The top five reasons why Windows Vista failed

Posted by Jason Hiner @ 4:21 am October 6th, 2008

Excerpts taken from : http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10303


On Friday, Microsoft gave computer makers a six-month extension for offering Windows XP on newly-shipped PCs. While this doesn’t impact enterprise IT — because volume licensing agreements will allow IT to keep installing Windows XP for many years to come — the move is another symbolic nail in Vista’s coffin.

The public reputation of Windows Vista is in shambles, as Microsoft itself tacitly acknowledged in its Mojave ad campaign.

IT departments are largely ignoring Vista. In June (18 months after Vista’s launch), Forrester Research reported that just 8.8% of enterprise PCs worldwide were running Vista. Meanwhile, Microsoft appears to have put Windows 7 on an accelerated schedule that could see it released in 2010. That will provide IT departments with all the justification they need to simply skip Vista and wait to eventually standardize on Windows 7 as the next OS for business.

So how did Vista get left holding the bag? Let’s look at the five most important reasons why Vista failed.

5. Apple successfully demonized Vista

Apple’s clever I’m a Mac ads have successfully driven home the perception that Windows Vista is buggy, boring, and difficult to use. After taking two years of merciless pummeling from Apple, Microsoft recently responded with it’s I’m a PC campaign in order to defend the honor of Windows. This will likely restore some mojo to the PC and Windows brands overall, but it’s too late to save Vista’s perception as a dud.

4. Windows XP is too entrenched

In 2001, when Windows XP was released, there were about 600 million computers in use worldwide. Over 80% of them were running Windows but it was split between two code bases: Windows 95/98 (65%) and Windows NT/2000 (26%), according to IDC. One of the big goals of Windows XP was to unite the Windows 9x and Windows NT code bases, and it eventually accomplished that.

In 2008, there are now over 1.1 billion PCs in use worldwide and over 70% of them are running Windows XP. That means almost 800 million computers are running XP, which makes it the most widely installed operating system of all time. That’s a lot of inertia to overcome, especially for IT departments that have consolidated their deployments and applications around Windows XP.

And, believe it or not, Windows XP could actually increase its market share over the next couple years. How? Low-cost netbooks and nettops are going to be flooding the market. While these inexpensive machines are powerful enough to provide a solid Internet experience for most users, they don’t have enough resources to run Windows Vista, so they all run either Windows XP or Linux. Intel expects this market to explode in the years ahead. (For more on netbooks and nettops, see this fact sheet and this presentation — both are PDFs from Intel.)

3. Vista is too slow

For years Microsoft has been criticized by developers and IT professionals for “software bloat” — adding so many changes and features to its programs that the code gets huge and unwieldy. However, this never seemed to have enough of an effect to impact software sales. With Windows Vista, software bloat appears to have finally caught up with Microsoft.

Vista has over 50 million lines of code. XP had 35 million when it was released, and since then it has grown to about 40 million. This software bloat has had the effect of slowing down Windows Vista, especially when it’s running on anything but the latest and fastest hardware. Even then, the latest version of Windows XP soundly outperforms the latest version of Microsoft Vista. No one wants to use a new computer that is slower than their old one.

2. There wasn’t supposed to be a Vista

It’s easy to forget that when Microsoft launched Windows XP it was actually trying to change its OS business model to move away from shrink-wrapped software and convert customers to software subscribers. That’s why it abandoned the naming convention of Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows 2000, and instead chose Windows XP.

The XP stood for “experience” and was part of Microsoft’s .NET Web services strategy at the time. The master plan was to get users and businesses to pay a yearly subscription fee for the Windows experience — XP would essentially be the on-going product name but would include all software upgrades and updates, as long as you paid for your subscription. Of course, it would disable Windows on your PC if you didn’t pay. That’s why product activation was coupled with Windows XP.

Microsoft released Windows XP and Office XP simultaneously in 2001 and both included product activation and the plan to eventually migrate to subscription products. However, by the end of 2001 Microsoft had already abandoned the subscription concept with Office, and quickly returned to the shrink-wrapped business model and the old product development model with both products.

The idea of doing incremental releases and upgrades of its software — rather than a major shrink-wrapped release every 3-5 years — was a good concept. Microsoft just couldn’t figure out how to make the business model work, but instead of figuring out how to get it right, it took the easy route and went back to an old model that was simply not very well suited to the economic and technical realities of today’s IT world.

1. It broke too much stuff

One of the big reasons that Windows XP caught on was because it had the hardware, software, and driver compatibility of the Windows 9x line plus the stability and industrial strength of the Windows NT line. The compatibility issue was huge. Having a single, highly-compatible Windows platform simplified the computing experience for users, IT departments, and software and hardware vendors.

Microsoft either forgot or disregarded that fact when it released Windows Vista, because, despite a long beta period, a lot of existing software and hardware were not compatible with Vista when it was released in January 2007. Since many important programs and peripherals were unusable in Vista, that made it impossible for a lot of IT departments to adopt it. Many of the incompatibilities were the result of tighter security.

After Windows was targeted by a nasty string of viruses, worms, and malware in the early 2000s, Microsoft embarked on the Trustworthy Computing initiative to make its products more secure. One of the results was Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2), which won over IT and paved the way for XP to become the world’s mostly widely deployed OS.

The other big piece of Trustworthy Computing was the even-further-locked-down version of Windows that Microsoft released in Vista. This was definitely the most secure OS that Microsoft had ever released but the price was user-hostile features such as UAC, a far more complicated set of security prompts that accompanied many basic tasks, and a host of software incompatibility issues. In order words, Vista broke a lot of the things that users were used to doing in XP.

Bottom line

There are some who argue that Vista is actually more widely adopted than XP was at this stage after its release, and that it’s highly likely that Vista will eventually replace XP in the enterprise. I don’t agree. With XP, there were clear motivations to migrate: bring Windows 9x machines to a more stable and secure OS and bring Windows NT/2000 machines to an OS with much better hardware and software compatibility. And, you also had the advantage of consolidating all of those machines on a single OS in order to simplify support.

With Vista, there are simply no major incentives for IT to use it over XP. Security isn’t even that big of an issue because XP SP2 (and above) are solid and most IT departments have it locked down quite well. As I wrote in the article Prediction: Microsoft will leapfrog Vista, release Windows 7 early, and change its OS business, Microsoft needs to abandon the strategy of releasing a new OS every 3-5 years and simply stick with a single version of Windows and release updates, patches, and new features on a regular basis. Most IT departments are essentially already on a subscription model with Microsoft so the business strategy is already in place there.

As far as the subscription model goes for small businesses and consumers, instead of disabling Windows on a user’s PC if they don’t renew their subscription, just don’t allow that machine to get any more updates if they don’t renew. Microsoft could also work with OEMs to sell something like a three-year subscription to Windows with every a new PC. Then users would have the choice of renewing on their own after that.

Will your company eventually migrate to Vista? Take our poll.

This article was originally published in the Tech Sanity Check blog (subscribe via RSS or e-mail alert).



This post has been edited by Flex: Oct 7 2008, 01:51 AM

Using Vista Ultimate with no problems at all though...

hmmm....

same here

XP is better than vista... but i like vista interface

The above article didn't mention that Vista had any major problems but more towards why it failed being mass adopted operation system which it supposedly to replace Windows XP.

'IT departments are largely ignoring Vista. In June (18 months after Vista’s launch), Forrester Research reported that just 8.8% of enterprise PCs worldwide were running Vista.'

This post has been edited by Flex: Oct 7 2008, 02:04 AM

It's the same thing when they 1st launched XP....
Most programs isnt compatible with the new OS yet, that is why organizations havent changed.

Vista is seem like another version of Win Me (to fill the gap between the Win98 and WinXP). . . to fill the gap between the WinXP and Win 7. . .

Vista is kinda like WinME... It's there for not much purpose other than to fill in a timeline...

Get your shields ready for the Vista fanboys tough

But then it's been more than 21 months to date since it's official launch in January 2007.

---

Added on October 7, 2008, 2:10 am expected coming in soon...

This post has been edited by Flex: Oct 7 2008, 02:10 AM

i hope windows 7 will fix all the vista problems........

Good article but thats the same thing that happens when they try to create a change.

Probably Vista will have updates to make it faster and better we won't even have to update to Windows 7.

Oh? Honestly tell me, how many people here SAW the commercial or even considering on using MAC in the near future. This is just a red herring. Mac has their own target users, and Windows has their own. I can say the same thing about Mac vs Linux where a cheap OS can do all the stuff that an expensive one can. It's a non issue, and the article writer must think that we are stupid enough to believe it isTrue enough, but then again Vista was never targeted for teh netbooks and such. It was built so that it can fully utilise the new technologies, like the multicore processors that XP has problem adapting to. And remember, XP has been around for more than 5 years, thus it's easier to utilise. Then again, if I want to use a netbook, won't Linux be a better option? A custom build one would be faster than XP on the same machine.O'rly? That's just pure bullshit. On a multicore (quad core mostly) Vista was proven to be more faster and stable. Heck, the way it's built, memory management is now better, and you are less likely to get memory leaks. Want to compare speed? Try turning on an XP PC and VIsta, and leave it for 3 weeks, and see which is more responsive after that. Heck, just use multitasking, and see which is more responsive. And remember, those "bloats" are ones that the CONSUMERS asked for. Why he didn't compare it to server 2008? It shares the same core as Vista, and yet because it's a server and don't need most of the things that a consumer OS needs, it has more or less the same line of coding as XP has. Err wha? Do this guy even read PC articles? During the XP lauch, they were ALREADY MAKING CODES FOR LONGHORN. And whose fault is this? Certainly not the OS. Microsoft had given MORE THAN AMPLE TIME for developers to fix their softwares. They are just too lazy. Take IBM for example. 1 year before Vista was launched, they fixed all their softwares to be Vista compatible. I knew because I was freelancing for them at the time and we had to convert the codes. A tedious task, but when Vista was fully launched ALL IBM softwares was fully compatible with Vista.
And Unix also has UAC. Go figure.I lol'ed. There is no truth in that. Why? Read at the bottom

The article writer is certainly in denial. The new windows subscription model is not only featured in Vista, but now in XP SP3. Thus whatever problem they have with Vista over subscribtion, it would be the same with SP3. and honestly with the way XP is being exploited by the hour (it's still the leading OS that holes are being breached everyday), SP3 is a must. Even my place of work are now getting Vista because they noted the department that has been using them has less report on PC problem (virus, OS related to user error, etc) than any other.
And why are they championing too much on Windows 7? I mean if they take the time to LEARN about it, they would found out that it's
- Vista, with different UI
- Vista, with new File System
- Vista, with DX11
- Vista, well it's just vista, but with new look.
In other words, they are just hyping something that they do not understand in the first place. And honestly, the way the build for Windows Vienna/7 is churning out, it would be a miracle if it's even reach beta next year, let alone RTM in 2010.
And ever SEEN the mojave ad? It was not a failure. It just prove that when ppl don't know what they are using, surprise can be cruel.

This post has been edited by linkinstreet: Oct 7 2008, 09:59 AM

i love Vista oni for d GUI...

Haha for me..Seriously Vista is Faster than XP..
Vista 1GB with X2 is enough edy for smooth.Now me running 1GB RAM only..my 1GB sticks spoilt
Everything smooth.EVEN SMOOTHER THAN XP!..
Although ram left about 300MB

heheh....another nail for vista.

seriously, i wouldn't use an OS that requires at least 2GB of RAM to function with good speed. heck, i've never recommend vista to any of my client. it's just too bloated for standard business use.

i'm pretty sure"fancy-interface" is not a part of "friendly-interface". "friendly" does not mean "fancy".

microsoft should really stop putting "fanciness" in all their new updated software and starts putting more "usefulness".

Why? Honestly RAM is so cheap that I found it a stupid reason not to get 2GB ram. And honestly it has better RAM management than XP, thus it's still better than XP on 2GB. Really, who in the world still uses less than 2GB of RAM today?
And have you ever USED vista before? It's more intutive and friendlier than XP has ever been and would be. Remember the UI was done after feedbacks from countless of people. And honestly if you hate the UI in Vista, you would never want to use Windows 7

Vista oni using 1.7GB of my ram...
itu pun time stressing...
if play crysis pun not all utilize...
lagging summore...
how r??

I lol at people who doesn't have any idea how Microsoft marketing works... The first release of Windows XP was critized just as bad as Windows Vista now...

With all the "bad news" about Windows XP, eventually more and more people are adopting Windows XP shortly after the release of Windows new service pack, SP1, SP2 and latest SP3... The "bad news" about any Windows operating systems is the real force for consumers to stay put supporting Microsoft main income.

While you retards argue whether Vista or XP failed, Microsoft kaching the pocket with more millions on sale of both operating systems. Any news about Windows operating system is good news for Microsoft, coz people keep adopting to see whether the rumors are true or not. Eventually customers found out that most of them are totally crap.

Good luck guys - don't be a fan boy. Adopt a Windows operating system today, be it Vista or XP.

This post has been edited by dopodplaya: Oct 7 2008, 11:04 AM

Hmm... then I guess ~90% of the world's professional software developers and system administrators must be so dumb, stupid and in denial that they don't like Vista...while the fanboys, who are actually the smart ones...

One thing I don't quite get is the multiple steps I need to click on to get to manage network connections...

Network Sharing Centre does not seem particularly helpful.