Comments

1. Balcor

   
   Posted on: July 29, 2008 at 2:44PM  

   So why doesn't MS address the slowness issues in Vista?  Or the fact that Wireless connectivity is total crap compared to XP? or the fact that Vista takes easily twice as long to copy files across a network when compared to an identical machine running XP?  

   As a test I took 2 identical computers, 1 with vista ultimate SP1, the other with XP Pro SP2.  The XP machine booted and was ready to use in far less than half the time as the Vista machine.  Out of the box Vista took a full 2 minutes just to get to the desktop.  XP Pro was roughly 40 to 45 seconds at most.

   As for wireless.. they still haven't fixed it.  Wireless will drop randomly with no explanation why.  XP machines in our environment never ever drop .. yet vista machines drop like flies.  So far the best "fix" for it is to disable the Teredo Tunneling Pseudo device, but that doesn't solve the issue either.  

   In a corporate environment, companies in these tough times are not going to outlay money for all new hardware just to upgrade to Vista and hope like heck there aren't any issues afterwards.  If you can't make an OS that works on existing hardware where the users don't need core2duo 4 gig machines.. then there's no point in upgrading.  

   The biggest problem I've seen with Vista is how slow it is even on high end machines.  You really need to consider starting from scratch with a new Kernel or better yet imitate OSX.  You're just compounding the problems by building one OS on top of the same old junk.  Business is all about productivity... making users wait 2 to 3 minutes for every boot, sit around and watch the little blue circle spin every time they try to open a program .. etc.. that's lost productivity.  We've actually started looking into adding Macs simply because there are so many people wanting them and they are a much more stable OS.  
2. Jeremy W

   
   Posted on: July 30, 2008 at 12:37PM  

   Who you gonna believe, Vista or your lyin' eyes?

   I'll take my eyes.
3. Brad Holmes

   
   Posted on: July 31, 2008 at 12:47PM  

   Chris,

   Forrester welcomes a good debate so let me offer a couple of comments that will provide more context regarding our recent research on Windows Vista, and how, in fact, that research is consistent.

   It’s important to keep in mind that Forrester is focused on the roles – and success imperatives (goals) – of our clients. Some of the roles we serve are enterprise IT customers (the folks buying and deploying technology); others are technology vendor professionals (the people who set strategy and market technology). Forrester analyst Ben Gray writes for IT infrastructure professionals for example. His colleague Thomas Mendel leads our research for tech vendor strategy professionals. Forrester’s research is the product of much collaboration between these two groups.

   Your post raises two issues. So let me tackle those head on.

   Vista migration. Forrester is on record in our research for enterprise IT professionals saying that while Vista is far from a panacea; its merits outweigh its negatives for most enterprises. We have given pragmatic advice to those same enterprise IT pros on how they can make the business case for – and migrate systematically toward - Vista. You referred to that research specifically in your post, and we are sticking with that advice to the enterprise IT professionals we serve.

   Vista adoption. Thomas Mendel’s recent research was written for vendor strategy professionals who must make decisions about which browsers and operating systems to support, and most importantly, where and when to place their development investments.  With Vista deployment at only 8.8% as of June, we noted that some enterprises are clearly still on the fence, or outright rejecting a move to Vista for alternatives like Linux or Windows 7, something Ben has also discovered in his research talking with IT professionals. For ISV developers, with the Vista adoption process sure to drag out for a good four years, reevaluating their Vista investment allocation, and timing, makes good sense.

   So what are we recommending to vendor strategists in Thomas’ recent report? For one, those reliant on the PC OS for their own success should be carefully reevaluating what is happening with Linux and Apple among their target clients, heeding the current timing and pace of Vista adoption, and talking with potential partner Microsoft about Windows 7, before they size and time their investments in the Vista development environment.

   For some vendors, as with some enterprises, Vista won’t be the right choice. But for many it will. Which is why Thomas goes on to state in his recommendations to vendor strategists that: “All software vendors need to make strategic decisions about the client-side platforms their solutions will support. To throw the widest net possible over enterprise users while remaining pragmatic, vendors should:

   Develop exclusively for Windows XP and Vista. Forget about Macs unless you're aiming at a specific business vertical where Mac use is prevalent. Windows XP and Vista account for 91% of operating systems used in enterprises.”

   So, given our latest research on the current state of enterprise Vista adoption, our advice to most enterprise and vendor professionals alike is consistent: proceed pragmatically toward Vista adoption and a Vista development environment respectively.

   Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

   Brad Holmes

   Vice President, Technology Industry Research

   Forrester Research
4. guruparan

   
   Posted on: July 31, 2008 at 3:34PM  

   I believe Vista is great (in our home all the 3 laptops & 1 desktop are loaded with Vista home premium), (2 preinstalled while we bought the laptop)..

   Everything is fine...but for enterprise, they need compatibility...just integrate Virtual PC capabililties for older programs!...No need toooo much of versions...let it be 1 or 2..Vista home & Vista business like it did for XP (if wanted, some components can be installed on the fly by enterprise)... Make Windows 7 on the same hardware requirement like Vista is...No more increase in hardware requirement pls...but make utilize of the core processors, directx 10...allow users to have Vista theme in windows 7!! :-)

   All the above, i know IE 8 is great...but allow developers to develop plugins for IE 8 easily..! (we dont need vc++...bring in .net or javascript codes!!)...give the PDC 2003 demo features to windows 7...and no way allow the windows 7 to RTM if you see the file copy progress takes 40 seconds in a 2GB RAM disk for a 2KB file :-D
5. Drazula

   
   Posted on: August 01, 2008 at 2:26PM  

   I am extremely skeptical of the Vista "sales/installed" numbers.  I don't believe you are taking into account how many people wipe Vista from their PCs.  

   We have hundreds of HPs.  All arrive with Vista.  They are immediately formatted and XP is installed.  Yet I think you count all of these that as Vista sales/installs.

   You could probably get more accurate "using Vista" numbers from Windows Update.  I'm sure the numbers are no where near the "sold copies", especially with enterprise users.
6. Uncanny

   
   Posted on: August 02, 2008 at 8:50AM  

   [quote]You could probably get more accurate "using Vista" numbers from Windows Update.  I'm sure the numbers are no where near the "sold copies", especially with enterprise users.[/quote]

   Why use real statistics when incorrect ones sound better?
7. Photo1921

   
   Posted on: August 02, 2008 at 11:33AM  

   unfortunately most business / enterprise computers do not get updates directly from Microsoft updates so that would not show how many users are moving to windows xp.  
8. wwpd

   
   Posted on: August 04, 2008 at 5:18PM  

   I run an HP laptop with 1.87 GHz Pentium M processor and 2GB of RAM. The only thing about my machine that is not fully Vista Ready is the 64MB of dedicated video RAM. However, Vista readily shares additional system RAM for the video.

   I purchased and installed Vista in January 2008. Many aspects of Vista were excruciatingly slow even with ALL the bells ans whistles turned off. I used Vista for 6 months. Some of the new features are nice but none are compelling.

   After what I assume to be something relating to an "update" I found I could no longer access certain web pages but my wife could access same on Windows XP. I confirmed that this was also the case on my colleague's laptop with Vista.

   I have not been able to find any information as to what this problem would be.

   Anyway, Vista came off and XP went back on.
9. TucsonGuy

   
   Posted on: August 04, 2008 at 6:22PM  

   Chris,

   I will have to echo some of the same concerns that others have mentioned in their comments.

   First, I have zero faith in Microsoft's claims of how many copies of Vista sold because I and my clients currently have lots of Vista DVD's that are sitting on a shelf, unused, while the computer is running XP. Too sell a copy of Vista with XP "downgrade" rights and then not count when the computer is upgraded (intentional word usage) from Vista to XP is disingenuous. I am actively discouraging all my clients from moving to Vista.

   My personal experience is that many of my clients are looking at alternatives to Windows for the first time in my 20 years of consulting. There is some interest in Mac, but the majority of interest has been in Linux, and they are asking me to investigate it for them. A couple years ago, they wouldn't have even considered looking at anything but Windows. I have had one client completely switch to Linux, and am working with another right now on a pilot program.

   Those who are using custom apps are looking at having to re-write them for Vista, so that makes them willing to investigate Linux. They are looking at using cross-platform languages because they are seeing the danger of being locked into Windows with no alternative. Even if they end up staying with Windows for now, they want to be able to change their mind later if they continue to not like the direction Windows is going.

   This change has come about for several reasons. Vista being so late, and many of the great, promised features were stripped to finally get it out the door. So many changes to Vista requiring a steep learning curve. If they have to undergo a steep learning curve anyway, they are willing to consider something other than Windows. Microsoft announcing that those waiting to upgrade until Windows 7 should not do so because Win7 is based on Vista created a surge in interest in alternatives and was the impetus that tipped my client that completely moved to Linux to do so. They are saying if Win7 is based on Vista which they don't like, there isn't any point in waiting - move now. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot on that one, I think!

   There are other reasons and observations, but this post is too long anyway. In summary, I think Microsoft created this mess by releasing Vista too late, with too few of the promised features, with too many bugs, with too much differences from XP, needing too much hardware to perform at an equivalent speed to XP, and not offering enough perceived benefit over XP for the cost other than a different UI.
10. wwpd

    
    Posted on: August 04, 2008 at 6:58PM  

    Just a further comment from my previous post:

    To clarify, my colleague's laptop with Vista was also unable to access the same web sites. Fortunately it didn't affect the web app that he is developing.

    I am an IT professional who makes decisions relating to our deployments. We have some machines that run Vista without significant problems. These are exclusively machines that came with Vista pre-installed.

    My one colleague who installed Vista on his laptop and is very happy with it has never been able to resolve a hardware issue (USB dongle) on his laptop even though the same hardware was no issue when I had Vista on my laptop which is from the same family of laptops. (His is actually newer and was labelled as Vista Ready). He was actually ready to ship the laptop back for warranty repair since the same hardware worked fine when he had XP and the same hardware worked on mine with Vista. However, he eventually just resigned himself to the fact that he can't use this USB dongle on his Vista machine.

    Another example is a PC card that I purchased to allow connection to Firewire 800 devices. It worked fine (not even requiring any additional drivers) in Windows XP. However, in Vista the machine immediately Blue Screens so you can't even get to point of trying to resolve the problem. My colleague's laptop is the same. However, another laptop in our enterprise that came with Vista pre-installed was fine. (P.S. I'm looking forward to using this card again under XP :)

    I think it bears consideration that many PC's and laptops are being sold retail with the "selling feature" of being Windows XP "downgradeable". The number of Vista sales/installs definitely does not reflect the number of machines that are actually running Vista. Retailers are specifically putting this "downgradeability" in their ads in order to boost sales.

    From an enterprise perspective, I would not upgrade ANY machines in our environment to Vista. And I would readily downgrade any Vista pre-installs if there were significant problems and/or performance concerns.

    On the other hand, when I had my own small business I upgraded to Windows 98 from Windows 95 on the day Windows 98 was released and never looked back. As well, I upgraded my later Pentium III 600MHz with 256MB of RAM to Windows XP from Windows 98 shortly after XP came out and never looked back.

    Windows Vista will be the first version of Windows that I won't be using until I purchase a machine with it pre-installed. Unlike previous versions of Windows, most existing PC's are essentially not upgradeable to Vista without taking an unacceptable performance hit.

    I hate to think of how many hours (more likely days) that I wasted in the last 6 months "waiting" for Vista to respond or trying to resolve a Vista problem. Fortunately, most of my actual work occurs on Windows XP, Server 2000 and Server 2003 Remote Desktops.

    Vista is a nice OS but is unacceptable in the massive resources it demands. Most enterprises don't want to buy hardware at the level that is required by Vista even when deploying new machines. One thing that Vista has succeeded at is lowering the price of mega quantities of RAM and CPU cyclces. I will admit that Vista may be better on a 64 bit system. But then maybe XP is too!