| Friday, July 25 2008 |
Choice is a wonderful thing. Informed Choice is even better, where you choose something after knowing its inside-outs. The very opposite of informed choice is dogma, where you rigidly oppose something and stick to your beliefs. Incidentally, dogma seems to be one of the significant factors keeping users away from embracing Windows Vista OS, of what can be inferred from an experiment by Microsoft in San Fransisco, United States. A group of Windows XP users having negative impressions on Windows Vista were introduced to a "new" operating system they referred to as "Mojave". User experiences on using this operating system were noted and feedback taken. A surprising 90 percent of these users gave positive feedback on this new OS. They were later told that the new OS was nothing else but Windows Vista.
Despite Microsoft releasing numerous updates and fixes to the Vista OS making it a fairly stable, reliable OS close to expectations if not exactly on par, it seems to be mass dogma that's keeping users away from adopting this new OS. Going back to that experiment, a user is reported to have exclaimed "Oh wow", something Microsoft expected users to do with the new OS originally, as portrayed in those numerous television and print commercials going with the tag line "wow". Following the recent announcement of a huge budget allocation towards propagating Vista (covered here) for home and enterprise segments, the message being sent out is that Microsoft is not only being aggressive but also proactive.
Source: CNET
Despite Microsoft releasing numerous updates and fixes to the Vista OS making it a fairly stable, reliable OS close to expectations if not exactly on par, it seems to be mass dogma that's keeping users away from adopting this new OS. Going back to that experiment, a user is reported to have exclaimed "Oh wow", something Microsoft expected users to do with the new OS originally, as portrayed in those numerous television and print commercials going with the tag line "wow". Following the recent announcement of a huge budget allocation towards propagating Vista (covered here) for home and enterprise segments, the message being sent out is that Microsoft is not only being aggressive but also proactive.
Source: CNET
User comments
Definitely, this is just backing up what many of us have already known. Like I have said before, I think this current go-round has suffered due to the overwhelming strength of the internet, where everybody's opinion matters. People bad-mouth vista to where it's a trend, and people who don't even know about it say they dislike it.
Did these people disguise vista in some way? Its funny to me that 90% of them had such little knowledge of vista they couldn't even recognize it. That's just great.
Did these people disguise vista in some way? Its funny to me that 90% of them had such little knowledge of vista they couldn't even recognize it. That's just great.
those 90% must have been some dumb people to not see vista was vista, I still stand firm saying that I hate vista because the more powerful your machine is the more power vista will suck from it with the exact same settings in my experience
...Spurred by an e-mail from someone deep in the marketing ranks.... The subjects were put on video, asked about their Vista impressions, and then shown a "new" operating system, code-named Mojave...
Where is the video? Why isn't that available along with the report? We need to see the desktop of the OS used, what they were told, signs, banners, billboards, etc. Also, how was it determined that they were pro XP? Come on, there is no proof this ever happened, lol. There were no reporters there to witness this event and they are only going off some marketing email? Hello??
by: EastCoasthandle;900873
Where is the video? Why isn't that available along with the report? Come on, there is no proof this ever happened, lol. There were no reporters there to witness this event and they are only going off some marketing email? Hello??
Why would they show the video? This is a market survey not a scientific test. Reporters are not typically present during market research. It's microsoft, so you never know, but this is the kind of trend I personally would expect to see w/ what I've encountered personally.
This just what most of us have been saying, ppl bashing vista never even used it.
Vista 64 SP1 is better then XP SP3 IMO, i have 4 PCs in my house 1 Vista64 SP1, 1 Vista HP SP1, 2 XP SP3.
I use the 2 vista PCs way more then the XP ones, mostly due to them being old, but they do get used every day, by my wife and kids.
Vista 64 SP1 is better then XP SP3 IMO, i have 4 PCs in my house 1 Vista64 SP1, 1 Vista HP SP1, 2 XP SP3.
I use the 2 vista PCs way more then the XP ones, mostly due to them being old, but they do get used every day, by my wife and kids.
Vista is fine. People always attack it for what they don't understand. All problems I encountered with Vista were easily fixed within minutes. The more security layers and services you put into something its only natural for it to be more resource heavy than the alternatives. I maintain a large network that includes dual booting Laptops(Mac OSX/Vista). I prefer Vista over OSX and XP. All of our machines are upgraded on an annual cycle. I encountered more problems with XP than Vista.
by: farlex85;900878
Why would they show the video? This is a market survey not a scientific test. Reporters are not typically present during market research. It's microsoft, so you never know, but this is the kind of trend I personally would expect to see w/ what I've encountered personally.
If there is no proof, it didn't exist. Just take it with a grain of salt when the email came from their own marketing department instead of a neutral 3rd party. :roll:
Also:
-no information of how they determined someone to be Pro XP
-the video showing the desktop of the OS in question. Also the entire atmosphere of the enviroment
-etc
by: EastCoasthandle;900892
If there is no proof, it didn't exist.
Ok well you go on thinking that. All market research is conducted in the same fashion, the only difference is sometimes it's done by a third party which could be said to be less biased, to simply say it doesn't exist is rather presumptuous and biased on your part. Of course you take what comes from a company about their own product w/ a grain of salt, but like I said, I've encountered attitudes this article shows on an everyday basis at work and on the internet.
Wow when you have to trick the user's to think its something else and have a Major Ad Campain to promote Vista something just comes across funny.
I haven't worked with it, but I realize it's not for my system. I'm good with XP and when I upgrade my computer(hardware) I'll figure out the best os for my needs.
I haven't worked with it, but I realize it's not for my system. I'm good with XP and when I upgrade my computer(hardware) I'll figure out the best os for my needs.
by: EastCoasthandle;900873no need for market research. I work for a computer shop and majority of our customers dont like vista. I asked whats wrong with it and they couldnt come up with an answer...:laugh:They just said friends tell them it sucks and they've never actually tried it. Go figure :slap: Word of mouth can be good and also be bad..:shadedshu
Where is the video? Why isn't that available along with the report? Come on, there is no proof this ever happened, lol. There were no reporters there to witness this event and they are only going off some marketing email? Hello??
I find vista faster and more stable than my XP ever was. Vista actually speeded up my grandparents PC which at the time was a P4 with 512mb of ram.
I went back to XP for a little while and hated it, came stright back to vista, there are more BSOD cus XP cant recover its drivers and programs like vista can.
i dont understand all these people that hate it. :confused:
I went back to XP for a little while and hated it, came stright back to vista, there are more BSOD cus XP cant recover its drivers and programs like vista can.
i dont understand all these people that hate it. :confused:
by: farlex85;900897
Ok well you go on thinking that. All market research is conducted in the same fashion, the only difference is sometimes it's done by a third party which could be said to be less biased, to simply say it doesn't exist is rather presumptuous and biased on your part. Of course you take what comes from a company about their own product w/ a grain of salt, but like I said, I've encountered attitudes this article shows on an everyday basis at work and on the internet.
-This kind of research is normally conducted by a independent 3rd party that has no bias. That did not happen but came directly from their marketing department.
-They tricked people into thinking this was something that it's not. That's not a blind study as it only induced bias in the survey that it was some other product
-They claim they have video of it but isn't shown
There is simply to many holes in this so called study to hold any valid claims that it exist. Also, the methods that were written in the email are questionable at best.
by: mlee49;900907Most ad campaigns are designed to trick you into buying something you don't need, nothing really new about that :rolleyes: Anyway took a risk and installed vista x64 and omg it is so fricken sleek :D Nothing major wrong with it apart from Arma which needed patched and that was all. Performance in games is incredible and my apps like internet explorer (Hated it until vista64) now load up quite fast so overall vista = 10/10 from me.
Wow when you have to trick the user's to think its something else and have a Major Ad Campain to promote Vista something just comes across funny.
I haven't worked with it, but I realize it's not for my system. I'm good with XP and when I upgrade my computer(hardware) I'll figure out the best os for my needs.
by: EastCoasthandle;900921Again, it's not a scientific study. There is no need for "blinds." Companies conduct their own market research all the time. They wouldn't show the video, there is no need for it. It's not scientifically sound, who cares, the biases are not made up, I see it all the time, I'm just repeating myself.........
-This kind of research is normally conducted by a independent 3rd party that has no bias. That did not happen but came directly from their marketing department.
-They tricked people into thinking this was something that it's not. That's not a blind study as it only induced bias in the survey that it was some other product
-They claim they have video of it but isn't shown
There is simply to many holes in this so called study to hold any valid claims that it exist. Also, the methods that were written in the email are questionable at best.
by: farlex85;900929agree :toast:
Again, it's not a scientific study. There is no need for "blinds." Companies conduct their own market research all the time. They wouldn't show the video, there is no need for it. It's not scientifically sound, who cares, the biases are not made up, I see it all the time, I'm just repeating myself.........
by: farlex85;900929
Again, it's not a scientific study. There is no need for "blinds." Companies conduct their own market research all the time. They wouldn't show the video, there is no need for it. It's not scientifically sound, who cares, the biases are not made up, I see it all the time, I'm just repeating myself.........
Basic information of:
-how these results were obtained
-environment in which the results were taken
-what the OS's desktop looked like
-how they determined someone is Pro XP or otherwise
-etc
matters because it can help validate or invalidate this report based on the evidence presented. You can choose to believe it based on an email from their own marketing department. I choose not to believe it because it's "just" an email from their marketing department. And, I question their methods of how the survey is conducted. At this point we can only agree to disagree.
by: narnia;900915thats the issue i have with family members refusing to try vista. My moms laptop is Vista her first words when she got it was "Phillip can you put XP on it" without ever tring it. Thankfully HP didnt have drivers on there website for her laptop that are XP certified so i convinced her i can't, though i could have easily gotten them from Nvidia for her laptop lol. She now enjoys vista, but its simply the word on Vista is its crap. The Truth is you can't judge a peice of software by its release bugs, if we did, no one would use XP either, any remember the BSOD every other day on XP Gold. or the daily updates to get it stable?
no need for market research. I work for a computer shop and majority of our customers dont like vista. I asked whats wrong with it and they couldnt come up with an answer...:laugh:They just said friends tell them it sucks and they've never actually tried it. Go figure :slap: Word of mouth can be good and also be bad..:shadedshu
by: EastCoasthandle;900951its the same thing other compaines did. Blind Tastes tests with Pepsi Vs Coke in the 80's showed that die hard coke drinkers that hated Pepsi prefer Pepsi over Coke, they didnt know which cola they where drinking though. The users in this test where in the same situation they thought they where getting to try maybe windows 7 and thought it was amazing, same situation
It matters because it validates this report. You can choose to believe it based on an email from their own marketing department. I choose not to believe it because it's "just" an email from their marketing department. And, I question their methods of how the survey is conducted. At this point we can only agree to disagree.
I built my mom a pc 5 months ago with XP Pro...then she bought a brand new notebook a month ago with Vista premium. Guess what she told me...she said she like vista much better than the XP and she asked me if i could install Vista on her main computer. :p
by: candle_86;900961
its the same thing other compaines did. Blind Tastes tests with Pepsi Vs Coke in the 80's showed that die hard coke drinkers that hated Pepsi prefer Pepsi over Coke, they didnt know which cola they where drinking though. The users in this test where in the same situation they thought they where getting to try maybe windows 7 and thought it was amazing, same situation
I recall those studies and they didn't put up billboards/banners say "Pepsi" when they were drinking Coke. A blind study is just that, blind. The subject isn't aware of what they are taking. Nor are they influenced in any way that it's one product over another.
by: EastCoasthandle;900951If you hate Microsoft so much and distrust their methods just use Linux. Microsoft has alot of restraint and does not lack virtue compared to other companies their size. Almost all large companies have done bad things on a much larger scale. Bill Gates gives massive amounts of money to charity just like Warren Buffet. I think people just like giving Microsoft a hard time.
It matters because it validates this report. You can choose to believe it based on an email from their own marketing department. I choose not to believe it because it's "just" an email from their marketing department. And, I question their methods of how the survey is conducted. At this point we can only agree to disagree.
Their are many massive corporations I genuinely hate, Microsoft just isn't one of them. ;)
by: DaedalusHelios;900966
If you hate Microsoft so much and distrust their methods just use Linux. Microsoft has alot of restraint and does not lack virtue compared to other companies their size. Almost all large companies have done bad things on a much larger scale. Bill Gates gives massive amounts of money to charity just like Warren Buffet. I think people just like giving Microsoft a hard time.
Their are many massive corporations I genuinely hate, Microsoft just isn't one of them. ;)
Don't lie about what I said. I never said I hated anyone or anything. I said that when you conduct surveys like this if you want "me" to believe it there must be something to validate it other then an email from it's marketing department.
-independent survey from a neutral party
-how these results were obtained
-environment in which the results were taken
-what the OS's desktop looked like
-how they determined someone is Pro XP or otherwise
-etc
Well, except those taste tests were a marketing scam. There is no way that someone would not be able to identify which soda was which, unless they had never had them. This was even more true back in the early 80s before soda used High Fructose Corn Syrup.
by: timta2;900973There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics
Well, except those taste tests were a marketing scam. There is no way that someone would not be able to identify which soda was which, unless they had never had them. This was even more true back in the early 80s before soda used High Fructose Corn Syrup.
you cant have an OS with a blank name that wont work
by: candle_86;900982So, they would have to know it was Vista to begin with. :)
you cant have an OS with a blank name that wont work
32-bit Vista Home Premium (damn OEM machines - never gonna buy them again) works like a charm for me. Windows boots quickly and shutdowns in 15 seconds (how can it be so fast) compared to XP that took almost a minute. Only two bad freezes is a whole lotta better compared to old Dell XP machine that bugged once or twice a week. I prefer Vista to XP, atleast in new machines. My friend on the other hand hates Vista, so IMO it's a matter of opinion.
Did they test extremely ADHD children for this?
I'm sure many people object to vista for silly reasons, and they don't really care about what's under the hood and such, but that won't negate the objections of informed people, and saying something is 'great' because others are saying so because they repeat stuff is no better than saying something suck based on no information.
The truth is that there are actually people that don't ever come across bugs or missing features or badly implemented stuff, be it in vista or xp or linux, that drive others rightfully mad.
In regards to vista I'd like to point out that many experts and businesses dislike big parts of it, and these aren't cases of people just imitating discontent but people who deal with the nitty-gritty, and not just a flashy media-center interface, and find it lacking.
The truth is that there are actually people that don't ever come across bugs or missing features or badly implemented stuff, be it in vista or xp or linux, that drive others rightfully mad.
In regards to vista I'd like to point out that many experts and businesses dislike big parts of it, and these aren't cases of people just imitating discontent but people who deal with the nitty-gritty, and not just a flashy media-center interface, and find it lacking.
by: zithe;901007Thats what I was thinking, in MOST surveys they tell you more than just the people came from San Francisco, they tell you sex, ethnicity, age, etc but all they tell you except the locations are that we have videos and don't show them.
Did they test extremely ADHD children for this?
I actually tried to install vista on the main computer back home and guess what, my (programmer)mother hated it, my (lawyer)father hated it and my sister didn't really care:laugh:
by: KainXS;901013I made every pc in the house upgrade to vista :laugh: They didn't complain and if they do they will get linux and be told to f off.
Thats what I was thinking, in MOST surveys they tell you more than just the people came from San Francisco, they tell you sex, ethnicity, age, etc but all they tell you except the locations are that we have videos and don't show them.
I actually tried to install vista on the main computer back home and guess what, my (programmer)mother hated it, my (lawyer)father hated it and my sister didn't really care:laugh:
In regards to people that say vista is great and xp gave them lots of bluescreens: you are typically the kind of person vista is designed for, people who manage to bluescreen xp massively should have taken control away from them like vista does and magically things improve, it's true yes, for you vista is better, but that is not an absolute.
by: Wshlist;901010Majority of big businesses that dont want to switch to vista are concerned with cost and comapatibility. Our company uses 8 yr. old computers and servers and it will take tons of $$$$ (we're talking couple of hundred thousands) to switch to vista. As far as compatibility. It will take time to get that right and thats with evrey software thats new and being released.
I'm sure many people object to vista for silly reasons, and they don't really care about what's under the hood and such, but that won't negate the objections of informed people, and saying something is 'great' because others are saying so because they repeat stuff is no better than saying something suck based on no information.
The truth is that there are actually people that don't ever come across bugs or missing features or badly implemented stuff, be it in vista or xp or linux, that drive others rightfully mad.
In regards to vista I'd like to point out that many experts and businesses dislike big parts of it, and these aren't cases of people just imitating discontent but people who deal with the nitty-gritty, and not just a flashy media-center interface, and find it lacking.
also, if im the owner of our business right now, i wouldnt switch either eventhough are servers and computers are almost 10 yrs. old. Its running perfect right now and why waste hundreds of thousands just to switch. Even if vista or another OS was running perfectly. Just doesnt make sense business wise to spend all that money for a new OS
by: narnia;901031Jesus 8 year old computers? Is the IT department asleep at the wheel or is management have a coke habit. :laugh:
Majority of big businesses that dont want to switch to vista are concerned with cost and comapatibility. Our company uses 8 yrs. old computers and servers and it will take tons of $$$$ (we're talking couple of hundred thousands) to switch to vista. As far as compatibility. It will take time to get that right and thats with evrey software thats new and being released.
Upgrade cycles should atleast be no larger than 4 years and thats really pushing it.
by: DaedalusHelios;901049yeah, im not exaggerating. i was checking it out about a week ago and they are super old but it gets the job done :) no need for those fancy cards or multiple cpu cores ;)
Jesus 8 year old computers? Is the IT department asleep at the wheel or is management have a coke habit. :laugh:
Upgrade cycles should atleast be no larger than 4 years and thats really pushing it.
by: Wshlist;901027XP bluescreened me alot and I wouldn't say it was my fault, because of its age its more prone to virus' etc and the likes and that comment might be offensive to some, I found it rather insulting :(
In regards to people that say vista is great and xp gave them lots of bluescreens: you are typically the kind of person vista is designed for, people who manage to bluescreen xp massively should have taken control away from them like vista does and magically things improve, it's true yes, for you vista is better, but that is not an absolute.
On a bit of an unrelated note I think windows 7 should have 64bit only support anyone agree ?
by: DrPepper;901055yeah, we need to move on to 64 bit only. forget the 32 bit...im really serious about this people. We really need to just move on
XP bluescreened me alot and I wouldn't say it was my fault, because of its age its more prone to virus' etc and the likes and that comment might be offensive to some, I found it rather insulting :(
On a bit of an unrelated note I think windows 7 should have 64bit only support anyone agree ?
by: narnia;901054Is it even pentium!?
yeah, im not exaggerating. i was checking it out about a week ago and they are super old but it gets the job done :) no need for those fancy cards or multiple cpu cores ;)
lol i love how the people who hate vista are arguing over the way the tests were conducted, while all the vista non-haters are saying they've seen this exact trend.
I had a vista hater too, got him on my PC. told him it was XP with a vista theme. he started ranting about how vista runs so slow compared to XP, and even with my 'theme pack' how much faster my rig was...
seriously. the vista haters have never even bothered. i'm surprised they ever got onto XP... unless that was the first OS they ever used as well.
90% of vista bashers are repeating crap they read online and have usually never even seen the problems themselves - or never bothered fixing it. they'll spend hours modding drivers or doing registry tweaks to make XP run better, but are too lazy to even check vistas help on how to disable UAC.
I had a vista hater too, got him on my PC. told him it was XP with a vista theme. he started ranting about how vista runs so slow compared to XP, and even with my 'theme pack' how much faster my rig was...
seriously. the vista haters have never even bothered. i'm surprised they ever got onto XP... unless that was the first OS they ever used as well.
90% of vista bashers are repeating crap they read online and have usually never even seen the problems themselves - or never bothered fixing it. they'll spend hours modding drivers or doing registry tweaks to make XP run better, but are too lazy to even check vistas help on how to disable UAC.
by: Mussels;901083I agree, when it first came out my advice to my customers was to wait till vista sp1. I just finished putting vista 32 on my lappy and Vista 64 on my desktop, with an image backup of my fav xpsp3. So far so good tweaked the heck out of it for speed as I did with xp, so far I like the improvements.:respect:
90% of vista bashers are repeating crap they read online and have usually never even seen the problems themselves - or never bothered fixing it. they'll spend hours modding drivers or doing registry tweaks to make XP run better, but are too lazy to even check vistas help on how to disable UAC.
Only complaint so far is Crysis crashes when I try to play maultiplayer, single player works fine. Event viewer says an atiXXX32 file is the problem and I know I loaded up the 64 bit ati drivers. Also Crysis won't save my setting for Fullscreen within the game, I can assume that there is a tweek in a config file that I can change manually. Any takers for my complaints so I can say to my customers that my experience with Vista is Fantastic.:toast:
alot of the vista bugs where immature drivers to be honest, as drivers got better so did the OS. Its people like me that where offical beta testers that sent in reports on what happened when it crashed and why ect ect that Vista is like it is. If you want to talk about Vista bugs let me tell you what you'd have if they shipped huild 5012 to you.
by: candle_86;901151Enlighten me :D As far as I'm aware the only reason vista was buggy was because of drivers and not the actual OS. I think the WHQL is a good idea and concept and works well now.
If you want to talk about Vista bugs let me tell you what you'd have if they shipped huild 5012 to you.
ok heres a few of the early bugs of Vista from the Beta Stages
DX8 games could crash the computer and i lost the OS a few times playing MOH:AA.
.net framework for Vista Beta casued issues with a few programs that relied on the framework built by 3rd parties.
The OS had issues at times with the LDDM drivers where it would mistake them for windows 98 drivers and not Vista.
those are a few of them
DX8 games could crash the computer and i lost the OS a few times playing MOH:AA.
.net framework for Vista Beta casued issues with a few programs that relied on the framework built by 3rd parties.
The OS had issues at times with the LDDM drivers where it would mistake them for windows 98 drivers and not Vista.
those are a few of them
by: Mussels;901083I logged back in just to thank your post. It's amazing how people take this as some scientific study that needs background checks, control groups, and blind testing. This is just clever marketing, and that's it. If anything this shows how ignorant people are willing to be. Most people that have a beef on Vista hate it just because a friend or a commercial told them to, not because they actually tried it or looked up any information about it.
lol i love how the people who hate vista are arguing over the way the tests were conducted, while all the vista non-haters are saying they've seen this exact trend.
I had a vista hater too, got him on my PC. told him it was XP with a vista theme. he started ranting about how vista runs so slow compared to XP, and even with my 'theme pack' how much faster my rig was...
seriously. the vista haters have never even bothered. i'm surprised they ever got onto XP... unless that was the first OS they ever used as well.
90% of vista bashers are repeating crap they read online and have usually never even seen the problems themselves - or never bothered fixing it. they'll spend hours modding drivers or doing registry tweaks to make XP run better, but are too lazy to even check vistas help on how to disable UAC.
Of course, that can be said about a ton of things, not just Vista in particular. Marketing has more power than people think.
Let's look at your complaints one at a time ...
It wasn't a survey, it was an experiment, just like the original post states. Why would they pay someone else to run an experiment?
"User experiences on using this operating system were noted and feedback taken.", just like the orginal post states.
Probably at a mall. It doesn't really matter. They were trying to determine peoples' perceptions of Vista, not perform an empirical study.
Just like Vista, because they were using Vista. They were trying to see what people thought of Vista after they used it. Why would they use something else?
They asked them? That is how I would find out.
They are using it to make commercials and other advertisements?
It would be kind of foolish to release the video if you are going to use it in ads.
I am not a MS fanboi, and it is true that there are some issues with Vista, but it is not a steaming pile of crap like many people would have you believe.
It's responsive, stable, super easy to install and had run every app I have installed on it.
by: EastCoasthandle;900970
-independent survey from a neutral party
It wasn't a survey, it was an experiment, just like the original post states. Why would they pay someone else to run an experiment?
-how these results were obtained
"User experiences on using this operating system were noted and feedback taken.", just like the orginal post states.
-environment in which the results were taken
Probably at a mall. It doesn't really matter. They were trying to determine peoples' perceptions of Vista, not perform an empirical study.
-what the OS's desktop looked like
Just like Vista, because they were using Vista. They were trying to see what people thought of Vista after they used it. Why would they use something else?
-how they determined someone is Pro XP or otherwise
They asked them? That is how I would find out.
Where is the video?
They are using it to make commercials and other advertisements?
It would be kind of foolish to release the video if you are going to use it in ads.
I am not a MS fanboi, and it is true that there are some issues with Vista, but it is not a steaming pile of crap like many people would have you believe.
It's responsive, stable, super easy to install and had run every app I have installed on it.
I started using Vista Ult. about 7-8 months ago I guess.. I started with both XP and Vista, but quickly found myself not using XP.. Had I listened to all the negative reviews I never would have installed Vista.. Glad I can make up my own mind..
As far as if these "tests" were performed in a manner that is acceptable to the most 'anal' of opinions, NO.. Nothing is.. It is, however, a catalyst for people to reconsider their opinion.. I've always known that anti Vista users are mostly users who never even tried it..
I think the point of this is to show plain and simple that Online reviews hold a ton of weight in most peoples choices.. Problem is not all reviews are sound reviews.. And not all users understand what they are using..
I've installed HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of OS's.. Mostly XP and Vista.. My view is that Vista is a much smoother and stable install.. I was also really pleased that even Upgrade packages of Vista were far better than XP upgrades..
This reminds me a little of XP's early days.. A lot said to go back to windows 98.. '98 was faster b/c it was simple compared to XP.. Just like XP is simple compared to Vista.. If we want new, and nicer OS's we have to be willing to accept that it will take more CPU resources to make that happen..
As far as if these "tests" were performed in a manner that is acceptable to the most 'anal' of opinions, NO.. Nothing is.. It is, however, a catalyst for people to reconsider their opinion.. I've always known that anti Vista users are mostly users who never even tried it..
I think the point of this is to show plain and simple that Online reviews hold a ton of weight in most peoples choices.. Problem is not all reviews are sound reviews.. And not all users understand what they are using..
I've installed HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of OS's.. Mostly XP and Vista.. My view is that Vista is a much smoother and stable install.. I was also really pleased that even Upgrade packages of Vista were far better than XP upgrades..
This reminds me a little of XP's early days.. A lot said to go back to windows 98.. '98 was faster b/c it was simple compared to XP.. Just like XP is simple compared to Vista.. If we want new, and nicer OS's we have to be willing to accept that it will take more CPU resources to make that happen..
well there is nothing actually wrong with vista it has no glaring faults
2 things keep people away
1. people who just hate it because yes it is like a trend
2. the enthusiasts hate how it uses up a whole gig or more of ram
myself i prefer it to xp on my main pc but for my older pc nothing wrong with it but it seems a little slower when loading
i think most people who only use pcs for internet and office should be using linux
users who want direct x 10 or have powerful pcs should run vista 64x
there are hardly any users who would need xp maybe laptop users because vista is a resource hog but most people should use vista 64 or linux
2 things keep people away
1. people who just hate it because yes it is like a trend
2. the enthusiasts hate how it uses up a whole gig or more of ram
myself i prefer it to xp on my main pc but for my older pc nothing wrong with it but it seems a little slower when loading
i think most people who only use pcs for internet and office should be using linux
users who want direct x 10 or have powerful pcs should run vista 64x
there are hardly any users who would need xp maybe laptop users because vista is a resource hog but most people should use vista 64 or linux
by: Kreij;901217
Let's look at your complaints one at a time ...
It wasn't a survey, it was an experiment, just like the original post states. Why would they pay someone else to run an experiment?
It doesn't matter if it's a survey or an experiment. It's simply a marketing gimmick to bring a better image to Vista. Therefore, draws question to it's validity.
by: Kreij;901217
"User experiences on using this operating system were noted and feedback taken.", just like the orginal post states.
Probably at a mall. It doesn't really matter. They were trying to determine peoples' perceptions of Vista, not perform an empirical study.
Again, this is from an email with no valid source other then the marketing department. I've already explained why I take this with a grain of salt.
by: Kreij;901217
Just like Vista, because they were using Vista. They were trying to see what people thought of Vista after they used it. Why would they use something else?
You cannot have a survey unless you have some sort of bases or comparison to start from. Subjects were told the OS was under a different name, creating an illusion. The subjects (if they exist) should have been presented with just the OS without any internal or external influences of the name, manufacture or type of the OS used. Then let them formulate an opinion on it, that didn't happen.
by: Kreij;901217
They asked them? That is how I would find out.
No proof of that either. For example, just because someone hasn't used Vista doesn't make them pro XP. Or if they rarely use the PC doesn't make them Pro XP. There are many examples that don't make someone more biased toward XP. Therefore, it stand to reason to ask how were these individuals classified as XP Pro users? Furthermore, the responses in this thread draw question as to how people think when someone has an opinion different from their own. For example, some here believe a person is a Vista hater because one can formulate a none biased, peerless, constructive opinion.
by: Kreij;901217
They are using it to make commercials and other advertisements?
It would be kind of foolish to release the video if you are going to use it in ads.
I am not a MS fanboi, and it is true that there are some issues with Vista, but it is not a steaming pile of crap like many people would have you believe.
It's responsive, stable, super easy to install and had run every app I have installed on it.
This is the whole reason to take it with a grain of salt (regardless if the video is presented or not). If you can do this with the Mac ads this is no different. It only shows bias if one is weighed greater then the other. According to some posts so far, it is.
Let me make it clear, this is my opinion on the situation, nothing has change, nothing will. If you read this and do not agree, we agree to disagree on this (for anyone). So lets not go through a whole lot of posts attempts to get one person to see the opinion of another because the 2 won't see eye to eye on the subject.
by: OnionMan;901232I was in that windows 98 group, glad i switched over, i decleared XP as the worst OS up to 2004 when I got a 64bit Athlon 3200 and 98 wouldnt work properly on it and no Nforce3 drivers where out for it i had to use XP, and well after i got used to it i liked it, and won't go back to windows 98. Though for anyone that says they want a responsive, fast OS that doesnt hog resources, ill give you a copy of Windows 3.1 its fast, responsive, and uses under 1mb of ram.
I started using Vista Ult. about 7-8 months ago I guess.. I started with both XP and Vista, but quickly found myself not using XP.. Had I listened to all the negative reviews I never would have installed Vista.. Glad I can make up my own mind..
As far as if these "tests" were performed in a manner that is acceptable to the most 'anal' of opinions, NO.. Nothing is.. It is, however, a catalyst for people to reconsider their opinion.. I've always known that anti Vista users are mostly users who never even tried it..
I think the point of this is to show plain and simple that Online reviews hold a ton of weight in most peoples choices.. Problem is not all reviews are sound reviews.. And not all users understand what they are using..
I've installed HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of OS's.. Mostly XP and Vista.. My view is that Vista is a much smoother and stable install.. I was also really pleased that even Upgrade packages of Vista were far better than XP upgrades..
This reminds me a little of XP's early days.. A lot said to go back to windows 98.. '98 was faster b/c it was simple compared to XP.. Just like XP is simple compared to Vista.. If we want new, and nicer OS's we have to be willing to accept that it will take more CPU resources to make that happen..
I love how people that don't like Vista have instantly become Vista Haters according to some people in this thread. I would even say EastCoastHandle is been regarded as such, even when he is only questioning the validity of "the study". I do question that study too, not because it is imposible for something like that to happen, but because of how they have brought it to light, period. What would people here say if something similar came from Nvidia, Intel or AMD? Wait, we know, because everytime they have released their own benchmarks, those have been instantly catalogued as BS.
But that is not what really matters. MS has fallen to understand why people don't buy Vista, and rely on these "studies" to find an excuse. And the answer is really simple: Vista costs almost double as XP and does not offer ANYTHING in return. I can't remember previous Windowses being so expensive and worthless (yet I didnt upgrade to XP until late 2003). Yes, Vista if you already own XP is totally worthless. It's not that it is worse, it's just that is not better. Paying more for the same thing-just-made-prettier is plainly stupid. And also if you are buying a new PC, you won't make an error by paying less for XP, saving money and getting exactly the same. And before any you wonder, yes, I have Vista on my laptop (came with it), yes I have dissabled everything there's there to dissable (with all the extra effort that supposed) and yes, it's still sometimes worse and sometimes only barely better than XP, worthless. Should they have offered downgrades to XP + discounts back then like they are doing now, I'd probably chose that.
TBH the contradiction I can find on these forums really surprises me. It's incredible how people will blame Heaven and Hell when a graphics card or CPU are $20 more expensive while offering just the same as another one and at the same time defend Vista so fiercely...
But that is not what really matters. MS has fallen to understand why people don't buy Vista, and rely on these "studies" to find an excuse. And the answer is really simple: Vista costs almost double as XP and does not offer ANYTHING in return. I can't remember previous Windowses being so expensive and worthless (yet I didnt upgrade to XP until late 2003). Yes, Vista if you already own XP is totally worthless. It's not that it is worse, it's just that is not better. Paying more for the same thing-just-made-prettier is plainly stupid. And also if you are buying a new PC, you won't make an error by paying less for XP, saving money and getting exactly the same. And before any you wonder, yes, I have Vista on my laptop (came with it), yes I have dissabled everything there's there to dissable (with all the extra effort that supposed) and yes, it's still sometimes worse and sometimes only barely better than XP, worthless. Should they have offered downgrades to XP + discounts back then like they are doing now, I'd probably chose that.
TBH the contradiction I can find on these forums really surprises me. It's incredible how people will blame Heaven and Hell when a graphics card or CPU are $20 more expensive while offering just the same as another one and at the same time defend Vista so fiercely...
by: candle_86;901243:laugh: sigged
I was in that windows 98 group, glad i switched over, i decleared XP as the worst OS up to 2004 when I got a 64bit Athlon 3200 and 98 wouldnt work properly on it and no Nforce3 drivers where out for it i had to use XP, and well after i got used to it i liked it, and won't go back to windows 98. Though for anyone that says they want a responsive, fast OS that doesnt hog resources, ill give you a copy of Windows 3.1 its fast, responsive, and uses under 1mb of ram.
by: DarkMatter;901244cost double, i was in Wal-Mart yesterday stopped there on my way home.
I love how people that don't like Vista have instantly become Vista Haters according to some people in this thread. I would even say EastCoastHandle is been regarded as such, even when he is only questioning the validity of "the study". I do question that study too, not because it is imposible for something like that to happen, but because of how they have brought it to light, period. What would people here say if something similar came from Nvidia, Intel or AMD? Wait, we know, because everytime they have released their own benchmarks, those have been instantly catalogued as BS.
But that is not what really matters. MS has fallen to understand why people don't buy Vista, and rely on these "studies" to find an excuse. And the answer is really simple: Vista costs almost double as XP and does not offer ANYTHING in return. I can't remember previous Windowses being so expensive and worthless (yet I didnt upgrade to XP until late 2003). Yes, Vista if you already own XP is totally worthless. It's not that it is worse, it's just that is not better. Paying more for the same thing-just-made-prettier is plainly stupid. And also if you are buying a new PC, you won't make an error by paying less for XP, saving money and getting exactly the same. And before any you wonder, yes, I have Vista on my laptop (came with it), yes I have dissabled everything there's there to dissable (with all the extra effort that supposed) and yes, it's still sometimes worse and sometimes only barely better than XP, worthless. Should they have offered downgrades to XP + discounts back then like they are doing now, I'd probably chose that.
TBH the contradiction I can find on these forums really surprises me. It's incredible how people will blame Heaven and Hell when a graphics card or CPU are $20 more expensive while offering just the same as another one and at the same time defend Vista so fiercely...
Vista Home Premium Upgrade 149.
Windows XP Home Upgrade 129.
Vista Home Basic Upgrade 129.
Want more proof
89.99 Windows XP Home SP3 OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116511
89.99 Windows Vista Home Basic OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116480
109.99 Vista Home Premium OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116485
The double the price doesnt apply honestly for most users
here is another for you
134.99 XP Pro SP3 OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116400
179.99 Vista Ultimate OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116490
So there ya are the double isnt valid and the extra 20 for premium over XP Home and 50 extra for ultimate over XP Pro are worth it if you bother to look at what is offered over XP
by: EastCoasthandle;901238
It doesn't matter if it's a survey or an experiment. It's simply a marketing gimmick to bring a better image to Vista. Therefore, draws question to it's validity.
Again, this is from an email with no valid source. I've already explained why I take this with a grain of salt.
There was no comparison. You cannot have a litmus unless you have some sort of base to start from. They were told the OS was something else. Therefore, at this point the results are null and void based on the bias presented in the test. It is of my opinion they should have been presented with just the OS with no other internal or external influences of the name of the OS used. Then let them decide, that didn't happen.
No proof of that either. The responses in this thread along draw question as to how these people were obtained. For example, some here believe a person is a Vista hater because one can formulate a none biased, no peer induced opinion.
This the whole reason to take it with a grain of salt. If you can do this with the Mac ads this is no different. It only shows bias if one is weighed greater then the other.
Let me make it clear, this is my opinion on the situation, nothing has change, nothing will. If you read this and do not agree, we agree to disagree on this (for anyone). So lets not go through a whole lot of posts attempts to get one person to see the opinion of another because the 2 won't see eye to eye on the subject.
Not to flame.. I do see your points and you've explained yourself well, but I think you are making waaaaaaay to much of this.. In fact, I'm not all sure what you are upset over. You do seem a little upset.. Would having the information you are wanting really change anything? If they released video and formal documents would anything change? I think this thread has pretty much supported what MS is saying.. Some who are against Vista don't even know enough about it to know they were using it..
by: DrPepper;901252well its true, XP is a hog compared to previous OS's i think actully i can find a copy windows 1.0 i can send out,
:laugh:
Would a windows 1.0 work on a core 2 ?
by: EastCoasthandle;901238
Let me make it clear, this is my opinion on the situation, nothing has change, nothing will. If you read this and do not agree, we agree to disagree on this (for anyone). So lets not go through a whole lot of posts attempts to get one person to see the opinion of another because the 2 won't see eye to eye on the subject.
I think you are missing the point of at least my argument. I am in no way disagreeing that this is a marketing tool and is not to be trusted to statistical precision. Don't trust the validity, who cares? Marketing is marketing, that really isn't the point. This was done to attempt to counteract some of the bad-mouthing vista has gotten, and imo it should have been done a lot sooner.
If you have the will try your own experience, talk to someone random on the street, just ask them whether they like vista or not. My bet is 9 times out of 10 you'll get a no, maybe 8 (if they know about vista). Then ask them why, my bet is 9 times out of 10 you won't get anything that resembles an answer that indicates they themselves have tried it, it will mostly be spouting off things they've heard or read. Maybe 8. If you really get ambitious see if you can sit them down w/ vista, but that's a little impractical.
My arguments have nothing to do w/ whether the study is good or not, I really don't care, its marketing. My point is I have encountered this exact thing, and trying to break down a marketing study from a company is relatively pointless. Should I ask KFC on what grounds they say "Life tastes better w/ KFC?" Well, that wouldn't make much sense, it's marketing.
by: DarkMatter;901244
I love how people that don't like Vista have instantly become Vista Haters according to some people in this thread. I would even say EastCoastHandle is been regarded as such, even when he is only questioning the validity of "the study". I do question that study too, not because it is imposible for something like that to happen, but because of how they have brought it to light, period. What would people here say if something similar came from Nvidia, Intel or AMD? Wait, we know, because everytime they have released their own benchmarks, those have been instantly catalogued as BS.
But that is not what really matters. MS has fallen to understand why people don't buy Vista, and rely on these "studies" to find an excuse. And the answer is really simple: Vista costs almost double as XP and does not offer ANYTHING in return. I can't remember previous Windowses being so expensive and worthless (yet I didnt upgrade to XP until late 2003). Yes, Vista if you already own XP is totally worthless. It's not that it is worse, it's just that is not better. Paying more for the same thing-just-made-prettier is plainly stupid. And also if you are buying a new PC, you won't make an error by paying less for XP, saving money and getting exactly the same. And before any you wonder, yes, I have Vista on my laptop (came with it), yes I have dissabled everything there's there to dissable (with all the extra effort that supposed) and yes, it's still sometimes worse and sometimes only barely better than XP, worthless. Should they have offered downgrades to XP + discounts back then like they are doing now, I'd probably chose that.
TBH the contradiction I can find on these forums really surprises me. It's incredible how people will blame Heaven and Hell when a graphics card or CPU are $20 more expensive while offering just the same as another one and at the same time defend Vista so fiercely...
No the answer has nothing to do w/ how much it costs. I have people that don't want to buy notebooks b/c it comes w/ vista already on it. I ask them why and they say b/c they heard bad things. Vista doesn't even cost that much more than xp, although it should, later generation tend to. There is plenty of reason to go to vista, but that's not really the point either. The reason they did this was to counter-act all the bad-mouthing they get, and it should have been done sooner.
by: OnionMan;901261
Not to flame.. I do see your points and you've explained yourself well, but I think you are making waaaaaaay to much of this.. In fact, I'm not all sure what you are upset over. You do seem a little upset.. Would having the information you are wanting really change anything? If they released video and formal documents would anything change? I think this thread has pretty much supported what MS is saying.. Some who are against Vista don't even know enough about it to know they were using it..
by: farlex85;901272
I think you are missing the point of at least my argument. I am in no way disagreeing that this is a marketing tool and is not to be trusted to statistical precision. Don't trust the validity, who cares? Marketing is marketing, that really isn't the point. This was done to attempt to counteract some of the bad-mouthing vista has gotten, and imo it should have been done a lot sooner.
If you have the will try your own experience, talk to someone random on the street, just ask them whether they like vista or not. My bet is 9 times out of 10 you'll get a no, maybe 8 (if they know about vista). Then ask them why, my bet is 9 times out of 10 you won't get anything that resembles an answer that indicates they themselves have tried it, it will mostly be spouting off things they've heard or read. Maybe 8. If you really get ambitious see if you can sit them down w/ vista, but that's a little impractical.
My arguments have nothing to do w/ whether the study is good or not, I really don't care, its marketing. My point is I have encountered this exact thing, and trying to break down a marketing study from a company is relatively pointless. Should I ask KFC on what grounds they say "Life tastes better w/ KFC?" Well, that wouldn't make much sense, it's marketing.
I've edit my post to make things clearer since you quoted me. :)
by: candle_86;901262This is true for so many things..
well its true, XP is a hog compared to previous OS's i think actully i can find a copy windows 1.0 i can send out,
SOME- want more and more out of video cards and cpu's, yet complain about the temps of those faster components or the PSU needed to run them.. This is how I kind of see Vista/XP/98 (notice i took out ME lol)..
I can understand those who have limited amounts of RAM (like the Eee PC and clones) would prefer XP over Vista (especially if it's nLite'd like TinyXP). That's a genuine reason to go for XP. But for all other notebooks and desktops, Vista is more than capable of handling it. The 64-bit version of Vista is even better, more secure, more stable...what else could you ask for?!?
I'm a big Linux supporter, but I know even the Open Source community got nothing on the ease of use and compatibility against M$. It may be a technically superior O.S. with a cleaner security model and rock-solid stability (nobody's debating that), but it's still an awkward system to use and most things just_don't_work as intended.
I'm a big Linux supporter, but I know even the Open Source community got nothing on the ease of use and compatibility against M$. It may be a technically superior O.S. with a cleaner security model and rock-solid stability (nobody's debating that), but it's still an awkward system to use and most things just_don't_work as intended.
for me, its the fact that vista automatically uses half of my total memory..... ive got 1 gig, and it starts up SO slow for me, most people don't have the money to go out and buy the hardware to fully use an os like vista, let alone 100+ dollars to get a decent and not stripped down version of it. and xp was on a great cusp, or transformation if you will, where computers where being bought at a very fast rate and everyone was jumping on the bandwagon of owning one, simple logic dictates that people will stick with whats familiar and guess what, they're doing just that ms.
thats my horrid opinion :)
thats my horrid opinion :)
by: candle_86;901258No it doesn't. If I had to conclude that it does, at the same I'd have to conclude that for example, Nvidia's GT200 are worth a lot over Ati's HD4000 series too, which I'm not inclined to believe. No, seriously, Vista does not offer anything worth $20 (pff even $5) over XP (at least up until now), except "futureproofing". :roll:
So there ya are the double isnt valid and the extra 20 for premium over XP Home and 50 extra for ultimate over XP Pro are worth it if you bother to look at what is offered over XP
Don't worry, I already have Vista on my laptop, so I will continue testing it over the time, and I'll upgrade my main system when it is worth it. Unless windows 7 is close and it really is an upgrade...
I have to admit, anyway, that I wasn't very informed of the prices of the OS's now. Vista has come down a lot. But I can tell you something, Win XP here in Spain (I can't talk about the rest of the world) is a lot more expensive (that means €25-50) than 6 months ago, which IMHO is intriguing...
Hell it's more expensive than when I bought it back in 2003!!!!
@EastCoast : I am not saying that this should be considered some kind of "holy grail" of marketting studies. But is was just that, a marketting study.
It sounds like MS wanted to find out why Vista was not doing as well as they hoped, so they did an experiment to see why that may be the case.
How or why the "e-mail" got into the hands of people in the tech trade is unknown, but the whole thing sounds more like media blathering than MS trumpetting.
Just my 2 cents. ;)
It sounds like MS wanted to find out why Vista was not doing as well as they hoped, so they did an experiment to see why that may be the case.
How or why the "e-mail" got into the hands of people in the tech trade is unknown, but the whole thing sounds more like media blathering than MS trumpetting.
Just my 2 cents. ;)
by: EastCoasthandle;901274:) I hope you don't think I'm not willing to accept that we won't see exactly eye to eye :)
I've edit my post to make things clearer since you quoted me. :)
In my business we have to do just this.. Customers don't like change.. I sell water filtration systems with coolers.. We replace bottled water.. We get those who think our water is bad b/c it comes from their city water instead of the bottled jug.. So we do a NON blind test so to speak.. We tell the customer A: is our water and B: is your bottledwater.. Most will pick B as the best.. Funny thing is both A and B are the exact same samples from our system..
It's not the most honest of tests, but it does prove the point that Perception is Reality..
About 95% of my friends told me to stay away from Vista and I would be sorry for using it. Well I tried it anyway and i like it a lot more than XP. The problem was their machine couldn't handle it and they bad mouthed it to everyone they knew. Its damn sure a better gaming OS and probably the better one in general. It also is way more stable in my eyes. Don't listen to your friends, try stuff for yourself first.
by: farlex85;901272It's not how much it costs, it's how much it costs for what it does.
No the answer has nothing to do w/ how much it costs. I have people that don't want to buy notebooks b/c it comes w/ vista already on it. I ask them why and they say b/c they heard bad things. Vista doesn't even cost that much more than xp, although it should, later generation tend to. There is plenty of reason to go to vista, but that's not really the point either. The reason they did this was to counter-act all the bad-mouthing they get, and it should have been done sooner.
Personally, I haven't heard anything bad that was not true. Most people I know that don't like Vista is because of the same thing I do: they already have XP and Vista does not offer anything worth an upgrade. Some of them are also influenced by the bad start of Vista (bugs, lack of drivers, etc.), but that's not the main reason, just some additions. Things have changed, but MS will have to wait until these changes are noticed through word of mouth. That's how this works, they can't blame people for lacking the knowledge. Vista WAS WORSE than XP when it launched and was for too many time, they can't expect things to get better overnight.
The experiment doesn't proof that Vista has not been embraced because the bad-mouthing. Test subjects are described as "XP users that hate Vista". They had some time with the test systems and give good feedback. And what?
-How were the test systems they used?
-How were their own (subject's) PCs? (A heavily crippled C2D would be a lot better than a very well optimized P4, for example.)
-Which kind of aplications could test subjects use?
-Could they experiment with different peripherals and drivers to test compatibility?
The interface and usual windows preinstalled programs are not the problem of Vista. So, how could the test subjects conclude Vista was or was not a good OS? As EastCoastHandle said: without anything to compare to, they simply can't. It just ran fine, but it could run better under Win XP. The matter of the thing is that they will never know. The experiment is not valid.
by: Champ;901315You could have said anything except that. Well maybe I'm too concerned about the 10%+ performance penalty to look further... :roll:
About 95% of my friends told me to stay away from Vista and I would be sorry for using it. Well I tried it anyway and i like it a lot more than XP. The problem was their machine couldn't handle it and they bad mouthed it to everyone they knew. Its damn sure a better gaming OS and probably the better one in general. It also is way more stable in my eyes. Don't listen to your friends, try stuff for yourself first.
As far as it not being worth the $$ or any $$ over XP, I again disagree.. Well sort of..
IDK if other users can tell, but I can tell a huge visual difference between the two.. Not just eye candy and special effects, but the overall clarity of Text, Icons, Images, ect.. Vista just plain looks better on screen... That has to be worth a little something, maybe not $180 tho..
IDK if other users can tell, but I can tell a huge visual difference between the two.. Not just eye candy and special effects, but the overall clarity of Text, Icons, Images, ect.. Vista just plain looks better on screen... That has to be worth a little something, maybe not $180 tho..
by: OnionMan;901339Vista uses cleartype by default and xp doesnt but you can enable it :) it add antialiasing to the text.
As far as it not being worth the $$ or any $$ over XP, I again disagree.. Well sort of..
IDK if other users can tell, but I can tell a huge visual difference between the two.. Not just eye candy and special effects, but the overall clarity of Text, Icons, Images, ect.. Vista just plain looks better on screen... That has to be worth a little something, maybe not $180 tho..
I agree that when Vista launched there were problems with it (mostly driver) that Windows XP did not have.
But don't forget that when XP launched it was a nightmare also.
Many, many people advised others not to upgrade to XP until SP1 came out.
SP1 helped, but it was not until SP2 that XP really became a solid OS.
Vista is very similar to XP in that manner.
I feel that SP1 for Vista, and the improved drivers, makes Vista a more stable OS at SP1 level than XP was at the time.
But don't forget that when XP launched it was a nightmare also.
Many, many people advised others not to upgrade to XP until SP1 came out.
SP1 helped, but it was not until SP2 that XP really became a solid OS.
Vista is very similar to XP in that manner.
I feel that SP1 for Vista, and the improved drivers, makes Vista a more stable OS at SP1 level than XP was at the time.
by: Kreij;901354Agreed. That still doesn't make Vista SP1 better than XP SP3. And even if not by much, is more expensive. Whenever Vista is clearly better than XP people will embrace it, just as they did with previous versions. Until then, until they make it better, until they make it be what they promised, excuses are not worth a thing.
I agree that when Vista launched there were problems with it (mostly driver) that Windows XP did not have.
But don't forget that when XP launched it was a nightmare also.
Many, many people advised others not to upgrade to XP until SP1 came out.
SP1 helped, but it was not until SP2 that XP really became a solid OS.
Vista is very similar to XP in that manner.
I feel that SP1 for Vista, and the improved drivers, makes Vista a more stable OS at SP1 level than XP was at the time.
I've really enjoyed this thread.. The lack of flaming is nice.. And civil talk is always better..
I've learned a couple of things too.. And tho I don't share every view stated here, I do understand more about why users (more exp. users) are not for Vista.. I think we all have made some good points.. Bottom line is whether or not Vista is for you.. Being an "Eye Candy" type of person, I like Vista.. But if I were a stat/performance person then, yes, I see why it's not liked..
As for the originall post goes, after reading over and over again I see more clearly now EastCoast's (and others) point about that test..
In the end tho, we are talking about something that will be replaced sooner than we think.. Vista will go down as a failure no matter if you it's for you or not, mostly b/c of it's lack of sales..
I've learned a couple of things too.. And tho I don't share every view stated here, I do understand more about why users (more exp. users) are not for Vista.. I think we all have made some good points.. Bottom line is whether or not Vista is for you.. Being an "Eye Candy" type of person, I like Vista.. But if I were a stat/performance person then, yes, I see why it's not liked..
As for the originall post goes, after reading over and over again I see more clearly now EastCoast's (and others) point about that test..
In the end tho, we are talking about something that will be replaced sooner than we think.. Vista will go down as a failure no matter if you it's for you or not, mostly b/c of it's lack of sales..
by: candle_86;901258there's more than the cost of the disk that factors into it being double I can run windows xp on a 10 year old rig without issue, I can't with vista, theres no getting around the fact that vista needs a better rig to run nice vs windows xp. so when joe blow with his pentium 3 decides between the two, what do you think he's going to pick? it's the same with the athlon xp users pentium 4 users and even early athlon 64 users. they will simply run faster on xp. no that's not opinion, that's fact.
cost double, i was in Wal-Mart yesterday stopped there on my way home.
Vista Home Premium Upgrade 149.
Windows XP Home Upgrade 129.
Vista Home Basic Upgrade 129.
Want more proof
89.99 Windows XP Home SP3 OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116511
89.99 Windows Vista Home Basic OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116480
109.99 Vista Home Premium OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116485
The double the price doesnt apply honestly for most users
here is another for you
134.99 XP Pro SP3 OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116400
179.99 Vista Ultimate OEM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116490
So there ya are the double isnt valid and the extra 20 for premium over XP Home and 50 extra for ultimate over XP Pro are worth it if you bother to look at what is offered over XP
so bein that 90% of people have those cpu's or older in their rigs, you can see why those same 90% didn't think vista was so bad when used on decent hardware. which is exactly the point, joe blow can't afford or doesn't care enough to upgrade his rig to run vista.
vista isn't the worst os put out, (it's not the best either) but it requires more from hardware which in the end always takes a while to get adopted.
by: EastCoasthandle;901238I can relate to this statement...I hate blind testing, it shows personal bias and hypocrisy at its finest, and to state that this is reason leading to facts is bullsh*t. Blind testing is the bullsh*t. I do like it nor trust it nor even consider it as a opinion. It is merely a campaign of political correctness. So Eastcoasthandle I see your point and agree with most of what you are saying.:toast:
This is the whole reason to take it with a grain of salt (regardless if the video is presented or not). If you can do this with the Mac ads this is no different. It only shows bias if one is weighed greater then the other. According to some posts so far, it is.
Let me make it clear, this is my opinion on the situation, nothing has change, nothing will. If you read this and do not agree, we agree to disagree on this (for anyone). So lets not go through a whole lot of posts attempts to get one person to see the opinion of another because the 2 won't see eye to eye on the subject.
It is marketing at its dirtiest and creates consumers to mistrust the outcome. Same thing goes with polling during political season, it is nothing to listen to or even consider unless it is a study that has a formula and result that can be studied, and performed by unbiased 3rd parties.
I like this civil discussion without anyone going off and being as asshat. We are here to discuss, not to trash.
The recommended reqs of Vista is a 1Ghz processor and 512MB of RAM.
This is interesting as the Pentium 3 ranged from about 600Mhz to 1.4 Ghz.
We all know that a system with a P3 is not going to run Vista worth a crap.
I think that MS should have been a little more specific in their specs about Vista, and perhaps should have been a little tighter on the specs (like minimum P4?).
Just some casual observations.
The recommended reqs of Vista is a 1Ghz processor and 512MB of RAM.
This is interesting as the Pentium 3 ranged from about 600Mhz to 1.4 Ghz.
We all know that a system with a P3 is not going to run Vista worth a crap.
I think that MS should have been a little more specific in their specs about Vista, and perhaps should have been a little tighter on the specs (like minimum P4?).
Just some casual observations.
the only rational arguments that have come up so far, is that systems with 1GB of ram or less shouldnt use vista.
so far, no one else has had anything else to offer in argument of XP over vista. To be honest i agree - if your rig is so old that you only have 1GB of ram, stay the hell away from vista. its a great OS, but its not for old rigs like that.
before people complain that they dont want to buy more ram... well i'd never game on XP with 1GB again either, lol.
so far, no one else has had anything else to offer in argument of XP over vista. To be honest i agree - if your rig is so old that you only have 1GB of ram, stay the hell away from vista. its a great OS, but its not for old rigs like that.
before people complain that they dont want to buy more ram... well i'd never game on XP with 1GB again either, lol.
See, I don't get the spec req argument at all. I for one am quite glad that new software requires more hardware power to run, not directly but b/c this indicates advancement. We have these super gpu's like the gtx 280 and soon the 4870x2 and no games that require or utilize their power. But you can bet if we did there'd be a whole mess of people complaining they couldn't play w/ their cards. So, you gotta choose, advancement (even if that means you yourself have to wait until you can enjoy it), or hold all technology back until everyone can take advantage of it, or keep it the same so no one has to worry about something new. I choose the first.
Also, since when did the operating system all about speed? That seems to be another big argument, you get a few more fps or things load a bit faster. Although I myself believe my experience has been the opposite (I've found vista to be more responsive and have had better gameplay by far), I still don't understand why a few seconds here and there and a few fps is better than better graphics and a more powerful and more intuitive interface.
Also, since when did the operating system all about speed? That seems to be another big argument, you get a few more fps or things load a bit faster. Although I myself believe my experience has been the opposite (I've found vista to be more responsive and have had better gameplay by far), I still don't understand why a few seconds here and there and a few fps is better than better graphics and a more powerful and more intuitive interface.
I got vista for free so... meh
It works great on my machine, and I prefer it over XP.
I understand why some people dislike vista... some people don't want/have time to learn a new OS.
Win 95/98/ME/2000/XP were pretty similar compared to Vista which is a bit different.
It works great on my machine, and I prefer it over XP.
I understand why some people dislike vista... some people don't want/have time to learn a new OS.
Win 95/98/ME/2000/XP were pretty similar compared to Vista which is a bit different.
I agree Mussels, the other argument that I see is that Vista uses a lot of RAM.
That is interesting, as one has to wonder exactly why you have RAM.
An operating system that makes use of your RAM is a good thing in my eyes.
What is the point of having 4GB of RAM and the OS only uses 400MB ?
Vista happily releases anything it put in RAM that it is not using when you load up something that requires a large amount of RAM.
Personally, I want my system to use the hardware I bought.
That is interesting, as one has to wonder exactly why you have RAM.
An operating system that makes use of your RAM is a good thing in my eyes.
What is the point of having 4GB of RAM and the OS only uses 400MB ?
Vista happily releases anything it put in RAM that it is not using when you load up something that requires a large amount of RAM.
Personally, I want my system to use the hardware I bought.
well to be honest my rams a lot faster than my HDD, so yeah... i prefer my OS to be loaded into ram.
you kinda cant argue with that...
you kinda cant argue with that...
by: Mussels;901410
the only rational arguments that have come up so far, is that systems with 1GB of ram or less shouldnt use vista.
so far, no one else has had anything else to offer in argument of XP over vista. To be honest i agree - if your rig is so old that you only have 1GB of ram, stay the hell away from vista. its a great OS, but its not for old rigs like that.
before people complain that they dont want to buy more ram... well i'd never game on XP with 1GB again either, lol.
You have to think that there's no argument of Vista over XP either, which is the point. For most of the people, it's not deciding between new XP or Vista, is stick to XP or shell out the money for an OS that is still not better than what they already have. I read somewhere more than 90% of houses in the US and more than 80% in EU have a PC, so the market is narrower. Add to that the growing percentage of people that know how to upgrade and do upgrade their hardware (versus buying a complete new one) and the fact that the rest of people are heading towards cheaper PCs like Asus Eee. That means that there's fewer people that would require to buy a brand new OS. That leaves only the posibility of an upgrade from XP. That's the truth for anyone that I know personally. And the fact is that right now Vista is not an upgrade for anyone with XP. We have just one more factor, and that is that XP is the Windows that lasted more, so much that most of the PCs out there now are running XP or at least Win 2000. That was not the case with previous versions, any comparison between Vista and previous releases is pointless. Growth base was a lot bigger, price difference smaller and the dominant hardware was faster when compared to high-end than today. Vista could only be a success if it offered something that was a lot better than XP, when in reality has been totally the contrary for too long. Expecting to sell an OS that is struggling to compete with the OS it is supposed to replace is naive at best. In that situation Vista is been trying to keep up with XP rather than improving over it. Even right now is not better enough to worth an upgrade except for most enthusiast people, and not for all of them. How could it be good for Average Joe then?
EDIT: And the RAM argument you guys are using is not valid IMO. Just because we can have more RAM and current aplications don't use it we need an OS to waste it? Obviously no, wasting memory is not using it, it's better to just leave it unused. Vista uses a lot more RAM and I haven't seen any benefit on my laptop. That only means it is using more RAM for nothing. With 4GB probably it doesn't matter, with 2GB it does, and honestly how many people have 4GB of RAM nowadays. Don't start looking in these forums, obviously a lot will have...
by: DarkMatter;901452
You have to think that there's no argument of Vista over XP either, which is the point. For most of the people, it's not deciding between new XP or Vista, is stick to XP or shell out the money for an OS that is still not better than what they already have. I read somewhere more than 90% of houses in the US and more than 80% in EU have a PC, so the market is narrower. Add to that the growing percentage of people that know how to upgrade and do upgrade their hardware (versus buying a complete new one) and the fact that the rest of people are heading towards cheaper PCs like Asus Eee. That means that there's fewer people that would require to buy a brand new OS. That leaves only the posibility of an upgrade from XP. That's the truth for anyone that I know personally. And the fact is that right now Vista is not an upgrade for anyone with XP. We have just one more factor, and that is that XP is the Windows that lasted more, so much that most of the PCs out there now are running XP or at least Win 2000. That was not the case with previous versions, any comparison between Vista and previous releases is pointless. Growth base was a lot bigger, price difference smaller and the dominant hardware was faster when compared to high-end than today. Vista could only be a success if it offered something that was a lot better than XP, when in reality has been totally the contrary for too long. Expecting to sell an OS that is struggling to compete with the OS it is supposed to replace is naive at best. In that situation Vista is been trying to keep up with XP rather than improving over it. Even right now is not better enough to worth an upgrade except for most enthusiast people, and not for all of them. How could it be good for Average Joe then?
Good points. Vista I think is a better OS than xp, but to the average Joe there isn't much reason to upgrade, aside from MCE and DX10 if gaming. Snazzier and more powerful interface isn't enough reason to pay to upgrade. But it's gotten to the point that people who are buying completely new machines don't even want vista b/c it's gotten so much bad press. And that should be quelled b/c for home use it IS better, especially w/ a new machines hardware. Upgrading though, maybe not so much.
by: DarkMatter;901452
EDIT: And the RAM argument you guys are using is not valid IMO. Just because we can have more RAM and current aplications don't use it we need an OS to waste it? Obviously no, wasting memory is not using it, it's better to just leave it unused. Vista uses a lot more RAM and I haven't seen any benefit on my laptop. That only means it is using more RAM for nothing. With 4GB probably it doesn't matter, with 2GB it does, and honestly how many people have 4GB of RAM nowadays. Don't start looking in these forums, obviously a lot will have...
The OS does use it, it doesn't just waste it. Try using vista on 2gb and then 4gb. The os uses different amounts for the different amounts of ram it has accessible, and it's noticeable. Vista is more powerful, and it does require more hardware, and it does it well. Standard today is 2gb. Most machines bought in the last year or so that wasn't on the super cheap will have 2gb. And that will run vista fine, but 4gb does it better. So I can't see how you can say the OS doesn't use it. You can't compare it to xp, it is different.
by: farlex85;901468Yep, I agree with ya man.
Good points. Vista I think is a better OS than xp, but to the average Joe there isn't much reason to upgrade, aside from MCE and DX10 if gaming. Snazzier and more powerful interface isn't enough reason to pay to upgrade. But it's gotten to the point that people who are buying completely new machines don't even want vista b/c it's gotten so much bad press. And that should be quelled b/c for home use it IS better, especially w/ a new machines hardware. Upgrading though, maybe not so much.
If you have an old rig with XP on it, might as well leave it...if you have access to try Vista, then you should do just that, TRY IT. I wish more people could or would try Vista on their PC before spending money on it, just like XP, Linux, Mac, or whatever else, Vista isn't for everyone, nor will it ever be, Windows 7 will be the same way, it'll be improved for some stuff, may even have some revolutionary stuff, but it won't be for everyone.
I find Vista better for what I do, but I could do almost everything I do on XP 32/64 except for DX10 gaming which has slightly grown on me now that there's at least a small library of games and demos out there that utilize at least a portion of DX10. Vista x64 has impressed me greatly in how quick and stable it is, and trust me I've had plenty of good and bad in Vista, XP, and earlier. It's just part of the cycle I suppose.