The top five reasons why Windows Vista failed

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.
The top five reasons why Windows Vista failed | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com

 

[rasmasyean]

I suppose one thing you have to consider as well these days versus the XP days is that there are a lot more "lay" people buying computers when Vista was released than when XP was released. I wonder how many people actually know that you can turn off UAC and Aero. ROFL! Every time I see those complaints, it makes me laugh...Sorry.

The other one is "XP is faster than Vista". Well, no duh! Win2K is faster than XP! ROFL again!
Well, actually Vista is faster than XP in certain cases if you build your system right. Of course this cost money. But if you're going to complain about that, you don't want to know how much I paid for my 486...spoiled brats!

And why would Vista work good on an old machine for ppl to like it? Anyone who has used computers for a while knows that you should (sometimes MUST) buy new / upgrade a computer to run a next-gen OS like Windows.

And I don't know about you guys but every time I upgraded an OS, something I have doesn't work anymore. But you know what? I don't need to play Pac-Man for the 300th time anyway!

 

[NormCameron]

Don't put Vista on your 2005 hardware and you might not get any problems.

And that's probably the main issue right there.

 

[Submarine]

NC, I am not so sure. I have a "new" machine that came with Vista pre-installed. I find it slower than XP and I have problems, I have not had since W95. I took me a month to get it in decent shape when I got it, and it required restoring it back as supplied, and then installing the updates 4 by 4 in release order, instead of in one bunch. Then it worked OK. It generated lot's of errors in the Event Log; I can live with that, but it annoys me, especially in a new installation, and experience from earlier OS is that this tend to grow worse and worse. My XP was kept clean. Running a boot log generated 25 pages (!) with drivers that did not boot, but this could have been caused by the OEM setup, rather than by Vista. SP1 fixed most, and the boot log is now OK, but for some minor things that doesn't really bother me. Instead I have new issues, and I do not really have the time it takes for me as an ordinary user to deal with it. Yes, I know, I could probably ignore most of them, return restore points from time to time, and spend my time on other things, but it wasn't anything that made me recommend Vista to anybody else. Today, after SP1, I would, partly because I find it difficult to recommend an older OS, partly because it is becoming OK. And I have not loaded my computer full of all kinds of stuff. I have a few reputable programs installed, apart from the ordinary MS programs, but everytime I install something, I expect problems. I think the programmers of the applications are largely to blame, but it does not help me. x64 is perhaps better. Then there are things I like a lot, and because of them, I can live with it being slower. I could probably disable some things that were not around in XP, and make it faster, but that would be dumping things I like, and I choose myself to keep them. I also like Vista's self-healing capabilities. I have not heard it had any, but many problems I face, seem to disappear after a while, do not always know why.

Anyway, I think experiences like mine may be part of the explanation why Vista has met criticism among consumers. I case of businesses, there are many other explanations, and it appears most companies stick with XP.

 

[NormCameron]

NC, I am not so sure. I have a "new" machine that came with Vista pre-installed. I find it slower than XP and I have problems, I have not had since W95. I took me a month to get it in decent shape when I got it, and it required restoring it back as supplied, and then installing the updates 4 by 4 in release order, instead of in one bunch. Then it worked OK. It generated lot's of errors in the Event Log; I can live with that, but it annoys me, especially in a new installation, and experience from earlier OS is that this tend to grow worse and worse. My XP was kept clean. Running a boot log generated 25 pages (!) with drivers that did not boot, but this could have been caused by the OEM setup, rather than by Vista. SP1 fixed most, and the boot log is now OK, but for some minor things that doesn't really bother me. Instead I have new issues, and I do not really have the time it takes for me as an ordinary user to deal with it. Yes, I know, I could probably ignore most of them, return restore points from time to time, and spend my time on other things, but it wasn't anything that made me recommend Vista to anybody else. Today, after SP1, I would, partly because I find it difficult to recommend an older OS, partly because it is becoming OK. And I have not loaded my computer full of all kinds of stuff. I have a few reputable programs installed, apart from the ordinary MS programs, but everytime I install something, I expect problems. I think the programmers of the applications are largely to blame, but it does not help me. x64 is perhaps better. Then there are things I like a lot, and because of them, I can live with it being slower. I could probably disable some things that were not around in XP, and make it faster, but that would be dumping things I like, and I choose myself to keep them. I also like Vista's self-healing capabilities. I have not heard it had any, but many problems I face, seem to disappear after a while, do not always know why.

Anyway, I think experiences like mine may be part of the explanation why Vista has met criticism among consumers. I case of businesses, there are many other explanations, and it appears most companies stick with XP.

The biggest problem encountered by people who bought PC's with Vista pre-installed was the 'deal" between Microsoft and OEM's to lower the system requirements for VIsta. This meant many PC's sold did not have the minimum specs needed to run Vista successfully. This has been the subject of a number of lawsuits recently.

 

[rasmasyean]

Anyway, I think experiences like mine may be part of the explanation why Vista has met criticism among consumers. I case of businesses, there are many other explanations, and it appears most companies stick with XP.

[FONT=&quot]Gartner research predicted that Vista business adoption in 2008 will actually beat that of XP during the same time frame (21.3% vs. 16.9%) with IDC indicating that the launch of Windows Server 2008 served as a catalyst for the stronger adoption rates.
Microsoft's Windows Vista Spin Merits Second Look -- Windows Vista -- InformationWeek
IDC - Document at a Glance

Don't forget that an IT team worth it's money can perform what would look like miracles in the eyes of a normal consumer. Even most "experts at PC's" will not by themselves come anywhere close to matching a team of diverse professionals that have to do it for a living. Windows is a really complicated system. It's not like a linux one where you can "read a lot about it" and sort of master it by yourself.

I mean, think about it...Vista costs $6 billion to make!
[/FONT]

 

[Titancom]

One thing for sure is that no windows OS is perfect, not even XP. Fail no in fact i think Vista to me is far better choice then the old slower XP, i cant ever imagine i would go back to XP ever! I find it great to use and only if i could convince my wife to change over haha.

 

[MilesAhead]

Vista Fails IF your pc cannot handle it, IF you got it with a store bought pc. I have been running it since it's release and have yet to have an issue I would consider a failing point

64 bit City is coming. PCs are rolling out for < $1000 with > 4 GB ram. Unless MS decides to reincarnate XP 64 bit then we're stuck with Vista or something derived
from its 64 bit systems/components.

I've had this AMD dual core machine since April 2007. Pretty happy with it generally. However I happen to have over 20 years of PC programming experience. I can see where pulling a PC out of the box with Vista on it could be tough sledding for a home user who isn't in the business. A lot of people who see that hassle may have said to themselves "I'll stick with XP when I buy a new PC" or "I won't buy a new PC unless it has XP on it." But now they're going to be faced with PCs coming off the shelf with 8 GB ram for about the same price I paid for this HP PC with 2 GB.
I think that's going to force a lot of people to bite the bullet. MS should take advantage of that and configure the OS so you don't need to have done your dissertation on Post XP Operating Systems in order to use the thing as you like.

Way too complicated just to figure out which services you can disable and whatnot.
Even to the average user it's obvious that running it the way it comes out of the box is wasting the horse power of the machine. Somebody needs to figure out the permutations of configuration so that you have a "How I intend to use My PC" applet in control panel with about 6 or 8 buttons inside. You pick a category and all the unnecessary services, scheduled tasks etc. are disabled and everything still works the next time you boot up.

Most people don't want to build their PCs from a kit like ham radio enthusiasts. They want take it ouf of the box, plug it in and stuff works. Every technology goes from the hobbyist stage to the consumer stage. Expecting PC consumers to study the subject like a hobbyist is missing the main idea.

 

[johngalt]

Rather than reincarnating a dead OS, M$ is moving full steam ahead with Windows 7 - it rocks, and the 64bit is every bit as stable as Vista x64.

 

[MilesAhead]

Rather than reincarnating a dead OS, M$ is moving full steam ahead with Windows 7 - it rocks, and the 64bit is every bit as stable as Vista x64.

I'm not advocating reincarnating XP. Rather simplifying Vista/WindowsN configuration.
There's no reason to leave 64 services the user will never invoke running on a machine.
It's just done that way to simplify the testing.

 

[JayClericus]

got vista 64 bit home premium on 4 GB ram, 8800 512 MB graphics, works very well, admittedly IE no longer works, but rarely use is as FF is better for me, comments on other forums hint at an update snafu...

Actually like aero and UAC is useful when drunk as it stops me doing silly things