The Active Network
ActiveMac Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise  
 

  *  

  Who’s choosing XP over Vista?
Time: 11:20 EST/16:20 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner

One of the most accepted bits of conventional wisdom among pundits as 2007 draws to a close is that the marketplace has rejected Windows Vista in favor of Windows XP. The biggest piece of evidence is Dell’s decision in April 2007, based on a vocal response via its Dell IdeaStorm page, to continue offering Windows XP as an option on some consumer systems. It picked up steam with Microsoft’s announcement in September that it was going to allow its large OEM partners to preinstall Windows XP until June 30, 2008, a five-month extension over the original January 30 cutoff date. (A CNET News report from last April indicates that HP and Lenovo have adopted similar strategies, offering XP as an option on business-class machines but for consumer products.)

Both of those moves got a lot of press, but proof about how either decision has actually played out in the marketplace is, unfortunately, pretty thin. Microsoft doesn’t break out its mix of Windows shipments with this level of detail. OEM computer makers are tight-lipped as well. And if any third-party market research firms have done any studies on this subject, they have yet to publish the results.

But I stumbled on an unexpected source of data that has helped me get a much better picture on what the actual numbers might be like. As it turns out, Dell has published a large database of information about its current inventory for anyone to see, and I was able to sift through it to form some surprising conclusions about the current relationship between XP and Vista in the PC marketplace. The short version: Consumers have embraced Vista overwhelmingly, whereas small business is much more reluctant, preferring XP by a better than 2-to-1 margin.

Write Comment
Return to News

  Displaying 1 through 25 of 188
Last | Next
  The time now is 8:23:44 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
#1 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 1/3/2008 11:36:45 AM
I have a small shop. Our customers in the last month have moved toward having XP preinstalled on new machines over Vista by a ratio of 3 to 1. The ratio was the other way around earlier in 2007. I no longer try to convince customers that Vista is better. To them, its not better as it is more cumbersome to use than XP is. Many Vista customers hate the way UAC works. Microsoft really needs to add another selection: "Always Allow", to the feeble choice of "Cancel or Allow", so that actions known to be safe don't become an ongoing annoyance to the end user.

#2 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 1/3/2008 11:55:51 AM
bobsireno, out of curiosity, when are those users seeing the UAC prompts? Do they often go into Control Panel items that require admin-level privileges? Is UAC the main beef they have with Vista?

#3 By 62611 (67.166.83.247) at 1/3/2008 12:33:07 PM
You can very easily turn UAC off. Though it does help to protect stupid people from themselves. You have the same thing in OSX and linux, except you have to enter your password every time.
I think the reason consumers may not like Vista is because they have been with XP for so long and simply don't like change. It's really no different than the change from 98 to XP. There were driver issues and app/game compatibility issues as developers transitioned to a new OS. It's really no different here.

I for one love it. It's faster and more stable than XP for me.

This post was edited by archer75 on Thursday, January 03, 2008 at 12:33.

#4 By 8556 (12.208.163.138) at 1/3/2008 1:24:27 PM
#2: I stopped trying to sell Vista as customers don't want it. The UAC issue was passed on by someone else to them. The customer is always right, even when they are wrong. After months of convincing people to use Vista, I gave up. It has a bad rep now and needs to be friendlier to the common man.

#3: You would make a great salesman by telling the average Joe that they are stupid because they want their PCs set up the way they like it.

#5 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 1/3/2008 2:06:20 PM
#4... that sort of confirms my suspicions, I guess. I don't fault you at all for giving them what they want (XP is, after all, still a great OS), but I'm trying to figure out how all these UAC complaints are generated. At least in this case, it appears that the echo chamber effect is in full force. Oh well... some people are just going to believe whatever they're going to believe, no evidence necessary.

#6 By 79018 (74.70.9.133) at 1/3/2008 2:09:03 PM
In my first weeks with Vista, I turned off UAC, but later turned back on. After months of use I hardly notice it at all.
I have XP and Ubuntu studio on my back-up PC. However Vista really shines for me.
XP now seems dated and less refined. Vista on my system is faster then X
P or Ubuntu [both systems have 2gb ram and sata drives].

#7 By 88850 (221.128.147.151) at 1/3/2008 2:32:25 PM
I just had to go back to XP because of a networking issue Vista introduces which no one seems to solve. As Symantec had reminded (probably for their own selfish reasons), changing core OS stacks, especially the networking one which has matured for years, definitely has its downsides though overall it may be better in the long run as it becomes bug free gradually.

#8 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 1/3/2008 4:20:17 PM
#7: is the issue one you care to share? If nothing else, lketchum may have some insight on it--his team has likely spent the most time of anyone here capturing packets in a Vista environment.

#9 By 62611 (67.166.83.247) at 1/3/2008 4:40:36 PM
Networking issue? I have a Vista x64, Vista 32bit, WHS, 2 XP laptops and a OSX machine, all networked with no problems.

#10 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 1/3/2008 5:49:23 PM
I for one plan to add 5 Tablet PCs running XP to my office this year. With the move to the ULV Intel processors running at 1.2 or so MHz I believe XP is a much better choice for an OS on this type of machine.

#11 By 17996 (131.107.0.105) at 1/3/2008 6:39:18 PM
#1: "Microsoft really needs to add another selection: "Always Allow", to the feeble choice of "Cancel or Allow", so that actions known to be safe don't become an ongoing annoyance to the end user."

Except "Always Allow" means the next time Malware tries to do it, it will be automatically allowed.

There's no such thing as an "action known to be safe" unless you know *who* is the one requesting the action at this particular time. If it's me, it's safe and I'll click Allow. If it's malware that I accidentally ran (or e.g. a malicious site that is trying to exploit a bug in a web browser), it's not safe and I should click Cancel.

#12 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 1/3/2008 6:54:08 PM
#10--make sure to check out the X61s... very nice tablets. Haven't seen any perf issues with Vista on those (Core 2 Duo), but I haven't tried Vista extensively on any ULV tablets. In my experience, though, most perf issues I've seen with Vista were traced to insufficient RAM (under 1 GB). Vista is dog-slow at 512 MB, regardless of CPU. After passing the 1 GB threshold, it seems to fare well on any relatively modern CPU I've tried.

If you haven't purchaesd your tablets already, I'd ask the vendor for a couple demo units, one with XP and one with Vista--the tablet improvements in Vista are quite nice (and the availability of touch or stylus input on the X61 is pretty cool!). I know Lenovo will do it, at least--they have a demo pool from which you can pick the model(s) you want and try for a month, free shipping and everything. You can request docking stations, etc. as well. (It's amazing how readily they hand them out, actually... it seems like they required hardly any verification!)

#13 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 1/3/2008 6:58:49 PM
#11: "Except "Always Allow" means the next time Malware tries to do it, it will be automatically allowed." Your example presumes that malware can select from Cancel or Allow by itself. My customers are smart enough to know that any selection box that appears by itelf with no action on the customers part is to be Cancelled, not Allowed. The annoying part, per the grapevine, is the ongoing need to select when the same safe activity, such as running ccleaner, is started time and again. XP lives on due to people that don't want to be nagged when running their PCs and see no reason to upgrade for Vista's eye candy. People cannot be forced to do what is best for them.

#14 By 17996 (131.107.0.105) at 1/3/2008 7:41:50 PM
#13 - I don't get what you mean. If the user chooses "always allow" for a given UAC prompt (let's say the "always" was only applicable to a given EXE or elevated COM object), then if malware comes along and tries to do the same thing, the "always allow" will take affect and no prompt will show up. This would be bad.

#15 By 60455 (71.12.191.230) at 1/4/2008 4:07:28 AM
RYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRY

#8, He has and therefore, we have. He's my Dad and he's busy working around <again> with the back-end of this site <trying to keep it as stable as possible>. We spoke about this thread and the constant noise we hear and read about "all that is wrong with Vista." Truth is, there isn't much wrong with Vista at all. When I fire this post, he'll be watching a number of parameters, including the stack. To help out, I'll add a lot of text in this post so we'll have a better look at what is going on and work to adjust as much as we can. To say we've examined a lot of packets is funny... we've examined hundreds of billions of them.

Vista is very easy to make run really well. The builder, or user has to understand a very few things and developers of applications and drivers have to understand even less these days. First off, Vista does not use nearly as much of the W2K3 Stack as many believe. Vista's stack is a lot newer and far more advanced. All the trouble with networking under Vista is really all about interface drivers for both hardware and applications. End users need to know that Microsoft had some very compelling requirements to address in the enterprise market. In the old way of doing things, when security patches were developed they very often broke a lot of proprietary enterprise applications. This is why so often, Windows Updates always had some kind of network adapter update, too. This was especially so for Intel drivers that many enterprises used in largely Dell servers. Many of you may recall seeing these and perhaps wondered why they were so frequently seen alongside other updates. Now you know.

Well it relates very much to how Vista is different and why the stack is new. Under Vista one of the design imperatives was to make sure that service packs and updates did not break applications. In order to achieve this, Microsoft developed the Windows Filtering Platform (WFP). The WFP provides access to the TCP/IP packet processing path, wherein outgoing and incoming packets can be examined or changed before allowing them to be processed further.
Developers can easily modify traffic before it impacts their applications, which makes adjustments far easier and less costly to perform. This makes patching quickly a lot more acceptable to companies.

How it works is incredibly cool and it allows developers to do things so easily. BUT... it did require that HW developers create new drivers. There are a lot of reasons for this and less capable drivers are at the root of all the trouble some users have had. Among many things, WFP allows third party firewalls to inspect the stream and process packets before they are processed futher. Makes Symantec's demands for Kernel mode access seem far less than legitimate, huh? Read all of this to learn more, http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/network/WFP.mspx This is also why off-loads baked performance with some cards and drivers, which is how my Dad found a way to work around early drivers.

Finally, use a certified NIC and driver and not just a wank compatible piece of garbage and then let Vista do the work. Pick from page one for now, http://winqual.microsoft.com/HCL/ProductList.aspx?m=v&cid=708&g=d Older off-loads simply do not work under Vista and in some cases W2K3 R2, which borrowed a lot of Vista stack code. Do expect to see similar junk written about W2K8 - all for the same reasons. It comes down to lazy devs and greedy companies that care more about a few cents than they do people. By the way, MS wrote some WFP implementation detection code into one of its updates. All to take care of users on behalf of bad drivers. Where WFP is not used, it uses a standard path. We could write for weeks about it.

Oh, USE UAC! It works. Gotta go.

RYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRYRY

#16 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 1/4/2008 7:22:00 AM
15: The issue my customers have heard of is not what is wrong with Vista its what is annoying about Vista. Having to select Continue to run programs that do not nag under XP is a big annoyance for people that just want to use their PCs. Most are aware that malware could infect XP where UAC will throw up a red flag in Vista. They simply don't care. Most have clean machines. I know as I have tested them. Since Vista does not provide a favorable "user experience" in ALL respects, they simply stay with XP on new PCs.
They hate "Cancel or Allow" and "A program needs your permission to continue". Since the program was installed by the user why does it need to ask "permission to continue" every time the user wants to use the program? Some people hate nagware. Vista is indeed nagware. Nothing is wrong with Vista in the sense that it does what it was designed to do. It's just annoying to some folks. Maybe over time they will learn to live with the Vista popups. For now they choose not to do so.

#17 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 1/4/2008 7:57:18 AM
#16: I don't see the problem. Turn UAC off. The you get the beautiful Vista experience without the nags.


#18 By 54556 (67.131.75.3) at 1/4/2008 10:22:43 AM
hundreds of billions...the acorn sure don't fall far from the tree, does it?

#19 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 1/4/2008 11:34:41 AM
#15: To say we've examined a lot of packets is funny... we've examined hundreds of billions of them.

Lets say that you have only looked at 200 billion of them, for the sake of simplicity. If you were to look at packets continuously for the last year, since Vista was released to the general public, aqnd did so 24x7 since then, you'd have to have looked at 6341 packets per second. For the sake of argument, lets say there are 10 people working there, that would be 634 packets per second EACH. Since the presumption that y'all are doing this 24x7 for a whole year is preposterous, I have to call bullshit! on your claim of "we've examined hundreds of billions of them". Even over a two year period, this would be an insane claim to make.

Gotta love the Ketchum exaggeration generating machine. Efficient as usual.

#20 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at 1/4/2008 12:44:11 PM
Gigabit maxes out at around 83,000 packets per second.

Packet analyzers regular "analyze" that kind of traffic. I have 2 gigabit cards in my PC. That means I could "analyze" 166,000 packets per second.

Thats about 334 hours for 200 billion packets.


#21 By 60455 (71.12.191.230) at 1/4/2008 12:47:18 PM
18, 19...

Certainly not. We use many automated tools and analyze traffic of many types nearly continuously. Fluke devices and a lot of software. Yes, we do individually inspect the results of analysis and programmed samples from among automated systems. Hopefully many do this.
The result is that we do analyze hundreds of billions of packets for many reasons. Not all are individually inspected by a human person. That is not only inefficient, it is not effective enough.
Though we all "Break Bauds" by hand as we have been taught, but so we understand the structure of signals. Again, as we were taught.

You may not have had much experience with such things and your focus is on attacking my Dad, as usual. It may help you to know that we test a great deal and every post you have ever made here has been examined very carefully. Where any irregular traffic is observed it is examined more carefully and very often by a human engineer. It total, there is a great deal of traffic that moves through our networks. It easily exceeds the numbers I offered.

I can certainly understand why he dumped this place. I think any other man would have tossed the server in the street, but not Dad. He keeps his word and so do we. So when I offer that we test and examine that much, book it. I don't know what kind of place this is, but it seems to be a neighborhood I'd avoid.

#22 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 1/4/2008 1:12:08 PM
#21: I was only ripping on your statement, that you examined hundreds of billions of packets. This is distinctly different than having a computer analyze the packets, and give you an analysis report, and having a human simply spot check some random packets for accuracy. It is important to use clear language, and avoid ambiguous statements, for the sake of clarity. Next time, say what you mean more clearly, so folks like me won't give you a hard time over things you didn't mean to imply. Language is like computer code. Bad language use, like bad code, can lead to undesired consequences.

#23 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/4/2008 1:25:39 PM
#21: I can certainly understand why he dumped this place.

So can I. His efforts to be the ultimate Vista cheerleader came back and bit him in the ass, and instead of admitting he was wrong about something, he took his ball and went home. Nobody here was focused on attacking him, but myself and some others didn't sit idly by if he said something patently bogus. I get attacked every time I post, yet I'm still here without needing to throw tantrums.

I don't know what kind of place this is, but it seems to be a neighborhood I'd avoid.

If you're looking for a site where you can spout pro-MS nonsense and not be challenged to support your views, then you would be correct. AW has its share of MS zealots & idealogues, moderates and MS bashers, and if you can't take the heat, stay out of the server room.

#24 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 1/4/2008 2:41:33 PM
#22... seems a little harsh. It seems obvious to me that a human is not actually manually inspecting "hundreds of billions" of anything individually, packets or otherwise. Pretty much any packet inspection is going to be a mixture of utilities, automation, and human inspection.

#25 By 60455 (71.12.191.230) at 1/4/2008 3:16:50 PM
#23, Do explain that one, because I build and run the same machines we sell and I have seen with my own eyes what he can do with a system, and trust me, they are as perfect as a human can make them. I have also seen what he can do that no other engineer seems to be able to and none of us can explain it. The best engineers we have routinely say things like, "I love the way you set up a machine." They're talking about how smooth he can make them run and they really are. Like very fine cars.

Bogus? explain that one, too, because that would be a first. I know one thing about my Dad and that is how carefully he tests things. Not to say he is never mistaken... I am saying that if he helps someone what he shares has been proven to be true. I can't tell you how many times we hear, "Prove it to yourselves first" or how often things are inspected.

I don't know all the details about why he left this site, but I am beginning to understand.

Write Comment
Return to News
  Displaying 1 through 25 of 188
Last | Next
  The time now is 8:23:44 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
User name and password:

 

  *  
  *   *