunity to push their negative opinions about a good product out into the world. The Mojave Experiment was a good start, but Microsoft needs to lean a bit harder on the tech world and remind us ALL to stop whining so much about things that would be "non-issues" if we would just stop acting like we know it all about Vista and its deployment cycle and just RTFM! </rant>
9. Uncanny

   
   Posted on: July 29, 2008 at 5:27AM  

   >>The biggest complainers seem to be users who have become spoiled by the ability to blindly install Windows XP onto any box they can find. Now that Vista is in full swing, they somehow expect to do the same with a completely different OS.

   Few seem to want to abide by hardware requirements and fewer actually take the time to run the Vista upgrade advisor or check the HCL/SCL. Then, when they run into issues because of an incompatible hardware or software configuration, they loudly proclaim that Vista is “the problem” because the "same configuration" gives them no issues on XP (for which 3rd party software/hardware manufacturers have been producing stable drivers and software from 2001!).<<

   Sigh... yes Yorick, we never upgrade our PC's.  We never buy PC's that claim to be Vista ready (with license to the OEM from MS).  And we never look at the "Recommended specs".

   >>Then, when they run into issues because of an incompatible hardware or software configuration, they loudly proclaim that Vista is “the problem” because the "same configuration" gives them no issues on XP (for which 3rd party software/hardware manufacturers have been producing stable drivers and software from 2001!).<<

   Yes, it's a tough life.  Pity that the drivers we had trouble with in our Vista pilot test was.. approved drivers.  

   >>stop whining so much about things that would be "non-issues" if we would just stop acting like we know it all about Vista and its deployment cycle and just RTFM<<

   Capital! Indeed, we should just accept that files take 50 hours to copy in Vista, when they took 5 minutes on XP with the same kit.  We should tell our users that the DRM bugs are there for their benefit.  

   We should tell our bosses that the downtime suffered is our fault for using Vista verified equipment.. we should have used Vista Gold Version 1 verified equipment.

   Heck, they're only complaining cause they're dirty pirates!

   </rant>

   Yes, the tech community has been harsh on Vista.  But then, we all got burnt badly back in Windows ME days; and are not anxious to get burnt again.
10. I_M

    
    Posted on: July 29, 2008 at 10:49AM  

    Thomas Mendel is right - and Ben Gray is wrong. Which part of it you pretend you don't understand?