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

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

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

Related news updates...

Windows XP Gets Reprieve, Yet Again


Excerpts taken from : Information Week

With Vista struggling, Microsoft has extended the period in which it will make XP available for PC makers' downgrade programs.

By Paul McDougall
InformationWeek
October 8, 2008 12:29 PM

Windows XP is proving harder to kill than a Halloween vampire. With businesses having all but shunned Windows Vista, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) has decided to extend the period in which it will make copies of its older sibling available to PC makers.

Microsoft originally planned to stop distributing Windows XP media to large OEMs on Jan. 31, 2009, but this week said it would move the deadline to July 31 of next year.

A Microsoft spokesman claimed in an e-mail that the move is designed to help businesses upgrade to Vista painlessly. "As more customers make the move to Windows Vista, we want to make sure that they are making that transition with confidence and that it is as smooth as possible. Providing downgrade media for a few more months is part of that commitment," the spokesman said.

The fact is, however, that very few large companies are eyeing Vista. A survey released last week by the UK's Corporate IT Forum showed that only 4% of businesses in that country are using Windows Vista on workplace systems, while 35% said they were "not yet interested" in Vista. 58% said they were still using Windows XP, now seven years old.

A document obtained by InformationWeek last week revealed that state IT officials in Maine will likely skip Vista and stick with XP until Windows 7 becomes available sometime in 2010. Users have complained about Vista's resource requirements, intrusive security measures and lack of compatibility with older software.

Vista's unpopularity in the business world may have forced Microsoft to extend XP's shelf life. The company officially retired the OS in June for most markets, but continues to make XP Professional available to PC makers who offer it as a "downgrade" option from Vista on business systems. Downgrade availability was set to end on Jan. 31 but will now continue through next July.

If Microsoft is on schedule with Windows 7, that will leave a gap of just six months between the end of the XP program and Windows 7's availability. It's a sign that Microsoft has conceded that Vista has flopped in the corporate market.

Microsoft is hoping Windows 7 will receive a better reception. In an effort to burnish Windows' reputation and pave the way for the next version, the company recently launched a $300 million ad campaign starring Jerry Seinfeld, Bill Gates, and a host of ordinary PC users. The ads make no mention of Vista.

Microsoft, however, has warned that Windows 7 and Vista share the same basic architecture. As a result, applications that aren't compatible with Vista won't likely run on Windows 7, either.

Microsoft shares were off 2.7% to $22.60 in mid-day trading Wednesday as world financial markets continued their downward slide.


This post has been edited by Flex: Oct 10 2008, 01:09 AM

It's an open thread for discussing the related topic as everyone could share some ideas or opinions to regards the OS markets situation in our region. Hope everyone can stick to the original topic of discussions and not deviate it into an OS comparison battle then it should be OK.

This post has been edited by Flex: Oct 10 2008, 01:27 AM

Thank you, for your kind enlightenment.

This post has been edited by Flex: Oct 10 2008, 01:29 AM

Difference of opinions and perceptions are normal as each one of us are from different backgrounds and level of experiences with the OSes. I one found informations and posts in this thread are of value especially to potential people who are considering an upgrade as they can have a balance view of the pros and cons which might aide them in their final decision making.

Hope that everyones can have restrains, try avoid being too judgmental and looks at things at a wider perceptive scope then all will be fine. Don't think we need to closed every single thread when someone irresponsible comes in and tries to undermine it by misconstruction. And thats not fair to those who wish to garner more information on the issue.

This post has been edited by Flex: Oct 10 2008, 11:38 AM

Another relevant and informative review update.

What scares me about Windows 7

January 23, 2009 1:12 PM PST
Posted by Don Reisinger

Excerpts taken from : http://news.cnet.com/

Thursday, I covered what I like about Windows 7. In a nutshell, I think it's a great operating system that could become my favorite of all time with more updates and proper development.

But that doesn't mean I don't have reservations. There are still some lingering issues that Microsoft hasn't addressed.

Is Windows 7 designed to be just the next iteration in a long line of Microsoft operating systems or does Microsoft want it to be something different, something new? Answering that question isn't as easy as I once thought. The look and feel of Windows 7 is great. It reminds me more of a Mac than any previous version of Windows. I like that, but especially for Windows XP users who have never switched to any other operating system, that's not necessarily good.

Is it a Mac or is it Windows?

As a Mac user, I like the Dock, enjoy Mac OS X's user interface, and typically appreciate its design. After using Windows 7, I have the same feeling. Windows 7 is easily the most attractive OS Microsoft has ever released and its revamped Taskbar is a treat to use, thanks to snazzy thumbnail features that actually put Apple's Dock to shame.

But after using Windows 7 for a while, it quickly became apparent that in Microsoft's quest to make Windows "prettier," it sometimes makes it harder to perform basic functions. The same Windows you're familiar with is still there, it's just harder to find under all the makeup. Especially if you're an XP user who skipped Vista.

On more than one occasion, I clicked on an open application in the Taskbar expecting another window to open (after all, this is Windows). But just like the Mac, it didn't happen. Instead, Windows 7 highlighted that app and brought the window to the front. In order to open another window, I was forced to right-click the icon and click another option. For the veteran Mac user, that's expected. For the veteran Windows user, that's something new that will take some getting used to.

That's just one example of many that I found in Windows 7. A slight glare in the upper corner of an icon indicates a program is running. After a while, you'll get used to that. But for someone who has used every other version of Windows and isn't as tech-savvy as some, that will undoubtedly be confusing at first.

I'm afraid Microsoft has placed too much stock in Apple's design and not enough in usability. That's appealing for Mac users, but if I had have never touched an Apple machine, I don't think I'd want my Windows box to be a Mac clone. I'd want it to be Windows. I'd get over it. It would just take some time.

Security

Windows 7 has the same basic security features as Vista, which does make it more secure than most previous iterations of Windows, and I'm definitely heartened by the operating system's "Action Center," which tries to make it easier for users to secure their computers. But security is still a major issue with the OS.

According The security company PC Tools found 639 unique threats over the first six months of 2008 for every 1,000 machines running Vista. That tally is actually better than XP, which was plagued with 1,021 issues. Ironically, Windows 2000 was safest, suffering 586 threats that penetrated the operating system's defenses.

But as CNET's Ina Fried reports, as far as Windows 7's security goes, "it appears to draw heavily from the investments the company made with Windows Vista."

"The most notable change," Fried writes, "is probably the fact that users now have the option to choose how often they are required to authorize changes to their system. One of the most frequent criticisms of Vista was the annoyance of the User Account Control dialog boxes that forced users to authenticate many types of changes to their systems."

In other words, Windows 7 is about as secure as Windows Vista, which was plagued by 639 threats over a six-month period. That's an improvement over previous iterations of the software, so sticking to XP probably isn't advised if security is a major concern, but let's face it -- that track record isn't ideal.

Learning Curve and the Enterprise

A major issue I see with Windows 7, which is underscored throughout this discussion, is the operating system's long learning curve. Some say Windows 7 is more "intuitive" than previous versions of the software. Intuitive or not, unless you're a Mac user or a Vista convert, it will probably take some time to get used to Windows 7. Some enterprises didn't switch to Vista for that reason and I'm afraid Microsoft will face that same issue with Windows 7.

Many companies are still operating in the "pre-Vista era" where the same basic computing operations were used since Windows 95. Employees have grown accustomed to Windows XP and expect any product from Microsoft to work in kind. Windows 7 won't.

And that's why enterprises may be loath to switch to Windows 7. Many businesses are content with XP and until Microsoft finally kills the old OS, some may believe that there's really no need for any enterprise to switch. The way I see it, Windows 7, because of its learning curve, will increase a company's training costs, licensing fees, equipment costs, and lower productivity in that time. Maybe a company can recoup that investment over the long-term, but in an economy like this where the next few years are very uncertain, higher costs are not something a company is looking for right now. But what other choice do they have? Windows 7 is a superior operating system to XP. Switching to Microsoft's latest OS needs to happen eventually.

Bottom Line

Although the issues outlined above could pose some trouble for Microsoft, they aren't major enough to justify sticking with XP or Vista. There will be growing pains and undoubtedly some companies will have trouble switching, but Windows 7 isn't Vista and moving into the next phase of the storied software's history is worth it. Just don't expect it to be easy.

The major revenue of genuine Windows Operation Systems mostly comes from sales to corporate clients and PC gamers constitute only a small portion as most home user are much more incline for piracy software. Direct X is technically much more connected towards 3D multimedia and gaming platforms. Whether it's on DirectX9, DirectX10 or DirectX11 Runtime, it's has little or no relevancy effect on a average office workstation as it's does not in anyway increase productivity.

And for the info, there's a cracked version of DirectX10 on Windows XP platform circulating long ago although it's stability of use is in doubt.

What I meant was in principle that running DirectX 9 on a Windows XP machine as compare to running DirectX 10 on Window Vista machine make no difference on a average office workstation in terms of increasing productivity and not means to outdone with DirectX altogether.

I would not called OpenGL a failure although older versions of OpenGL might be slow in rendering high definition videos. Anyway that has been iron out with the new release of OpenGL 3.0 API and GLSL 1.30 with all major industry-leading graphics vendors like Nvidia and ATi fully supports it's functionality in it's products.